The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/02/13d Ctty Hall Anaheim~ Callfornia February 13~ 1978 REGULAR PIEE1'1 WG OF THE ANAf1E I M C ITY PLANN I NG ~OMMI SS l ON REGULAR - Th~ reyula r meeting of [he Anaheim City Plannin~ Commtssion wes celled to ME~TING orde~ by Ghalrinan Talar at 1:30 p.m.. Feb~uary 13, 197g~ tn thc Counci) Chamber~ a quorum be(ng present~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Talar COMMISSIONE R5: Ba rnes~ David~ Nerbst~ Johnson~ KinG~ Lln~ AL50 PRESENT - Jack White Deputy City Attorney Jay Titus Office Englncer Annika San talahti Asststant Qlrector for Zaning Jay Tashiro Asststant Planner Ed;~h Nerris Planning Commission Secreta~y PLEDGE OF - The Piedge of Alleytance ta the Flag was led by Canmissioncr Llnn. ALLEG I ANf.E APPROVAL OF - Commissione~ King off~red a motion~ seconded by Cam~issioner David THE MINlJTES and MOTION CARRIED~ that the minutes of che meeting of January 30~ 1978 be ap proved~ as submitted. ITEM N0. 9 E I R NEGA~IVE DECLARAT ION PUdll C HEARI NG. OV-~lERS : aUdERT AND BERN ICE SUE ONDI IONAL USE ERMIT N0. 1773 GROSSE~ 2421 West Edinger~ Santa Anm, CA 9~704. AGENT: F. EARL MELLOTT~ 2051 East Cer~itos, ~lnaheim~ CA 928a6. Petitione~ requests per~nission to ESTABI{S1~ A VE7ERINARY HOSPITAL WITH WAlVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AN~ (8) MINIMUM LANOSCAPEU SETBALK on property described as an trregularly-shaped parcel o'F la~d conststing <~f ap~roxtmately 2.7 acres having approximate frontages of 229 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 340 feet o~ the nnrth side of Rio Grande Driva. having a maximum depth of approximately 432 feet~ being located app~oximately 300 feet west of the centerline of Fairmon t Boulevard, and further desc~ibed as 6260 Santa Ana Canyo~ Road. Property presently classified GL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ IIMI~ED-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZQNE. Chairman T~olar reported the ~etitioner had requested a four-week continuance. Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Linn and MOTION CARRIEO~ that consideration of the aforementioned (tem be continued co the regular meeting of the Planning Comm(ssion of March 13~ 1978, at th~ request of the petitioner, 78~74 2/t3/78 MII~UTLS~ ANANEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Fabrua ry 13. 13;18 18~75 ITEM N~. 1 ~~VE DEGLARATIOFI PUBIIC IiEARING. OWNERS: R08UIE KAUFMAN AND GL I N N0. ~-7a ~ JAMES NARMAN MORGAN~ 3~t) SOU?H HARBOR BOULEVARO~ SUITE 510~ ANAIIEIM. CA 92805. Petitloner requests reclassiflcatl~n of property described as e recta~yulsrly-shaped p~rcel of land consisttng of ~ppr~xtmately 0.~ acre li~~ving apprextmato front~ges of 1)G feet ~~n tne south s(c1e ~f Soutl~ Street~ 2~0 feet o~ the ea~t slde of Ilsrbor aoulcvard~ ancl 200 f~cet on th~e west sidc of Helena Street~ and further dcscrlbcd as 130i) 5outli Ilarbor Uoulcvard~ from the R~~-7240 (aESIUEN7IAL. SINGLE- FAMILY) ZOI~C to tl~e CO (COMMf.RCIl1L~ OFFICE AIiO PROFESSIONAL) tONE. Tl~ere ~ere 11 prrsons Indfcating tf~eir presence in opposition to subject request, a~d althouyh the steff report to che Planninc~ Conxnission dateJ Februery 13~ 197~ was nnt read at the public heariny~ Ic Is refcrred to and madc a part of t1~c minutes. Jay Tashlro~ Assistant Planner~ reported that two lett~rs ex~~ressing opposition and a petltton in opposition contalning ~3 slgnAtures havs been racelved and are on file in the Planning Department. Ghalrman Toler slated thc Plannfng Commission haJ r~ceived coples of these letters and petitiun, Dan l. Rowland~ architect, 1Q~)0 NPSt La Palma Avenue~ Anat~elm~ indlcated that the owner~ James Morgan~ was present ko answer any qucstions and prescnted drawings ~f the proposed project. He stated they are propusin~}~ in tlie CO Zone~ to dcvelop a~rafession~) office bullding for the legal~ ene~inceriny~ archite:ctural~ and a;.caunting professions which will not be designed to accommodate medical practices. He indicat~:d access wi I I be provi~ied from South Strr.