PC 1984/03/19KEGULAR MEBTING OF TE~E ANAHEIM CITY PLANMING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING Tt~e reg~lar meeting of th~a Anaheim City Planni.ng
Commission was ca.lled to acder by Chairwoman 6ouas at
10:00 a.m., March 19, 1984, in the Council Chamber, a
quorum being aresent and the Commission reviewed plan~ of
the items o,. .oday's agenda.
RECESS: 1::30 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m.
PRLSF.NT Chairaoman: BouAs
Commiasioners: Bushore, Fry, Herbst, King, La Claire
ABS~NT Commisaioners: McBurney
ALSO PRESENT Ronald Tt~ompson
Annika Santalahti
Jael Fi~k
Jack White
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Greg Hastings
Gdith E~arris
Ylanning Director
AasistanL Director for 2oning
AssisCant Director for Planning
Asaistant City ALtorney
Office Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Assistant Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
APPROVAL OF MlNUTES: Commissioner K.ing uffered a motion, secanded by
Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaion~r Hesbst abstaining on
February 22, 1984, and Commissioner McBurney abstaining on March 5, 1984,
minutes), that the minutes of February 23, and Mac~h 5, 1984 be approved as
submitted.
ITEM NOS. 1 THROUGH 11 WERE CONSIDERED TOVETHER:
ITEM NO 1. EIR NEGA':IVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE ~tEQUIREMENT ANt
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2446:
PUgLIC HEARING. OWNGRS: RICHARD C. HUNSAKER, P.U. l~ox 2423, Santa Ana, CA
92707. AGENT: REGENCX OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 5unset Boulevard,
Suite F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Property described as an irregularly-shaped
parcel nf land consisting of approximately Q.65 acre locatec] at the
northwesterly terminus of Regal Park Drive, 2~UG Regal Park Dri.ve.
To permit a billboard in the ML Zone with waiver•s oE minimum structural
setback and maxi.mum height.
Continued from February 6, 1984.
84-121 3/19/84
MINUTES. ANAtiF.IM r.I~'X PI.ANN~NG C~MMISSION, MARCH_ 1_9, 1984_____ __ 8A-122
ITEM N0. 2. EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER UF CODE REQUZR~MENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PE~tMIT N0. 2447:
PUBLIC UCAItING. OWNERS; ABJ DEVBf.OPMENT~~ 301 N. Rampact Street, Orange, CA
92668. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVBRTISiNG, INC., 8820 Sunset Aoulevard,
Suite F', Los Angelea, CA 90069. Property de~scribed as an irregularly-shuped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres, 1U10 Grove 5treet.
To permit a hillb~ard in the ML Zone with wai•~er of maximum heighC.
Continued from FPb~uaKy 6, 1~84.
ITEM Nq. 3. EIR NGGATIVE DFCLARATION, WAIVER flF COGF. REQUIREMCNT AND
CUNDI7'20NAL USE PERMI'P N0. 244d:
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: DON V. ANll GARNE7' A. EDMUNDS, 18682 Mesa Drive,
Villa Park, CA 92667. AGEN~': REGENCY OUTUOOR ADVERTISING INC., 8820 Sunset
Boulevard, Suite F, Loa Angele~, CA 9Q069. Property described a~s an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 act_s
located At the northwest corner of Tatt Avenue and Eaton Wr~y, 2691 ~. Taft
Avenue.
To permit a billboacd in the ML Zon~ with waivera oE permi.r.ted location and
maximum height.
Continued from Feuruary 6, 1~84.
I'rEM N0. 4. EIk NEGATIVE DECGARATIUN, WAIV~:R U[~' CODE REQUIRBMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE YERMIT NU. 2449:
PUBLIC H6ARING. OWNERS: E.B.H. PROPERTIES, 1274 Sunshine Way, Anaheim, CA
92806. AGEN^~: REGENCY OUTDOQR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard, F,
Los Ange~es, CA 90069. Property described as an irregularly-shaped pazcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.9 acce, 1281 Sunshine Way.
Tu permit a billboard in the ML Zone with waivers of minimum structural
setback and maximum height.
Continued from Fet~ruary 6, 1984.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGAZ'IVE llECLARATION, WATVER OF CODE REQUIRFMF.NT ANA
CONDITIONAL USE PE;RMIT NO. 2450:
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: CONSOLI, McCOM~ER, MGCUBBIN INV~STMENT, CO., 1274
Sunshine Way, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR AbVERTI5ING, INC.,
8820 Sunaet E3oulevard, Suite E, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Property described as
an icrey larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 a.:re,
1270 Sunshine Way.
To permit a billboard in the ML Zone with waivers of minimum structural
setback and maximum h~ight.
Continued from February 6, 1984.
3/!.9/84
MlNUTES, ANAHEIM C1'!'Y PL~ANNING CQMMISSION, MARCN l9, 1984 84-I.23
IT~M NO. b. ~IR NEGATIVE DFCLA1tATION1 WAIVER OF COUE REUUIR~MENT AND
CONDITIUNAL USB PEKMIT N0. 2~5~.;
PUfiLIC NBARING. OWNERS: BkISTOL COM~A~VY, z0899 Wilahire Boul~vard, Suite
933, Los Angeles, CA 9d024. AGENT: REG ENCY OUTDOOR ApVEHTISING, IN~., 8820
Sunr~et Doul^vard, i.oe Angeler~, CA 9U069e Propecty desccibed as an
ir:~agu7~rly-ahaped parcel of land con~is ting of approxim~hely 3.1 acres, 2311
to 2323 West Le Palmu Avcnu~.
'I'o permik tw~ ( 2? bi.llboArds in thh ML 2one with wfiiver~ oE minimum structural
setback and meximum height.
Continued fram Febru~ry 6. 19d4.
IT~;M NO. 7. GIR NEGATIVE DECLARAZ'ION, WAIV~R UF ~ODE RE'~UIREMENT AND
CUNI)ITIUNAL U;;E P_ERMIT NU. 2452;
P~HLIC HEARING. OWMERS: MAX c:UYiEE2, ET AL, 27520 Hawthurne qoulevord, Suite
1A8, Palos Vecde:~ Peninsula, CA 90274. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVEP,TISING,
INC., 8820 aunset Boule~~ard, Suite (', Los AngeleA, CA 900G9. propprty
described as an irregular.ly-shaped parcel of l,nd conoisting of appcoximately
8.4 acres loc~L-ed t~t the northwest carner ot .iralomn Avenue And Blue Gum
Street, 1311-1347 Blue Gurn Street.
'I~o permit a Lillboard in the ML Zone with ~aiver of m~~ximum heiyi,~. '
Conti~ued fr~m February 6, 1984.
I1'EM NU. 8. EIR_NEGATIV~: DECLARATJON, W AIVER OF COUE R~QUIREMENT AND
CUNDIT'ION.~~ U5E PERMI'P N0. '153A :
PU[iLIC HEARING. UWNERS: RAPT CUMPANY, 5031 Birch Str~~~t, Newport Beach, CA
926G0. AG~NT: REGENCY OUTDOGR AAVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard,
5uite F, Los Anyeles, CA 90069. uroperty descr;bed as an irreyu~arly-shaped
parcel of la~d consisting o£ approximately 10.6 ucres, 2930 ~ast Katella
Avenue.
To permit a billboard in the ML 7,one witt~ waivec oE maximum height.
Continued Erom rebruary 6, 1Q84.
ITEM N0. 9. EiR NF.GATIVE DECLARATION, i-iAIVER 0[' CnDE RE(~UIREM~NT AND
CUNDITIUNAL USE PERMIT NU. 2535:
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNE1tS: WALTER T. ERICKSON, ET A1., 185U 5. Anahei~~~
Boulevard, Anahei.m, CA 92805. AGENT: RE;GENCY OUfiD00R ADVERTTSING, INC., 8820
Sunset Boulevarcl, Suite P, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Property described e,s an
irregularly-shaped Faccel of land consis ting of approximakely 0.5 acr~e, 1850
South Rnaheim Boulevard.
~`o permit a billboard in the ML Zone with wa~.vers ot mintmum structural
setback and maximum heiyht.
3/19/84
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION, MARCH 19`,1964 _________ 84-124
Cantinued Erom February 6, 1984.
ITEM NO, 10. EIR NEGATIVE DEGI.ARATION, WAIVER OE COQ~ REQUIREM~NT AND
CONDITIOtJAL US~ PF.kMIT NU. 2536:
PUBLIC HEARItiG~ OWNEftS: JOkIN C. AND EVELXN ADAMS, 23075 Via Santa Marld,
Miesiori Viejo, CA 92691. AGENT; REG~NCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 0820
Sunset G~ulovacd, Suitp E', Los Ang~lea, CA 90069. Propert.y deocribed aR an
irregulacly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of aPproximately 0.8 acre,
1845-184~ South Manchester Avenue.
'ra permit ~ bil.lboArd in the ML 2one with waivers of minirtium etructural
setback and maximnm height.
Continued from Eebruary b, 19f34.
ITEM NO. lJ. I'IR NEGATIV~ DECLAItATION, WAIVER UC CODE REpUIREMENT AND
CONDITIUNAL '13~ ?,_;_'e'E2MIT NU. 2:~37:
PUI3LIC HEARING~ OWNEH.S: KENNe:TN KEBSEE, 1928 s. Anaheim Roulevaxd, Anaheim,
CA 92805. AGGNT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard,
Suite F, 'oa Angeles, CA 90069. ~roperty described ~~s an irregularly-shaped
parcel o~ land consisting a£ approximately 0.94 aarc, 1922-1428 South Anaheim
Bo~levard.
Ta ~ermit a billboard in the ML Zone with WL.~VCCE of minimum structural
setback and maximum height.
Continued from February 6, 19~~!.
Floyd L. Facano, agent, l0U S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, explained he had
submitted a letter rec,uesting a two-wee~ continuance, however, since the
ordinance will not be ready, he thought it would be more appcopriate to
request a cour-week aontinuance.
Annika 5ar.talahti;: Assistant Director f.'or Zoning, explained the draft
ordinance should be ready ror the next meeting in two weeks for Commission's
revitw and submitted to the r.ity Council one week later. Jack White,
Assistant City Attorney, explained any approval before adoption nf the
o:dinanc~ could be subject to the provisions of the new ordinance.
Floyd Farano replied they would give the Commission and Cuuncil an appropriate
period of time ro review the urdinance, bu~. that tt,e appiicant would like to
move along as quickiy as posaible.
AC'rION; ~ammissior~ec King off.ered ~ motion, sec~n~ed by Commissioner McBurney
and MOTION CMRIEU, th~~ conside_..ti~,n of the aforementioned matters (Items 1
througt~ 11) be continue~ to the meeting o£ April 16, 1984, at the request of
the petitioner,
3/19/84
~
lIINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, MARCH 19, 1984 84-125
~TEM N0. 12. ENVIRONMENTAG 1MPACT ItEPORT NO. 2~6 (FR~V. APPROV~U~, WAIVER UF
CODk REOUIREMBN7,'AN D CONDITIONAI '~E F~ERMIT N0. 2541
FUBt,IC HEARING~ OWNBftS: KA2SER D~V~~OPMFN~r cOMPANY, ATTN: CLINTON DAV:[S,
P~O. box 308, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Proporty de~cribe~i As an irregularty-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 3'1.2 acre~ locatpd At the aouthwest
cor7er af Santn Ana Canyon Road ond Weir Canyon Road.
To permit an 18-lot, planned commercial office and light ind ustrial complpx
that includes a hotel, reataur~nt and dr.ive-through f;nancia 1 inal•itution with
M.-iver of maximum builcinq height.
Continued from February 22 and Macch 5, 19Ei4.
ACTIUN; Commiselr~net F~inq oEfAred e moti~n, seconded by Commissioner Fry and
t102'IGN CARRICU, l:hat con~ideration of the aforem~ntioned mattec be continued
to the meeting o[ April 2, 1984, in ocder for stafE to review and analyze
additional dc;cumentation and inF~,rmakian tl~at han been submi tted by Lhe
applicant.
ITEM NU. 13~ EIR NE:GATIVE UECI.ARATION ANU CONDITiONAL USB PERMIT N0. 2544
~UBLIC HEARING. OWMERS: ELLA WNI'i~E YOUNGRI,UUD, 8450 Wells road, Weatminsker,
c:A 926a3. F-~petty desaribed as a rectanyularly-shaped parc~l of land
conttistinq of approximaL•ely G540 syuarP feet located at the s outhwest carner
of Arlingtan Avenue and Minteer Stceet, .1249 North Ntinteer Stcee;:.
To expand a rtate-licensed ce~idential facility providing ca re and supervision
for a maximum ~~E' 13 adu.lts.
TF,ere were approximately eighteen persons indicating their p resence in
opposition to aubject reque~t .~nd althouyh t:he stAff report wae not read, it
is ref~rred to and made a part of the minutes.
Fred Youngblood, 8450 We1J.s Road, Westminsker, ownec, was present to answer
any questions.
Jesse L. Vance,l,239 N. MintE~r Street, Anaheim~ read a lett er she had
~ubmltted to the Planning Commissi~r~ dated March 15, 1984, indicating
oppositi.on to the increased densiky on the property and pointed out there is
one inoperable vohicle curcent.ly sittinq on the driveway at subject pt.operty.
She statPd this is a single-family residential neighbochood.
Wayne M. Huss, 1238 N. Minte~r, Anaheim, r.ead a letCpr submi tted to thE
Planning Commission indica~ing concern abou' the psoposed de nsity of Lhis
residence with tt~irteen adults and pointed out there is a~ready a pcobletr, with
automebiles with one vehicle curcently parked on the drfvewa y and presented
picture~ of thevehicle and indicated concern that otner homes such as this,
would be started in their cammanity and stated sAmeone is ma king a profit at
their children'a expense.
