Minutes-PC 1982/05/17~^',
Civlc C~.nter
An~heim, Californis
Msy 17, 1982
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM C!TY PLANNINU COMMISSION
REGULAR The reguler meeting of the Anaheim City Pianning Cortmissiun
MEETING was ce~led to o~der by Chalrman Pro Tempore Fry at 10:00 a.m.~
May 1~~ 1982, in the Council Chamber~ a quorum being present~
and the Comrission revlewed plans of the items on tc+day's agenda.
Recesst 11:30 a.m.
Reconvene: 1:30 p.m. for public testimony
PRESENT Chal rrru~n P~o Tempore: Fry
Commissioners: Be~nes~ Bouas, Herbst, King. MtBurney
ABSENT Commissioners: Bushore
P.LSO PRESENT An~ika Santalahti
Jack White
Paul Singer
Jey Titus
Joel Fick
Jay Tashiro
Robert Kelley
Christopher Jarvi
Dean Sherer
Edith Harris
Assistant Director f~r 2oning
Assistant City Attorney
Traffic Engincer
Office Engineer
Assistant Planning Di~ecto~
Associate Pianner
Associate Planner
Parks Superintendent
Assistant Planner
Planning Comm(ysion S~cretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG LED BY - Chairman pro Tempore Fry.
APPROVA! OF MINUTES - Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, (Chairman Bushore absent) that the minutes of the Aprll
19th meeting be approved as corrected on Page 221 to show Conditional Use Perm(t
No. 2314 is to permit retail furniture seles in the ML Zone; and changinq the word
"later" to "earlier" on Page 241 wherein "starting tim~s for construction shall be
no earlier than 7:00 a.m:'; and adding tt~e following statpment in the approval of
Variance No. 3266 an Page 245..."on the basis of the size and shape of property and
location of house and lot relative *.o surroundings and property next daor south will
not be harme~t"; and approval of the minutes of the mceting of May 3, 1982 as submitted.
ITEM N0. l: EIR NEGAT{VE DECLAPATIQN,_R_ECLASSiFICATION N0. 81-82-18, AND VARIANCE
NO.~_. -
PUBLIC HEARIhG. OWNER: THELMA M. ANO H~NRY d. WESSELN~ 1j17 W. Lincoin Avenue,
Anaheim, Ca. 928~1. Property described as a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of lanc!
consisting of approximately .46 acre, 141 South Dale Avenue.
RECLASSIFICATiON REQUEST: ~t5-A-4~,000 to RM-1200
VARfANCE REQUEST: Waivers o~ minimum building site area per unit, maximum structural
height and mi~imum landscaped setback to construct a 16-unit apartment complex.
Continued from the meetings of April S, Apr+l 19, and May 3, 1982.
82-27~
`` MINUTES, ANAHEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May I), 1982
82 -272
ACTION: Commlssionor Boua~ offered e motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and
MOTION CARRIED, (Chairman Bushore ebsent) that c~nsideretion of the afor~mentloned
matter be contl~ued to the regularly scheduled ~~eting of Junt 2, 1982 at the
request of tha petltianer,
ITEM N0. 2: EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 32bb
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: JONN PRIEM~ 832 South Knott Street, Anah~im~ Ca. 92804
Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi-
mately .68 acre~ 3701 Wast Mungall Orive.
VARIANCE REQUEST: Waivers of maximum structural height~ minimum lendscaped setback~
minimum structural sotback rnd minimum n~mibsr and type of parking spaces to construct
a 21-unlt epartment complex.
Continued from the r:t(ng of May 3~ 19C~.
ACTION: Commissloner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Corm,issioner King and
MOTION CARRIED, (Chairman Bushor~ atsent) that consideration of the aforementioned
metter be cont(nued to the reg~larly scheduled meeting of June 2, 1982 at the
requesC of th~ petitioner.
ITEM N0. 3: cIR NEGATIVE QECL.ARATION AND VD~IANCE N_ 0. 3270
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: OMEGA NOMES, 11622 Seacrest Drive, Garden Grove, Ca. 92640
AGENT: Thomas E. Shelton~ 11622 S~eacrest Drive, Garden Grnve~ Ca. 92640. Property
described as a rectangularly-sh~ped parce) of land consisting of approximately 5485
square feet, located approximatcly 105 feet south of the centerline of Orangewoc~d
Avenue and further described as 2115 South Waverly Drive.
VARIANCE REQUEST: Waiver•s of maximum lot cove~age and minimum rear Yard setback ta
construct a single-family residence.
Continued from the meeting of May 3~ 1982.
ACTIDN: Cc+missioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Cwrxnissioner King and
MOTION CARRIED, (Chairm~n Bust~ore being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant the pctitioner's request that subJect petition be
withdrawn.
ITEM NQ, 4: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81-82-20
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ELSIE R. LUSKEY~ 608 East Broadway. Anaheim~ Ca. 92805.
P.•operty described as a~ectanyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi-
mately 6,994 gquare feet, located approximately 103 feet east of the c~nterline of
Kroeger Street~ 608 East Broadway.
RECLASSIF{CATION REQUEST: RM-1200 to ML Zone
AND:
5/17/82
~ ' ~
~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1982 82-273
ITEM N0. 5: EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS V ANQ VARIANCE N0. 3277:
PU8L1:. H'AaING. OwNER; FLSIE R, LUSKEY~ 608 East Brpadway~ Anuheim, Ca. 928oS~
Property described as a,~:ctangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ~pproxt-
mateiy 0.54 acre located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Atchison Street,
608 East Broadway.
VARIANCE REQUEST: Weivers of minimum landscaped setback and minimum side yard set-
back to expand an existing industrial rt-anufect~ring facility.
There was no one indlcating their presence in opposition to subJect request~ and
although the staff report was not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
C. M. Thomson~ 625 W• Ketella~ Suite 18~ Orange, Ca. 92667, explained the purpos
of this modification is co fncorporate an exercise area for the employees; that the
staff report refers to this as a manufacturing bullding~ but the work actually being
done is wnrd processing~ etc.; and the directories are not manufactured at this
lora[lon; that they have decided ~,~ remov~ the warehouse an the east and replace
it with a smaller war~hnuse on the wesc, and remodel the front of the building which
wil) enhance che streetsca~e on Broadway. He referred to the comments in the staff
~epork pertaining to the turn-around area so that trucks wll) not back out onto the
street and noted the maJority af their vehicles are vans and the doors are standard
h~:use-type garage doors and they would not be backing aut onto the street. He
explained they propose an on-site hammerhead turn-around which wili provide an area
for the vehicles to back in[o. Concerning the structural height. he explalned it
is not atCually two storles and is a high portion of th~ warehouse and the design
was to maintain the architectural continuity of the building.
THE PUBLtC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Ktng asked for ciarification regarding tl~e Traffic Engineer's recom-
mend~tion that ihe proposed 16-foot wide truck access driveway from 9roadway be
re-de~igned to eliminate trucks backing onto Broadway. Comnissione~ Bauas pointed
out their vehicles are vans and will not be backing out. Mr. Thomson explained
they have discussed the hammerhead [urn-around with the Traffic Engineer.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, sscond~d by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRlEO~ (Chairman Bushore absent) that the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Co-mission
has revi~wed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RM-1~00 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) Zone to the ML (Industrial, l.imited) Zo~e to expand an existing
industria) manufacturing facility on a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting
of approximately 6,994 square feet~ having a frontage of appraximately 52 fcet on
the south side of Broadw. 103 feet east of the centerline of Kroeger Street (508
East Broadway); and does h~reby app~~ve the Negative Oeciaration from the requiremeni
xo prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no
significant individual or cumulative adverse enviranmental impact due to the approval
of this N~gative Declaration since the Anaheim Generai Pla~i designates the sub,ject
property for medium density residentiai land uses commensurate with the proposal;
that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
S*udy submitted bv the pexitioner tndicates no significan~ individual o~ cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substan[iating the
foregoing finc+'~gs is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
5/17
4
~ a
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 17- 1982
82-274
Commissloner Ktng offered Rnsolutton No. PC82•85 an~' moved fur its passege and
edoption that the Anaheln City Pl~nntng Commission does hereby gra~t Reclassification
No. 81-$2-20~ subJect to Interdepartmental Committee Recanmendattons.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE
Oean Sherer, Assistant Plannar~ cl~rified the Traffic Engineer's concern was that
no trucks would back onto Broadway and the applicant is oropos~nr, to pave a portion
of the landscaped area to provide s turn-around area and he understands that Is
satisfactory to the Traff{c Engineer.
Commissioner King offered Res~iutlon No, PC82-86 and moved for its passage and
adoptian that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby granc Variance No.
3277 on the bas{s that denial would deprivs subJect property of p~ivileges enJoyed
by other properties in the same zane and vicinity and sub}ect to Interdepa~tmental
C~mmittee Recormiendations.
nn roil c:all~ the foregoing res~'ution was passed by th~ following vote:
AYES• COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, MC BURNtY
NOES: COMMiSS10NERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE
ITEM N0. 6: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS V ANO VARIANCE !!0. 3271
.~_.
PUBLIC HEARIN~. OWNER: YUSEI AND AKIKO K. ARAKAKI~ 2540 Easc Elsiena Way,
Anaheim~ Ca. 9280b. Prope~ty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 6000 square feet~ located approximately I~0 feet east
of the centerline of M~:iinda Circle, 2540 East Elsiena Way.
b'ARIANCE REQUEST: Waivers of maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard setback to
const:~uct a room addition.
There was no one i~dicating their presence in oppositl~n to suh;ect request, and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
• Edward Deluna, Agent, explained they are propusing to build a 14' x 27' bedroom,
bath and tloset because they have a three-bedroom home and three children, and this
is the only F ace where this additior. can be constructed because af a sewer. Hs
stated there 's public alley in the rear which is lower than subJect p~operty with
a block wall~ and there are no windaws facing this property or any wind~ws on this
property facing any other property.
THE PUBIIC MEARING WAS CLOSED
Mr. DeLuna responded to Commissioner Herbst that this addition has been discussed
with the neighbo s and they have no obJections.
5/r7I82
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ May 17~ 1982
82-275
It was noted the Planning Dlrector o~ his authorized representative has cletermined
that the proposed proJect fells within the definitton of Ca•a~orical Excmptians~
Class V~ es defined in the State Environmental Ir~pect Ropo~t Guidolines and is~
therefore~ ca~e~orlcally exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offsred Resolution No. PC82-87 and moved far its passage
and ado~tion thst the Anaheim City Planning Commission dves hereby grant Variance
No. 37.~1~ waiver (a) on thc basis that slmilar variances hav~ been yronted in the
past and the request is minimai. and waiver (b) on the basis uf the size of the
property and location relative to surroundings with a bluck wall existing at the
south property line which abut~ an olley~ an~ garages existing at the south side
of the alley with op~~nings ta the alloy and neighbars to the south across the alley
will not be harmed, and subJect to Interdepertmental Committee Recommendations,
On rotl c~ll~ the fore~oir,~ resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COM SSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS, ~kY~ N.KBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HONE
ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: BUSHORE
ITEM N0. 7: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS V AND UARIANCE N0. 3272
PUBLIG HEARING. OWNER: aAYMONO B. AND DOROTHEA 1. SKINNER, ~128 West Glen Holly
Drive, Anaheim~ Ca. 92804. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consistin~ of approximate'y 8,259 square feet, located approximately 150 feet
east nf the centerline of Harding Avenue, 3128 West Glen Holly Drive.
VARIANCE REQUEST: Wa(v~rs of minimurn side yard setback and mfnimum rear yard set-
back to retain a recreatio~;al vehiclc enclosure.
There ws~ one person indicating her presence in ~pposition to subject request, -~d
altho~gh the staff report was not read, it is rPferred tu and made a part of the
minutes.
Ray Skinner~ owner~ stated thls variance is nece •.:y for a structure to house his
recreational vehicle; that the way the house is ~caCed o~ the lot allows a 12-foot
driveway to the rear so he can get the vehicle to the backyard, out of sight ~nd
off che street or front lawn and he felt it would be a good thing for the ncighbor-
hood. Ne explai~~ed his neighbors to the west and south helped him with the ~onstruction
and that he also consulted neighbors imme~iately ad~oining his property.
Mry, Glen Peters, 3123 Glen Flolly, stated her property is across the strcet, one
use to the east and she had assumed when Mr. Skinner began conskruction that he
had permits and wondered hary he could get permits for such a building and noted it
looks like a~~,rtmercial garage to her. She stated she did not think ~t does anything
for the neighborhood; that she would have more sympathy if he had obtained permits
and she assumed anyone would get permits bef4re constructing such ~ bu~lding; that
if the buildinq remains, "so be il"~ and that she can sympathize with ;nem, but did
not ~:~derstand how he coula put it up without getting permits.
Commissioner Mc6urney pointed ouC the .:elghb~c~rs to the west at 3129 G1en Holly have
a trailer in their front yard and askrd Mrs. Peters if she would prefer a str~rctur~ ~
like this or the trailer in the yard. Mrs. Peters replied she would prefer n~either
and that trailer blocks thelr vi~ww and breeze and she has not complained about it and
noted she did not n:akP the canplaint ~bout this structure.
5/i7/82
MINUtES, ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ May 17, 1982 82•276
Mr. Skinne~ stated he felt this structure w~s a plus for the neighborhood.
THE PUSLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisstoner Herbst stated this building does not meet Building Code requi~ements
and there w~s a comptAint filed And he could not vota in favor uf the request because
of the way it is constructed. He steted it creates a fire hazard and there is nn
herdship to justlfy the variance and he did not think it does the neighborhond any
good as far as values arG concerned.
Mr. Skinner pointed out only Che front door can be scen.
Commissioner McBurney stated he f:el5 this structure is more proper than leaving
the vehicle on the streat or fror~t lawn, or parked in the driveway; however, he
cannot find a hardship. He stated he counted at least six places in this neighbor-
hood where the recreatlunal vehicles are accortrrbdAted on the side of th~ hou~e, not
enclosed,
Commissioner Herbst siated his concern is that the st~~ucture does not meet codes~
recognizing thP p~titioner 's tryin~ to gee che vehicle out of view. Ne stated he
did not thirk rec~eatinnal v~hicles are that obnoxious if they are parked properly.