~~t anJ Harbor Boulev~rd, Ile pointad out tl~e area aligniny witli th~ allcy to ttie north wh(ch will have a masonry wal) excluding any parkiny or pedestr~i~n acccss frum tl~~ residcntiol street to the property itself; that p~rking has been provicled to ~upport the space avail~~ble in the builcii~g; that the proJect is within all codes of thc City ~f Anaheim; ard that ic is with(n the spirit o~ the CO Zone. He indicated the CO Zane was developed many years acao for Harbor Boulevard primarily~ since Harbor l3oulev,~rd wos beiny devc~loped in a spotty manner; that houses were being redeveloped for commerc~al and office use and not tn the best interests of the community and the nei,y-hborhood. He stated Ct~c CO Zonc states propercies along ilarbor Baulevard and other maJor thorouyhfares in the City of Anaheim which are too smail individually to support a substantial development that would have a long life rnust be assembled into one- half acre or ?.0~000 sq~are foot parcels to be developesl in the CO Xone~ and that houses in this area are on lots between G~t1~ and 7200 square feet and it takes tl~ree of those lots to develop in the CO 2one. He st.~ted area development plans were developed for Harbor kioulevard showing 1lmited access to Harbor Boulevard~ and th~t anyone using a restde~ce fpr commercial puraoses would fiave to dedicate access ~ights; there woufd be no driveways or aGCess points to Narbor Bouievard pxcepk for specific spots as indicated tn the area development plan, He stated the site presently iias a two and one-half story residence which is occupled for residen;ial purposes on a monthly bas(s, and that thcy are proposi~g t~~ remove that structure and put in a full-seryice building which w(11 have an elevator~ etc. He pointed out the various el~vat(ons af the proposed buflding on the exhiblts. He indicat~d this pro;ect I~as been discussed wlth the ~eopie in the neighbca~hood and that sorr~ are in agreement with tfie pro,ject a~d s~xs-e disagree. Ne presented a p~tition of 2/13/78 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM GITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ Fabruary 13~ 1918 7~'76 EIR NEGATIV~ U~CLARATION AND itECll1SSIFICA710N N0, 77-78-3~ (continued) rosldonts In the Immedlate area who dld not obJect tn l'he rcr~uest and rend those names and addressos. He polnced out the trefflc circulation for tl~is plt~n is very good and ttier~ would be Ilttle or no impact ~n the residents af the area; thot they arc p ropos(ny a 6-foot high concrete masonry wall witli lendscrpiny, street trees~ curbs and gutters and sidewalks which wlll improve the area. He polnted out that Ilel~ne Strect ts not a m.~jo~ thorauyhfare. Adrfan tienedict. 863 Soutli Nelena~ Anaheim~ prr.scnted a p~titlon in opposition contalnlnc~ 5~ !~ignt~tures uncJ read tl~e f~llowing staten~ent from the petition: "We~ tl~e undersigned~ wisl~ to express our oppos(tlon to thr. propose~ change in classific.ation of No. 7/-73-3~ to RS-7200 to C0. Thi~~ propos~d chenga to a commerclal zone in prop~rty lacated in a residcnti~l areA is not In keeping with the charACter ~f the neiyhborhood~ and those of us who are living ~n ti~ls nel<~hborhood wish to express ~7ur opposltion." Mrs. BeneJict indicated oppositlon was because they fclt tlits project was not (n keeping witli the character of the n~ighborhood; that I~elena Street (s a resldentlal ~treet with children and elderly people anci th~y would like to keep it residential, Mrs. Alice Anderson, 726 South tlerbar ~oulevard~ Andheim~ Indicated that the property in question presently is an eyesore anc+ ctiat Ilarbor f3ouievard needs bcautiful bu;ldings and she th~uqht this wauld bc a beautiful builJing, and r~ferred to otl~er buildtngs des(gned by Mr. Rc~wland. She stated she felt Ilarbor Boulevard wa~ going to go corm~erctal and that thi~ buildtng wittti a fence would enhance the praperties on Helena Street; that lt would be sa er; thAt presently there are no siJewalks ~r curbs; ch~at thls proJect wauld not ~d~1 traffit on Nclena since ttie entrances are on hi~rbor; and that the entrance to thls bullding would b~ opposite hcr hnme and st~c fclt the pro)ect would be exceilen[. MikP Cook~ b0~ South Nelena~ M al~eim~ indicatsd his property is directly acrass from the property being discussed and questioned how much higher the new structure would be than the exEsting structure~ and Fie was alsa conce~ned abouc the s(ze of the insets and the compositton of the proposed fence and thP landscaping proposed~ or, basically~ what he would be looking at from his residence. Mary Heidenreich, 81y South Helena, Anaheim~ indicated she f~ad lived at triis location far 1y years and that her property ad,joins tl~e subject p~operty~ and that she has no obJections to the project; that she knew the property was going to be developed and felc this would be a nice developmcnt and would not harm Nelena Street ar,d was better than the exisciny condition of the property. She indicated she gets futl ben~efit of the Junk that is prtsently tnrawn onto