1Marion Toll ~fson, 1457 W. Ch~vy Cha~e Drive, stated she felt putting more
people in this home will cause it to lose its home-like atmosphere which is
suppose to help the patients.
3/19/84
MZNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, MAFtCH 19, 198A~ 84-126
Pat Pac~r, 1241 M~ntoer, Anaheim, read A letter suhmitt~ad to the Planning
Commisoion indicating opposition k~ecause they feel it will alter the ahe~e of
their communlty and that this property is too amall Eor thirtoen Adu.lla= thdt
the residents currently yo aucside to smoka And enjoy the ait in their
backyerd and late at night, thi~ h~a occasiona].ly caused Annoyance and more
reAidenta would increAOP that annoyAnce; thAt the peti~ioner indicc+te~ pc+rking
spACes would be pcovidQd fo: two ca~s yet the plan~ show parking for [~ur
cars. She stated ~wo oE the five residents already have vehicles nnd all~wing
sevon more Adult~ would bring an unknown number oE cara into the neighborhood,
Tim Park, 222 N. Muller, Anaheim, stated he resided at, 1A41 Arlington Street
for one year and tf~ar liia brother currently lives there and is an architect.
He reviewed the RS-7~~~U aingle-family zone reguirc~ments and compbred them tc~
the ~xisting structuce,pointing out the ditEerencee. Mr. Par.k stated ttiere is
r et+lly no corceivable way they can do this und kee~ it with in the requirements
of ~he law and the propoaed driveway on the aouth will give the property a
b~ainess-type r~ppearance whict~ tAkes away from the resident ial atmoaphere c~f
the ne~ghborhood. He atated if the thirteen par,ienL•s have guests, the traffic
in their neigtib~rhood would be hindered ~~nd poinked out this .is a
c hil d-or iented m.~hborhood .
Greg Hastinys, Assistant Planner, stated the R5-7200 Codes referred to relate
t~ any new construction or any a~~dik:.on to old cone~tcuction end in ttiia case,
tt~e dwelliny is exi~tiny and what t' applicant ls pro~osing ~o con~truct on
the pcoperty would not create any netd Eoc variances and tl-~e Cocles werP met at
the time the building was conetructed.
Mr,. Park stated the propo~ed new constructi~n would reduce the r.otal living
space and 5tated there is a requirement that each person stiall !iave 120 square
feet of living space and this will not comply wtth ttiat requirement. He
stated also the addition takes away fr~m the total backyard.
Annika Sant~lahti, Assistant Uirector for Z~ning, sr_ated the house as ik
stands and with the additio:~~ still complies witt~ the minimum regulations for
a single-family structure and tt~e opposition's objections are that it is not a
normal single-family dwelling and tt~e :,tate has made a determin~tion thal• for
the purpoae~ of zoning- staff must ~till look at iL *,hi.s way, but it doe~
comply with minimum Anaheim standards, purely in terms of zoning.
William Klaus, 804 N. Uickel, Anaheim, stated he owns property accoss the
street f rom subject proper ty and asked if the one ataf f inembPr wf 11 makE rhe
meals, give khe drugE, wat~h everyone and also keep the place cl.ean. He
gtated he thouyht with thirteen pe~p.le, there could be somP serious problems.
Ne stated having mentally handicap~ed adults does not both~r him very much if
they are properly supervised, but since this is a Family-oriented
n2ighborhood, he felt -:heir children can be very vulnezable to this. tte asked
what type control there will be since there will be a9rugs c:~ the premises. He
asked if it would be possible that the type of residents can change to
possibly ex-canvicts or people who have l~ad sexual otfenses agains*_ children,
etc. He stated he felt five people is plenty i~r a structure of this type and
putting thirteen peaple in one house breaks down the famiZy-unit concept.
3/19/84
MINUTE51_ ANANEIM CITY I?LANNING COMMISSION, Ml.+tCH 19,_ 1984 84-1?.7
Kathy Andelin, ]228 Mintear, Anaheim, ceferrwd to h~r letter to the lanning
~ommiasion cir~ted March 19, 19t~4, and read poctiona indicating h~,r concern
regarding the Youngb]ooas and the ceretaker'e qualiti.cations and the
caretakec'~a ability to take care oE ttie home, the re~idents, food, m~~ication,
elc. She stated Mr. YounybJood hed kold her thP neighborhood is zaned for
multi~le-tami.ly uni's and they would not nEed a zonc change ar vrariance ro
increace the facility and thAt anyone could lauild an a~artment house on the
streett however, she has r+ince learned it is zoned Eor onl.y slnyle-family
dwelling units and lhat he was either misin.ormAd or had misunderstood the
inEorniation given to him. She stated shc inquirpd about the medication and
found out tt~e drugs are in pill form and are kept in a sr~ie and adminic~tered
by the caretaker and ahe was told b,y Mc. Younyblood's wiEe L•hr~t sume ~f the
residents were given psych~.,tic cf~ugs which acl on the mind auch as; Haldol,
Stelazine and Cogentin and ttiat st~e investigated and ~~und ~ut some of L-hose
drugs are considerpd majo: ttanyuilizer~ and are now ~rferred to as
anti-psychotic drugs and are used to treat r~evere mer~~al illness such as
sch:zopt~renia. ahe stated stie had di~cu~sed this with a clinic~al p5ychologisr
and was tald accordinq to the drugs given and the placumenl• of. tt~e residentc~,
th~y m:gl~t include functi~nal schizophrenics, not bad enough t be
hospitalized, but Gad enough fio they should not be in a children's
neighbortiood. She askE9 ff the:,e re~idenl;~ could be a threat to themselves or
to the ott~er residents in the Eacility or to tt~ose in the neight~orhood and
stated she did not feel they cauld rule out that possihility.
5he skated building an addition to t.he structure would eliminate a lot oE the
backyard outdoor sp;~ce which means ttiE r.esidents will be out front wt:ich wi.ll
eliminate their. privacy ac well as the neighbors' privacy. 5he stated if some
of them will be driving, it will add noise and tcaf£ic to the neighborhood
wl~ich would also be a worry and that they might be driving when they ar~ upset
or in need of inedication. She stated they did riot knuw about this facility
until last week, but h~d seen men loitering and pacing back and fortt~ in fr~n~_
of the house which w~E uncomfortable since their r.hildren ride their bike~• up
and down the street. She stated this does cause them a loss cf peace of m#.nd
and security and asked why such a facility in a neighborhood like thi;~ is
considered ir~ the first {~lace. She stated it is not fair to them or the
children to t~ave to be a product of an environment of these mental pcoblems
and such a facilily could be a detriment tu the peace, health, safety and
general welfare of the 4itizens of tr~e CiLy. She stated a person may be
deprESSed enaugh to take his own li~e or the lives or those around him which
has recently happened at a school in Los Angeles. She asked if one c~~:etaker
is enuugh to handle such p~~.~lems if they should occur.
Laurie Claussen, 809 N. Dickel, Anaheim, stated ahe personally thinks th~~
petitioners are doing a great thing for t•hese people and that the numbet of
residents they have now has not caused any problems, but her majur concern is
to what extene these ~eople are mentally handicapped and pointed out she does
not see the Y~ungbloods at the facility very often. She stated she is
concerned about drugs on the prQmises and how they ace controlled and asked
how this will affect tt~eir children. St-e stated so far there has not been any
problems, but she was concerned about her t.hirteen year old daughter's satety.
3/19/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'rY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN. MARCH 1~_1984 84-128
Richard Anthony Cristino atated he lives r.ight next door and is vexy concerned
;nd wanta some ~olid answers as ro the extent of thene people'a mental
handicap and atated he would want uomo guaran~ees an to aecu:ity and ea:.ety
f~r his wlfe and teenage children. He atatod he is not oppo~ed ~o helFing
someone in need, sucti as mentally tirandicapped people, buC w~ndered if ~hey
could be physically harmful to 3omeons. He stated there i~ ane gentlemen
living tiier~ now and he has had nur,erous stare-downa with him and noted the
gentlemen wAS not a~companied by anyone and thia make~ him very ner.vous and he
thought thirteen people being watr.hed b; one 50-year old persun could be a
thre-.t. He skated this is a ttarget acea and he recent:ly spent ~35,000 to
upgrade hia property and is concerned this will afiect ~roperty values, but
his biggest concern is the security of his family. Fte a~sked it the patienta
wiJ.l be able tu drive car, and if they will be able to have cars and indicated
if they are, he would be c~ncerned about parking.
NancY Peterman, 124ti Foxfire, Anaheim, ~tat~d Patrick Henry Neighborhood
C~uncil har~ put a lot oL effort into upgruding this area and she thought. do.ing
somethinq like this would risk tt~e futur~ of their chi.ldren. She pointecl ~ut
the pekif.ioners live in anather area and ~~sked that ktie C~mmiesion consider
their concerns.
Mr. Youngbload stated some of the concerns are very yood and he would have
been able to address rhose concerns if he tiad been asked and pointed out two
peop?e did contact ,~im and one was an apartment owner who was concerned about
an access to an ~alleyway. He then plt+yed a tape recordiny ~f an obscene
kelephone call (mor~t o£ wnich wra:i unintelligible). The tApe was submitted as
evidence for the Planning Uepartment fi.les. There was a lo~~d response from
the audience.
Jack White stated the applican't can submit an}/ evidenr_e he wishes and it is up
to ttie Planning Cammission to determine whether or not it has any evidenliary
value.
Commissioner La Glaire stated up to this poink, thc neighbors i~ave made a 9ood
case and stated ~he has not made ner rt;ind up as yet, and did not think any of
the Commissfoners have made theic minds up and that their. opinions are based
on facts qnd not emotians and ahe would likc~ for che hearing to be held
civilly. Commissioner Hush~re asked that there be no Lurther outbursts.
Mr. Youngblood stated the main concerns of the neighbors seem 4~o t~e LhP
traific, patients, st~zff and cars on the Premises. He state.d he had responded
to questions asked by one of the oppo3ition iMrs. Andelinl and he had told her
no new patients w4uld havP vehicles and had explained they have thE right to
choose their patients and will not accept any w}~o drive cars. He statea he
was told by the Traffic Department that the house as it now stands, ~oes not
have four parking spaces as cequired by the City and that he would have to add
a driveway and that will happen whether or not this request is approved. He
explained the car in the driveway at the present time belon~G to nne of the
residents who no longer resides there and they are waiting for papers to
remove the vehicle.
3/19/84
MINUT_ES. ANAHEIM CI1X PLANNING COMMISSIUN ~ MARCH 19f 1904 84-12:
He staled khe density is controllPd by Title 22 of the Slate of C~liFornia and
tlip.ir pla~;a w.ill be revi.ewed t~y the offi.ce in SantA Ann and ~he rule is thet
each room foc ~wo people must have 120 square feet and thei~ ,~lans wece
c~eaigned to 120 squace Eeet. Conr,~rning druga, he ste-ted there is a locked
cabinet on thc~ facility with on.ly one key and khe dispasal of the drugs ta
conl•rolled by the caretaker nnd his wife. Concerning more than one ~+erson
taking care of thirteen pe!ople, he explained that ie controlled by Title 22
and concerning qunlifications of the ctaff, t~e explai.ned lhere is moce than 45
yeAra experience of health caro betweon the staff inembecs of this Facil.ity.
ile statEd the person who takes care of the patients is very capable and is
only 48 y9ara nld. Mr. Youngblood stated Mr. and Mrs. Hitchcock who live
acroas the strPet. are present and would like to speak in £avor of the request.
Bil.l Nitchcock, 1248 Minteer, Ana--~im, skated they live directly acrose the
street from the home in question d probab.-y have the best vi.ew in the
neighborhUOd and he was concernea at first, but there ii~ve be~~n no pcoblems
and he has nevec seen those people at the facility even talk to the neighbora,
including L-heir children. He stated he was ccncerned about the medication,
but was assured that it is locked up And very stcongly supervised and also he
hAS b~en assured that no one there has any criminal background and that the
patients are very carefull, Acreened and if all these facts are tcue, he has
no objections and is totally comfortable with the use. He sr.Ated in some ways
he thauyht this house was probably one c~f the eafest on ti~e block because it
does come under the regulations uf Title 22 arid has a smoke detectar and will
have an ovecheacl sprinkler.
Stan Kay, employee of Or.ange C~unty Mental Health, explained he works in the
capacity as a F3oard and Car~~ Consultant for all the board and care homes
thruughout Orange County ~hich include~ 60+ homes; that this is a board and
c:ar~ home and is under the laws for licenaing of the State of California,
2•itle 'l2, and most of the concerns expressed ace handlzd more strinyently by
the liceneing of£icec, and the Licensing Department has not appcoved a license
yet, but will go through all the steps to make sure that they comply with all
the regulations. He stated the facility is under close aupervision of the
mental health oEfice ori 3a11 Road and Terry Collter at that office is a
licensed clinical socia~ worker and visits that home regularly and referred to
a letter he had written indicating the petitioners have consistently ptovided
high cace and he is pleased they are considering expansion Eor board and care
because there is a need for such a facility for the mentally ill and
recommended approval of this expansion.
Mr. Kay stated the people on medication are not allowed tA drive cars and all
the people cor;ing i~ are psychiatrically s~reened and there is a pre-home
visit and people are usually put there for a two-week tcial period and would
be cemoved if there are any problems. He stated tt,e petitioners are more
r,oncerned about the residence than the neighbor~ and would not want to aee it
damaged or destroyed.