Commissioner Barnes stated she is d(stur•bed about ths 0-yetback; tl~at even thou~h
the currant neighbors approved, they will no~ he there forever, She stated she does
not remember the Comniss3on e~er giving a 0-setback.
Cortmissloner Fry stat:e~1 h~ would find no objec•'on to a c.3rport-type structure, but
this is actually enclosed and he has great d~ culty with it.
it was noted the P~ar-~~ing Director or his authc~rized representative has determined
that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions,
Class V. ~s d~fined in the 5tate Environmental Impact Report Guidclines and is.
therefore, categorically exempt frnm [ha requirement to p~epare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissfon~r Herbst uffered Resolution No. PC82-88 and moved for its passage
and doption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian doess hereby deny Variance
No. 3272 ~r. th~ basis [hat the pet~tioner did not demonst~ate a hardship exists
pertaining to the property's sizc~ locatlon~ topography or surroundi ~s; and on the
basis that the enclosure does not meet Building Code requirements.
0~ roll call, the foregoir3 resalution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~OMMISSIONER~: BARNES, BOUAS~ FaY~ HERSST, KING~ MC BURNEY
NOfS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: BUSN~RE
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney~ presentsd the writren righc to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision withi~ ?2 days to the City Council.
Mr. Skinner stated he has invested S3,000 in this enclosure and it certainly is
not an eye sore to the ncighborhood. Ne asked hc~w long he would have to remove it.
S/17/82
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI~'~ CaMMISSION~ Mey 17~ 1982
82-277
Jack Wh(te explained narmelly anothcr two weeks following the 21-day appeal period
or a reasonable time would be allowed for removal.
Con~issioner Herbst polnted out if the variarice wcre to ~e approved~ upon ~ppeal
to the City Council~ the strur.ture would have to be brought up t~ minimum Cade
requi~ements~ including a 1-hour fire wall.
ITEM N0. 8: EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3273
PUBLIC HEaRING. OWNER: M. J. BROCK 6 SONS, 1698 Greenbriar Lanc, Suitc 224,
Brea, Ca. 92621. Property described as an irragularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .49 acre located at the southeast corner of Romneya
Drive and Leeward Way.
VARIANCE REQUEST; Waivers uf rPquired lot fro~tage and minimum building site width
to re-subdivide a portion of previously apFroved Tract No. A796 to establish a 4-lot~
4-unit~ RM-2400 Zone subdivision.
There was no ~ne indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and
although the staff reporx was not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mike Conlin, M. J. Brock b Sons, explaincd they ere askiny for fiour lots on a private
street in connection with the Martin Luther Hospitat parking lot because a sub-
standard cul-de-sac was crPated. Ne explained they are requesting lot frontage on
a private strecc instead of a public street. He referred to th building site width
variance and stated t~~ requested widths are similar to what has been done in Anaheim
Shores previously.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO5E0.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED, (Chairman Bushore Absent) that the Anaheim City Pianning Commission
has reviewed the proposal to re-subdivide a po~tion of previou~ly a~proved Tract
No. 8796 to establish a 1+-lot, 4-unit, kM-2400 zone subdivisian with waivers of
required lot frontage and rninimum building site width on an irrcgularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately .49 acre located al th~ southwest curner
of Romneya Drive and Leeward Way; and does hEreby approve the Negative Declaration
from the requirement t~ prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that
there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim f,eneral Plan
designates the subject propert•, for low-medium density lan~ uses comnensurate with
the proposal; that no sensitlv~ environrr~ntal impacts are involved in the proposal;
that the Initial Study ~ubmitted by the petitioner indicatES no significant tndividual
or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; end that the Negative Daclaration
substantiating the foregoing findings in on file in the City of Anaheim Planning
Oepartment.
Commissione~ Merbst offerod Resolution No. PC82-89 and moved for its passage and
adoption that thc Anaheim CiCy Pi~nning Commission d~es heroby grant Variance No.
3z73 on the basis that denial would d~prive subJect property of privileges enJoyed
by other properties in the same zone and vicinity, and subject to Interdppartmental
Conmittee Recommendations.
5/17/82
M~jW7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Mey 17, 1982
On roll call~ the fc-regoing resolution was passed Gy the foilowing vote:
A~:5: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY, HtRBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONEaS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSNORE
ITEM N0. 9: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLAS5 III AND VARIANCE N0. 3274
A2-2~A
PUBLIC HEAa1NG. OWNER: TEMPLE BEtFI EMET, 1770 West Cerrir,os Avenue~ An~heim,
Ca. 92804. AGEN7: Ralph Winnick, 2133 ae11a Lane~ Anahnim, Ca. ~2802. Property
describud as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land congi:ting nf apprc~ximately
4.8 a~res, located aaproxirtv~tr.ly 525 feet east of the cente.rline of Fashion Way,
1770 West Cerritcs Pvenuc.
VARIANCE REQU:ST: Waiver of permittad accessory USES and structures to permit a
residential trailer.
It was noted Che petitioner has requested a tw~-week continuance.
ACTION: Cammissi~ner Bouas offered a motlun~ seconded by Commissioner King and
M0~ TION CARRIED, (Chairman Bushore absent) that consideration of the aforementioned
matter be contlnu_d to the regularly-scheduled meeting af Jun~ 2~ i982~ at the
request of the petitioner.
ITEM 10: EIR NEGATIVE DE.CLARATION ANO UAR{ANCE N0. 3175
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: AUSSEL 0. ROQUET~ 42 Ocean Avenue, Gayutos, Ca, 9343a.
AGENT: Anacal Englne:~ring Company~ 222 E~st C'd lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ga. 9280~.
P~operty describ~d as a reciangularly-shapcd ;.el of iand consisting of appraxi-
mately 1.7 acres loc~tad at the southwest corner of Romneya Orive and Baxter St~eet,
1558-1632 East Ranneya Oriva.
VARIANCE REQUEST: Waive.r of minimum building site width to establish ~ 10-lot~
10-building~ RM-1200 Zone subdivision.
There was one person indicatfng their presence in oppasl*ion to subject request~ and
although the staff report was not rcad, it is referred ta and made a p~rt of the
minutes.
Cal Queryal, Anacal Engineering Company, agent~ explained there is an error on Page
10-b~ Paragraph i3 of che staff repart which indicates a lot width at 46 and it
should be 63. He stated the awner wi5hes to divide 5 lots into 10 lots so he can
sell units, and there will be one trlplex unit per lot. He statad he thought the
Cortmisaion would be acting on a tract rrwp, es well as the variance.
Dean Sherer, Assistant Planner~ explained because Ctty Council must review tract
maps within 10 days after action by the Planning Commission, tract maps are
scheduled twa weeks after hearings for conJun~tive items so that hearing for this
tract map will bt hei~ an June 2, 1982•
Harold l. Joness 117n N. Baxter. stated he is not really in opposition~ but would
llke a two-week continuance because several neighbors did not receive notices of
this hearing and he receivad his lesi Thursday and they would like a two-week
continuance in order to study the proposal.
si~~saz
.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May l~, 1982 82'279
JeGk White~ AssistAnt City Attorn~sy~ stated the Plenni~g Oeprrtment can certify
that notlces were malled to thosa aeople shown es certifta:l owners on t,he last
equalized assessment roll for property within 300 fee,t. He stat.ed wt~ether or not
the mali was delivered or whether the occupant is a~ tenant~ leasee~ etc., wa~uld
not be known.
Chelrme~ P~o Tempore Fry explained three methods ~f noticing are used: (1) nc.wvspeper~
(2) posting the property; and (3) notlces meiled to property owners.
Canmissioner Herbst explained to Mr. Jones that thore will be no physical changes
to the property.
Mr. Jonr.s indicated concern that new owners might not properly malntain the property~
noting the property is currently wet) kept.
Chairman Pro Tempore Fry stated that Commission has r~o ca~trol ovcr whc~ owr~~ the
property,
Cortmissloner• King pc~inted out the neighbors haye the right of appeal. Commissloner
Herbst pointed out the tract map will be heard in two weeks and the opposition can
be heArd at that time.
THE PUBLIL HEARING WAS LLOSEO
Jack White explained notices of the tract map haaring will go out to the same people
who reviewed notices of this hearing.
ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIEO~ (ChairR-an Bushore absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposal to establish a 10-lot, 10-building RM-120A zone subdivision
with waiver of minimum bui{ding site width an a reclangularty-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 1.7 acres lacated at the southwest carner of Romneya
Drive and Baxcer Street (1558-1632 East Romneya D~ive); and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepara an environmental impact report
on the basis that there would be np sic~nificant i~dividual or cumulaeive adverse
anviro~mental impact due to the approvai of this Negative Declaratian since the
Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect prflperty for low-medium density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sc~~'tive environmental
impacts ara involved in ~he proposal; that the Initiel Study submitted by tt~e
petitioner indicates no significant individual or c unulative adverse environmental
impacts; and ti~at the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is
on file in the City of Anaheim Planning De~artment.
Ccx~missioner King offcred Resolution No. PC82-90 and moved for its FlASS~l9C and
adoptipn that the Anaheim City Planniny ~onmission does hereby grant lfariance No.
3275 0~ the basis that denial would deprive subJact property of a privilege ~n,joyed
by ~ther properties in the same zone and vicinitY and subject to Interdepartme~tal
Cornmi ttee Recornnendatfons.
On roll calt, the foregoing r~solution was Erassed by tt~e following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS, FRY, HER85T, KING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMfSS10NERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: BUSHpRE
5/17/82
R ~
1 y
8x••28o
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM415SION~ Mey 17~ 198x
Jsck Whito~ Assistant City Attorney~ prese~tad the written right to appeal (Including
any conditions) the Planning Conm~gdito1theessme~individuals ofythe~tractGmep h~aring
end explained notiees w~ll be ms{ e
in tw~o weeks; however~ Mr. Jones sf~ould cantact those he felt did not receive notfces
of th{s hearfng.
ITEM N0~ ll: EIR NEGATIV'E DECLHiu:TION AND VARIANCE N0. 3~
PUBLIC NEAi~ING. OWNER: LAWRENC~ W• BECKHAUS, 418 Nor~h PhiladelphiecP~rof~land
Anaheim, Ca. 92805• Property described as a rectangulorl~oXh ~Pte1~13~ feet south
consisting of approximately 5~400 square feet loceted app Y
of the centerline of Sycamore Street, 418 North Philadelphla Street.
VARIANCE itEQUEST; WAivers of ~.~infmum building s{le area~
minimum rea~ yard setback and minimum number and type of
a deteched single-family residence.
There was
although
minutes.
minimum flnor erea,
pa~king speces to construct
no one indicatiny lheir presence in opp4sitinn to subject request~ and
the staff report was not read~ lc is referred to and made a part ~f the
L. W. Beckhaus~ ownor, stated hhiwou~d~pe~iy to build a two-sto~y d~~clling behind
the existing smaller house on t P
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Commissioner Barnes asked if thhildren andithehcxs~stingnhouse onlyhhas oncibedrfoom.
will be his; that hp has fou~ c
He explained he will maintain ~~Ve~ivehi~clcuintaSthergarage~,npaintHngaaut itPwille
there will be ample room to ma
be a similar situation t.o the one next door.
Commissioner Herbst stated there +s a conce~" famildiresPdential uses and he~thought
Plan designation on this prvperty Is multtp e' Y
these units would meet the RN-~200 re~~~i~ements if they w'-~e attached and felt this
variance is actually a technicali:y.
AC_ T~pN; Cammissione~ Barnes horerabse~~tihat ehe~Anaheim Ci~tyiPlanningBCortmisst~n
MOTION CARRIEO, (Chairman Bus
has reviewed the proposal to con:truct a decached singie-family dwelling with wa~vers
of minimum building site area~ rninimum flot~r aresa. minimum rear yard setback and
minimum number and type of p~rking ~~aces on a rectanguiarly-shaped par~oxirnate~nd
cansisting of approximately 5,400 square feet~ having a frontage of app Y
4; feet on the east side of Philadalphia Strec~. and being located aRproximately
13~ feet south of the centerline Q~ SDeclaration~fron-4theNrequlPeme~tctohPe~Parecan~
and dces hereby appruve the Negative
environmental impact report on the,bimi~4ChaUet~or~h"elOapproval~ofithis~Negativeividua1
or cumulative advarse envlronmenta pe
OeGlara[ion since the Anal~eim General Plan designates the sub,jecsapraL~`Ynp~gensitive
medium•density residential lsnd uses conmensurete with the propo
environmental impacts are involvednificantpindividualhor chi~mulative,advoasesanviren~
by the pttitianer indicates no si9
mental impacts; and that the N~geLP~e~~j~~~Dep~rtmen~~tsnttaking the foregoing findings
is on filc in the City of Anaheim a 9
5/17/82
~r ` f
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Msy 17, 1982 82-2$)
C~runiLSionar 8 rnas offo~ed Kesolution No. PC82-91 and moved for Its passage and
edoptlon that che Anahaim C(ty Pla~ning Commisslon doos hareby grent Variance No.
3216 on the basis that subJect property is dcsignated on the An~haim General Plan
for mult(ple-famlly residentlal uses and there are other ~~tructur6s in the seme
vicinity which are slmil~r a~d denial would deprive subJect prop~rty of privlleges
enjoyed by other propert(es in the same zone and vlcinily~ and subject to Inter-
departmental Committcc R~conn-~~dstions,
On rol! call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by thc following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAitNtS,
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE
ITEM 12: ENV~RONMENTAL IMPACT R
BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ KING~ MG BURNEY
T N0. 243. WAIVER OF C
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: PEI-CHUNG CHAO ANO ROSANA HSU CHAO~ 1880 Warbler Place,
Oronge~ Ca, 92667. AGENT; Prlme Property Limited, 555 South Flower Street, Suite
4310~ Los Angeles. Ca. 90071 and Stan Sakamc,t~, 3833 Long Beach Bnulevard~ Long Beach~
Ca. 90807. Property described as ~ reccangularly-sha~~ed parcel of land consisting
~f apNr~ximately 4.3 acres located apprnximately 825 feet north of the centerline
of Katella Avenuc, 1701 South West Street.