the property and felt the building with the fence would be an imarovement and would not harm anyon~. Johann K. Stumpf indicated he owned the property at b12 South Harbor 8oulevard, which is ad}ecent to subJect property a~d was concerned how this proJect woulei affect his proQerty. He asked ha~ far the fence would be f~om I~is property. Mr. Rowland stated, in reply to M~. Cook's queations~ that the proposed building is three stories In height and that by definitlon it wlli be 33 feet hiyh~ and that a 6-foot high~ orr~amental masonry wall with rythmic~nsets.approximately a feet by 7 feet, which a~e sufficient in size to accommodate a Ficus BenJamina at mat~rity. which is the designated street tree for Harbor Boulevard; that there will be a minimum amou~t of ground cover at 2/13/78 MINUTES~ ANANEiM ClTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 1~~ 19~~ 18'11 EIR NEGATIVE OCCl11RATI0N ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-3g ~cantlnued) that point; thst basicelly he wauld ba look~ny at e block wall wtCh Indentatlons for ornomenta) trees~, and ti~at flve trcas would be plsnted ~•ather than the deslqnated three. I~ answer to Mr, Stumpf's questions concerning the proucrty at E12 South flarbor Bouleverd~ Mr. Rvwlend indlcated the hause Is presently 10 feet away froo~ the property llne and 4Q feet from the screet. ~nd referred cu t~o pawer poles on Mr, Stumpf's slde of the property and Indicated t.he mas~nry wall would be constructed a~ that slde of the propsrty tho full lenyth of ttie ~aroparty, with landscapinc~ on the other stde~ but that hP could vlew the la~dscaping ir front of the building whlch ali~~ns wlth his front yArd. Mr. S tumpf I~ad a quos t i on rcyard 1 ng tlie re~nova I of h i s fence ~ and I t was po 1 nted aut tl~at the petitloner would not be taking ~ut his fence~ but t~e could remove it If f~e wished. Mr. Rowland r~ferrecl to tlie cxl~ibi ts an~t pointed out the open walk-tl~rough between thc buildinc~s. the landscaped cn~rt~ ancJ the location of th~ street trees and ins~ts of the fence~ the masanry wall whicl~ is aligned with th.e allAy across ttie screet, and the access polnts to the project. ~le sc.~ted trafflc rtavc~~~cnt in the praJE~ct would be at a minimum; that it would be basically a~3:0~-to-5:00 operr~tion and peaple would be parking and movinq thei~ cars ance or twice a day. He pointe:d out. that tlelena Street Is only one block long oi~d ttiere is no thrc~ugh traffic~ and he d(d nc,t fee) the pr~Ject would add any measurable trafflc to that street. James Mc~ryan~ the properCy owner~ indicated he liad c~wned the praperty for tl~e past ten years and this was the first proposal of ab~~ut 15Q offerr_d wfiich tic fel[ was feasible for thls slte. fle felt that witt~ the back port,ion fur perking and the front portton to be used for offices, it would be in keeping ~.itf, thc devclaprnent on Flarbor BoulevarC. He stat:ed there are scxne peoplc wha are elat~:d that somett~ing nlce is going [o be developcd on that propcrty. and that the people ~~n tlelen~~ Street wil) bs iooking et somethin9 much nicer than what is currently tl~ere. He ~..[ated Mr, Rowland wanted to make this project a showplace. He stated that singte-famil~: ciwcllings wi[h drivcways onto Harbor Boulevard would add more traffic Lhin the prupose., project. THC PUtiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Gammissioner L.(nn asked Mr. Rowiand t+~ clarify the buildiny heiglit~ indlcating the plans submitCed sf~ow 39 feet at the tiighes: point. and Mr. Rowland's te3timony lndicated 33 feet. Mr. Rvwland replied that tfi~ buildi~g heigt~t is j3 fcet by definition. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Uirector for Zoning. explained that the maximum building helyht (s defined as the heiyht to the too of the ceiliny of the tc~p story and specificaliy excludes any decorative parapet~ chirney~ rooflines. or a non-inhaoieable space in the attic; that ~9 feet is the extreme structural height but tl~at the building heiyht ct~n be defined as 33 feet. Commiss~oner 6arnes asked (f the t~ees werc intendeJ t~ sc:~een thc building from view fram Nelena Street~ and Mr. Rowland tieplied that t~~e trees are not to screen but to augment the view; tf~at it will be a filtered view, and he explained the buildir,q would be aver 2Q0 feet fram the nearest house except the houses abutting ta the south. Chairman 7olar indicated he felt one of the biggest problems in the CO Zane along the main boulovat'd has been development of thc small parcels~ a~nd that the Gommission has asked for some type af land ~ssemblage in order to provldc the City of Anahetm with some nice structures instead of piecemealing as has been done in the past. not only on Harbor Soulevard but on any maJor thoroughfare in the city. He stat~d he was inter~sted 1n protectinq the t~tey~ity of Helena Street and he felt the residents have kept that 2/13/78 MIiiUTCS~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLAhNING CONY~ISSION~ Fe~~ruery 13. 