Mr. Kay stated at this time, they are licensed for five bedR an~? they have
a~ways been filled, which ia a good indicakion khat they are doing a good
job. He stated the residents attend a socialization center wher.e they ace
learning twe or three days a week to make it better with society.
3/19/84
MINUT~5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG CUMMISSION, MARCH 19, 1984 84-130
Cuncerning the da~yer and threat, h~ ~tated a schi2ophrenic is no morP
dangeroue or th*e~ten~ny thar Anyone else in normal society and stated there
is no guaiantee becaube tt~Q ~ehavior of anyone in this room could not be
guaranteed in a crisis. He stAte~ anti-pnychotic medication ia used And doea
nothing more than offaet the basic khought disorder and it doesn't have to be
a severe kin~ oF thin~ as being reported in the newspAper and television. He
etatPd a little more expoaure would rQlievE the neiqhbors' anxiety. He atAted
one person of the oppositi~n had quated ~~ psyctiologist who had indicated theae
hames should not be in a neighborhood with children an~ pointed out he would
protest that atatement because there are over GO board and care homea
throughout Urange Cc,nt~~, many oE them in the ~ame neighborhood with children.
E11~ Younyb].ood, owner, stated she lived at this house for three yNars and
knows some of the neighbocs and set up the admission criteria the wAy it ia
because she foresaw there could be problems opening a boArd and care facility
in that neighborhoods that the iacility has h en in optration for nearly one
year and most of the ~~eople did not even know it was there and people walking
nround the neighborhood oc standing in the yArd are not dangerous and have not
talked with any of the neighbors and most of them have poar socialfzation
skills and have to be encouraged to even talk ~o eact~ other; and that khey
would not ha.r~~ ~7nyone. She stated sume of them have bePn in hospitals, hut
are now f.unctioning at a level where they need to learn to function in caciety
and need lo be around people and 't'itle 22 ceyuires that they be placed in
homes in residentia]. dr.eas.
Ms. You~+yblood stated she Fias been a reyistered nurse for fifteen years and
has worked witi~ mentally handicapped people mosk recently a~ Metropolitan
Hospital for the past eiqht years. She stated both she and Mr. Youngblood
ha~~ fulltime jobs and cannot be at the facility more often and that they are
not making a lot of maney, bul are helpiny pe~~ple and there is a dire need in
Urange County tor more good b~~acd and care homes.
THE PUBLIC HEAk1NG WAS CLOSEU.
Responding Co Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Kay st.ated the size of board and care
facilities in Urange C~unty is usuallx Fi residents anc3 the si2es range fcum 6
f:o 29 and probably 30 to 35 of them t~ave six resi~3ents. He stated at fift~~en,
the State of L'alifornia has said there mu~t be two staff inembers ori dutv at
all times and ~ndNC the law, this facility ~an handle ttiirteen people with one
staff inember.
Commission~r Herbst painted out these homes can ue established in any
neighborhood without any input from the City or anyonE else if they only have
six residents.
Commissioner La Claice asked if a psychiatrist or doctor handles ttiese
patients. Mr. Kay stated thece are several psychiatrists on duty at all times
at the socia].ization center, but there are one or two who deal with continuing
care r~sidenLs and the patients cume in once a month to have their medication
reviewed and represcribed if necessary, and they are being monitored up to
three times per week by the professional staff and if they not•ice anything out
of their normal behavior, thEy get them to a psychiatrist right away. He
responded that reco~ds and notes ar.e kept, but there is no legal y~uireme;~t
for daily documentation at the home, but it is done daily at the ce, -.
3/19/84
MINUTES, ANAH~IM_CITY ~L~N_NJ,NG_COMMISSION, M~RCH 19, 1984 84-131
Mr. Kay explained there would be d tOCd~ group of 35 at the center and none of
these residents ga more than t.hree times a wepk.
Commiseioner La Claire st~ted hec major concern is how often thoy are
evaluated f~r the medication nnd wondered if there wds one time a week, month
or whenever when the resldents are aeen ind~vidually rathec than in e group
situAtion. Mr. Kay reaponded he was not aure how the system ie aet up, but he
knuwa when problems st4ct to emerge, it ia moat often from the patlent's
peera. Kesponding t~ Chairwoman Boua~, Mr. Youngblood explained the patients
get to the center t•:e Uial-a-Ride oc the bus, but they are required to get
themaelve8 the~e and one ot khe question~ aaked before placement in this
facility is whether or not they are comfortablQ with the bus sy~t~m.
keaponding t~ Chairwoman eouas, Mr. Kay explained there is no neparate dining
area in khe facility and point~d out the r'~ns wi11 be rev~ewed by the State
a~d he did not know what that requicemen': is. He explained currently five
pAtients do sit down to a meal at least twice a day togeth~r and with thirteen
peopl.e they could not a~l sit down t•c~ekher unlesa adjustments are made.
Chairwoman Bouas stated ~h~ home would loAe ttie fAmily atmosphere at meal
time. Mr. Youngblood stated iE that is a problem, they will change the
arranyement ao they could All ait down at tl~e sume time.
Respond~ng to C;,mmissioner King, Mr. Youngblood stated the}~ were licensed for
this facility in March 1983, and reeponded ~here have b~en no problems or
complainta about the facility to date.
Respondfng te Commissioner Rushore, practf~:~jlly all 18 prec,ent in opposition
indicated by raising their hbnds that they tiad just learned about thi.s
facility in the last week and a half when the notice~ were mailed concerning
thi3 public heAring.
Responding to Commi~sioner Bushocc, Mr. Youngblood st.at~d the staff inem~er
present on the premise3 prepares the meals and that she does have a car which
she parks in the yarage. He explained ~~ie car was sitting outside because twa
widE cars do not fit in the garage and there is some storage currently ~i the
garage.
Commissioner Bu~hore asked if tt~e: had decid~~d to use this particulac
residence becauae tney already owned it. Mr. Xaungblood state~ they could not
afford to purchase a home at t~day's prices with the return they g~t for the
care of the peo~le.'
Responding ta Comm~ssinner Bushoce, Mr. Youngblood explained hie staff inembec
is relieved by pert-time workers for one full day each week-end and onQ-half
day on Wednesday and Friday and any other time upon request.
Commissioner Bushore stated pri~r to being on the Planning Commission s~me six
yeara ago, he was involved in helping to locate a home for five oc ~ix boys
for the Optimist Club in the Anaheim area so he is f~miliar with th~ State
requirements and that home had a couple living on the ~remises with an
alternate couple to live tr:re on week-ends and a part time worker to help
3/19/84
MINUmES._ ANAH~1~~ CIT1 PLANI.ING COMMa&SION M~RCN 19 1984 84-132
during the day and his concern with this situntion is that ther~ would not bP
adeyudte aupervision with only one peraon to take care of thirteen peo~le and
prepare the meA~s, etc.
He added he was amazed th~t thia many people co41d nay they are oppoaed to
somett~ing when they kno~•~ absolutely nothing about it and the homg has been
there for a whole ~eac with nu prablems. Ne stated h~ thoug~~t the facility
hea praven itself and with a little mo:e euperviaion, it could be expande~ and
be A beneEiC to the community.
Chairwoman Bouas pofnted out the neigt~bors had been very clear in saying they
were not opposed to whnt ie ther~s now, but were concerned abaut the
sxpansion. ~ommissioner bushore etated hp got the impresaiAn they were
oppo~ed t~oth ways.
Commiasi~nec Fry stated c~ightec: -~arsuns indicated their ~Ppoaition to t.he
raqueat at the beginnin~: of khe hearing and later twNlve ~t those people
indicated Che; did not even know abo;at the facility until 1-1/2 weeks ago and
he thought lh~~t apeak~ vecy well for the tive people currently residiny at the
facility and obvioualy they blend and harmonize quite well into the cammunitys
however, there is a lot of diffcrence between five residents an~ thirteen
residenta and his concern is the increase in the size of ~he family without
adequate supervision.
Mr. Youngblood stated the .:ounty had the ~ame concerns becAUSe it is hard l•o
find peop:.e who can take care of these facilities and they had suggested that
prob~.~ly he should be trying to fir~d someone to relieve the caietaker more
often.
('ommissioner Bughoce 4tated he th~ught with thirteen people, there should be
two peogle on the pcemises at all times during the day when they ace aetive
because he did not think one person could control thirteen adults who could
sct the same aa children.
Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Youngblood explained th ,atier~ts are
never left unattended and that he and his wife do all the o~,ping.
Commiasioner King agreed that more supervision is needed because oE the nur~ber
of people.
Commissioner Herbst asked why they are requesting thirteen residents and Mr.
Youngblood ^tated ta maintain the space requirements, they could only add four
rooms and ,lained they have a room currently which is 104 t~quare feet and
the State Kould not allow two peopJ,e i.~ that coom and that is the reason for
the odd number.
Commissioner Herbst stated as a land planner, he deLinitel,y feels this would
be overbuilding the property and from the plans submitted, he did not think
there would be adequate room for thirteen paople esp~cial.~y with no dinir.g
nrea and ~~loo tt~e ki~cher~ iF small ar.d he did not th:nk there would be enough
hathcoom tacilities. He added he feit if. t;~e pe~.~tioner had requested ~i
rea.onaule expanaion~ he would have gone alon9 w'.th it, but this would be
impacting th~e land and would be creating a business in a rQ~sidenti3) area and
that is something he has always disagreed with.
3/19/84
MINUTEu. AN~NEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMI$8:0'~~_MARCH 19, 19$4 8~-193
Mr. Youngblood etAted the bathroom facilities ace in compliance with Tit1e 12
and Commiaeionec Herbst replied he did not care Abouk Title 22 and definiteiy
did not think 2-1/2 bathrooma for thicteen people would bo adequate.
Respondi~g Lo Chdirwoman Bouas, Mr. Yaungblood stated the ceretaker hag the
bedroom adjacent to the kitchen end not tt~e one with the bath ~f its own.
Commiasioner Mcaurney stated he thought the prESent. facility wLth five
rpeidents was understaEfed and thirteen would be n sevece handicap and the
neighbocn are very concerned and also the Commiss;oners are concerned and he
could not support the expaneion.
Commissioner La ~laire stAtPd ahe w~s pleASeci to hear that the reaidenta ace
riding the bus and she did not think the reighbars hRVe anything to worry
about with these pactlculac people. She stated she realizen how nuch ttiese
Eacilfties are needed and yet ehe underatands thP neiqhbors' concerne, even
though ~he did not think tt~ey have anything to worry ab~ut in this case, but
as a planner, if. thio was any other business requesting en ex~~an~lon, ahe
would say no becauae it would bo puttinq more d~naity in khe acea. shP stated
she wnuld be tempted to .311ow the pe ~t,oner ~o havP this, but if tt~er~ are
problems, the permit ~ould be revoked after spending all the money ~ot the
expansion.
Commissioner Herbat sl•ated if the petitioner was looking for some reasonable
expansion for maybe nine residents, he ~ould go along with the request, but
did not think the Eacility is adeauate for thirteen peo~le with no dining room
and not enough bathcoom tacilir.i~a.
Commisaioner Bu~tiore stated the pla~s could be redesiyi~ed and more supervision
could be added and the conditional use permit could be l~mited to this
partic~ilar petitioner.
Annika Santalahti, expl;,ined the conditional use permit recently gra~ted by the
City Council for a specific user was for a epecific organizakion and the
request wAS advertised that way, but in this case ir could not be granted for
a a~rti.:ular petitioner.
Co~,imissioner Bushoce sta*.ed if this conditional use permit stays with the
land, he would hbve some real concerns because the petitioner could sell the
property to^orrow to another person and they could be operatfng a different
kind of groi., hati:~ that does not fit into the community.
ACTION: Commissiot~er Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King
and MOTION C1IRRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Cammission has reviewNCi the
proposal to expacid a state-licensed re~ dential facility providf.ng care and
supervision for ~ maximum of th?rteen adults o~i a rectangularly-sh~ped parcel
uf 'land consistir.g of approximately 6540 ~quare feet located on the southwest
c~,rner uf Arlington Avenue and Minteer 5treet and further desci:ibed as 1249
North Minteer Streets ~.-nd does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upo~~
finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any
comments teceived duting the public review Frocess and further fin~ing on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that ~here is no
subatantial evidence that the project will have a sign~ificant effect on the
environment.
3/19/84
MINUTESi ANAHEIM G2TY PLANNING CpMMISSIUl. MARCH 19, 1984 84-134
Commiseioner Nerbst offered Resolution No. I~C84-47 and moved Eoc ita paesage
and adoption that the Anaheim Cit,y Planniny Commiasion does tieceby deny
Conditional uue Permit No. 2544 an the baais th~t it wauld be creating A
businese in a residential area and the plans dc not ahow Adequate Lactlities
for thirteen ~eople with no dining room proposed and nat enough bathroom
facilities and this would b~ over-buildiny thc property for this Area and on
the Uasis that it wuuld be detrimental to ihe pe~ce, health, ~a£ety and
general welfare ta the citizena oi the City of Anaheim.
On r~ '' 1, the foregoi.ng reao.luti~n was pASSed by the followir~g vole;
qY};:. IiUUAS~ BUSHURE~ FkY~ HENBS'1'~ K1Nv, IaA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOBS: NUNE
ABSENT: NUN~
Jack White, Assistanr City Attorney, prescnted tF~e written cight to ~ppeal the
P14nn~r~y ~ommission's decision within 22 days to the City C~uncil.
Et~CES5: 3:05 p.m.
RECONVF.NE: 3;15 p.m.