COND~TIONAL USE REQUEST: To permit a 15-story, 139~-foot high, 533 room hotel with
accessor•y uses with w~iver of minimum number of parking spACes.
larry Stricker~ agent. explained Emerald is a relatively new hotel chain wtth twc-
luxury hotels in Hawaii, with room rates between $175 a~d S200 pe~ night. Ne
presentcd a model of the proposed hntei. Jack White~ Assistent City Attorney~
explained ~f the model is referred to in the testimony~ the appiicant m~st ayree
to either leave the mode) with the Ciiy as an exhibit or at least make photoqraphs
of it to be submitted. Mr. Stricker replieci they would be willing to supply photo-
graphs of the actual model.
Mr. Stricker steted Emerald of Anaheim wcwld front on West Street and pointed out
various features of the proposed hoLel such as 500 guESt roams, conve~ntlon facilities,
ballroom~ mcating rooms, 24-hour coffee shop~ a specialcy restaurant and a Japar~ese
restaurant. He stated parking is all an-site, a pc~rtion in a parking structure at
the rear. He also pointed out the rccreation level and swimming pool. H~e nated
the shap arw will be miminal beceuse this hotel will be lor.a~ed next to the
Disneyland 'Notel which does have a highly develaqed shopping ar~a.
Mr. Stricker stated their traffic study was Gompleted a year ago and noted severai
revisions have been :nade and the City sta~ff pointed out their parking areas did npt
caincide with the study. Ne referred to a revisian to the treffic study which was
distributed to the Cammission and explained they have added 94 spaces (enather level
to the parking garage) so the1~ request fnr parking weive~ is 24.2~. He exptained
the additional trips from the increased parking f,~lls w{thin the 6Z variable which
is norrnel~ so the ~~tire parking study is still v~~y va13d.
Bill Kwner~ Chief Builling Engi~eer~ pisnnyland~ l313 Harbar Blvd.~ Ansheim~ referred
to th~ visual ordinance (Anahelm Carmerclai Recreatlon Area Neight Siandar~i
Guidelines) end noted balloun rests were conducted with the cc~operation of the
S/17/82
~~:
!
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ Mey 17~ Ig82 8?•2A2
petitloner and ther~ a~e two places wichtn the perk whQre visua) intrusion of the
kop story and tower actually occurred. HQ stated it is their balief that the
(ntent of the ordinance is nok met evan though the mep does Indicate tF-+~t ir is
withln the visual mep guidelines because the I~tant af the ordinenca la that there
sheli be no visusl intr~sian frc~m insido or outside the park.
Mr. Stricker stdtad the halloon trsts revealed An Edls~n high-ten~lan pawer trans-
former towe~ which is ectually taller than their buiiding and that the balloon was
vtsible at the area of the Mark Twain Ste~mboat. Ne statcd there are severA) other
bulldings eround Disneyland whtch are also visible and thelr signing has been the
main pr~blem. Ne steted they would be gled to ablde by any llmltations on the
signs et that elevatinn. He explalne~f the t~st was performed from 12 to 18 locations
with)n tho park end almost al) buildings in th~e a~eo were v)slble from the 2-story
Pec~ple Mover.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Chairman Pro Tempore Fry askcd how many rooms arc proposed. Mr. Scricker replied
the equivalent room caunt takes into cansideration c:very sp~ce with four w011s and
e c~iliny so there are S33 such rooms~ but In actuality, there are 500 guest rooms.
Dean Sherer, Ass(stant Planner~ stated $7b parkiny spaces are requlred and It was
noted 663 spaces are propesed or 24.2~ waiver.
Commissioner McBurney clerifiod with Mr. Stricket that the elavator shaft was
secondary to the corner of the hot~l in the balloon tests.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerncd about the height of the building and
knows tha intent nf the prdinance because he was involved in it and even Disneyland
Hotel h~ad to climinate one story to c.omply. F!e asked whai other buildings were
visible.
fr
Mr. Stricker ~xplain~:d ~ther buildings were visible from the two-story People Mover.
~ He stated the Marriott Notel is visiblo from Nain Street lnside Disneyland.
Commissioncr Nerbst sta[r.d the atmosoherc of the t+ark for people vistting is thet Disneyland
is a fantasyland and he doesn't want to destror that atmosphere. He stated he
thaught the Howard Jahnson Hotel had to reduce thc height of their struciure recently.
Mr. Kume~ stated the Fbwa~d Jahnson Hatel ls visibie frrxn some of the highcr parts
of the park, but most of the testing is at gi'aund level. He stated the main spot
of encroachment fnr this pr~oposed hotel was by the Mark Twein Steamboat~ on ground
level by Thunder Mountain.
Commissioner 9arnes cla~ified with Mr. Kumer that the Howard Johns~.n i, not visible.
Commisaionar Bouas esked how much the height would have to be reduced to eliminate
any visual intruston.
Mlr. Kuner p~esented a phetograph showing where the intrusion would be. Mr. Stricker
stated he folt the transforn~er would be mcre of an Intrusian~ and that the int~usian
wes only in a i~•foot srea and betwee~ trses. Mr, Stricker thought they would
possibly have to drop as many as twa floors Aff that carner.
Mr. Kumer expiained tt~e t~ees at this locatio~ wi11 not be allaved to grow any talie~
be~cause of lighting requirements for the "River Show,~~
5/17/82
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY pLANNiNG COMMISSIO N, May 17, 1982 8Z-283
Commission~r Nerbst stated he ttwught the Cc~nmission has to h~~ld the l ine since
other hotels heve been forced to raduce thoir structural heigf~ts. Coemissioner
Barnes agreed e~d thought th~ proJect could be redeslgned ta eliminate that corner.
Commissioner Herbat asked if the parking structure will bc des+gncd for future
expansion and Mr. Strickar replied It wi 1) ba designed to eccommodate eri additional
layer of parking in the future.
Chalrmon Pro ?empo~e Fry asked if the p~ titioners would be wiiling to slg~ an agrae-
ment wtth the City to take care of futu r e paricing needs.
Commissioner Herbst suggested a cont(nua nce to resolve the heighi: problem because
he would nat vote for somethlny he has d enicd others.
Commissloner King ~eferr~d to the T~aff;c Engineer's suggesclun t~iat the southerly
d~ivewey on West Street be used for egr~ ss only. Mr. Stricker reE~lied they have
no obJection.
Chairman P~o Temporc Fry clarified it ig tha ge~era) .~s~sus af' the Commission that
the parkiny would be accepteble tf the a greement is signed between the City and
developer.
Cortmi^sioner Herbst stated he h3d done some quick calculating and s~~ne ~f thc clual
purpose facilicies could be cut in half such as che restaurant~ coffee shop~ et~,
which would mafnly be uspd by hotel gue sts~ which would bring the pi~rking with3n 10$,
He added his only rcal concern wauld be M~ith *.he visual intrusion.
Mr. Stricker asked if c~nditional appro val could be granted if they drop one story.
He stated h~e would request a continuanc ~!f that is the best they c;an do, however~
they a~e fast-tracking th(s proJec:t and had planned to submit for foundation permits
tar~rr•ow.
Jack White, Assistani City Attorney. sca ted there woulJ still be a 2~-day appeal
period~ if approval was grantcd today.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer~ stated t he anly concern left is that the devetoper
will submit an agreement with [he City ~ egarding 'he additional parking, or jotnins
an assessment district. He stated pede strian access has not bepn resc~lved from the
back of the hotel to the parking area a nd structure. He stated pedescr{ans have
to walk to the Front of the hotel and s idewalk.s would be required bec.~use he ~euld
not want pedestrians to walk in travel lanes and there should be acce!:s to the lobby
from the pzrking area.
Mr. Stricker stated the plan should shorr a connection between the parking garaqe and
tho hntel and there is a rear entrance to the lobE-y~ and it would be a 14-foat
ciearance a~d used for bus unloading.
ACTION: Commissione~ Bernes offered a r~otion, seconded by Cortmissiort~er McBurney
end MOTION CARRiED, (Chairman Bushore a bsent) thaE conside~atio~~ of ~he afor~mentioned
matter be continued to thc regularly sc heduled meacing of June 2~ igi~2. at the
request of the petitioner.
5/17/82
~ `
M I NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C I tY PI.ANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ Mey 1 ~, 1982 82-2gy
Daan Sherer suggested the devsluper wcrk -~ith plsneylend regard(ng the height concer~s
because the plen does meet the guidelinas of the ordinance and concerns will have
to bo worked out mnd a~rced to betwaen thM ttix~ partie9.
Commiss(onar Herbst potnted out the Planning Cortmi~sion had approved the Howard
Johnson without r~.duction; however, the City Council overrode the Conanission's
decision reyui~i~ig that tha height be reduced.
ITEM I~; EIR_CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1~ WAIVER__OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER; ANANEIM BUSINESS CENTER, P.O. Boa 10077~ Santa Ana~ Co. 9 271)
AGENT: Jaseph E, Mundino. 209 West Cerrltos, Anaheirn~ Ca. 92805. Praperty d~scr i bed
as an irre.gularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approximately 12.3 acres
located on the northwest corn~r of Cerritos Avenue and Anahcim Bouleverd, 209 Wes L
Cerritos Avenuc.
CONDITIUNAL USE REQUEST: To purmit on-sale be~r and wine in art existing sandwich
shop with wa(ver of minimum number of parking spaces.
There was no one Indicacing [heir pres~nc:e ln opposit(on to subJect request, and
although the staff report was not road, ic is refer;cd to a~d madc a part of the
minutes,
Joseph Mundine, agent~ was present to answer any questions,
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO
Commissioner McBurney clarified that most of the cuscomers are from within the
complex.
it was noted th~ Planntng Uirector or his au[hori2ed representative has determined
that the proposed proJect falls within the definitton of ~ategorica) Exemptions~
Class I, as defined in the State Environmental ~mpact Report Guidelines and is,
therefore. categoric.ally euempt from tha requtrement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offared a motion, seconded by Ccxnmissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIEO~ (Chairman Bushore absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian
does hereby grant waive~ of Code requirement on the basis that a large percentag~
of patrons are from the surrounding cc~mmerciai/industrial complex a~d customers
parking needs will vary due to the variet~ of businesses and Qeak parking domands
wil! seldam occur; and on the basis of the unusual shape of subject property,
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC82-92 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anahelm City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional
Use Permit No. 2328, subject to Inxerdepartmenta! Committee Recortmendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution w~s passed by the following vpte:
AYES; COMM~SSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE
5/17/82
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 17, ~98? 82`2A5
ITEH N0. 14: EiR NEGATIVE OECIARATiON AND CONOITtONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2~34
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: CALIFURNIA SERVICES CORPORATION, 1320 N, tustin Avenue,
Anaheim~ Cd. 9Z806 end ~.C. ETCHAKDY 6 SON~ 470 Dwyer Ro~d~ ~n~helm~ Ca. 928u6.
AGE~T: Floyd L. Farano~ 2555 E. Cha pnsn~ Suite 415~ Full~rton, Ca. 92b31•
Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiscinq o!~ App~oxi-
mscely 34 acres, locat~d approximately 220 feet north oF the centarlinrs of Miraloma
Avenue, 1320 North Tustin Avenue,
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: To expand an exiscing autcxnabile auctton end recondicioning
facility tn the ML Zon~.
There was no one Indicating their presence in opNusitio~~ to subJsct request, and
although the stAff repo~t was not read, it is referred to and rt-ade a p~rt of the
minutes.
Floyd Farano~ agent~ explained th~ purposc af this proposal is to expend an exiscing
automoblle auctlon and it is also a parkinq r,or~ective measure. He stated all the
parking problem was not solv~d w(th the p~~evlous changes~ and they were short deelor
parking spaces~ partly becau~e the automobile carriers parking was not adequate.
Mr. Farano pointed out the ar~a to be purchased and the areo which will not be used
at the p~esent time and noted tho adJoining are~ to the ~ast will be used for the
purpose of moving some of the automohiles co provide more space for the carriers
and cnlargement of the d~al~~ p:~rking arca.
Mr. Fareno stats~ there are some additional dealers but this expansion is p~imarlly
necessary because dealer~ are siaying longer and they nerd 500 dealer parking spaces.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO
Concerning Condition No. I pertaining to trash storage areas, Mr. Farano related the
trash pick up takes place at nnly one location ~nd there have been problcros with
the bins not being recurned [o their area after pick up. He siated they agree to
comply with all the recommended conditions.
Chairman Pro Tempore Fry asked if rhere is access from the existing site to the new
site. Mr. Farano explained there wiii be access inside, but no outssde entrances.
Commissioner King referred to thc reference in the staff report that this will be
an automobile a~ction and reconditioning facility and asked if that should be
detailing ~athe~ th~n reconditiontng.
Mr. Fara~o explained the vehictes ar~ only washed and srrept out at this location, or
a battery would be charged or tires changed, but there is no r~pair work performed.
Respo~ding to Commissioner King~ Mr. Farano expla(ned their vehicles typically come
from dealerships going out of business or reposse5sed vehicles from ba~ks, etc.
Commissioner Bauas asked if the facility
some af the paperrx~rk is dona throughout
Wednesdays~ but the business is closed on
is used on weekends. Mr. Fa~ano explained
the week, with the auction being held on
Saturdays and Sundays.
si~yiaz
~
~ F
MINUTES, ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 17~ 1982 82-286
Paul Singer, Traf~lc Engineer~ pointed out in some {nstances the trafflc signa)
as5essment fees hAVe baen asaessed on nutdoor sta~age usus, based on a per acre
calculatio~ and suggested such a fee be Imposed on this use.