1978 78"~~ EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION ANU_PtiCLASS~iFI~ L~ AT~01~ N0~ 11"78-3~ (Ga~~lnucd) nolghbo~l~oad up w~ll, Ne st~e~d he felt this was a good lancl essembloge proJect anci ~ouid protect the Inteyrlty of that reside~kial nr,ighbarhuAd; that the propcrty Is qoing to be developed In some fash{on~ and he felt this was c~oing to be a good development And hc wes ylad Mr. Moryan had woiteJ f~r som~thing br.:tter than a service static~n or ~mal1 convenien:e rnarket. Co+nmissloner .fohnso~ asked tt~e height of tlie pra{~osrd wall on Ilelena Street, and Mr. RnwlanJ rcpliecl that it fs b fEet, Commissicaner Johnson poi~ted out thet If this ;~roperty were belny develo,^d for resident(al usc, the Cornmfs~ion would frown on a G-foat wall. Lhalrman Totar ~~ulnted out the: COmm(SSit~n t~.~s encouraged people to puk ~p a h(ylier block wall when thu propcrty fronts on a major tl~oroughf~re such as State Colleye Bo:~lcvard or in ereas that ~.vuld go to CO zoning. W~e pot~ted out Helcne is not a main thoroughfare; that this will provfde rratcctlon for ;tie ~esidentlal area; ~nd tl~at~ coupled wlth the land assemblege~ woul~.~ make a bcttcr proJcct. Commissioner f~erbst referred to a similar circumstr~nce on Euclid Street ~ilr~ctly across fram the ~roact~ay Shoppiny Centcr whcre che Commission hes allc~wed development of comnerciat office st~uctures with a full block well. He indicated he ~id not fenl thls wc~uld be ~~• encroachr-ent along Nelena Street; that tr~fftc would not be addeci to the resfden'- •~ strr..et since there is n~ access on Helena. Ne indicatecS he had been on the Canmts ~• ~~ ~+-~e~~ this properCy was voted for a resolution of intent and th~t thc property ~+ner~ -~~ ~eer~ at th~ hcarin9s. He stated he felt this pro,ject will be an assst to Anah~~ •~d rr,~ people liviny in bock of it. Corm*~~- nne t,~~rnes was concerned about ths 3'fOp~~ E'inch wall on th~e south adjacent to M, •~~~~~; ~, ~-ouse on Narbor. hir. Rawland pointed out that tF-at property has a resolution ~ ,:~+,~ •a CO and would be developeA for corm~ercia) use. He pointed out the project was ~e. .-~•~.•: r~ this fashi~n to prohibit pedestrian access and felt if people had access~ they ,,~,,. c, nar,, tm H e I ena 5 t re c i. Gr+a~~•s~~o~+er Kiny tndicatc;d he ag~ced thr~: this pro)ect was sornething to be proud of, and s~:~; r~•i s was the h i ghes t and best use of the I and. A,C"+~1~w: Commissioner Joh~scn offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION ~D, that the M aheim City Planniny ~ommission has rcviewed the proposal to reclasstfy c--~.: zoning from RS-7200 (Residential~ Single-Family) to CO (Commercial, Office and ~rc,r~sional) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of l~nd cons(sting of approxlrt-ately 0.9 ac~~° having approximate frontages of 196 fcet on the south side of Souxh Street. 200 feet on ~:.he ea~t sick af Haraor Boulevard, and 200 feet on thc wast s~d~ of Helena Street; ana do~ her~~y dpprove the Negative Declaration from th~ requirement to prepare an e~~rironr,ntal impact report on che basis that there would be no significant lndivldual or cu~mulative adverse environmental impact due to tt-e approval of this Neyative Declaratlon slnce the Anah~tm General Plan designates the subject property far low density resldent(al land uses comrnensurate with the proposal; that commercial-p rofessional uses have alresdy develaped along flarbor Boulevar~ bath to the no~th ar.d south; thae no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initial Study submltted by the petittoner i~dicates no s~9nificant individual or cumul~~tive aaverse envtronmental impacts; and that the Neyative Declaration substantiating tfie foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anahcim Flanning Departrt~ent. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered Reaolution No. PG78-25 and moved for its passage and a'~ t7on that the Anah~im City Planntng Commission does h~erel~y grant Petition for Reclassification No. 77~1~'38 on the basis thae any r~odifications or chany~s to the davelopment plans as p~esented shall be reviewed a~d ,pproved by the Planniny Conn~isslan zi~3i~a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMi5SI0N' Fnbruary 13, 1978 7~~19 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RCCLASSIFICATI4N N0,~7-78-38 (continued) .