ITEM N0. 14, EIIt NEGA'PIVE UECLARATIUN AND CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2545
PUBLIC H~AkING. UWNERS: SAN7'A BARBARA SAVINGS 6 LOAN ASSOCIATIOt~~ P.O. F3~x
30290, Santa Bacbaca, CA 931U5. AGENT; AMEGIA R. LEWIS, 831 "D' Lar Lomas
Dcive, La }iabra, CA 90631. F~ro~ecly described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of ap~~rc.ximately 6.5 a.cres located at the northe.st
corner uf Caronado Street and Jef~erson Street, 120U "K" North JefEerson
Street.
To pecmit a take-out ~andwich shop witt~ off-eale beer and wine in the ML Zone.
Thece was one per.son indicating his presence in upposition to subject request
and although~ the staff report was not read, it is re£ecced to and made a part
of tl-e mi~utes.
Amelia Lewis, ~gent, was pre~ent to answer any questions.
George Johnson, 1200 'M' Jeffer~on, Anaheim pcesented a petition signed by
membecs oE their condominium group in opposition due to the fact tl~at the use
is incompatible with their busin«~sses and their CC6R'a indicate the uses
should be ligh~ manufacturing; that ri.ght now there is plenty of` parking, but
when the other units ace sc~ld, there will be a lot of parking problems. He
added there are ather eatiny estahli~hments in the neazby area and also th~re
ere c~tering trucks and p~:ople can bring their lunches so he did not think it
is neccssary for khis type facility to be ~n their neighborhood.
Ms. Lewis stated st~e was sure there are ample parking spaces and that she
plans to generate busine~s from walk-in cuetomers in the neighboting area and
the people will buy their sandwiches and take them out. She stated she did
not see anything in the CC&R's that prohibit thic use.
THE PUBi.IC H~ARING WAS CLOSED.
3/19/84
MINUTBS, AN~HBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSSUM, MAI;CH 15~19d4 84-.135
Commt~sioner Buahorr stared when tne Commiasion Apprnved this indastrial
condorninium pro7ect, they gave input into the CC&R'~. He asked about tT~e
1lability of .eiling beec and win~ to an employe~ who miyht go k>ack to aork
slightly incapacitated from drinking, po.inting out this ia an induatrial zane.
Ms. Lewio staked she had investigated with a lot of sandwiah ahop owners And
they did not sPem to have a problem with this t}•pe thing. She stated i,t
aomeone wants beer an~ wine, whether it is off-sale or on-snle, the risk w;.uld
he the 8ame. She statpd they would nAl have tables, so would onl,y g~t the
businesa from those people who want L-o kake ti~e foo9 oul.
Annik~ Santalahti, Assistant Dic~ector Eor Zoning, reaponcfed to CommiFSi~ner
8ushore that only individual oWners ace notifi.ed since the tax asseasor's
calls are used f.or natiiicati~~i.
Commissioner Nust-ore stated this is the type of thiny that is nrL wanted in an
industrial area and when there are near5y industrialists sayin; they do not
want beer and wine in the area, it confirms wt~a~ he and C~mmiscioner }iecbst
have bepn saying all along.
Commissioner Ne~bst stat.eu beer and wine do nor belon~ in the induvtrial acea;
that r.here ace people who ar~ known alcoholics and in ris pacticular business,
thib is very danyer.ous. He clarified that wine wou.ld be taken oul• by the
bottl-:. HE stated he due~ not have a problem with the sandwicti shop, but he
does have a problem with the beer and wine.
Ms. Lewis s~ated sliP doey not want any ptob.lem~ and if there is a problem, r~he
would eliminate the beer and win~~ sales. Commissioner He F~st st~ted a
sandwich shop is allnwed in industrial z~nes becausfe the: s a need.
Commissionec La Claire asked a~hat would happen if the CC6k's Prohibit thia
type use and Cortunission appraves it.
Jack White, Assistant City AtCOrney, ~x~lained the CC&R's are a private
contract bekween the owners of the property which ~re subject to those
c~venanl-s; that the individual ownecs may have a cause for action to enfocce
them, but the City does not enforce deed restrictions or covenants and only
a~Nrove or deny rec~~ests on the basis of th~ 2aning Code snd it ic. poasib.le
that even though a use is allowed in the Zoning Code, the private contract may
exclude it and the~ City would not take a po~itian on the enforcement of chat
restriction and it; would be up to the indiviciual ow~ers, by private legal
council and readi'.ress, to enforce it.
Commissioner Elerbst stated the opposition was corcernad about the uses in the
complex, but Coc:~ does alluw certain uses in the industrial zone such as
banks, restaurar~ts an~ sanrlwich shops and through the approval of cQnditional
use permits, th~: Commission can add conditions such as not allo~ing beer and
wine to make thta use more compatible with tl~e other uses.
Mr. Johnson stated he thougl:t they were buying into a light manufacturing
area, but this would be turning it into a retail establishment with people
coming in and out. Commissioner Herbst stated the Code states if the uses are
compatiblE with ttie industrial uses or service the industrial uses, they could
3/19/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH ,19. 1984 84-136
bo Allowed. Mr. Johnaon eteted he ha~es ro aee the petikionEr apend her money
becAUSe they can fix it where ahe cdnnot yet any bu~iness from the industriel
ue~re.
Commissioner Buehore etated evecyone has the right to ask for whatPVer they
want in this country and he takea grear offenae to this kind of attitude. He
pufnted out the petitionet h~s agreed to eliminate the beer and wine and asked
staff to review the ociyin~l conditional use permit to see if a list of
approved uses wao it~clud~d in th~t approva.l.
Annika Santalahti atat~d the action of the Plannina, Commission would have been
for the waivec of lot line frontage unlf and Commiastoner.s La Claire and
aushoce thougnt this isaue wao discusaed at great lenyth and wanted furthec
information before acting on this requesk. Jack White stAted normally in
conjunetion with condominium projecta, the City Attorney's Office doea review
and approve the CC6R'~ for the pcoject and sincc this was an industri.al
development, it was hib recollection and belief that this was pr~cessed as a
parcel map rather than a tentative map and their off:ice would have looked at
the CC~R's Lor maintenar~ce, etc. and t~e would not have reviewed a list of uses.
Commissioner La Claire stated khe oppasition ~.s worried about the pa~king and
commercial intrusion into the acea And asked if thece is a par.king pr.oblem
there now. Mr. Johnsun replied only 22 of. the 56 uni~s are sold and there is
not a problem ak the present time, but when the other unit.e are sold, there
will be A problem. He stated they all bought into the com~lex thinking it was
for light manufacturing only. Ne stated in fact, when he started to purcha~e
his unit, the City asked what type phot.ographer he wa~ and wuuld not have let
him have the unit iF he had been a phokographer of w~ddings and portraits
because that would have been considEr~d a commercial us~. Commissioner
Bti~hoce stated he would like r.o aee this matter trailed tn later in the
meeting to review the pCevi.ous conditional uae pecmit to aee if apecific uses
wer~e pecmitted or prot~it,i~.ed.
Comrnissioner La Claire stated shP remembered saying that there would b~ a
Qroblem with the frontage un JefFerson with the inte:nal circulation, etc. and
thought there had been specific restrictions.
Chaitwoman 8ouas declared th~t thia matter would be trailed until later in ':he
agenda.
Following the heacing on I~em No. 1~, Commissioner Bushuce pointed out the
original cesolution for Conditional Use Permit N~. 2109 has the finding that
the petitioner stipulated that the purchasecs of each indivi.dual unit shall
sign an agreement indicating they have full knowledge that there shall be no
reteil sales of any kind conducted in these induatri~l buildings and that said
agreementa shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
issuance of final occupancy permits by the Building Division. He pointed out
th~se wece the concerns of the Planning Commis~ion at that time and that he
would consider a sandwich shop as retail sales.
3/19/84
MINUTES. AN~NEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCN 19. 1984 84-137
ACTION: Commisaionec Ruehoce offered a motion, eeconded by Commiasioner Pry
and MOTIUN CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion hea ceviewod the
propoaal to permit a t~ke-out aer-dwich ahop nnd off-eale beer and wine in the
ML (industcial, Limited) Zone on a rectanyularly-shaped parcel of land
coneieting of approximately 6.5 acres located at the nocl•heAat co~ner of
Coronado Stceet and JefEersor- 5treet and further deacriDed ae 1200 "K" Notth
Jefferaon Str.eet= and doec hereby approve the N@gatlv~ Decleration upon
finding that it has considered the Nega~ive Declaration toyether with any
commenta received during the public review procesa ~~nd further finding on the
b~sie of the tnitial 5tudy and any comment~ received that thece ia no
subatantial evidence that the project will have a eignificant etfect on the
environme~t.
Commissiuner Buahore offeced Resolution No. PC84-48 and maved for ita pa~eage
and adoptian thal• tl~e Anahefm City Planning Commiesicn does hereby deny
Conditio-~al Uae Permit No. 2545 on the basis that a take-out ~andwich shnp
with off-sele bee: and wine would be consideced retail saYes and rEtail salea
are prohibited in this complex and on the basis that th~ traftic genprated by
the proposed uae would impose bn undue burden upon the streeta and highways
designed and improve~ to carry traffic in the area, r~nd thp use would
advorsely affect the adjoining land uc~ea and the growth and development of the
area in which it !.s proposed to be locat,ed.
On cull call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: BUUAS, BUSHORE, ERY, N~RSSZ', KING, LA CLAIR~, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairwoman Bouas explained that Santa E~arbara Savinys and T.oan Associatiori,
owner~ of the property, should have informed Ms. Lewis that this type use was
prohibited. Ms. Lewi~ reaponded she had checked wittti the Planninq Department
to make sure this usP would be okay.
Comnissioner Bushoze pofnted out normally these uses are allowed in the
industria.l areas, but was prohibited in this specific complex.
Jack Whit~, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decisian within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEhf N0. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NU. 250 (PREV. CERTIFIED), WAIVER OF
CODE_ REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 7.546
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER5: BURNETT-EHLINE PROPERTIES, 205U Santa Cruz Street,
}100, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: SHAMROCK VENTURES, 14 Mountain View, irvine,
CA 92715, ATTN; JOHN T. HARTY. Froperty described as a rectangularly-s'r~aped
parcel oi land ccnsisting of approximately 3.8 acres, located at the northwest
corner of Orangewood Avenue and 5tate College Boulevard.
To permit a 12-story, 190-foot high commercial office complex including a
semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale alc~holic oeverages with waivQrs of
maximum structural he~ght and minimum structural setback.
3,~~.9/84
M:NUxES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSIqN,~ MARCH 19. 19$4 84-138
There was no one indicating theic presence in oppasition to subject cequent
and although the etaf~ report waa nat read, it ia referred to and made a part
of the minutRa.
~ack Harky, agont, pr~senteci elevetiona and eite plana t~nd steted this project
wss approved by the Hlanniny Comminsion in November 1981 and en extenaion was
approved in Decamber 1983. He explained the original pcojeGt wde for a
354,OU0 aquare foot, 15-story ~ommer~ial office building and this propnsal is
t~ dplit that into two buildings eo thet it is phased with 121,000 aquare feet
in Phase 1 and the balance in Phase 2. Ne atat:ed they fee.l they have achieved
some improvements in the floor plans and that pcimarily the reason f.or the
phasing is that 1Phase 1 is more Eeesible and achievable in today's market than
doing the whole project at onae and th~y will be able to lease the first
phase, attract financing ko the property and go int.o the second pha~e aa the
~r~ject provec itself. He atated they woulcl plan to etact conat•ruction during
1984. He etated the heigt~t ot the pra~ect has been ceduced from 209 feet to
109 fPet far Phase A and Phase 2 ia twelve stories at 190 feet. Mr. Harty
etaCed there ar~ varioua technical mattera whi~h have been diacusaed with
ataff and came of the conditions are different with thia proposal than with
the original proposal.
THE PUBLIC HEAItING WAS CLOSED.
Jack Wt~ite, Assist•ant City Attorney, skated he ha8 been made aware of a change
to Condition Na. 11 and that would be ta eliminate the wor.ds •i.ntroduction of
an ocdinance rezaning subject propecty" and adding the words At that same
location on line 20 'ieauance of a building permit for the propecty•; and a
second modification would be to add the following words tollowing khe r,oma on
line 41 (third line from the bottom) •together with the costs of the off-site
improvements required to be made by the cwner pursuant to C~ndition No. 4
hereuf, '.
t4r. Harty stahed those nodifications ko Condition No. 11 are satisfact~ry. He
referred to Conditiun No. 12 requicing that the owner shall execute and record
a covenant in a form approved by the City Attc,rney's OfEice wherein the owner
agrees not to contest any aforementionrd a~sesament diskricts and stated he
understands that covenant wi~l be prepared 'oy the City Attorney'8 pffice. H~
stated he has a copy ot- a previously approved agreement that was enkec~d into
on August 30, 1943, and asked xf this would be a similar agr~eement.
Jack White explained it will probably be similar to the or.e they curr~ntly
have a~d it relbtes to the asa~ssment di~trict. Ele stated Condition No. 11
discusses an improvement diskrict or benefit area which iA a alightly
different concept and it is meant that those would be two differPnt covenants
and whether they are incorporated into one document or not is not important,
but it would involve not only the assessment diatrict which is a statutory
provision to create districts where all the prop~rties within the area are
assesaed whether or not there is any subsequent builciing or development on the
property and that is Condition No. 12. Condition No. 11 re].ates ko the
creation of a benefit area which is meant to reguire developmental fees from
aubsequent ~wners and na~ from properties acrass the board whether or not
there is ~ny development. He added it is intended that a credit be made with
the owner under Condition No. 12 so he woul~ not be paying twice, so there are
actually twa covenants and the one the petitionec currently has i.s for
Condition No. ~2,
3/19/84
MINUTES~ A'VAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, MARCH 19. 19A4 94~139
Mr. Harty etated it i~ not cecke~n but it mAy be that th,e parking for Phase 1
could be ~~ccommodc~ted with surface parking witli f.he u:~e of r.eaipcocal
agrec~ment3r however~ those are not current].y ~vailabl~e, co a~ it ctanda today,
the ~arkiny clructure would be cammenced witti Phar~e 1~nci basicnlly one halC
af the parking skructure waul.d l,Q Uuilt wil•h Pha~e 1~nd the ather halE with
Yhase 2.