Mr. Farano noted they heve alreedy peld y37,000 tnwerd the signal at Miraloma end
Tustin,
r~,;'nu. Gpmnissionor Herbst offared a motiun~ secande~ by Commissioner King and
r':~. ,~.,^"~F.D~ (Chairman Bushore absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissirn
h~~5 r~- ~.''•: proposal to expand an existing automobile auction and detalling
facility (n tr,e r~ (Industrial, Llmited) tone on an lrregula~ly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 34 acres, haviny a frnnta~e of approximately 1442 feet
on the east stde of Tusti~~ lvenue, and b~ing loc.ated approxlmately 220 fe~t north of
the centerlint of Miralomo -::~wnur (1320 Morth T-~sci~ Av~nue(Californla Automob(le
Dealers Exhange));and does hereby epprove the Neqattve DeclarAtion from the require-
men: to prepare an envir~nmental Impact rPport ~n the basis that there would be no
siynlfir.ant (ndividual or cumulative adverse envtronmental tmpact due tu the approval
of this Negative Declaration since the Anahelm ~enerat Plan designetos the subJtct
property fAr gene~al industr(al land uses co~mensurate with the proposal; that no
senslttve envtronmental im~acts ere invotved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitloner fndicates na sig~ifitant individuai or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantlating the foregoing
ftndings ts on fllc In the City of Anahiem Planning Department.
Commissio~er Herbst offere~ Resolution tlo. PC82-93 and mnved for Its passage and
adopt(an that the Anaheim City Ptanning Cvmmissir,n does hereby qrant Conditional Use
Permit Na. 2334 to expand an existing automohile auctlon and detailing facility~
subJect to the. pecitioner's sttpulations that sales ~hall be {imtted to wholesale
licensed automoblle dealers only; that detailin~ on-stte shall be limited to
washing~ cleaning, bactery charging and tire changtny, and sub)ect to Interdepart-
mental Committee Recommendatians,
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, f;ING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOMEFtS: bUSHORE
RECE~S: 3:OA p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:10 p.m.
ITEM N0. 15~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITiONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2332•
PUBLlC HEARING. OWNER: NORTH AMERICAN INVESTMENTS, 1940 N. Tustin, Suite 100, Orange,
CA 92665,• AGENT: Tonmy A. Razl~ 21473 La Captlla~ Mlssion Viejo, CA 92691.
Praperty dnscribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
3.1 acrses located at the southwest corner of Bail Road and Gilbert Street~ 2424-L 6 K
West Ball Road.
CON01710NAL USE REQUEST: To permit on-sale alcoholtc beverages in a proposed
restaurant.
5/17/82
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY P~ANNiNG COMM1SStON~ May 17, i982 82-287
The~e wss no one tndicating thetr ~yresenca In opposition to sub,~ect requ~gt and
althouqh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and mede a pert of che
minutes.
Tommy Razl explalned this request is to expand his restaurant wtth on-sele
alcoholic beverages.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE~.
Dean Sherer~ Assistent Planner~ explained Conditional Use Permit No. 2283 epproved
by the Pianning Commission an Decemb9r 28, 1981, was for Sultr, L at 2424 West Ball
Ro~d, and the petitioner is ex~anding the resteurant to include a~ot~~er suite (K)
whtch ts the reason e new condittonal use permit was requlred.
A~TION: Commisstannr King off~red a nwtton, seconded by Commi~stoner Herbst and
M~N CARRIED (Ch~irman Bushore absent) that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cammisslon
has reviewed the proposal to permit o~-sale alcoholic beverages in a propos~d
~estau~ant on a rectangulerly-sheped parcel of lend consiscing of approximataly 3.1
acres loGated at the southwast corner of gall Road and Gilbert St.reet (2424-L 6 K
West Ball Road); and ~~es hereby appr~ve the Neget(ve Declaration frcxn the requlre-
ment to prepare an envrionmenkal impact report on the basis that there would be no
significant (ndividual or cumula~ive advers~ envi~onmental tmp~ct due to the app~oval
of this Negatlve Declaration since the Anaheim r,enerai Plan de~,ignates the subJect
property for general commerci~l land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environm~ntA1 impacts are fnvolved in the proposal; thet the Initial Study
submitted by the petf~loner indicates no s(gniflcant individual or cumulattve adverse
env(ronmental imapcts; and that thr Negative Declaration sub~stantiating the fore-
gotng findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning D-~partment,
Commissioner King offered Resolutton Nq. PC82-94 and movr.d Its passage and adoptton
that the Anahetm City Planning Commissfon does hcreby gren. Conditional Use Permit
Nd. 2332~ subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recortmenc;ations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the follawi~g vote:
AYES: COMMI5SIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ Kf-+G. MC BURNEY
NOES: COMh11SSI0NERS: NONE
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHARE
5/17/82
~
tf
FIINUTCS. ~~ANEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ Mey 1~, 1gH~ R2-2K~
ITEM N0. iG: EIR NE.GATIVE OECLARAT10~1 WAIVER AF COJE RE' I~IREMtiJT A"JQ C~NDITI~!1AL
~1. . .~ 4 ~'N~ .
PUE~I.IC Nt.ItRI1~G. OW(~CR; 1tNDREW J. Ar~D Nnr~Nl;: M. Vf.RbURG~ 1~!i Jewell Plac~!~ ~)r.~nne~ CA
~2GG~3, f'roperty dascrl~ed as an irrec~ul,~rly-5hapod pArcel nf l~nd c~nststing ~F
~{~~~roxln,~~fely 2.J7 ncres locetecl ,at tha nnrthnrly terminus of Re~ Gum Strdet. 1~~60
Nnrth Etod Gum Stroat.
TO R~Tl~ I ~~ USk.U AUTO STORIIGE: ~ CbNTft11CT~R' S STOR/1GE YARDS AtID FE RTI L I T.CR MI1Nl1FAf.TUR 1 NG
I r1 T~IC ML ZOt~E w I Tlt W~, I VER OF RC•:~U I aE U Cr1C LQSURE: OF bUTf-OOR USE5 .
Tl~ore wn, na on~ (ndlcat(nq thair ~~resance in op~~ositirr~ ta sub,ject rQquest, ind
a) tt~ouyh tl~e staff repnrt was r~t read, i t is rcf~rred t~ a~~1 r4~de a part of the
mi nutcs.
Jack Wh i C~• ~ llss i s t~~~it C i ty !'~t c~,rney, recnmr~n~led tha t the 1~~s t twc~ sentericQS ~f
Conditiun ilo. 1 b~: rrod(fierl tn ref+cf ~s f~ilows; "TF,at sai~ se~urttics gI~~1) hr.
depesitccl with the City within thirty (3l) dnys From the c'~tc ~f the ~pprov~) of this
condi tianal use permi t~ tlie ,+bc~ve rer~~trecl imprnvr.ments s'ii) 1 ba cor+pl~zted wi thin
one-hundred anri ei~hty ( 1=~-7` days o~ the .~ppr~~val of ~t~it, conc'I tton.~l u5~ ne+rmi t".
K~athy Verhur~, ownctr~ sC~w~•~^ thcy ~.~c~uld like tF,is pcrnit in o~der t~ continue the
oresent uses on [I;c pr~?~s-•~ ~~~ ,~n~! indic:+tcd a m~~Jori ty of the users were thcre when
thcy purchriseJ ch.s prr~ -'Y• cwc, Years -~cK~; that ther~ is a contr,~ct~r's stor~i~r. y.~rd~
p~ l lct respai r opcr,~t~ ~f e< ~ ~nr. af s~rinkle; nartt• nnd thc+ r~.r~ fcrti l f r.ar
wareh~~usinc~ busine~s ~~ ~M~:p~ ~ruld I tE:r a w~iivcr f~r ~lastir. stnts i~ t~~c f~nec
ra the r th.~n rechyr,ocl -;-, ..,
TriE PubLIC ~iF.~,-?i r~ - ~~_ ~r: ~:.
Paul Sin~r, Traff~ ~+t ;•,r,•r' stated sincc th(s ls an outd!x~r stnraqe yard, h~ v~uld
suygest that a t~-.~`'~~_. t=,r,,,t ~ssessmr.nt f~e~ be Ir.vieci armuntinq ta fiv~ hundred
($SOU) dol l~rs ~~a~r .~ -~ ,,,l,;~~~ wc~~)d b,e cradi ted [r.iward ~ny bui Iding whlch ~•rould be
constructed on ti-~ r~.:~y~.,-c~, in the fueure, Ne ex4~lain~d shis fund is ta c~nstruct
craffic stc~nal5 tlx~~*-~_=~~~,t tne City,
Gor,missivner lierbsi ~°~°arred to thc s[aff report cor+r.~nts pe~taininn to the
outsc~ndin~ cc~~ic~ VPS>~".'tfi~115 such as inot~crahle vchicle~, ~c~rso~s Ifvin~ in camper
shells. atc. ar~d ~tii what has bcen dnne ahout these vialations.
Ns. Vr.r~,ury sti:ted c°~: pcot~'G livinq In thc cart~cr shc{ls were moved out two weeks
aga aneJ when t!~-e vi~~::~_~tion weru ci ted, they did insta) l a fence ~ind the parkinh lot
was stri~ed, 5~;~ siate~d ~ ~~ cannot get ~nyone to tcw ihe fnoper~4,1e vQhicle away.
L~r~missiorter -kr!n: stated hc saw people around t1~e area, standinc c~n the driveways,
an SWr~da~ and ~as cancerncd and noted they were not thCrC worklno.
Uean Sh~rcr, d.ssistant Planner~ staced staff inva:sti~ated the prc-party approximately
one n~,nth aau and rnade a list of tha outgtanding violations ~and have s4nce Jis~ussed
the~c~ m~tt~rs with thc ap~licant ~nci severat vi~latt~ns tiave be~n abated but same
I~ava ~ot. 11a stated staff has sugy~sted that t~efore any p~rmi ts are tssued~
especialty in rel~ttansf~lp to Item tlo, 17~ atl of t~iese vtol~itions should be abateci.
. 5/17/82
MINUTLS~ N~IU~ICIN CIT~ PL~NNING CUNMISSIQy~ May 17, 198?. a2-29~
Cummissioner Barnos polnted out thc plastic stats waro rocently inst~lle~d ~~nd Ms.
Vnrbury nnted that thcy had Just found out l~~st w~ck that the slats h~~d t~ he
radwcwd .
Chairc~n f'ro Tar~~x~rr Fry and tonm~isslonnr 11,~rbst lndicAt~d thcy had nn object(~ns to
thc plastic sl~~ts.
AGTIO~~; (,ommissior~Qr Nerbst offerr.d ~~ mati~~n~ seconded by Cor~issioner King nnd
t1 1 rl CARRIED (Chairrn~n Etushore t~etng absent)~ th.~t rhe n~ar,r,im City Pl~~nninn
Comm1 ss i nn has rcv i ewed thc proposa 1 t~ re ta 1 n used autcxrx~h i l e s tora~cs nnd
contr~~c[or's stora~e ~ncl fQrt111x~r warehous(ncf in the ML Znne with w~~ivers of
requirnd encl~s~re of outdoc~r usQS ~n an lrregul:arly-shaped rirccl of land consistina
of ~ppr~ximately 2.77 ~cres lacated at tha n~rtharly terminus cif Red Gum 5trect~
havinn a frontage oF apprnx(r~atelY 1~~0 feet ~n th~~ e~ist sidc nf Md ~um Strcet~
a~proxirn~tely !3Q~ fect north of the centerline of La Jolla Strnet (1~-60 Red Gum
Streht); ~nd doc; hr_rchy :~p~rove thr. t~ectativ~ Ueclarition from thr, rc~uiremr_nt ta
preparc an environrnr.nt~il imp~yct r~p~rt on the basis that thcrc ~IAl1I(1 bR n~
sic~nificant indtvidual or cumul~tive advarsr. environmentai tr+~~ct du~ t~ the ap~ravat
of tl~is hJ~:gative Uecl~rati~n since tl~e Anahalm (',ener~il Fl~n d~siqr~ates the sub.jecr.
property fur ~e:ncral (ndustri~l I~~nd usr,s c~mmensurite with the pr~pos~l; thnt n~
sensltive environcx~ntal Imp~cts nre inv~lved in the prop~sal; that the Initiat Study
subr~itted by the petitianer indicates na sinnific~~nt individual or cumulat~vo ~dversc
environmeiital irnpacts; anJ that tf~e Uagative Declar~tlon subst~~ntiatinc~ the ~o~egotng
findin~5 tS an filc in the City of Anahelm Pl~~nnincl De~~artnxnt.
Conu~iissioncr ticrbst ofterc~f a motian~ sc~conded by CornMission~er dou~s ind r10TI0tl
GARRIEU (Ghairm~n ~ush~r~ beln~ absent). th.~t the llnalieim C1 ty pln~ninn Ccxnmisston
~.fors heret,y gr~~nt waiver of cr,de requiremcnt an thr. basis tha2 den1~1 woul~l deprivc~
subject pruperty uf privilec~~.s enjnyed by other ~ropPrtles in thc s~r~e 2~nc ~nd
vicinity.
Gonrnis~ioner Ilerhst otfPred itesolut(on Ib. PC37-A~ and moved for its pass~c~e and
adoption tfwt thc llnahci~ City Planninc, Commission d~es hFreb. nr~rt Gondition~~l Use
Pern(t P~o. 2331 subject to a traffic signai assessr+ent fec amountin_y tc~ S~00 per
acre; and on thc basis that therr. will be no bullding permits issucd on ~he pr~pcrty
until outstanding code vi~lations have been abated and subJect Co Interdepa~trrx~ntal
Comr.ii tt~e recor•tmenda ti ons.
Chairrnn Pro Tsmpore Fry su~gested thc traffic siynal assessn~ent be levied when the
bi~( ldin~ permi ts are issueci. Commissloner Ilerhst po(nted out the next hearinq is to
pnrmi t a tr~wer to be erected on the p~roperty requi rin~ bui Idin~ perr,i ts.