~r.~ ~w~~~~. ~~ ~..i~~w~..~. prlr~r to tho issuance of bullding pe~~lts, ~nnd subject to Inte~~depertmenral Camrnlttee recanmendatlans. Un roll ~~II~ the foregoing resolutton was E~assed by the following votc; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: I3ARNES, p~V10~ NERaST~ JOHNSO~~~ KING~ LINfI~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIOt~CRS; NONE AIiSENT: GOMMI SS IONERS: NONE I TEM NQ. 2 PUBL I C t1EAR 1 t~f . OWNER; LI1f1A CORPQRAT I ON ~ E1~~ NE~VE UECLARATION ~j4 Che~stnut 5treet~ Escondido~ CA 92025. E L I IC 101 N0. 7•7~'3`.1 AGEN1': JAMES l., tiAR15IC~ 825 South We,tern Avenue~ Anah~im, CA 92a0~+. Petittoner rcquests reclassificatfon of property descrlbed as an irragularly-:~haped parccsl of land conslsting of appr~xima[ely 1.0 acre located west and south of thc southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Herbor Boulevord~ having appraximatn fronteges of 1G1 feet on thc sout.~ side of l.a Palma Aven~e end 25 feet on the west side of ~larbor BoulcvArd~ bein~~ located apprnximateiy ly0 fect west of the ccnterllne of Harbor Boulevard and 21~ fcet south of the centc~lt~e of La Pelma Avenue~ fran the Cl (COMMERCIAL~ IIMITED) ANU RM•1200 (RCSIDENS'IAL~ MULTIPIC-FAMILY) zONES to tha RM-1200 (RESIqEtJTIAL~ MULTIPLC-FAMILY) 20NE. Tliere was no onc indtcating their presence in oppositinn to subject request~ and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Februa ry 13~ 1978 was not read at the public hearing~ it is rcferred to and made a part af ;he rninutes. James L. Darlslc, agent~ Indicatcd the request was to construct a 25-untt~ edult apartment complex. lie puinted out the plans are to const~uct a small pool instead of the larger Jacuzzi as shown on the plans and indicated the sidinq materials would be wc~od shake shingles on cathedrai roofs with s~vn wood on the sicles, and that che ca~ports would be freme and stucco with bumper guards. Mr. SCewart Cohn~ 630 South Knott Street~ Anaheim~ stated he would llke to I:now why alt the developers are building adult units and not family units, and osked where famfiles are :~,upposed to live. Mr. Barisic stated he had just recently sterted buifdfng multiple-family units and t`~at the~e are up for sa1F~ and people interested ln buyir~g these units do not want ta rtnt to femtltes. fle stated this project is predominantly one•bedroom~ one~bath units which do r,ot lend themselves ~i:o family llving because of thelr sEze. Chairman Tolar stat~~.f he did nat have tht answers for Mr. Cohn rege~ding famlly units, but that by constru~ting one-bedre~om units the deveyoper could yet more units o~ the land and suggested developers could put less units in a proJect and build more family units. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chalrman Tolar racalled approving a proJect for a conxne~cial office compiex on th~s site and asked ~hy that ccmplex had not been built~ and Mr. 8arisic replied that this had taknn plece (n July of last year. but that ther~ had nat been anyone to purchase the un(ts or to tonstruct It. Chairman Tolar indicated he dtd not like to see developers come in with plans Just to see if they can get appr•oval and financiny for a proJect with no intentions of bu~lding iG. 2/13/73 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Fnbruery 13~ 197~ 78•80 EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION AND RECIASSIFICATION N0. 77-_ 7__ 8'39 (continued) Cammissioner John~on indicated he felt thls wasn~RM-120~h developmentnonrthlsispot`nbut he Anahelm and was surprised that thoy could put a ~e~teinly would r~ot suppo~t a proJect for family units at tl~ls location. Comm~sslonar King stated he felt tt~is was the liighest and bcst use for the propcrty. C~I~n's questlon had been answered end Commissioner Barnes indicatcd she ciid not thlnk Mr. stated the Planninerentsiare~findl gait I~ardt,topfindca place to`1lveodAy end are cognizant of the fact thAt p ACTION: Commissione~ Kiny offered a motlon~ seco~ded by Commissioner David and MOTI01~ ~t~D~ that the Anahclm Clty p~~+n~~ing Commission has reviewed the propasal to reclass(fy the zoning from CL (Commerclal. Limited) and RM-1200 (Residentlal~ Multiple-Family) to RM- 1200 (aesldentlal~ Multiple-Family) on an irregularly-shaped parcPl of land consisting of approximately 