Joel E~ir.k, AssistanC Uicectc~r for Planning, stated sta[f would recommend that
the wordi.ng would be changed un Condition No. 23~ to read "that the uwner of
sut,ject ~~raperty ahall submit a letter requesting ~ermination ot Conditional
Use Permit Nos. 2U4U, 2265 and 2280 within 15 days follo~ing review or action
oE t.his conditional use per.mit by the City Council". He stAl-ed staff haa
infor.med the applicant of this change. Jacic White explained 1n 22 d~ys this
action will a~~ear. on the City Council a,yendo as ~n in[ormational item and if
it is not appealed by the public, the app.licunt or not ~e~ for a public
hearing by the City Council prior to th~3t date, it will automatically become
finAl on th~t date and the wording oE l•h~t conditio~~ should read, "within 15
days followiny appcoval of Cunditionr~l Use Permit No_ 2~56 becoming final".
Commissioner Herbst asked about the ~urfac~ parki~g and p'_ana for constcuction
oi the parking strucrure. Mr. Nacty explained r_eyarding Phase 1, they have
proposed an alternativ~e since they have to provide 4 25 parking spaces ei.ther
through surPace parking or r_hrough construction ot Phase 1 of the parking
structute and PhasE 1 of the parking atcucture would be one level be;ow gcound
and 2 ubove-ground levels and a r.oof and then when they go into Phase 2, Che
roof level would become the base for the next 3 level~.
Mr. Harty stated if they ace able to ~btain reciprocal parking agreements on
the neiyhboring lanc' Por Phace 1 and ar.e to provide enough spacez? (explaining
they ace about ~0 spaces short), khe proposal would be ta surface park for
Phase 1 and when they ate ready to start Phase 2, there wou.ld be a problem.
kie stated in resolvfng t2ie surface parking problem for Phase 1, as a~ractical
mattec, they would have to anticipate that Phase 2 s ituation and get enouqh
land so tFiat tt~ey could rip up tt~ose surface parking agaces when they commence
Phase 2.
kesponding to C:ommiss~oner Herbst, Mr. Harty stipulated that when they start
Phase 2 they will still provide the 425 spaces required Eor Phase i, either by
acquiring additional land or building the parking structure.
Paul Singer, TraEfic Engineer, pointed out no parking waiver is being
requested, therefore, no parking waiver could be waived administrakivelk•, so
at all times parking wauld have to be provided to meet Cocle.
It was noted that Environmental Impact Repoct No. 250 was previously certified
by the Plannin9 Commi~sion on November 30, 1)01, in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 81-82-9 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2265.
ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La
Claire and MOTION CATtRIEb that the Anaheim City p2.anning Cammission does
hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that ther.e are special
circumstances applicable to the property such as size, ahape, topography,
location and surroun~ing~ which do not apply to other identically 2a~ed
3/19/84
MINUTESt ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION` MARCH 19. 1984 _ 94-14_0
propecty in the same vicinitys and that etrict applicAkion of the Zo~ing Code
deprivee the property of privilegcs enjoyed !~y other pcopecties in the
identical zone and claesificatiun in t:~e vic,.nity.
Commisaioner Herbs~ offerod Resclution No. PC84-A9 and muved Eor ita passage
and adopkion that khe Anaheim City Plenning C~~mmisaion does hereby gcant
Conditionml Use Pecmit No~ 2546 purauant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and sub;jQCt to the atipnlation of the
applicAnt to provide parking ta Code cequirements ak all timea and subject to
Interdepartmental Cammittoe recommQndations including the modificationa ma~de
to Conditions 11 r~nd 23.
On coll call, the focegoing reaolution was pasesd by the following vote:
AYES; BUUAS~ 6USHOKE, I~RY~ HERBST~ KING~ I,A (.LAIR£~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NON6
ABSENT: NONE
IT~M NU. 16. EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION WAIVER pt' CODE B.E,QUIR~MENT AND
CONDITIONAL CSE PEkNIT N0~ 2548
PUBLIC HBARING. OWNERS : MAHMUUD R.E.L. KANAWE:Y, 26371 Av:~ry Parkway, Mission
Vie jo, GA 926~2. AGENT : MASARU KANBAYASHI, 909 t7. Anaheim fiouleva[d,
Anaheim, CA 92805. Propecty described as a recta~~gillarly-sl~a~ped parcel of
land consisting of 0.62 acre located at the northw~est cocner uf Balsam Avenue
aa~d East Street, 1175 North ~ast 5treet.
To permit a motoccycle sales agency and lot with waivers of mini.mum number of
par.king spaces and minimum skructural settaack.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppoESiti~n to subje~t request
and although the staff rep~cc was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
oE the minutes.
Ron Stikter, 1100 E. Whiting, Fullerton, agent, was present to ar~~wer ~ny
questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSGD.
Commissioner tierbst as Y.ed the purpose of the cement platform out front. Mr.
Stikter reaponded that would be usPd aa a display p?atform ~oc motorcycles,
etc.
Annika Santalahti, Rss i stant Ditector for 2oning, st.ated Code requires that
the permitted uses be canducted inside the building and calling khis outd~or
display would require a diff erent type of vatiance.
Commiasioner Herbs~ indicated concern that the platformed area could be
glassed in in the £utu re. Mr. Stikter stated the vehicles would be brought
out during the day and taken ~back in at nlght.
Commissionez Herbst as ked wh ere the vehicles wauld be tested, pointing out
there was a problem w i th testing them in the a11Py. Mr. Stikter atated he did
3/19/84
MINUT~S, ANAH~IM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 19~_19_64 84-141
not think they had any cerl•ain place for teAting the vehiclea, buC Chey would
normally look for a lesa traveled atreet. He stated if a person wa~ts to teat
e street vehicle which !a regiatered for atreet pucpoaes, it is pas~ible to
allow tt~em tn use the surf~ce streetsJ however, l•hey do not havP that
privileg~ if it ia an off-road vet~icle.
Commissioner Hecbat ntated he has no problem with the u~e, but there is a
~treet right behind the propecty whict~ could be used i~r teat driving the
vehicles which w~uld be ~xnnoying to the neighbors.
Commissloner King pointed out the conditionAl use per.mit could be cevoked if
there is a problem. Commissioner Bubhore suggeoted prohibiting the testing of
vehicles westecly on ealsam and stated based on experience, he felt the number
of vehicles ko be displayed on the 40 foot by 40 foot cement platform should
be limitFd to no more thAn 10.
Jack WhitP clarified that Chey ace talking about test driving motoccycles in
conjunction with a possible sa]e and it w~uld be encumbent upon the manager to
sa~~ they are reatcicted Erom dr~ving the vehi~l.es an salsam.
Commisgioner La Claire stated she would like to see the size of the platform
reduced and Commissioner Bushore thought limiking the number of vehicles to be
displayed would take cars oE the problem. Commissioner La Claire asked how
much area would be needpd to display only ten mokorcycles. She pofnted out a
waiver ~s being requested for that pl~tfarm and she tho~ght that re~uest
should be denied und t;~at the number of vehicles beiny dis~layed should also
be limited. She inBic,ated her conc~rn that another business could come in and
need that area for parking. Chairwoman Bouas pointed out they are re~uesting
a two-foot high platform in an arFa which would otherwiae be paved.
Commissioner La C'laire stated she would g~ along with the re~uest if. tt~e
petitioner would stipulate to only diaplaying ten vehicles.
Mr. Stikter explAined they would be displayiny r~otorcycles, jet skis,
three-wheel cycles, and faur-wheel vehicles such as dune buggies and indicated
he would agree to tt~e restriction of ten vehicles.
Commissioner Bushore stated the stipulation should limit the display to Len
vehicles in the setback area, not just the platform.
ACTION: Commissioner King off ered a motion, secanded by Cornmissioner Herbst
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to permit a motorcycle sales agency~ and lot with waivers of minimum
number of packing spaces and minimum structural setback on a
rectangularly-•shaped parcPl of land consisking of approximately 0.62 acre
located at the northwest corner of Balsam Avenue an~ Eas~ Street and £urther
desccibed as 1117 North East Street; and does hecety ~p~cove the Negativ~
Declaration upon finding that i.t l~as considered the Negative Declaration
together with any commen'ta received during the public review procer~s arid
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and ar.y co~nments ceCei~'ed
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will hav~ a significant
effect on the env~ronmertt.
3/19/84
MTNUTL~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMM_ISSION ___MARCH 19, 1984 ,_ HA-141
not tl~ink they hAd any cert~nin place for te~tirtg th~ vehicleF,, but they wouJd
nn~mAlly loak for a la8s trAVeled streel•. Ne stated iL a person wanta to keat
a etreet vehicle which is registe~ed for street purposes, it iR poasible ta
allow them to use tk~e surface stceetr,s however, they do nut have that
ptivilege if it is an off-road vehicle.
c:ommissioner Herbst stated he haa no p~oblem wi~h the uc~c+, but there is a
stceet righ~ behind the propecty which could be used for test driving the
vehicles which would be annoyirtg to the neighbora.
Commissioner King poinked o~~t Che conditionAl uae permit could i~e revoked if
thRre is a problem. ComtS~is~ioner l3ushore suggested prohibir.ing the teating of
vehxcles westerly on E3alasm And etated based on experience, l~e felt the numbec
of vehicles to be displayed on the 40 foot by 40 foot cement plattorm should
be ~imited ko no more thr~n 10.
Jack White clarified Chat they are talking abour. tesC driviny motorcycles in
conaunction with a possible sale Ai~d it would be encumbent upon the mAnager to
say they are reEtcictPd fcom drivtng the v~:hielea on Balsam.
Co~mnisaianpr La Cl~ire stated she wauld like to see the size ~f the plattorm
reduced ~nd C~~mmis~sionec Bushore thought limiting the numbEr c~f vehicles to be
disFlayed would r.ake car+e of the pcoblem. Commissioner La Cltiire afiked how
much area would be needed to di~play on]v ten motorcycles. She pointed out a
waiver ~.s b~ing requesGed for thut pl~tfocm and she thought that cequest
should be deni~d and that the nurnber of vei~icles being dieplayed should also
t~e 2imited. St~e indicated her concern that another business could cume in and
nPed that. aretl for parking. Chairwoman Bouras pointpd out they are requesting
a two-fool• high platform in an area which wo~~ld otherwise be paved.
Cummieaionet La Claice stated she would go alc~ng with the cequest if the
pet,itioner would stipulate to only displaying ten vehicles.
Mr. stikter explained they would be displaying t~otorcycle~, jek skis,
ttiree-wheel cycle~, and four-wheel vehicles such as dune buggies and indicated
he would agree to khe restciction of ten vehicles.
Commissioner Bushore stated the stipulation ahould limit the display to ten
vehicles in the setback area, not just the platforn;.
ACTION; Commissinner King of£ered a motion, seconde~9 by Commissioner Herbst
~nd MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Co,v-mission has reviewed the
proposal to permit a motorcycle sales agency and lot w~Ith waivers o£ m:nimum
number of parking spaces and minimum structural setback on a
rectangularly-shaped par~~~ of land conaisting of approxtmately 0.62 acre
located at the northwest corner of Balsam Avenue and East Street and further
described as 1117 North Erist Street; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon findfng that ik has consiciered the K~gative Declaration
toget!~er with A:y comments received during the public review process arid
furtner finding on the bASis af the Initia] Study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
3/19/84
MINUTBS, ANAHETM CITY PLANNINC COMMTSSiONl MARCH 19~ 1984 84-_142
Commisainner King ofERred a maCion, aecond~d by Commiseioner Herbet And MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim C~Cy Planniny Commisaion does hereby grAnt wai.ver
(a) ~n khe basie tha~ the pArking va~innce will nok ceuse an increase in
kraffic congestion in the tmmediate vici.nik,y nor adveraely affect any
adjoining land uses and gcanting of the parking waiver under the r,ondir.~ona
impoeed, if any, will not be detrimenr.al to the peace, health, eafety and
gen~ral welfAre of the citizene af the City of Anaheim ana granting weiver {b)
on the basie that denial would doprive sub~ect property ErAm pcivil~ges
en~oyed by other pcopecties in the same zone and vicinity.
Commissioner King otfeced Resolution No. PC84-50 and mUVed for its pa~sage ~nd
adoption that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commisaion doee herebX grant
Condikional Uae Permit No. 2548 on the b~~is tliat the pekiti~ner skipulated
tt~at no more than ten vehicles will be displayed in the 50-foot netbeck area
and there ahal.l be no teating af. vwhicle~ on Balsam Street in conjunction with
oalea and services and puraubnt to Anaheim Municipal Code Se~tion
18.03.030.030 ond 18.U3.030.035 bnd subject tu Interdepartmenkal Committee
recommendations.