Jack Wh)tc explained the turrent code aliows siqnai assessmment fe~s be imposed in
conJunc*ion with tf~e issuance of buil~inc~ ~rmits, but not in conJunction with l~nd
uses and there is a General llttr~rney's opinion which would indic~ite the City might
have ditficulty ir~osing a fee except when rkikinc it con[ingent upon buildinr;
perm) ts.
Cammissioner herbst stated the traffic sign~) assesament fee should not be included
in this resolution,
Cn roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follcwiny vate:
kYES: CONMISSIONERS: aARN~S. 90U115, FRY~ HER9ST~ N.ING, ~kBURNEY
NOES: COhWISSIONERS: NONE
AB5Et~T: CONMISSIONERS: BUSNORE
sr>>iaz
~,
, j
MIr~UTES~ IWAHEIr1 CITY Pt,ANNIr~, c~1~1MISSION~ MAY 17, 1932 82-290
ITEN N0. 1: E!R NEGATIVE DEC~ARATION AND CONpIT10NAl USE PERMIT N0. ?321:
~~ r~~l A~~i~~~~ ~wwir\ ~~~I~r~ ~~\ ~~~~ ~
PI~BIIC IIEARI~~G. 01n1ER: ANDREW D. ANO NANNIE M. VCRBURG~ 145 Jewe+il Place~ Oran~e, Cr
926b9. AGENT: OENNIS L4MRY~ ENGINEERiNC TECHNQLOC~Y~ INC.~ 15335 MorrlBOn Strer.t,
6~3a0~ Sherrtun Oaks, CA 91403. Proporty desc~ihed es an irrenularly-shaped parce) of
land consisting of approximately 2.77 acres locoted at thc northerly termtnus c~f Red
Gum Straet~ 1460 Narth Red Gum Street,
There wos one Inte~est~d person indlcating his presenca at tl~e- publlc henrlnq~ end
althaugh the ~taff report was rx~t read, it Is r~ferred to and mad~ a part of the
mtnutas.
Dennts Lavey, Enginea~ing Technolac~y~ I~c.. agent, expia(ned this operatton would be
for Advanced Mabile Phane, Incarporated~ to prov(de a ty4-foot tc~wer whlch ts
actually a 14-inch diarrater rmnopola with a rncept~r device l~cnted on the top Co
receiv~e transmisslons of car telephone st~nels. ~la stated c~de does permit a tawRr
in the ML xone, but ( t would l,e I tmi ted to 100 feet high ar.d they are askinq for n
150-foat high tow~e~.
fi~obart Gc~il~ repr@sentAting Rockwell InternAtional~ asked if the tower would be
identi fiecf in accorda~ce wi th Federal Aviatlon Administratian reguletions.
Mr. I.c~+r~r stateJ they h~sv~ contacted the FAl1 and have be~n advised that no lighting
wauld b~ raqulred if the obstruction is lower than 20~ feet~ but if there are any
prat~lems., tt~ey would be happy to camply wl th any regulatio~s.
TNE PUBLIC NEARING uA5 CLOS~D.
Chairman f'ro Tempore Fry stated because oF tltie situatfen In th~ area he would want ta
see the tower lighted. Mr. Lvwry statcd they would stipulate to lightinc~ the tawcr.
Cammissioner Uarnes askeci if there would be interfere-~ce w(th reception for
televlslon. radios. etc. in the area. Mr. Lowry stated thls system is regulated by
the Federal Communicat~ons CAnxni55!on and one of the condl tions for i ts operatfon is
that tMere wo uld be no Interference problee-~ with recaption In the are~.
Thomes L. Naraaka~ stated they would encourage the Conmission ta make (t a pa~t of
tf~a record tltat tfiey would be responsible for any interfcren~~ and would guarantee
there wouid be no lntarfere~ce.
Jack Whlte~ Assistant City Attorney. asked that the last sentence of Condition No. 2
an Page 17-c~ be modified ta read as follows: "That the required above improvements
shall be instatled prior to cammencinc~ the operetion of the activity a uthorized by
this zoning actio~". ke explained this would clar(fy that the trtprovements would be
i~st~l;ad prtor ta the operetion of the tower ~athe~ than construction.
Commissioner Herbst stated this is the same propertY ~+n~d by thz same awners as the
previous hearin~ and he wouid not want this operatia~ tfl be~in until the zaning
:~Ial~tlons previously di~cussad have been cleaned up.
Jack WhitP explained this Is the same property but that the tower would be on a
different area of the samc properiy.
e / t ~/A~
~ ~ .
MINU~ES~ ANAHEIM CITY p1,ANNIMG C~HMlSSIQN~ N~y 17, iqE12 ~?-x~)1
Daen 5herar~ Assistant Planner~ st~ted he theuglit Ccxronl9sioner Ilerbst 1~ esking
whetlier or not the lss4ance of butl~ing permit~ required In con.)unction with thl~
applicatlon could be tt~d to the abatement of those v(olatlons.
Jack White suggestnd ~sking the pettttoner thalr tntentlons. 11e exolalned normelly
th(s would requi re a parce) n~p, but there ts an exertption in the MAp Act because
this use dc~ns requlre a condi tional use permi t; tt~at norm~l ly there would be two
sepsrate percels and lie li~s always vtowed tFris ~s two dlfferent arees. altheugh i~ Is
the sene proparty; however~ (f the applicant woulci stipulate to that requi~ement it
could be rr~de a conditian.
Ms. Verbur,y stated part of their cleen-up operation ~s t~aving this tower on the front
af the i r property. She s tatad tl~~ front of tha property does lopk bad and tl~f s wi l l
enhance the front. She stated they have been worktng on th~ back of the prcx~ertY
wlth their furtil(zing business, but that 1t is financialty dlfficult to do all tliree
acres at ~ncc.
Jack ~/hi te asked i f al 1 ttie problems wi I1 ba resolved bofore the bul idtnc~ permi ts are
requested for the tawer, fie clarlfled that the lease for the tower is not actually
for thQ wt~ol~ property but Just the Nortion whcre the tow~r wi 11 be lacnted and noted
the owner is respcroslble for everythfny an the pronerty. I~e stated a condttlon could
be irtposeJ wl~eraby tfie butlding pQrmit for t:~e proposed tcw+er shall not be isstx~d
until the existing violatlons are corrected.
Ms. Verburg statesd shQ can only see a problem in having one ~~ehicl~ remnved~ noting
sf~e has cal led th~ Pol lce Ikpartmont and two tawing cortpanlos and cannot get 1 t towed
dWAy.
It was sug sted tliat the oetittoner cdntact the Planning Depart~~nt staff regar~iing
thc inoper~ble ~~~ ~~es.
Comm(sslc~ner Nerbst asked about the traffic si~nai assessnr.nt fee and wh~ther or not
i t should F,e assessed upon the portian of the pr~perty used fo~ the ~ower oniy.
Jack white stated since the owner has opted nat to a~ply~ for the parcel map~ thesr
can be irtposed accorciingiy on cha whole parcel.
ACTION: Commission~r Harbst offered a rmt(on~ seconckd by Commissicx~er lCt~9 anct
MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Bushore being absent)~ tiiat thc Anahetm City Planninq
Commission has revlewed the proposal to p~rmit a 150-f~at high radio transmfssion and
recaivl~g tower in the ML (Industrial, limited) Zone on a re~ularly-shaped parcel of
l~and conaisting of approximately 2.77 acres located at the narth~rly terminus of Red
Gum Street~ havinq a frontage of approximntely 1b0 fe~t on the east side of Red Gum
5treet~ approximatcly 805 feet north of the cente~llne of ~A Ja11a Street (1460 No-~th
Red Gurn Street) ; and dosy hereby approve the Neqattve Declaratton from the
requirenbnt to praaa~e an environnrsntal (r~pact report on tha basis that there would
be no s(~niflcant individual or cumulativr advene environmental irtpact due to the
appr~val of this Negativa Oecitoration since the Anehetm Gen~rel Plan designatas ttie
subJect praperty for general industrlal I~nd uses cwnmensurate with the proposal;
that no sensitive onvironment~l impacts are involved in the proposal; that the
Initta) S2udy aubmlttad by th~ petitloner lndicates no siqnificant tndividu~l or
cumulative adverse envi~nnmental IrtQacts; end that the Nequtive Jeclaration
substantiacing t's~ foregoing ftndings is on fila in tho City of Anahetm Plann~~g
Deper tment .
5/17/82
. ~ .. . ~ , . , . , , ~ , + ~. ~ , , , , ~ , , ;
~ ~
~ ~
~,
;~
MINUTES~ ANAII~IM CiTY PL,NNNING COMMISSIQN~ May 17~ ~982
82-2h2
Commissicnar Ilerbst offs~~d Resolutlon No. PC82-~6 rind n~ved tor its passage r~nd
edoption that tl~e At-ahaim Clty Pienning Commisslon cioes hereby grent Condit(ona) Use
Permit No~ 232! subject to the stipulaticx~ of tFre petltt~ner tha~t all zoning
vtaletions wt i t be corrected prlor to the IssuHnce of but ldinc~ pe~rmi ts fo~ the
requested tower and that a traffic signa) assessma~~t fee amountinq to S50A p~r Acre
shAll bc assessed and subject to InterdepsrtmentAl f.~~mmlttee recommendatlons.
Cnmmia~icxier Bouas asked whether or not the fees paid for ~e stop slgn would be
credited t~ the trrfftc signal assessment fee. P~ul t;inger tndicnted th~~t would not
be part of the traffic sic~nal assessrtent fen.
C~mmissioner Herbst added the stlpulatic~ that the tawerr would be 1lghte~l in
accordanc~ ~vith the FAA regulatlon wouid b~ a part of the rr.solutlon.
On rol l cai 1, tlie foreyninc~ resolutlon was pessed by th~ follc~w(ng vote:
AYES : COMMt SS I ONERS ; 9ARN~S ~ BOUAS ~ FRY ~ IiEftBST~ K I N(;, Mr.BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A~SENT: COMMI SS I ONERS : E3USIIORE
Jack 1lhite~ Assistant City llttorney~ prescnted the written rl~iht to appeal thn
Planntng Cammissfon's decisicn w(thin 22 days to the City Cc~uncil.
ITEM ~JO. lfi: EIR_ C'TE~pR~GqL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 N~D CONDITI~YNAI, IISE PERHIT N4. 2329:
PUBLiC NEARIt~G. ONNER; WOLLIAM BLAIR ARMSTRO~~C~ 13r11 Dqve Street~ Suic~ 7G0~ Newp~rt
8each~ CA 92660. AGENT: JOIIN C. IiARPER~ SR. ~ P, 0, dex 477l~~ ~nAh~im~ r,A 92~p3,
Property descr(bed as a rectengularly-shaped parcet of land consisttng of
a~praxlmately 1.3 acres, 1168 North Euclid Avesnue.
TO PERMIT ~~V-SALE BEER ANO~ W~NE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT,
There was no one indicatincl thtir presance in oppos(tion to subJe~t request~ and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and m~de ,~ part of thc
mf nutes.
Jahn C. Narper, agent, was present to answer any questions.
1'f~E PUBLIC HEARING 41A5 CLOSEp,
I t was noted the Planning Di rec:tor or his authori zed representat(v~e has determined
that the proposed aroJett falls within the deffnttio~ of Catcgor•ical Exenptions~
Ctass 1~ as deftned in the Statc Environn~ental Irt~act Report Guideltnes and is.
therefore, categarically exempt from the requtrertent to prepare an EIR.
ACTi~I: Commissioner King affered Resolution No PC$2-9] and mov~d fo~ its passage
a^d adopti~n th~t the Anaheim City Planning Cammission does her~by grant CondiCtonal
Use Permit No. 2329 x~ject to Interdepartmental Conr.~ittes recommendations.
Qn rall call~ the faregoing resoluticx~ was passed by th~ f~llc~wing vata:
AYES: COWIISSIdNERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ fRY~ H~R85T, KIWG, McBURNEY
NOES: GOMt11S510NERS: NONE
ABSENT: C~NMISSIONER5: BUSHORE
5/17/82
MIHUTtiS~ ANlW~IM CITY PLANNiNG C~MMtSSION. Msy 17, 19A2 R2-7.q~
Tc~ un " to. Elit NEGl~TIVE DECUIRATIAN ANO CONOITIONAI USE 1'ERMIT N0. 23~
PtJ~1.IC HEARING. 01dNER: VERNOt~ u. MANROE AND NICK BECKEa. ;'i36 ~aquola~ Anahelm~ CA
~2801. Propcrty described as an irregularly•shaped parcei of land c~nsisting of
spproxirrhtely 2.5 acres~ 1616-1618 Sauth Cl~mentine Strnat.
TO PE RMI T AN AUTOM~E31 LE WHOLESl1L1 NG FACI LI TY I N TNE 11L ZONC .
TI»re was n~ one lncllcating tl~elr prnscncA in opposttlon to subject requext~ and
al though the staff report was not ~ead~ i t Is referrod tc~ and meda ~i part of the
minutcs.
Vern Manroe~ ownar, exp!ainnd this permlt ls to allow wt~olesaling of exotic cars,
prirrorlly G~rvettos.
7f1E PUbLIC HEIIRI~~G WAS CLQSED.
Chatrman Pro Tempore Fry esked for cl~-rification regarding wholes~ile and asked if the
a+ner hos a resa le 1 i cense. Mr. Mon~oe repl ied he do~s h~ve n re~a le 1 1 censQ ~nd
explained tt~ey cb not hAVe a aalos lot or displ<~y area and oniy have onc slqn and
soll ~~rl-rerily co a speclalized Corvotte rn~rket and through other Chevrolet dealers.
Ile explalned all business is done (nside tl~e bullding and nnted there ar~ oth~r
tenants in this complex.
Cor-r~issioner aarnes explained thare we~e tremendous problems with another wholesale
autartpbi te ~usiness se) ling to retal l cuxtamers and they now have! had to dev~elop an
(ntricate system~ which mertbe~s of the Commtssicx~ check occasionAlly~ ~o make sure
[hey are nc,t selling to retall customers. 5he stated the Commission is tryfng to
protect other rctai I businesses and alsa ta ~ke ~urc ~etat 1 uses are not opened in
;hc Industriat area.