1.0 acre located west and south of the southwest corner oF La Palma Avenue and Narbor Eloulevard~ having approximate frontages af 161 feet on the snuth side of La bei ng lo~:ated appr~x(mataly Palma Ave~ue snd 25 feet on thc west side of Harbor aoulevard~ 190 feet west of the centerline of Narbor Bouleverd and 215 feet s~uth of the centerline of La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negativc Declaration frc~m~tno signifl ent to prepare en envlronmental lmpact report on the basls that there would indivldual or cumulat(ve adverse environmental impact due to the approvnl of this Ne~attve Declaratlon since the Anahelm Ge.neral Plan designates the subject property for an eleme~tary school site/yeneral commercial 1a~d uses cummensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental im;oacts are involved (n the proposal; that the Initial Study subm([`.ed by the petitioner lndicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative DeciaratSon substantlati~g the foregol~g findings (s on file in thc City ~f Anal~eim Planniny pepartment. ACTI0~1: Commissloner Ktng offcred Reso~ucion No. PC78-26 and moved f~r its passage and a opt on that the Anahelm City Planntng Commission does hereby grant Petition for Reclassification No. 77•7~'39 on tha basis that any modificati~ns to the develapment plans as submitted be reviewed and appruved by the Planning Commission prio~• to iss~ance of building permits and subJect to Inte~departrnental Committee recommendations. On roll ca~l~ tihe foregoing resoluticn was pa5sed by the following vote: AYES: COMHISSIONEi~: BARNES. DAVID~ HERBST~ JOHy50t~. KiNG~ LINN~ TOLAR NOES: CQMMISStONERS: ~~ONE AEiSEt~T: COMMI SS I ONERS : NOP~E Ghai~man Tolar indlcated that he would have reservations about ~his proJect if any varlances hed been requested, but with no variances he could support the project. Commissioner King d~beentconstrueted bykhis~com(~any and theygwere'somethingetoabeCproud~ buildings which ha of . 2/13/7a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Februsry 13. ~91a ~a-s~ ITEM N0. ~~ oEC~AanTi~~~ PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: EI.IZABETM LANCAST~R, E LASSI ICAT1011 N0. 7~-1a'~~n Cherokee Moblle Garden. 2~5 South Baach Boulevard~ Anaheim~ CA 924~~• A~NorwalkLBCAT9065~AD'P~~~t~oner 115G3 1.lndelo St~eet~ ~ requests reclassificatian of propercy dPacribed as an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatcly 1.2 acres having ~e frantage ~f ~pX~me~eltc~i172`~~tCeardnbein,y west slde of 8each Boulevard~ having a maximum depth of 8pp y from the located approximately 660 feet. n~rth of the center!ine of Orange Avenue~ RS-A-43.OOA (RESIDEFITIl1L/AGRICULTUMI.) ZQNE to thc RM-1240 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE~FAMILY) ZONE. Ti~ere was no one indicating thelr presence in oppositlon t~ sub,l~~a w~s~~~~'read attthe9h the staff report to th~Qf~~~?~d'"to a dimacicnadpaet oft~thcrminutes. public hearing, it Is gi11 Sexton, agcnt~ was present to answer ~ny que~tior~s. THE PUaLIC HEARING WA~ CLOSED. ACTION: Cammissloner King offered a motian~ scconded by Gammissloner Devid and MOTIC'N A R ED~ that the Anahcim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reGlassify the zoniny from RS-A~~~3~000 (Residential/llctr(cultural) to RM-1200 (Resi~dentlal, Multiple- Fam~ly) on a rectangul~rly-sha~ed parcel of land cunsistin~ of approximrtely 1,2 acres having a frontage of approximatel~ 2~5 fcet ~n thc west si~ie of Boact~ Bnulevard~ heving a maximum depth of approximately 117 feet~ beinq lccated approximatelY 660 feet north of the centerllne of Oranye Avenua; and ~oes hereby approve the Negative Declarat(on from the requirement. to prepare ;~n en~iironmental impact repo~t on thc hasis that t-~ere WO~ovaleof significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to tt~e app this Negatlve Declar~tlon since the Anaheim General Plan de~~{9nates the sub}ect property for commercial-prQfessional land uses commensurat~ witt~ the proposal; that ^Oradestheve environmental lmpacts are involved in the proposal; that the proJect w111 uP9 nelghborhood; that tl~e Initial Stucly submitted by tl~e peticloner indicates nn stgntficant indivldual or cumulative adve.rsa envlronmental tmpac~s; and that th~ NegAt(ve Deciaratlan substantiating the for~gc~ing findings is on flle ir the Gity of Anaheim Planning Department. ACTION: Commissioner Kiny offered Res~lu~[ion No. PC7a'27 and moved far its passage and a opt on~ that the Anahelm Clty Plenning Cortmisslon does herehy grant Petitlon for Reclasslflcatio~ No. 77-78-40 on the basis that any modificatlans to the development plans as submitted shall be e~mitsedanddsubj~ctetobinterdepartmen.'