On rol.l cAl1, Che foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; BOUAS, BUSHORB~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING, LA CI,AIRE, MC ~URNF.X
NO~~; NONE
ABSENT: NUNE
ITEM N0. 17. EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARAmION, WAIVER OP CGDE REQUIREMF.NT AND
CUNDITIONAL~~U5E PERM.IT N0. 2543
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PROJECT ANAH~IM, 2740 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801, A~TN; WARRF.N S. LIU. AGEN'I': SAN JOHN HUANG, 4790 B. Pacific Caast
Hiyhway, Long Beach, CA 50804. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel oE land Gonsic~tfng of appr.oximately 2.62 acres, <"740 W~st Lincoln
Avenue (AnahQim Town and Country Motel).
To permiL• a 4b-apace recreational vehicle park in conjunction with an existing
motel wikh waivers of maximum atructural l~eight, mini:num landscaped aetback
and required site screening.
There were thr.ee persons indicating thefr presence in oppositioh ~o subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
San John Huang, agent, explained the request is for a 46-space recreational
vehicle park in cnnjunction with an existiny motel and that the previous owner
had approval for a 38-space park which was nevec built.
Gacy Wooda, 2726 W, Lincoln, Anaheim, stated he lives on adjacent property to
the east and that he and three o£ the homeowners to the east feel that if this
is appraved, the mas~oncy wa11 r.a be builf. on the east ~hou].d be conatructed
totally on the petitioner's sidP of the property and not on the property line
so that their taxes would not be afEected and that the masonry wall should be
8 feet high as measured from the ground level because this R.V. park would be
open 24 haurs a day and could become a noise problem with waehing machines
3/19/84
MINUTES. ANAHEiM CITY PL~NNING CUMMISSION, MARCH_19, 1984 84-1A3
cunning eince t~e l~undry facilities will be located just a few feet fcom the
wall And alsu there will be a pcoblem with Che lights from vehieles acriviny
lAte at nlght:. Mr. Woods etated dirt has been p1AC~.d on the auhject p~operty
raiaing Che ~ycade l~vel between 3 to 5 feet, so if the wall was 6 feQt high,
measuced Lrcm the neighbor's propecty, it would only be about 1 to 2 feel• high
on their a~rie and the recreational vehicle occupants would be ~b~e to look
over m 6-faot wall. He ~tated many of thpir homer3 do not have ,eir
condl.tioning and during the eummpr the wi.ndows would b~ open and r~ois~ and
fumes would be a p~oblem. He referre~ to the 10~-foot setback urea to be
landscapeu on the eaat next to the residential homes, pointing ~ut the
petitionar has requeated a sekbar,k of between 3 to 22 feet and they wauld
request that the setbACk be kept at 10 feet minimum because of noire and
exhaust fumes.
Mr. WoodA referc 9 to the restroom And laundry room pcoposed And su~gesked
that sh4uld be built closer to the western property line since there is a
parking lot adjacent to the property ~n that ~id~~. He asked why the reotcoom
is to be 14 L•eet 6 inches high and Asked whF,t the 4-foot building would be
uaed for adjacent to the eastecn praperty line. He pre3onted photogrnphs of
th~ weatern eide and pofnted ouk the propel:ty i~ about 4 to 5-feet highec than
th~ ground level on the we~tern side and khat the same condition exists on the
eaaterri side. He expla'.ned putting a 6-f~~ot wall on the pr.operty line would
only be ~ to 2 feet high and they would request a 4-font retaining wall with
~~nother 8-foot wall 1 foot away from t.ha'c retaining wall and that would
prahibit anyone from climbing ovec the f.ence into their backyard. He added
they realize the wall would be 8 to 10 Eeet high on ~hEir side, but thak is
what they want.
Kathryn Liveiy stateci ~he now t,as a w~.~ite rAnch fence on her property line and
it would have to be rAmoved on that E~:de of the property and khere is a
tremendous amount of shrubbery ~hat .;he Lhought would have to be removed. She
asked how high a wall can be 'oc a k~~asiness next t~ a cesidential property in
Anaheim.
Chairwoma~ Bouas stated a 6-€oat ft:nce ia cequired by Code and Cortunissioner
1Herbst stated a wall over 6 feet would have to be structurally designed and
the ~ESign would have t~ be ap,pcoved by the City. He exF~lained the wall would
be measured fr~m the higheat poir;t on subject property Mhich would make it
higher on the neighbor's side.
Mo. Lively stated she has lived there for 25 years and all the properties
between Magnolia and Dale were of the same grade level until the motel was
cnnstructed about 25 years ago and hundreds of loads of dirt were hauled in to
raise the level of that property and now her h~use in the cear is the l~+west
and she was worried about the dra~r.~ge,
Ch~irw~man Souas stated the j~etitione.r would have to make ceetain that the
property is properly drained. Ms. Lively sL•ated st~e is also concerned about
the restroom and laundry facilities because they are locs~ted on the east and
on the west there is a motel wfth a parking lot and she felt thet would be a
better location for those facilities.
3/19/84
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY P_LANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 19. 1984 84-143
running since the laundry tacilities wi].1 be lccated jusl a few feet from the
wall ~nd alsa there will bo a prablem wlth the lighta from vvhicles arriving
late aC night. Mr. Woads atated dirr. has been plACed on the eubject prnperty
reioinq the grade level between a to 5 feet, so if the wall was 6 fee~ high,
meaeured from the neiyhboc'a ~cop~rty, it would only be about 1 to 2 feQt high
on ~hair ~idp and Ghe recreational vet,icle occupAnts would be able to look
over a 6-Ppot wall. Ne~ statod many of their iiumes do not h,ve air
conditionfng and during the summer the windowa would k~e open and noi~e and
fumes would be a problem. Ha referr~,d to the 10-foot• aetback area to be
l.andscuped on the east next ta the r~$iciential homea, pointing oul tho
petitionec has requeated e setbnek of betwepn 3 to 22 Eeet anc9 they would
cequest tht~t the sntback be kepL at lU feet minimt~m becsuae of noise and
exhaust fumes.
Mr. Wocds referre~ to the centroom and laundry room proposed and suggested
that should be built closer to the wec~tecn properly line since there ig a
parkiny lot ad~a~ent to the property on that side. He asked why the reatc~om
is to b~ 14 feet 6 inches t~iyh and Asked what the 4-£oot buil.ding would be
used fc~c adjacent to the ea~tern property li~e. He presented phot~~graphs aE
the we.~~:ern side and pointec9 out the pcoperty is about A ko 5-feek highec tlian
khe ~v~ ~:!und le•vel un the western side and that the same conc~ition exists orn kh~
eaF~t~;~-~r, side. He explained putting a 6-foat wall on the propecty line wauld
or,_ -;., i tc~ 2 fe~• high and they would reques~ a 4-foot retaining wall with
a~t~ ~h.:; .~5~-~~aot wall l. Loot aw~y from that retaining wall and that would
F~:•-->:-:..>>iL s~~:~onP fsom climbing ave~ the fence into their backyard. He added
-t~,~t. r.wa:.~i,:~ the wall wuuld be 8 to 10 feet high on their side, b~t that is
~.,:,~- ~r-~x want.
-.;,rrti.~~, Lively stated she now ha~ a white ranch fence un her property line ~nd
.:; ~o~~d i~ave to be remaved on that side of the property and there i.s a
=r.~ndous amaunt of shrubbery khat she thought would have to be removed. She
::~~-~! how high a wa]1 can be ~or a business next to a residentfal properry in
•~ur~e,+rn im,
~~rw,tirwoman Bouas stated a 6-foot fence is required by Code and Commissioner
t~~rt~st stated a wa1~ over 6 feet would have t~ be structurally designed and
:;~ne design waulc~ have to be approved by thQ City. He explained the wall would
re measuced Erom the higheat point on subject property which would make it
.:~:gher on the neighbor's side.
!~s. ~i:ely stated she has lived there for 25 years and all the propexties
betwe_n Magnolia and Dale were of the same grade level until the motel was
constructed about 25 years ago and hundreds of loads of dirt wQre hauled in to
raise tt~e level of that property an~i naw her house in the rear is the lowest
and she aas wocried abaut the drainaSQ.
Chafrwoman Bouas stated khe petitioner would have to make rertain that the
propecty is pcoperly drain~d. Ms~ Lively stated she is also concecned about
the restroom and laundry facilities because they are located on the ~ast and
on the west there is a matel with a parkirig lot and she felt that Nould be a
better Iocation for those facflfties.
3/19/84
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CxTY PLANNING COMMISSLONI MARCH .19~ 1984 84-144
Mary Woods, 3736 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, st~to~ nhe would like to hav_ an 8-foot
wall.
Joe Kitaahima, acchitecl, 1920 E. Katella~, Orang9, atated regarding thp grade
tt~at they did make a topoyraphic survex af the propetty and du realize that
the rear af the property is quite higti and the consulting engineers have
indicated there ia a tlood control easement in the rear nE the pr~pecty and
that is where most of the surf~~~ drainage has to go, s~ the grade has to be
lowered considerably to almost the same lRVel as the neiqhbor~. Regarding the
fence, he aL•ated Planning staff indiceted the minimum neight of the wall would
have to be 6 feet and they had requested a waiver fot the rear of the property
because oL the easement and there is no cesidentiul development in that
location and a concrete block wall. would have a tenoncy to c~use a drainage
problem. He atated if the neiqhbors have tin objection to the noiae, L•hey du
have A minimum Aetback from the property to the R.V.'s of appcoxim~lely 35
feet and they wuuld plan to p.lAnt shrubs in that gr:aenbel.t areA and the owner
would have to speak for himself regarding tlie 8-foot high fence and if t~e
agrees, it can easily be done. Fle reEerred to the location of the cea~room
and laundry facil,lties and stated that could be easily celocated to th~
opposite aide of the propPrty and ~k~ted they intend to cut the roof height
down at the highest peak from the grade to no higher than 12-1/2 feet and
intend to reduce khe size of the building.
THE PUBI~IC HEAR:[NG WAS CLOSED.
Commisrsior.er Herbst asked if Engineecing had r.eviQwed the situation wit1~ the
drainage into the Elood control ditch. Jay Titus, Uffice Engineer, responded
he had not r.eviewed the situation in detail, but it appeara that there is some
space between the cear of this property and the tlood control channel and they
would not be permitted to just surface drain from their property onLo someone
else's property and they would be required tn put the drainage into some kind
of collection drainage system and thPy w~uld need permiesion from the Flood
Cantrol District to drain inko that channel.
Commissioner Herbst stated trees and stirubbery da not block soun~ and noise
and he did not think a 6-foot wall would block the noise and an S-foot wall is
necessary and very important.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Code actually provides that 6
feet iR khe maximum and the minimum height in thir~ particular situatfon and in
order to construc:t a wall higher than 6 feet as measured on the subject
propecty`s side, a variance would be required and the -natter would have to be
readvertiserl. He~ suggested the matter be continued so that that waiver could
be readvertised zind also it mi~ht allow some redesign c~ the plans tc meet
some Qf the othei~ problems.
CommisAioner Elerbst agreed and thought an 8-fcok wall would be necessary
because this would be a 24 hour a day operation.
Commissioner Bushore stated there ie an overhang of some considerabl~ distanc~
on some trailera and motriiehomes from where the wheels are located and if the
space was not lat~3e enough, the tenancy would be to have that portian overhang
right up to the fc~nc2 and he thought the plans approved for the 38-space park
~/19/84
MINUT~S ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CdMMISSION MARCH 19 1984 84-1a5
in 1977 probably inc.luded thal 10-foot setback. tie atated an 8•,foot wall
would just bacely be enough bec~uee tl~ese motorhomRa cCU~d still look over the
fance.
Commission~r Herbst suggebted Cypress treea which would grow to 20 feet high
be planted on the eaet side and clarified he ia anly concerned with the 8-foot
fence adjacent to the homes on the east. He stated aince thR mattet has t~ be
readverkised for the variance far an 8-foot wall, I~e would auggest revision of
the ~lans to move tt.e reetcoom And lAUndry facilitiea to the west side and
also th3t so~e landscaping of Cypress treea on 5-foot centera be planted along
the 8-foo'~ wall. Mr. Hau~~g agceed th~t a continuance wauld be in order.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offeced ~ motion, seconded hy Commiaeioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIEA, thAt considerat,.~n of the aforementloned metter be
con~inued to the Gegularly-scheduled meeting of April 2, 1984, in order ta
readverti.se a waiver and for the petikioner to aubmit reviaed plans.
Prior to voting on the above motion, Commissioner Herbst auggested the
petitioner show the plans to the neighbors prior ko the meeting and maybe they
would not t~ave to come down and apend their time at the meeting.
Cammissioner Bushore stated the plans appcoved in 1977 far the recreational
vehicle pack were basicall,y identical to these plans and asked if all three
utilities will be provided. Mr. Haung respo~ded that full utilities will be
provfded in all spaces. Commissioner Bushore ~uygeated an ~greement that the
maximum stay allowed would be 2~ dayo and Mc. liaung replied that would be
reasonable. Commiseioner Bu~hore po~nted out the petitioner would have to
collect transient ~,ccupancy tax. Jack White stated ff the zoning limitation
was that no one would be allowed to stay longer than 28 days, then no one
would be exempt from the tax since it is collected ~vec,yday frorn every vehicle
on the premises.
Cortunisaioner Bustiore explained the concern is that reaidents could become
permanently established if they are allowed to st~y longer..
Commissionec King pointed out that no pre-mAnufactured homes would be allowed
and thfs would be restticted to recreational vehicles.
ITEM N0. 18. ETR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3382
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: MYUNG-SHIK YUN AND KUM OK YUN, 727 South Beach
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804. Pr~~erty described as a rectangularly-sha~ed
parcel of land conaisting ef approximately 1.3 acres, 727 South Beach
Boulevard (Quality Inn Mntel West).