Nr. Nonroc stated again they hav~ no sales lot I~err. and that this is a multi-tenant
eormle~x with lir3ht industrial applieations.
Responding to Chairrt-3n Fro Tenpare Fry~ Mr. McMroe exalAined they ad~~ertisQ in the
spoci al i zed trsdc and c+:;alers nagazine.
Jack White~ llssistane Clty Actorney~ scated retail sales a~e a permttted use in the
ML Zone.
ACTIOt~: Commissloner Kirsg offercd a mottan. seconded by Commissioner 6ouas. and
MOTION CARRIEO (Chairman Bushore being absent) tha[ thc Anah~etm City Planning
Gomnissi~ has reviewr.d ths proposal to permi t an autortx~hi le ~~rholesal inq faci 1 i ty in
the t1L Zon~ on an irregularly-shaped parcel t~f Iand conxisting of approximatety 2.5
acres, having ~ frontage of .~ppro~-mately 240 feet on the east side of Clementine
street~ apQroximately 2Q5 fcGt north of tha centerline of Freedman Way ;1616-1618
Souti~ Ciemantine Strret); and cfoes herehy spprove the I~kgattve Oesclaratton fran t'~e
roquirement to preparQ ~n environmental irtpact report on the basis that there would
bs na slynificant tndividual or cumulative aclverse environmental impact due to the
approval of tl~is Negativc Declaration since the Anahelm General Pl~n cksignates the
sub}ect property for ~orm~rcial recraatlo~at lend uses commensurate wi th the
proposal; thet no sensittva environme~tal tmpacta are invalved in the proposa~; that
the Initibl Study s~bmitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individuat or
cumulative adverse enviro~mentdl tnpacts; and that the Nes~ative Declaration
5/1~/82
l
NiNUTES~ ANAHEtM CItY PU1Ni1NG CQMMISSION, Mar 17. 1g82
R2-294
subste~tiating tha fore~otng findings is on fl le in the City of Aruiheim Plenning
Oe{~a r rment .
Commiss toner King offured Resolutlon No. PCf.t2-9A and m~ved for its paseege end
adoptio~ that the An~heim Ctty Pl~nning Commtsslo~ dees herehy grnnt Condltional Use
Permit t~o. 2330 subJect to Interdepartmental Committoe roconxncndntinns.
On roll call. the foregoi~g re~solutlon was p~ssed by tho follorrinp vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNCS~ 90UAS~ FRY, ItERBST, KtNC~ Mc811ANEY
i10E5: CUMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COhIMiSSIONERS: BUSIIORE
IT~M f~0. 20~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXENi'TION-CtJ~SS 1 Al~D CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 233fi:
.._._._...
~'~9l,IC HCARIf~G. OWNER: SAtITA ANITA DEVELOPMEt~T CORP.~ 363 San Mlguol ~rivo. Newport
B~ach~ Cn 92660. AGENT: JOSE 5ARl1Ct~0~ 912 W. Victorla Av~enue, Montebol lo, CH ~1A640.
Property descrlbed as an Irregulerly-shupod p~rcol of land conslsting of
approximetely 1.7 dcre, 1169 North Euclid Stre~t.
TO PERMIT OII-SALE BEER ANp WINE IN A~I EXISTfNG RfSTAURI-.NT.
The re was no one t ndi cd t t ng tl~e i r p resence i n opp~s ( t i on to s ubJect requas t~ and
although the staff report was not read, It is referrecl t~ and mada a part of the
minutes.
Jose Saracfio. agent~ was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisslo~er Barr~es clarlfied thet the beer and wine woutc! be sorved in conjunction
with the food and this would not be a bar, M ~. Sarache indicatad th~ Alcoholic
Baverage Controi Board does have rogulations and noted ihat they wo~ld not be open
bofore B:00 a.m. or after 11:00 p.m.
II; wes noted the Plenntng Directvr or his eu(hortzed representative has determined
that the proposed project fails within the deflnition of Cateqorical Exemptlo~s.
Cisss 1~ as defined in thn State Envtro~rrontal Impact Repart Gufdel inas and is~
th~rofore, catee+orical ly axemqt from the requi rement to prepare an EIR. '
ACTION: Commissioner King offared Resolution No. PC82-99 end movec~ for its passage
a~d e option that the Anahalm City P18nning c.c~nrnission does hereby qrant Conditional
Use Permit No. 2336 subje~ct to Interdepartmental Commfttee recomnendatfans.
On rot 1 ca I 1, the foregaing resol ution waa psssed by the fot tawinq vote :
AYES: COMMIS510NER5: 9ARNES~ BOllAS, FRY~ HERBST, KINC, McBURN~Y
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: N4NE
ABSENT: GUMMISSIONERS: BUSNORE
si~ ~iaa
~--
!~ u'
~.
,.~
MiNUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLAI~NINf COMMISSION~ May 11~ 19$2 Rz'2~5
1 TEM N0. 21 ; E I R NEGA7IVE DECLARATI ON N~D TENTATI VE MI1F OF TRACT N0. 1175W :
PUBLIC t1EARING, ONNEa: aICHARD A, AHD LOTTIE IIEITSHUSEN~ 3~192 Savenna Straet,
Anaheim~ C~ 92ft04. Pro~~arty described es an ir~gulArly-sh~ped prrcel ef land
consisting of approximetelY 1.2 acres~ 35z9 West Sevanne Strer,t.
TO ESTABLISH !t 16-LOT, 1S-~~T R14-30~0 ZONE CQNDOMIMIUM SU9DIV1S10-~.
The!re was no one indicati~q th~lr rresnnce in ~~positton t~ suh)ect request, ancf
altl-ouqh the staff ~eport was not reed~ lt l~s referred to end ma~1e a part of the
minutes .
Dean Sherer~ ~sslstant Pla~ner~ e~lained this pr~Ject was ccx~sidered twe we~ks ac~o
(Reclnssificntion No. 91•~2-1~ and Yarianca ~o. 326~) and the plans were fnr a 25-
foot wida private street rath~r th~n 20-feet wlde; therefore~ Ccmdition No. 7 of this
trrct map approval pertalning to prtvate street stt~nd~~ds should be ckleted.
Do~ald Stevens, 1~2A Fullerton Avenuc~ Costa Nns~~ CA ~2627~ +~~as p~esPnt to answer
~ny questions.
T-iE PlltillC f~EARII~G WAS CLOSEO.
ACTION: Commissioner Ilarbst offered a moticx~~ seconcled by Commissloner h;ing ~nd
MOTION CARRIED (Chalrm~n eushore bcsing ahsent). thnt thc Anahr.im City Plonning
Commisslan has rev{ewed the proposa) to cstAbllsh a 16-lot~ 15'unit RN-3000 Zone
condomi ni um s~bdivislon a~ an irrcgularly-sl~npcd parcci of land consisting of
~pprox i mately 1.2 acres, havi ng a frnntac,~ ~f appr~x( mntcly 120 feet on the north
~ ide of Savanna St~eet, apProximately 425 fePt west of the centerl ine of Knc~tt Stre~t
(3~29 West Savanna Strect); ond does hereby approve the Negative Declar~tion from the
requtrement to prepare nn anviro~menta) irtpact report on the bASis that there would
be na sig~iflcanc individuai or cumulativ~e .~dverse ~nvironmental ir+~act due to the
approval of this ~~eciative peclAration since the Maheim Gcnerfli Plan designetes the
subJect p!operty for medi um and lc~w mndium r+esidentiAl land uses ca+~n+ensurate witl~
the proposal; that no se~sitive envlronment~l lrrp~cts are invc~lved in the proposal;
that the Initlal Study i~bmitted by the petitionei- indicates ne significant
individual or cumulative ad~rerse envir~nmontal trrpacts; and th~t the Negative
Decla~atian subsCantiating thc foregolnq findings Is on fi 1e in the Clty of Anahein+
Planni ~g Department.
Conmissioner Herbst offered a m~tion, scco~ded by Commis~ioner King and t1A710N
CARRIED (Ghairngn Bushore being absent). that th~ Anaheim City Pl~nning Ccxrmfssion
dc~es hereby ftnd that the proposed suudivtston~ together with its design and
irtprov~ert~nt. is consisttnt rrith tha tiry of Anaheim C~n~rat Plan~ pursuant to
Goverr.ment. Code Section 66473•5; -~nd does~ therefore, app~ove Ter.tative Map of Traet
No. 1~jyf~ fo~ a 16-lot, 15-unit R"4-30U0 Zanc co~cbminlur~ subdivision~ subJect to th~
fol la.+ing candi tions:
1. That should thi s subdivision be developed as more than ane subdivision, each
subdtvlslon thereof shall be submittcd in tentative form for approval.
Z. That all lots wl thin khis tract shall be served by underground uti lities.
3. That the original documents af the covenants~ conditions, and restrictior-s,
and a letter addressed to developer's title conpAny authorizing recordation
5/17/82
MINUTES, ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNII~G COMMISSION~ May i~~ 1982 82•296
thereof~ sh~l) b• submittad to the CttY Attorney's afflGe end appraved by
the Ct ty Attorney's Offi ce~ Publ ic Uti l l tlas Depa~tment. Bui Iding Oiviston~
snd the Enginee~tng Dlviston prtor to final t~ect mep a~prav~l. Sald
documents , as app ravod ~ shd 11 ba f 1 led and recu~ded i n tho Of f I ce of che
Orangs CountY R~corder.
4. That ~trnot names shAil bo ~pproved by the Clty Plann(nc~ Qepartment prior to
app~oval of e final trecc map.
y. Thet the owner of subJect propnrty ahal) pey te the City of Maheim the
appraprlete park and recreetton in-l iau fees as determined to be t~ppropriata
by the City Councf 1, aatd fees ta be pald st the time the buliding pnrmit Is
Issued.
6, That drainage of subJect property sha!1 b~ d~spoaed of in a c-anner
satisfactory to tha City l gineer.
7. That f f perrrener~t st~eet nane signs have not been installad~ temporary
strQet name signs shall be i~stallod prlor to eny occupancy.
d. That tha owner(s) of aubJect property she11 pay the traffic si~n~l
assessmant f@e (Ordinance No. 389fi) in ~an rrr~unt as dotermined by the Ci ty
Cauncl l~ for each new dwel i ing un( t prlor to the Issu~~~ce~ af a bul icling
Nermi t.
~, Prior to issuance of building permlts~ the appl(cant shail present evidence
satisfactory to the Chief Bui Iding Insp~cter that the p~ope•e~~ p~oject is in
conforrrgnce with Caurxtl Policy Number y42~ Sound Attenuatlon in Residential
i'roJects.
10. 'That the sr.ller shall provide the purchaser of each candominium unit wlth
written infarrt~tion coneerning Mafieim Munitipai Code 1k.32.5~0 pertaining
to "parktng restricted to facilttate street swaeptng". Such written
information wi I1 eloarly 1~dlcate when on-street yarking is prohibltad and
tho penal ty for violation,
11. That "No parking for str+ect swee~~ing" signs shall bc installed prior to
final street inspccttan as re~uired by the Public works Exe~cutive Director
in accordance wi th speet fications on ft le wi th the Street r~aintenance
Uivision.
12. That the approva 0 of Tentati vc Map of Tract ~~o. 11754 is granted subJect to
che approval of Reclassificatian tJo. 81-92-iq.
13. That thn approva t of Tentatt ve Map of Tract No. 11754 is granted subJect to
the approval of Yariance No. 3?.69.
5/17/82
MINUTES~ ANIWEIH C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION. Nay 17~ 138~ ~2'Z9~
I TEM N0._ 22: ENVI RONMENTAL I FpAC7_REFORT N0. 25G ANO GENEMI F'I.AN 11MEN~MENT N0~ 176 t
PUULIC HEARING. OWNER: KENT LAND C~MPANY, 18~0; Bardeen Way. I rvine~ C11. Preperty if
approximetely 15G acres (a portlon of Bauer Ranch) Is gene~ally bouncled on the north
by Santa Ana Canyon Roed~ adst by the future extenslon of Weir C~nyan Ra+d~ seuth by
the Texaco~llnahetm H) lis~ Inc.'s property, and west by the Edison Easement.
There were two pe~sons indicatinc~ thelr presci~ca i~ opposition to subJect request~
and al thougl~ tlie staf f roport was noc re~d~ 1 t is r~ferred ta and made n part of the
minutes.
Jay Tashiro~ Associatc Planner, explelneQ subsequent to the preparatfon of the staff
report~ thn ~pplicant has agrnnd to relocAt~ the park site as requested by the
pepartment of Parks and Recreation and the applicant Is p~esent to address that
relocntton and other changes.
Kelth Murdoch~ ylb Wedgewood~ Anahetm, consulta~t for KAUfman and Broad~ develoners
f~r the Bauer Ranch, explalned efter worklnq with v~arious Clty cbp~+rtments ~nd after
carefu) analysis of development ~cttvities~ fnqul~ies from probable ~sers of tha
cnrm~ercla) cbvr.lopment, partiGUlari ty the cammercial office area, and aft~~ looking
at the lr~act of the reglonal shopping center on ~dJacont resi~ntlel ~reas and what
is happening in the residentfal fi~ld~ particulari ly in Orange County~ Kaufman and
9road has come up with this proposal which is canslstent wiih the General Plin Intent
and ifaes roquire slight changes which affect areas on the w~st side of Weir Canyon
Road, specl fically between the pronosed reglaial shopping center and '.leir C~nyon
Road. He stated thHt area was originally proposed for residcntial use~s but they
wou1J propose to change th~t to cortmercial uses~ posslbly comr~rcial offlce with a
small amount of retall comrt~rclal uses whicl~ they feel would improve the economic
balance For the C{ty and to same extent th~ developer, He stated the market
indlcated area above the proposod shopping centor which was approved for low density
residential clevelopment and shauld bo incre~ased a~d the total increase of dwelllnq
uni ts waul d be about GS uni ts and thi s woul d requl ra a zon 1 ng chanae 1 n AreAS 1 and
z.