.a~iommittee~~ecortmendations. Issuance of building p On rotl call, the forec~oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVIn~ tlERBS'f. JOHNSO~, KING, LINN, 'TOLAR NOES: COMMIS510lIERS: NONE AaSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 2/1~/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 13~ 1978 78-82 ITEM N0. 4 E~a~GORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 PUBLIC HEARI~~G. QWNER: ATLAIITIC RICHFIELD COHPAI~Y, VA IAIICG N0. 29 1786 West Linc~ln Avenue, Anahelm. CA 92801. AGENT: GENERAL MI~INTENANCE~ INC.~ 1137z Wa~tern Avenue. S~anton~ CA 9~~30. PGtitioncr requ~+sts WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUh! SIZE OF PRICC 51GN AND (E3) FaE~-STANDIhIG SIGN IN TIIE SC ZONE~ TO PERMIT PRICE SIGNING ON AN EXISTING FREE~STANDING SIGN on property described es a rectan9ularly-sheped parcel of land conslsting of spproxln~ataly 0.5 acre located at the southeast corner of La Paima Avenue and Imperlal Highway. having approximate frontages of 165 feet on the scuth side of La Palma Avenun and 150 feet on the east side of Im~erlal Highway~ end furcher described as 5700 East l.a Palma Avenue. Propcrty presently classlfied CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMI1'EO-SCCNiC CORRII?OR QVERLAY) ZONE. There was ~o onE inJicating their presence !r~ op~+^sicl~n to subJect petltion~ and although the staff report to the Planning Commission d~~ted February 13~ 1978 tyas not read at the public hearing~ it Is refer~ed to and made e part af the minutes. Jay Tashiro~ Assiscant Plt~nner, polnted out e correctl4n to the staff report under paragraph (9), adding "each price sign not tu exceed ~ square feet on each face." Bill Kalinak~ 1318 Garrett Street. Anaheim~ ac~ent~ was present to answer any questions and pointed n~~t that Arca is nvw utllizing khe new llluminate~i price sign tn conJunctlon with idanttfication signs and felt this sign ts neecled tu designate the dual mode of marketing with a self-servlcc a~d full-service station at this site. CortmiSSloner Herbst painted out tha[ there is a strict slgn o~dinance. in the Scenic Corridor a~d signs of this size and height are not desirable i~ thaL ~rea~ and if Arco wants to be a good neighbor, they should ba aware of the conditlons and Iive wlthin the eonditions rather than ask for varlances; and that he was opposed to this type of signing. Chairman T~lar pointed out he did not think Lhe se~vice stations in xhe canyon area need this type signing; that a fuli-servlce or self-service sign is not going tn make any difference~ there are not that many service stetl~~ns and signing would not be required to meke people aware there Is a station there. h1e painted our. therc are three serylce stations in thc immediate viclnity of SPnta P.na Canyon road. tle statcd he would ~ot like ta see the siyn ordinance violated and dld not feel it would help the business in any waY• Commtssioner linn asked if thc oReratar had been r.ited for the illegal sign wht~h is presently exlsting, and Jay Tashiro pczinted out he was not. sure whether or not he had been cited. Cornnisstoner Johnson stated he thought this was a marl:eting method used by Arco and that it was not a marketiny s~rvey done for this type area, and he could not support the request and felt the petitioner st~ould live up to the sign o~dinance. Commissioner Barnes pointed out tiie Commission is faced with this problem a lot; that natlonal companies have signs manufactured and they must knaa before they are ma~de up that they have to meet the sign codes of various cities, and that they should bA doing s~xnething about fitting their si9ns into the ordinances ~f all the citfes. IL was note~ that the Planning Director or h(s 3uthorized representative has determined ~hat the proposed pro}ect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemption, Class 11, as defined in Paragraph ?. of th~ City of An7heim Environmental Imp~ct Report Guidc ;nes and is~ therefore, categorically exempt from the requlrement to prepare an EIR. 2/t3/78 ~~ ya-e3 MINUTES~ ANAFI~IM Ci7Y PIANNING COMMISSION, Fabrua~y 13~ 197a E!a CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11 ANp VARI!-NCE N0. 