Waivers uf m~ximum sigr. height and minimum stxuctural seL•back to retain a
freestanding sign and entrance canopy.
There was rio one indicating their presence ;~~ opposition to subject requQSt
and althou~h the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Myung-Shik Yun, agent, was present to answer any questions.
3/19/84
..~
MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 19, 1984 84-146
TNE PUBI,IC HEARING WAS CLOSEG.
Commissioner 9uehore ~tated he had cevfewed these signs and this goes againat
everything the Commiasion has tcied to establi$h in terme Af heights of signs
and noted the propprty ~e not ircegularly-a~aped und thece is no reaaon for
such an excea~ive height. Ne cespondod to Ca~miasioner King that there are nu
other signs this high in the area.
Responding to Cornmiasioner Herbst, Mr. Yun explained the sign company was
auppoaed to take care of the permits end he had gotten a permit irom the City
of Anaheim.
Annika Santalahti, Ae~istant Director Eor Zoning, stared a pecmit would have
said that the sign must be correctly lncated oc else it w~uld have indicated a
vaciAnce would be necessary.
In reviewing the pecmit, Commiseionec La Claire atated it appeacs the permit
is for a siyn at 25 L•eet high and nut 42 feet.
Mr. Yun stated ~he letter he received from the City ~~f Anaheim was after the
sign w~s ~onatructed. Jack White, Asai.stant City Aftorney, ~tated it appear~
tne drawing su~mitted to the Planning bepart~^pnt :~as the height information afi
is being requested; however, there is a legend on the ap~roval stamp that
indicates that the approval is given with~ut authority to viol~te any
provision of the Code and that the applicant for the permit proceeds at his
own risk. He added there is also a provi~i~~n in the Zoning Code that provide~
thak any Building Permit that is issued in vtolation of a provision of the
Code is null and void, so the Commission has the latitude ko still deny the
request. He explai.ned the City has a auper-stAmp permit approval which
indicates that permits are issued without expresely checking every detail, if
that ie the way it ia requestedJ however, if the owner gets that type of
permit, it is with the unders~.anding that he is proceeding at his own risk, if
he did, in fact, aubmit plans that violate Code.
Chaicwoman aouas stated the sign company should have known that they were
proceeding at their own risk. Commissioner La C1airE asked if Quality Inn has
specifications foc the height nf signs they want t~ install. Mr. Yun stated
they do have sign standards, but they haae to also comply with City Codes.
Commxsai~~ner La Claire asked iF the sign is made up f~r the i~dividual
operatc:~ or if they aKe ordered from Quality Inn. Mr. ~un replied that the
h~tel is a franchise from the Quality Inn and explain~d they haye Quality Inr.
sign standards and he had a aub-contractor for the sign and that it had to
meet City Code and Qual:ty Inn standards.
Commissioner La Claire stated she Felt the main structural setback waivers
should be discussed. G~eg Hastings explained the canopy is not a permitted
encroachment into the 10-foot setback requirement alang eeach BoulPVard. He
added there are two separate structures on the property and a sign is a
permitted encraachment into thz setback and the Commission is only dealing
with the hefght o£ the sign and with the setback 4f the canopy.
The Commission briefly revfewed the plans and Commissioner La C?aice stated
she could agree with allowing the canopy. Greg Hastings ex~lained it is a
3/19/84
MINUTES_~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, MARCH 19, 1984 84-147
metal f•rame with canv~a at the entranca to the reataurar,t. Commissioner La
Cluire statea the aigning is something the City h~s been trying to keep down
and that is the reason foc ~he ordinance.
Commis~ioner Hecbst point~d out this petitiun is the result of action taken by
a Bu~lding Inapector, After the constructed siqn exceeded the height on the
plans submi~ted to the duildl.ng Division. He stated he thought tt~ey had put
the sign up knowiny it waa .tncarrect anc9 lhe Building Inaper.tor caught it.
it was nated the Planning Director or his authorized repre~entative ha~
determined that the propoae~ pro~ect falls witl~in the definition of
CAtegorir.al Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, theref.ore, cati~gorycally exempt from the reyuirement
to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbat offered Resoluki~n No. PC84-51 and moved foc its
passaye and adoption that the Anaheim Cit;r Planning Commiasion does hereby
grant variance No. 338'l, in paxt, denyin5 waiver (a) or~ the baBis that the
construction of the aign was in violation of the plans submitted to the
Building Department and that there are no special cir~:umstan~ea ap~licnble to
the property such as size, ahape, topograpl~y or location of sucroundings whi~h
do not apply to other identically zoned praperty in khe vicinity and that
strict application of the Zoning Code would not d~ny the property of
privileges enjoyed by other propert.ies in the sam~ r.oning classification; and
granting waiver (b) on the basis that stcict: appllcakion would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other proFecties in identical classification
in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartme~tal C~~mmittee recommendations.
Mr. Yun stated the sign company had gotten th,e per.mit £rom the City ~f Anaheim
and he did not know it was improper. He stat~d the plans submitted to the
City show the sign at 42 feet. it was noted t:he stamg indicates that the
permit does not give the holder the ri.ght ~o violate any provisions of the
Code and that the owner would pror.eed at his owrt risk. He staked there is
another sign on the same block which ir higher than this one.
Commissioner Bushore exglained the proceduce fUr getting the super-sta~p
approval to go ahead with construction and stated the holder of the permit
signs an agreement that t~e understands that the plans were not checked and
that he might have to make a correction if mir3takes are found.
Commissioner La Claire stated the other sign on the same block could have been
constructed before the City's sign ordinance in 1972, or could be located on
County property. Commiss~oner eushose stated there could have been special
circumstances and a waiver granted for the ather sign.
The cesolution was clarified t•~ be granted in part, denying waiver (a) and
gran~ing waiver (b) and Condition No. 3 would be modified to provide
additional language indicating 'except the freestanding sign a:; shown on the
plans shall be reduced to comply with mini.mum height standards of the Anaheim
Municipal Code".
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote:
AYES: BOU~S, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING, LA CLAIREi MC BURNEX
NOES: NONE
ABSEN~: NONE
3/19/84 _.~.. ~
MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 19. 198•! _ 84-148
Jack Whito, Asaietant City Attorncy, pre~hnted the written right ~. appeel the
Planniny Commfesion's deciRion within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NU. 19. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 203 (PREV. CF.RTIFIED~ AND
TENTATx'~E MAP_OF_TRACT NO ~9602~ REApVERTIS~D
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GUNSi'O:J HALL COMPANY, INC.. 380 Anaheim Hills Road,
Anaheim, CA 92807. AT7N: GEORGE MASON. AGENT: LIND AND f~ILLERUD, INC.,
2065 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 91108, ATTN: JQHN SAItRACINO. Property
described as an irreaularly-shaped parcel of land consiAting of approximately
23.7 ~ctes, having a frontage oE apptoximately 1,275 feet on the south side of
Nohl Ranch Road, rapproximately 400 feet west of the centerline oL And~ver
Drive.
7'o rp-establish a 49-lot, RS-H5-10,0U0(SC) Zone single-family aubdivision.
There was no one indicatiny their ~cesence in oppositi.on to aubjeat tequest
and althouyh the staff report was not tead, it ia referCed ko and made a pa[t
of tiie minutes.
John Sarracino, agent, stated this request is to re-establish Tract No. 9602
which expired in February and that the conditions are basically the same,
except No. 24, and pointed out the grading has been done and the storm drains
installed and the stceet grades were approved.
Jay Titus, Office Engineec, stated he thought the grades were approved by the
~ixe Department because this was the original r.ondition.
,Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, suggested the condition should be
retained and if there is a problem, the petitioner can return to the
Commission fo!- niodification.
THE PUBLIC HBARING WAS CLOSED.
Jack White suggested changea to three conditions to cead as followa:
(2) prior to final map approva~, the owner of the property shall record a
covenant against the property in ~ focm approved by the ..it:y Attorney
agreeing tkiat..
(:~7} prior to final map appro~al, the owner of subject property sha.il record a
covenar': against the property in a furm approved by the Czty Attorney
guaranteeiny that..
(26) Tk~st Reclassification No. 77-78-1 shall be completed prior to final map
approval.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Herbst
and MOTION Ct,RRTED, that the Anaheim City Planni~ng Commission does hereby find
that the proprsEd subdivision, together with it~ desfgn and improvement, is
~onsistent witt~ the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code
Section 56473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4602
for a 49-lot, single-family subdivision sub~ect to the following conditiona:
3/19/84
MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNI'ttC COMMISSION, MARCH .19. 198~ 84-149
l. Tt~at ahould thie subdivisio~~ be doveloped as more than one
subdivieion, each aubdivieion thereof ahell be submitted in
tentetive Eorm for appcoval.
2. That in accocdance witt~ City Council policy, prior tn finel mAp
approvel, the owner o£ th9 pcoperky shall rec~rd a covenant egdinet
the proporty in a Eocm epproved by the City Attocney Agreeing that a
6-foot high, open decorative wAll shall be constructed at khe top of
slope on the north and northweat trect boundery sepacating Lat Noa.
1 through 12 from Nohl Ranch Road pcior to final building inapection.
3. That all loka within this troct ehall he served by underground
utilities.
4. 7'hat prior Co final t_act ma~~ appcoval, the nriginal documents of
the covenants, conditians, and reatrictions, And a letter addresaed
to the developer'a title company authorizing c~cordation thereof,
ahall be aubmitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by khe
City Aktorney'a OFEtce and Engineering Divieion. Said documents, as
approved, will then be filed snd recocded in the Office ~f the
OrAnge County Recocder.
5. That prfor to final tract map appruvAl, street names shall be
approved by the City Planning Department.
6. That ~emporary street name aigns aha11 be installed prior ko any
occupan~y if pecmanent street name signs have not been installed.
7. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate water asseasment
fees ahall be paid to the City of AnAhe•:m, in an amuunt as
determined by the Office o~ the Utilil•ies General Manager.
8. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
recreati~n iri-lieu feea at~all be pefd to the City of AnahPim in an
amount as determined by the City Council.
5. That prior to issuance of a building peKmit, the appcopriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid t.o the City of Anaheim in an
amount as determined hy the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
10. Thet prior to final tract map approval, the owner of subject
~ropecty shall pay khe appcapriate drainage as~essment fees to the
City nf Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Engineer.
11. Tt~at drainage of ~ubjeat property shall be dispased of i~ a manner
satisfactary to the City Engineer. If, in the pr.eparation of the
site, sufficient grading is required to necesaitate a grading
permit, no work an grading will be permitted between October 15th
and April 15th unleas all required ~ff-site drainage facilities have
been installed and are operative. Positive Asaurance shall b~
provided to the City that such dcainage facilities wi11 be completed
prior to October 15th. NQCessary r:ght-of-way for off.-site drainage
facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or thP City Council shall
3/19/84
MINUTE$~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONr M~RGH 19~ 1964 84-150
have initietAd condemnetion Proceedinge thecefor (th~ coste of which
shall be bocne by the developer) pciar to the commencement of
gceding operAtiona. The required drainege fACilities ahell be of a
size and type euffic~ent to carry runofE wetere originnting from
higher propecties ~hraugh eubject property to ultimate diapos~l de
epprcved by the City Enginoer. Said drainage facilitiss ahall be
tf~e firat item of constraction a~d shall be completed and be
functionel througliout the tract nnd from the downatream b~undary of
the property to the ultimate point oE diaposal prior to the ieauance
of any final building inapections or accupancy pecmite. DcAinage
dlstri~t reimbursement agceements may be mAde available to the
developers of said property upon their requ~st.
12. That ysAding, excavdtion, and all other construction ~ctivities
shall be con~ucked in such a manner so as to minimize the
Fossibilfty of any ailt originating from this project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating fram or Elowtng
through this project.
13. That prior to final tract map approval, khe developEr of subject
tcact ehall enter into a special LacilitLes agreement with the City
of Anaheim for water faciliti~a in the High Elevation Syatem, as
required Gy Rule 15B of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and
Regulations.
14. That any specimen tree removal ~ha11 be subject to the tree
preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of Che Anaheim Municipal
Code, the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
15. That prior to commencement of etructucal framing, fice hydrants
ehall be inata2led and chazged as required and determined to be
necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depactment.
16. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire
Adminfstrative Ordec No. 76-01, ahail be met. Such requirements
inclu~e, but are not iimited to: chimney spack arrestors, protected
attic and under floor ogeninqs, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire resistive construction of horizantal surfaces if
located within 200 f~et of adjacent brushland.
17. That prior to final map approvgl, the owner of subject property
shall recotd ~ covenant against the propecty i~ a form approved by
the Cxty Attocney guaranteeing that ceasonable landscaping,
including itrigation facilities, shall be installed in the
uncemented poction of the parkway of any arterial akreet and any
interior or collector street where there is an adjacent slope to be
maintained by the Homeawnecs Associatfon. The Homeowners
Association shall asaume the cesponsibility for mainCenance of said
parkway landscaping.