Mr, Murdoch stated there is a smal l strip ~rhich was ~revious~y indicated as retai 1
cortmrcial adJacent on the south of the re~3ional shop;~ln~ center and they feel I t
shoul d be h i qh dens i ty res t dent i a 1 rathe r than re t~ ~ ~ co~m~erc i a 1. f1e exp 1 a i ned th~se
are the prirrery changes and they feel th~y ;io pro~+ide a~od rec~nomic balance and a
gr~od mix of residential uses and a respcros~a to the typc of ha~t.,}n~ the mArket
demonds .
11r. Murebch s ta ted i n ordcr to accorrp 1 1 sh th i s proposa 1. che envi ronmenta 1 i mpac t
report must be approved~ pointing out thare are no substantfal chanc~s in this EIR
over the previous EIR anc: that Frank Elfin o~ Ultrasystens, is present to ~nswer any
questions concesr~ing the EIR. I~e st~ted also the Generat Ptan Ar,~endment must be
approved to provide f~r the commercial and change in residential density; and also
there is a slight change in thn Apen sp~ce configuration and not a reductio~ ln open
space which is due partly to grading. He stated the thircl item for consideratlon
is Revisfon No. 3 A of the General Pten Developnent of the Bauer Ranch.
Mr. Fturdoch stated since the applicatton was made~ the P~rks Department mad~ a
req uas t tha t the pa rk 1 oca t i on be changed to the wes t s i de of We i r Canyon Road
primari ly because of the future development on the Wallace Ranch and also it would be
a rrore Gentral location. ~~e stated they have analysad Lhe requested change and
5/11/82 I
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P LANNING COMMISSION~ May 17~ 19A2 82-29R
altho ugh it does rnqut~a a numbe~ of destg~ chanqes~ the locat(on 1~ something that
Kaufma~ end Broad can accomrrodate. 11e stated 1 f thc perk Is to be located~ ~s
suqgestad by the Perks Department~ on tha east end af Area 2 ad)ecant to the f) re~
station sita~ Lhev wl i l lose 2A lots~ but this would release e simi lar acreage in
Araa 6 which ts a higher donsity resldQntlal areA and it would nat an sddittonat
nurtbsr of unlts~ but would not requlre a gennrsl plan amencirrient; howeve~, it wauld
raquire a changa In the GenerAl Plan of Development submittad As Revlslon No. 3. ~~e
statod they have na prablems with tho reconmended condittcx~s nc~r co thR Parks
Depertmant's rocommendation if it is rocognized that ther~ ~+ould b~ an additiona)
number of untts bacause of the ktnd of develvpment that would accur.
Mr. Murcbch explalned tl~at Dick Wolker and Bab t;alloway from Kaufman ,3nd Broad and
Tom Wlnfleld~ attorney, and 'Trafflc CngtnQ~r Pat Glbson are pr~sant to answer any
questions.
Jc~e1 Fick~ Assistant Director for Planning, expinined at the tfine the tentaCtve tract
maps ere presQnted for llrea No. 2. staff In the Parks Dapartrt~ent and the Planning
Uepartment wauld be evaluatlnc~ access to the park site.
Gordon Ruser~ 1221 South Sycart~rc~ Santa Ana~ stated he represents tf~a Sie~rra Ci ub on
the ~eir Canycx~ Park/fioad Study Advisory Group, and tt Is an on-going group that was
originally auth~r(zcd by the BoArd of Suparviso~s in October~ 19A0~ and the scope of
thel r work Int ludes a i 1 the We i r Canyon Natersh~d south of 9auer Ranch, {ncl uding
about 21C~0 ac~es, and also an additional yA00 to G0~0 acres in the Weir Canyon
Viewshcd `~r a total of ~pproximately 80Q0 ~+cres in the entire pArk road study area.
He stated part of thei r concern Is th~at the~e woutd be r(dinc~ and hiking tral ls
wlthin a very large reglon~jl park in Weir Canyan and want tc- be assured thrt any
traf 1R withl~~ ~,r Canyon would Inter-canne=t with riding and hiking trai Is that may
go U~,..ur" auer F~anch developmunt. lie stated Nr. Murcbch did not address any
passible ., a•A~ changes (n the trai 1 system and they are concerned. as
nresentati„ ~~e Sia~ra Club~ and have recommendotfons concerninc~ the trails
a:,:~ever the f~nat Bauer Ranch park outline wauld be. Ne said they would recommend
t,at amdndad park plans include defini te p~ovtsfons for riding and equestrlAn tr~i ls
which will tonne:t with existing ~(ding trails. ~Ic stated the SiPrra club further
recommenJs that at least ana maln trall wlll connect the Weir Canyon Road b~idge
undcrcrossing wlth the existing trail and Weir Canyon to the south. Ht statcd they
also recommertd that a perm~nent undercrossing at Wetr Canyon Rc~ad bridge be
designated and clarified the request ls that the language be ckfinite that there wil)
be a through trall from the Weir Canynn fbad bridge unckrcrossing through the Bauer
Ranch property~ through Waltace Ranch property, through Live Oak Land Cortpany
property over the ridge and (nto Weir Canyan that wauid tonnect wtth Orange County
Master Plan of Riding ancl tliking 7rails. Ne asked if the City of Mahelm's
definition of opan space includes private open sp~ce within privately owned estates.
Joel Fick exptain~d the eauer Ranch develapment will Include private open space
within the tract areas which is not included in the designated area for open space on
the C~neral Plan of Oev~eloprtent. so therc will be additional privatety maintatned
open spaces within the tract areas and~aiso the commercial areas.
Jay Tashi ro stated that general open space wi i l be impiemented by the open space xona
and the difference betrreen ganeral open space and private open spaee is that private
open space wi 11 not be zaned open space.
5/17/$2
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING CQMMISSIOM~ May 17~ 19$2 8a-2g9
Responding to Mr~ Ruser ~~~ Flck explalned qeneral open spsce does net nacessarl ly
allaMe pubiic sceess to the opon spece. Mr. ,Ruaer askad if the smount of pubitc
access to general opan spsce within the Bauer Ranch amendment~ as proposed~ wtll be
reduced and will the publtc have less access to open space as a ~esult of the
p~oposed change.
Mr. Ftck potnted out tha developar would have to answer that questlon (n tarms of
acreac,~e.
Dr. Glory Ludwick~ 1401 Vista Del ~1~r~ Fullertan~ co-ownor of the Liv~ Oak land
f.ortpany, whlch awns Oouglas Ranch ono-half mile from ~his property~ stated she ts
also on the Weir Cenyon Pa~k 5tudy Advisory Doerd end has toured subJect property and
her own property with thst qrbup so that whstever is planned would be ca~sistant with
their needs. She stated they have been kept from filinq for a gen~ral plnn amendment
by the owners of the Bauor Ranch to whom they sold thelr propr.rty two years aqo and
who have baen ln default slnce a week after thet because they have not made their
payments. 5he st.~ted there will be a new City Council by tha tirr~ they are able to
ft 1Q and she would 1 ike to protect the densi ty that they egreed to fi le for and noted
there was a pruhibition agatnst trade-offs betwaen the f~ougins Ranch and the Bauer
Ra~ch wh i ch w.~s ~~ r t o f the cont rac t, so ( f they arc g ren ted an i ncrease+d dena I ty and
the cont ract i s respected~ I t coui d not come a c thn expense af dens i ty on Douglas
Rench. She sta ted she does not care how many uni ts are al lowed on Lhe Bauer Rench~
but does not want 1 t to be at th~ expense of tlie Dougias Ranc-~ dens Itias.
dr. Ludwick reforred to recent action whe~ein tf~c C1ty of Yarb~~ Linda was granted
jurisdtctton ov~er a portion of Anaheim land and there is go~ng to be some kind of a
race to get a shopptng centor. She stat~d Kaufn-an and Broad has c~wned the Bauer
Ranch property for seven years and there has n~t becn one house bui 1 t and wnndered i f
there might ba some stt~ulation that could be add~d to approval requiring they get
started so that the shopping center will be bullt where it fs planned nnw~ ~n Anahetm
land. She st~tod Anaheim Is about to lose the shopping centcr if there are not some
houses bui 1 t.
ft~airman Pro Te~orc Fry polnted out it ts nat the intent of the Planning Commissian
to get inwlved in privatc disputes.
Tom Winfield, Attorney for Y.aufman and Broad~ stated he did not think it is
appropriate to respond Lo pr, Ludwick's comments~ but wouid indicate that ICaufman and
Broad is not interested in taking an; denstties that belonq to anyone else (n the
County nf Orange~ Ci ty ;" ~tnaheim or anyone who thinks they wi 11 be in the Ci ty of
Yorba Linda~ but thcy -t• ~yterested in getting that deg~ee of residential
development which is r.h~_..,sary to support the regional shopping center. He stated
Kaufm~n and Broad has owned the land for sev~eral years, but they no longer own t~,e
ragional shopping cente~ and 1 t has been sold tr Teubrr~n and Associate~ an~ that Mr.
Larsen~ their president, testifled befare IAFt~.~ ~:uring recent SAVI p~nceedings that
they are anxious and ready to go forward with thc dev~elopment of the 3hopping center.
He stated they have been advised that the City of Yorba Linda has pu[~ltcly statrd
that they do not wish a shopping center and SAVI has concu~red and a!'°,rma)
cnmmttrr~cnt was made to Taubmen as part of the LAfCO proceeding.
M~. Murdoch stated the densi ty they are requesting is consistent with the economic
analysis of the area and the economic impact which was done by Ultrasystems dnes
shvw, without considertng the impact of the shopping center~ that with this mix the
eco~omic impact to the City is a substantial pius a~d even taking into consideration
si>>iaa
I
~
MINUTfS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ Mey 17~ tg82 82-30p
the ~dditional units, depandtng upon the~ p~rks switch~ it Is sit,yhtly botter. He
stated wtth e regtonAl shopping ce+nter~ thQ economic imp~ct Is aubstenttally graAter
and thet wes considered as pe~t of the netessity to support qrowth tn the entire
Ca~yon area and not Just the Bauer Ranch. He stated Qauar Ronch property has to
stsnd on its own and this Is a better propasal oconomically for the City than tha
prav(ous proposal.
Rosponding to Mr. Ru!~er's questions~ Mr. Murdoch statcd trai ls are s' ~, ,~ on the
Genera) Plan Development of the Bauar aanch and tho connectton to '+1eir Canyon itself
w111 bc through the Wallace Ranch. Concerning tha Weir Canyon crossing~ he explalned
they hAVO had a number of discussions wt th staff And the Trai ls Cortmi ttee and
originally were showing a crossing under the lJeir Canyon separation~ under the
f reeiway ~ but tha t 1 s a very haza~cbus cross t ng and the resul t of thei r many
dlscusstons and tf~e u) tirt~te ~corm~endatlon of thP Trat ls Comml ttee was to have the
crossing at Fairmont~ wh(ch Is wost of Welr C~nyon. fle stated Fairnpnt has not been
bullt and tn the interim the Welr Canyon crosstng is used. F1e stated they have not
shawn the t~ai l underneath the Welr crossing prirt~rl ly because the City does not fael
they want ta take th~t kind of responsibtlity. but if the City and County want the
trai 1 under thQ 1Jeir Canyon bridge~ Kaufman And aroad hos no prohlem with it~ but the
retommend~tion of tha Trails Committee wrs neg~tiv~e.
Wnceming gcneral open space baing includ~d in thc privntc areas~ "1r. Murdock
explalned thc requtrement of the City for rtv~lntnnance of opcn space is etther with a
distrfct or the homec~rmers assoc(atian and lf lt i, the homecx~mers associatlons
respons Ibi 1 i ty, whether or not i t wl 11 be open to tFte ge~er~l publ ic for access~
other than to the trai ls. would b~ r~ther hucstionable; however~ i f naintenance ts
th~augh a district, it could brs openeci. H~ stated th~y have not decreased any ~f the
access to the yeneral open space nor the opfln space ltself.
T~IE PuBIIC IiEARII~G WAS CL~SED.
Joel FI ck responded to Plr. Ruser's concern regardtng the trai 1 1 inkages for the
regio~al trall~ explatning that Is also a conce~n of che f'arks Department, and as a
result~ staff feels that a pot~ntial crossing at F~irnnnt probably would be a tot
safer; however, since that ts not fcasible rigF~t now, staff would propose a Parks~
Tra(1 and Open Space e~chibit in the General Plan of Develepment to show the Ilnkage
north of Weir Canyon Road to tie in the CountY Regional Trail .System unti 1 there is a
forma) trails amcndment or another aicernative is feasible. Mr. MurdotP~ agreed.
Commissione~ tlerbst stated he has looked at this pl~n very carefully end feels tt (s
better than the previous one. He stated he is concerned about the cn~m~erciat on the
area ahown in red and would Iike to see the General Plan remain as is and the zoning
on the property be CO (Commr.rcial ~ Office) whtch gives the develt~er the preroqativ~e
in the future to request a zone change rathor than a General Plan Amendrt~nt. He
stated right nc~w he feels there is far too much carranercial because the commercial
along Santa Ana Cbnyan Road and tt~e regional shopptng center. He stated he would
lik~ to see offfces ther~.
Mr. Murdoch stated the proposa) Is primar( ly oriented to cortme~cial offices and the
analysts was to see how much of the economic benefit for th~ City they cauld build tn
without hurttng the activittes of the reqional shoppinq center and be consistent with
Areas 9 and 10.
5/17/82
t E
\
MINUl'ES~ ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ Mey 1~, 1982 8?,•301
Comnissionnr No~bst stated tha Commtsaton wants a mix and not too much comme~clal and
sti i l provtda the ftexibt 11 ty.
Mr. Murdach statad they have di'cussed that and wou) d prefer the greater flnxlb) l t*.y,
but recognize ;hey could itve wlth this ktnd of suggestinn. f~e steted thoy have a
datAi led faas ibl 1 t ty report f~am one of the forenost ccxrr+~erclal consui tants in the
business whlth is part of the tnformation submitted to the Commlsston and It
indicatos the arrqunt of corrtn~. ~lal indicated Is n~t unreasonable. -~e stated the
suggastton by Gommissicx~er Herbst~ howcver~ would not be Grippltng.