3/19/84
MINUTEBj ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, MARCH 19, .1984 84-151
18. That the ownec o~ subject property shell execute and record a
covenant obllgating the HameownorR Asaoci~tion t o khe following
where dpplicable; maintain the landACaped porti on nf par.kwaye oE
arterial atreete (Nohl Ranch Road), pArkw~ys ed ja cent to Associatlon
maintaiR~d slopea and/or common ereas, and ell medi4n islande
installed in con~unction with soid subdivision e xcept thoae located
within 4rteriel streetat indemnify and hold the City ~f Anaheim
harmlesa for damagea resulting thecefromt and ma intain liebility
insurance for said packways and median islands n aming the City as an
additianal inaured. The Eorm of sdid covenant s hall be appcoved by
the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded concurrently with
the final tract mnp. The doveloper of the subje c t tract shall
improve and maintatn the hereinabove dea~rfbed p~rkwaye and median
islanda, including praviding the above apecifie~ ineurance, until
such time as l.^ Homeowners Aeaociation becomes 1 egally obligated
thecEfoc a~ herein~b~ve provided. Ttie developer ahall post a bond
in r~n amount and Eorm satisfactory to the Ciky of Anaheim to
guarantee pecformance oE the developec's ~bliga t ions hetein
describeci. Evidenco of the requiced insurance a nd b~nd shall be
submittzd to and approved by the City Attorney's OEfice pcior to
approvAl ot the finA1 tract map.
19. That Priar to final stseet inspections, "No park ing for street
sweeping' siyna shall be installed as requiced b v the Street
Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in ~cc~r dance with
specifications on file with said diviaion.
20. That the seller shall provide the purchaser of e ach residential
dwelling with written information concerning An a heim Municipal Code
Section 14.32.500 pertaining to 'Parking restric ted to facilitate
street sweeping'. Such wcitten information sha 1 1 clparly indicate
when on-street parking is prohibited and the pen alty for violation.
21. That the developer shall irrevocably offer to d e dicate to the City
of Anahefm the reguirea easements for all public streeta within
subj~ct tract.
22. That all engineering requirements of the City o t Anaheim within the
public street eaoements within cub~ect tract inc luding preparati,on
of impcovement plans and in~st~llation of all imp rovementa such as
curbs and g~tters, sidewalko, street grading and pavement, sewer and
drainagz facilities, or other appurtenant wock s hall be complied
with as required by the City Engineer and ir- accorclance with
specifications on file in the Uffice of the City Engineer; and that
security in the form of a bund, certificate of d eposit, letter oE
credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisEactory to the City of
Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guaran tee the satisfactory
completion of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with
the City prior to final tcact map appr.oval, to g uarantee the
installation of the above-required improvements prior to occupancy.
3/19/84
MINUTES,__AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCN_ 19. 1984__ __ 84-15Z
23. mhat stteet lighting facil~tiea w ithin the putalic atceet eu~ementa
within aub3ect trect shall be in~ tellod as required by the Utilitie~
c~ener.al Manager in accocdence wit h apeci£icdtions on f•ile in the
OfEice oE ~Jtilities Genecal Manegec, a~nd that sec:urity in the Form
of a bond, c~rtificate of depoeit, lettec of credit, or caeh, in an
amaunt and focro satiefactory to t he City of Anaheim, shall be pobted
wi1:h khe City to guara~ntoe ~ he satie~~akary aompletion of the
above-menCioned improvements. Said security ehall be posted with
L•he City of Anaheim prior to final trsct map npproval. Tt~e
above-required improvements shal 1 bo installed prior Cu occupancy.
2A. That no public or private etreet gcndea ahall exceed ,108 except by
prior appcov~l of ttie Chief of t he Fxre Department and khe
Engineering Division.
25. That any 'flag-shaped" lota sha 11 have a minimum width of 20 f~et.
26. That ReclASaific~tion No. 77-78 - 1 ahall be completed prior to final
map approval.
27. That fuel bresks shall be provid ed as determined ta be neceseary by
the Chief of tlie Fice Department.
28. That prior to final tract map a pproval, the applicant shall present
evid~nce satiafactory to the Ch ief Bui~ding Inspector that the
residential units will be in cunformance with Noiae Insulation
Standards specified in the Calif orni,a Administrative Code, Tikle 25.
29. That prior ro issuance of build inq permil•s, the applicant shall
present evidence satiafactory t o ttie Chief Building inepector that
the proposed praject is in conf ormance with Council Policy Number
542 "Sound Attenuatian in Reaidential Projects•.
30. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 oE the
Anaheim Mur.icipal Code pertaini ng to the initial s~le of rPSidences
in the City of Annheim Planning A:~~ `~', Lhe seller ah~+ll ~covide
each buyer with writt1n in~orma':.ion c~ncerr~~::q the Anaheim General
Plan and the existing z~~ning withfn 30i; feet. nf the boundaries of
aubject tcact.
31. That prior to final tract map approvalr the applicant shall submit
ro the City Attorney'A Office f oc approval oc denial a complete
synopsis of the proposed fur.ct ioning of the operatfng corporation
including, but not limited to: the articles of fncorporation,
bylaws, proposed meth~da of ma n~gement, bondirsg t4 insure
maintenance of common pr.operty and buildings, and euch other
information as the City Attor ney may require Co protect the City,
its citizens, and the purchase rs of the project.
32. That a final tract map of sub ;ect property shall be submi.tted to and
approved by the City Council a nd then recorded in the Offiee of the
Orange County Recorder.
3/19/84
-_:~
MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCN 19~ 1984 84-153
ITEM NO. 2U. REPORTS ~ND R6COMMENDATIONS
A. VARIANCB N0. 2680 - RequeBt trom Herman and Dorothy Gallardo, far
tecmination a~ Veciance No. 2680, property locate~ at 777 North Anaheim
Boulevard.
ACTION; Commieaioner King offeced Resolution No. PC84-52 end moved for
its pnseage end adop~ion that the Anaheim Gity Plonning Commieaion does
hereby terminete Varibnce no. '1680.
Un roll call, the foregoing reaolution was p~ssed by the following vote:
AYES; BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, HERBSZ', KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONC
~ASENT: NONE
B. TENTATIVE MAP OF TItACT NU. 960~ - Kequest from John N. Sarracino,
Lind-Hillerud, Inc., for an exhension af time for Tentative Tr~ct No.
9601, property is located at the nar.theast corner oE Canyon Rim Road and
Fairmont Boulevard.
ACTION; Commissianer King ofiered a motion, seconded by Commis~~ioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIEU, that the Ar,aheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant a one-year extensfon of time Eor Tentative Map of mract Na. 9601,
to expire June 28, 1985.
C. iQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE (WITH7N TRACT NOS.
U98U ANU 10981) - Request from James E. Crosby Enyineers, Inc., for
.~~~~r oF hillside grading ordinance as it relates to the lo<.ating of a
~.ne at the top of slope wil•hin Trect Nos. 10980 and 10981. Property
i~ located south uf Santa Ana Canyon xoad, west of Weir C~nyon Road
within the Bauer RAnch areA.
Jack Whike, Ass~stant City Aktorney, explained Section 17,06.290 of the
Grading Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council after holding a public hearing and it
does not epecify that notice must be given and even though thia item
should have appeared as a public hearing, he would have no legal problem
if khe Commiss~on held a hearing rfght now.
Commissfoner Bushore euggested the matter be continued for two weeks and
advertised as a public heacing. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, explained
there is a time problem on this matter and a11 the petitioner is
re~uesting is a waiver for the location af the lot line at the top of the
slope for side slopes five feet in height and less.
Chairw~~man Bouas opened the publi~ h~aring and there was no one
indicatiRg any interest gresent.
Commissioner Fry felt inasmuch as the City Council has to hold a public
hearing, tie would have no prablem making a recommendation to Cuuncil.
Commissi.oner La Claire star.^:. Che aame cequest haa been granted on other
tracts in Anaheim Hills.
3/19/84
MINUT~S1 AN~NEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS_I.ON, M~RCH 19, 1984 84-154
Jay Titus reaponded tt~at the prPViously approved slopes were being
malntAined by a homeowner's associetian And were five Eeet or higher and
this request is foK alapes f~ve feet oc leso and they will be
individually maintained.
THE ~UB~IC H£ARSNG WAS CLOSED.
Jack White clarified currently the C~de doee not require an association
~o mainkain alopes les~ than five feet in height.
Commission~r Bushore asked if thia could be on a side yard abutting a
publfc stre~at. Jay Titus responded it could be if the slape is less than
five feet in height.
Commissioner La Claire skated one of the flaws in the Hillside Grading
Ordinance i~a that it does not allow the tlexihility for the lower olopes
to be maintninnd by the property owner and this pertains to side yaxd
:3lopes and ;it makes a lot of aense.
Cummiasioner La Claice stated it shuuld be made clear that a
recommenduti~n for appcoval of this request is not a recommendation to
change the ordinance.
ACTION: Commisaioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner k'ry and MOTI0~1 CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning
Cummiaeion does hereby recommend to the City Council that lhe Hillside
Gcading Ordinance be waived as it celates tn locating of a lot line at
the top of slope for side slop~s five (5) feet fn height c~nd lese within
Tract Nos. 109aU and 10981.
D. REQIJEST FOR ~`~~~.TCY DIRBCTION - Request fr~m Engineering Aivision for
policy direr.r.:;~ regarding the focmation of a mandat~ry homeowners
association Lo maintain landocaped slopes greater than 5 feet in height
within tract boundarfes.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
King and M~TION C.~RkIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Comtnission does
hereby recommend that ~',ty Council concur wi.th a policy regarding L•he
formatio~ ~" a mandatory homeowner's acsociation to maintain landscaped
slopes g~~.. .r than 5 feet in height within tract boundaries.
OTHER DISCUSSIUN:
The Commfosion discussed the Building ~~,_sian skamp as used ~~n the aign
permit discussed earlier today (Item tvu. 17) indicatin~ a lot of concern that
the holder of the permit be maue aware that they are precedinn at their own
risk even though they hAVe obtained a permit from the City. ~:~,mmissioaer
Mcaurney pointed out the stamp says 'in violation of Buildfng Codes' and the
sign was in violation of the 2oning Code and not lhe Building Code.
Annika Santalahti stated the sign permit clearly read& 25 feet in height and
she did not know why the drawing was different oz whether or not that was the
drawing submitted.
3/19/8~1
MINUTES, ANAH~YM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 19, 1984 84-155
Commiesio~er MaBur~ey etatod the plAn wae etamped and he thought Che pecson
who etatnped it should have checked it.
Commiseionec Eierbst referred to the etaff repoct wt~ich indicatee the ~uiiding
Inspac•.or caugr~t it because it wasn't in compl~ance with kho plans as
submik ed.
Greg Hastings explained when the Building Inapector did a fina]. Fuilding
inttpectlon, he noticed the aign did nut match the plan and at that point the
petitioner wRa told he needed a vaciance.
J~ck White explained the law clearly providee that. even if the pl~ns are
approved An~ a permit ia issued in error and it violates the Code, it does not
entitle the hold9r Lo keep it in vialation of the Code. He exp~ained the
reason for th~t rule is so that one indi~idual in the City, either
ir~advertently or intentionally, should never be in a position to unilatecally
decide, c~ntrary tu the Code, and Allow a atructure t~ be built which violates
the law.
Comm~ssioner Fry stated he felt the Building Divieion shou2d ~ve a aign m~de
up to explain that law because a novice at getling permiks would think if a
permit ia isaued that it is all right to go ahead and he did not think that is
faic. He added a permit ahould not be issued until thQ plane have been fully
revi~wed.
Annika Santalahti explained the normal proceduce for sign permits is
definitely to check zoning, and she did not know how thet exhibi.t was approved.
Commissionec McBurney stAted anyone can walk a permit through the process in
fifteen minutea.
Annika Santalaht.t stated in terrns of the overall number o£ permits that are
isHUed, this would rarely ever hnppen.
J~y Titus explained the "supQr stamp" pr~cedure was set up to expedite
acquiring permits and in Engineering they make eectain to tell the engineac
and the plan i~ stamped that the engineer zs totally responsib2e for the
accuracy of the plan and he did not think one engineer has taker~ advantage of
that procedure as yet.
Conunissioner La Claire s~ated she thinks the system is working well, but
suggesC•~d a stamp warning the developer that he cannot violate thP Codes. She
stated her concern ie for an individual homeowner and not a building
contractor.
Annika Santalahti stated building plans would go through a plan check
procedure~ but a sign is an over-khe-counter check.
Annika Santalahti stated there is the possibility of a mistake on anykhing
that is done and checked by a human being and the homeawner ia ultimately
responsible for knowing the law. She stated hundreds of these requests are
processed every week.
3/19/84
, '~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL1lNNING_CQMMISS_ION, MARCH_191 1984 84-156
Commissioner McBurn~y st~tod the major~ty comA through with contractors or
engineera and they know rhe procedurRS, and exple~ned Commiasion's concern ia
for the individual who daean't know.
Ron Thompson, Plunning DiKector, expleined thous~nds of permite are 1ASUed a
yeaz ~nd a mistake like thia would cstely ever happen.
Jack White stated he thought tl-e CommiA~ion is confueing the requirement that
the City can Eorce a propecty awner ko conform tu Codea with who may
ultimataly bear thp monetacy risk foc siach an error. He stated the City ean
compel A pro~erty ownec to comply with Zor~ing Codes, but this is not to eay
thet the properGy owner might nok hsve some redress somewhere as Lo who ie
ultimately re3ponsible for making thttt correctioit.
Rnn Thompson explained the khree diffecen~ pcoc~durea uged for ~ppravAl of
petmita or plane ~y tt-~ City af An~heimt ~) plans procesaed th~ough •Flan
Check'T (2) overµthe-cUUnter appravAlj and 3) the 'super-stamp' approval.
AUJOURNMENT: There being no further businese, Commissionec MeBucney offered
a mokion, seconded by Commissioner La Cl~ire and MOTION
CARRIED, that the meeling be adjourned.
Th~ o~eeti.ng w~s adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Respectzully submittea,
~~~ ~
Edith L. Harcis, Secretary
Anaheim City Planniny Commission
ELH : ltn
0037m
3/19/84