Bob Gallnway, Senlar Vice PrQSident. K~ufman and Brnad, stated they have discussed
thls possfbllity and ware thinkinc~ tn terms of t rying to qenerate m~re funds for the
Gi ty when they did thQ aconomic study and only 10;; of Area 3 W~s t~cludod. He stated
thoy a~a p~epared to go with a comme~cia) office ~e.~(gnatton and possibty come bACk
later with zcme Ghange re~uests.
Cnmmissionar Nerbst ~efe~red to th~ trall crossing and noted tt !s not known when the
Fairmont bridc~a will be bullt and r~oted the Cortmisston wauld ltke to see it happen
sameday because of the congestion on i~Qrial.
Cartmis~sionar Ba~nes stated tfiere ~re problcros with both sit~s h~~t chat could be
warked vut as long as one conn~cts to the ~t~ster Tratl System. She asked where the
Yarba Linda Trni 1 wl i) cortc into the system. She assured Mr, Ruser Lhat she has been
acci ve in that area for ~ycarn and the Commisstoners are a11 interested in seeing that
thP Crai ls are a11 connec.tcd.
Paul Singer staced al l t~ai is are eventually connec[ed ta the rivcr trat I on both
sicks of thF rive~r and s'~ce Fairrront is not constructed at thts tirt~e, there is an
opportunlty to prc~vlde a sep~rate tr~i 1 and Falrmont would be more advantageous and
safer.
Cor.missioner Bar~~es referreJ to Dr. Ludyick's concern of taking dansi ty away from he!r
property and stat~~d this pe~ha~s wauld t~ave an efFect on another regional shopping
center Gut only in:reases thc whole area by 65 residential units and shc did not
th;nk it would have Any effect on any other adJacent properttes.
Gommlssloner Nerbst stated sewer and w~ter 1 ines are alrea~iy installed in the Anaheim
~li l ls area~ so the:re ls a 1 imi t to ~he number af uni ts that can bc dcveloped tn that
area; hvwever~ this area has not been developed and Kaufman and Broad wi l l be
oblig~ted to put in certatn size llnes to accomrr~date the properties above and all
tfi~ land owners sl~ould get toc~ether to work out thc size nf the lines so that thwy
are properly plan~ed for the denstties p~oposed.
Commissianer 11cBu~nPy stated he felt the park access should be seriously addressed
bewur~e if the commercial is approved as proposed~ he felt the circulation pattern
sfioutd ba looked into because it will be different than was originally designed.
Pau) Singer stated he would request an agreement that f1na1 deslgn of the width and
configuration af Mvn:a Vista Road and access to the park site be subject to review
befo~e approvai.
M~. Murdoch statad he unckrstands the concerns and problam and when speci fic pians
are s~bmitted for approval~ tha specific: canfiguration or alignment would have to be
acceptabie and their trafftc eng(nee~ has looked at the problem.
5/ t 7/82
~.+
MINUl'ES~ MlAHEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSION~ May 17~ 1982 82-302
Cortmiaalone~ Barnes asked if this plen Is related in soma wey ~o the developn~nt of
the rogional shopptng center~ stating ~he would liko to know If It wos T~uhrnr~n's d~sst.re
ta h~ve nora comme~cl~+l office end more residential deaire In ~rder tor them to mave
ahead in the davelopment nf tha roglonoi shopping center.
Flr. Murdoch stated tho tmpACt of the roqlonal shoppinq ce~tor on adJacent l~nd was
one of the considarattons In determininq the best use of the land and estate type
devdlopment would nat be desirabla overlooking the shoppinc~ center. Ne reptled tha
only ccmcern Taubnen .~as expressed is that they certainly would ilka to see some
residentiei dev~elopnent undenvay bafore they start construction of a maJor shopping
center. Ha stated tha stx~pping center wi ll be dependent to some extent on
restdonttal developn+ent in Yorba Linda And they ere very lnterested In a brtdge going
acroas, but are mc~ra interested In the rotAil s+~les ~billty in the over~l) area then
they are in ~ny s~~eci flc xoning.
Cammlssloner Herbst asked about the school site with Hr. Murdach statinq the schoal
stte has boen d(scussed ~nd the general plan dnes show a school slte in this
vicinlty; however~ che analysls of it in mc~re detell tndicated it wciuld bn more
app rop r) a te ly 1 aca ted on the Wa 1) ace Ranch thon the t~auer Ranch.
Commisaianer 1lorbst asked lf the school site is prQp~red to go onto the Wa11ACe Ranch
before t t i s dave loped, recoc~ni zinc~ the trf angulAr nr~a adJacent to the park mi ght be
a good placa fnr a school si tc.
Mr. Murdoch stated that has been considered In a preliminary way~ recognlzfng that
the Wallece Ranch Is ~~c tn a posttlon to say what will be done at this tirtx.
Chai rman Pro Terporc Fry asked i f Kaufman and D road hav~e agreed to the new park s t Ce
and Mr. Hurdoch replir.d they heve rgreed tu it with the understanding that the chenge
in location leaves the f~rmer park si tc avai lablc fo~ develapment ~~s indicatc:ci.
Commissioner ~arnes asked (f the density wiil be chanc~ed. Mr. Murdoch stat~d the
density would not be changod beyond what the+ general plan has shown, in fact. the
nurtt~er of units will be ~duced in Area 2~ but Are~ 6 Is a highcr density area
already on che Genarai Plan.
Commissioner Herbst askcd th~ approximate number af additiana) units to bc c~tned by
this switch.
Bob Galloway statsd they would prefer t~ leave the perk site exactly as it was
originally pronosed~ that they wnre ~ady to move dirt in 1lreas 4 and 5 untll the
eccx~arty changed and one of tl~e conditions of a~proval for Area 4 and 5 was that the
park stte would be located where it wa~s originally shown and be fully designed and
ready fo r recorda t i on when thc map was app roved and they had to pos t b~nds to c~ rade
for SSO~Q00. Ne stated ail the engineering pians are ready for fin~il signature and
Chey are rea~y to post the bonds and when the suggestian was made last week that the
park location be changeci to the east end of Area 2, they dtd meet with Mr. Ruth a~d
understand the concerns about having tt~e park more centraily iocated. Ne stated they
realize there may have been some misunde~atanding about whe~e the densitles wer•e then
and whe~e they ar~ now and the facc that 1t d~es accuaily tie in with the triangular
area west of Wetr Canyon Rnad on the Wallacc Ranch~ not(ng that this is a no-mans
land because of access. He stated they h~ve worked very closely with the Watlace
Ranch property owners and thay hav~e bean extremely cooperative conc~ rning slope
easements, etc. He stated they agreed with Mr. Ruth thst they wouid like to
I`- : 5/ 17/82
~~' ~ V
MINUTES, AN.4~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMIaS10N~ MAy ly~ 1~82 g,~~~pj
accanmodste th* ~w psrk sita~ but are lastng twanty-etght pr~mium type lots tn this
dove lapment~ so thAy would 1 I ke to teke the~ aquivalent •++rea end conve~t 1 t to RM-
1200 snd the denalty permitted Is 16 units per acra~ so th~ nurnbers ccmie out to 98
apartmenta that they would ba increAStng in Area G~ fer e nac increase of 70 ow~r the~
65 thst they h+~d before for a tot~a) af 135 and noted th+~t ts the number shown in
thei r Revis io~ No. ;~.
Commisainner -terbst offered a rtbtlon~ seconded by Conmfssloner King end WJTION
CIIRRIEQ (Chatrman Ouahore betng absen~ l that the AnahRtm Ctty Planning Commisston
does hereby find thet p~evious environmental impact repnrts fc-r subJecr. property have
addre~ssed envtronmenta) Impacta assaciated wtth the Bauer Mnsh Devalopment Plan;
that D~~ft EIR No. 256 tdentifies no addlttonal significant irtpact th~t thQ propased
smenclmment to Arnas t~ 2, 3 And 7 could have on the environn~ent snd Draft EIR ~lo. 256
(s in conhltance wtth the Californta Envir~nm~antAl ZuAlity ~ct and wtth City and
State EIR Guidollnes and~ therefAre~ the Planning Commisston recammends to the Ci ty
Council that ~IR No. 256 be ~ertlfted.
Commisafoner Herbst offercd Resalution No. ~'C82-100 and moved for tts passage and
ado~tion that tho llnahelm C(ty Planntng Cummfsslc~n cb~s harcby recor+rnend to the City
Councll that Exh(blt l1~ as arn~ndad~ shcxving thc~ relocation of the park SILC in the
Qestern portian of Planning Area 2 be appravod.
On rotl calt, thc ~orego(ng resolution was passed by the followtng vote:
AYES: C~1'WISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOW15, FRY~ HER~ST~ KING~ tICBURNEY
NOES: COMMISSlONERS; NONE
A05ENT: COMFIISSIONE-'S: 9USNORE
I TEM Np. 2, ; RFCLASS I FI CATI ON t~4. 77- 78-E~4 (READVERTI SED) :
PUBLIC NEARING. To aeiend the Bauer Ranch General Plan of Dev~lopment and to recommend
emendrtent of the conditions of approval for Resolutlon No. 'lqR-E,07~ Ord(nance No's
4068 and 4069 relatinq to the Bauer Ranch P-anned Community.
Approxirt~atcly 375 acres located southeast and southwest of the intorsection of
Ri v~ersi de Frcewoy and We i r Canyon Road.
This i tem was dfscussed in conJunctien wi th i tem No. 22,
ACTION: Commissioner tiarbst offernd a motion~ seconded by Cammissioner Bouas and
MQ ON CARRIED (Chairma~ Dushore bcing absent), that the Maheim City Pionning
Cortr~issiory does hereby recortmend to the Ci ty Counct 1 Miendment to the Bauer Ranch
Gene~al Pian of Development in accordance wdth Reviston 3 A of Exhibit No. 1 to
modify the land uses, zo~ing~ parks~ open spaze. circulation and pQpulation elements,
and text therein~ ta provide a greater nueiber of residential dwelling units tn
Planning ArQas 1, 2 snd 7 and to pravide conmercial development in Planning Area 3
with th~ further amendment that said Planning Ar~a ; revision be irrplemented by the
CO (Coim~ercial, Office, Scenic Corridor) ione and (9 ~that the Co~dittae No. 21 and
Z2 of Ct ty Counci 1 Rasolutian No. 7'9R-607 and Crx~di tton No. 15 of Ordinance No. 406A
and 4069 be amendcd tn incorporate Revision Na. 3 A of E~tbit No. 1 t4 the 8auer
Ranch General Plan of Development and that ths parks~ trai ls and opan space exhiblt
be amended to extend the trail nartherly al~ng Weir Canyon Road, As stipulated to by
the appiicant.
Bob Cal lavay stated they appreciate the cooperatton and halp thay got from Ci ty
staff.
5/t7/82
~
c
MiNUTES~ ANAI~EIM C{TY PLIWNING CONMISSION~ Msy 17~ 1982 g~.jp~
1 TEM N0. 24
~.~~~I~ i;ECOMMENDATIONS
The follaw(ng ~pprts and Recommend~tlons staff reports were presented but not r~ad:
A• YAR~ANC_E N~• 2325 ~ Rsquost for terminatfon of Veriance No, 73~5 from
Scuthwest Lsesing ~ Rentol~ Inc.~ on property located at 1843 Mr~untdin Viaw
Aven ue .
AC_ TION; Corm~isslon~r King effe~ed R~solutlan No. PCA2-101 and moved f~r Ita
r~~sage ond edoption that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commtssion does hereby
term~n~te Varlence No. 23zS.
On rol) call~ the faregotng rosoluclan was passed by the fallowtn~ v~ote:
AYES: COhWISSIOfJERS; BARNES, BOUA5~ FRY~ IIERElST. KING, Nc9lJRNEY
NOES : COMMI SS I ONCiiS : NONE
AElSE~~T: COFW I SS I OIIERS ; RUSII~RE
B. VA. RIAt~CE ~~0~ 2599 ~ Requcst for terminatlon of VArta~ce No. 25g9 from Ken
Keesce on propercy located at 1922-30 South Anaheim Boulev~3rd.
ACTION: Comnissioner• King offered Res~lutlon No. PCII2-102 and rrbved for its
passAge and adc~ption that th~ Anshcim City Planning Cortmissien does hereby
terminate Variance No. 2599.
On roll ca11~ the foregoinq resolutlon was passed by the follc~w(n~ vote:
AYES: COi~l11SSIONERS: BARNES~ 90UAS~ fRY~ flERtiST~ KI~G~ McE3URNEY
NOES: COt~1N1 SS I ONERS ; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bl15HORE
C. COtJnIT10NAL USE PERMIT r~0. 228d - Requ~:t for termination af Candi tfonal Use
Pcrmit No. 22 0 rom C. L. Burnett on propcrty locat!~d on thc northwest
corne~ of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard.
~lCTION: Commisslo~er King offerad Rcssolution I~o. PC82-103 and mc,ved for its
Pas as ge and adaption that the Mahe(m Ci ty ~'lanning Commission does hereby
terminatc Condi ttonal Usa Permi t i~o. 2280.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon wns passed by the fotlowing vr.te:
AYES: COMF11S510NER5; dARNES~ dOlWS~ FRY~ flEitBST~ ~CING~ McBURNEY
NOES : COFW i SS I ONE RS : NQNC
ABSENT: COMMISSIOHERS: BUSMpRE
ADJOURNlEMT Ther.c being no furthe~ business~ Commisstoner Herbst offered a motion,
scconded by Commissioner Bouas snd MOTIJN CARRIED (Chairman Bushore
bei~g absent)~ that thes meettng be ad~ourned.
The mee t i ng wss ad jaurned a t 4: S 3 p. m.
Respactfui ly s~bmitted,
~ / ~
Ed th ~L. Har~ s. Se~ratary '
~~_L_ ~ __ .~• _ ~• ~ .