2~ Icontinued) ACTION: Commissloner Ba~nes offereninesc~~u~t;sn~ipn•~QS~iiEBQbyddeny~PetitlonsfaraVarlanca a opt on that the Anaheim Clty Plan g No. 298G on the basis that sub)eet locatlon is in the Seenic Corri~or ~forc~~ zdoe,senota „ signing should be with~n the spec,ificasions of thst tone; and subJ ~t P p joc~~tlon and differ from other P~asnnabl~ usetcan becmadeyofgthe prope~ty'without requested varlonces. surroundings~ And re On rall call~ the foregoin~~ ~~sc~lution was passed by tlie follnwiny vote: AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: NA~REES- DAVID~ HERf3ST. JOtINSO~~~ K~~~~~ LINN, TOLAa NOES: COMNISSIONERS~ AE3SENTi C4MM~~SIONERS: NONE Chairmen Tolar pointed out this o~~ssionsdoe~ haveGaelottofhrequestsiforrlargaQnandy °r to Arco~ but cl~at thc Plannin~ C taller ~igns and that che pr~perty owner has tlie right ta ask for any variancc he desires~ and tt~at this request is not unlquc~ but thAt it has not bcen allowed in the area and it ;g ttie Commission's intention toosstb~~m to the Scenic ~orridor ~~rc'inances In order to K,,.~•p that area as beautiful as p Mr. Kellnak replied that he understoc~d~ but pointed out there are othe~ sl,qns ~~rovcdareNQ whlch would Iead a person to bel~~Ve roducedvtoaprovide moreeeconomicalQslgnsep~nd th~y stated these factory siyns are mass p eould not be made to fit all cities' requircments. Commissioner Hcrbst pointcd out that some ~f the signs in t~at went in prior to the adopt(on of the nrdinance; that Zoning Enforcemcnt Officer will have to issue citati~ns. Jack White~ Deputy C(ty Attorney~ appeal the Planning Commission's th~ area arc no~conforming signs some are illegal signs and the prasented th~ petltione~ wi*.h the written right to clecision within 22 days. ('f E~'1 N0. 5 PUfiL I C HEARI NG. ObiNER: 63o SOUTH KNOT7 AVENUE ~ORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 Fullerton, VARIANCE N0. 2~ 0 COMPANY~ 1732 North Mountain Vtew P1a~~~P. 0. Box N E'1~'~TRACT N0. 51U7 CA 92631. OE1iElOPER; COVINGTON BROS., ~1213. Fullerton~ CA 92634• ENGI~IEER: CIV~I. EPiGINEERS~ INC., 17~+01 Irvine Boulevard. Tustln~ ~q o;,bgp. P~operty described as a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5•7 acres having a f~ontage of approxlmatcly 33$ feet o"~ocatedsa proxinetely Knott Street. having a maximum depth of approxtmately 7G0 feet~ being P 35Q fest south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. and further descrlbed as 63~ South Knott Avenue. Properey presentlY classified RN-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: uAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDING SiTE AREA~ (8) MAXIMUM STRUCI'URAL IIEIGH7~ (C) MAXIMUM SITE COYERAGE~ (D) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, (E) MINIMUM t~~~MENi~~~AW~~~SOFEPEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYSS7ANDE(N)EMIhIMUM BUILOINGS~ (G) I NUMBER AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES. 7ENTATIVE ~MC7 REQt1E5T: TO CONVER7 A!1 EXISTING 88-UNIT APARTMENT GOMPLEX TO CONDOMIt~IUMS. z/~ 3/78 MINUTES~ ANA11E~li CITY PL.ANNING COFWISSION~ Februery 13. 1978 78-84 EIa CIITEGORICAL EXEMpTION-CLASS 1. VARIANCE NA. 2y90~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NQ._ 5107 (co~t.) There were 16 persons indicating their presence in opposltion to subJect rey uest~ a~d ai thouyh tho steff report to tf~a Planntng Commisslon dated February 13. 1978 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and m~de e part of the minuces. Bob Fitzpatrir.k~ representing Covingtnn Bras.. was presont a~d pointnd out that the oriy(nai plans submitted for the conve~sion InJlcated 142 parking spaces for 88 u~its~ which is appraxtmately 1.5 spaces per unit~ and that (n order to provlde Adequate parkin g new pl~~s wera submitted eliminatiny ~t units~ reducin~ the density to 80 units and increaaing the parking to 2.5 sPacus pcr unit (20A spaces) which Is withtn Cfty codn. N ~ i ndl cated chat by decreas 1 ng tha cl.;ns I ty and i ncreas I ng che parl.( ng ~ they have ~educed the severity of the varlances requested~ including open sp.ice requlrements~ and felt they we ~e now close to Gode with respoct to the recreational open spacc~ and that they have Increased the square footage required per unit and that some of the setback varfances e re still necCSSary. Ne indicated their intentt~n t~ rpnovate the entire s(ta~ up~rade the project~ and prov~ de e better living envir~nrr~ent that will improvc over the years instcad of detertorating. He indtcated plans to replace all the kitchen appllances ln each unit and t~dd d(shwaahers a nd increase the cabinet spacc; that new bathroom f(xtures~ new carpettng and drwpes will b e providr.d; and all party walls will be uP9raded to m~et State requirements; th~t the unlt s wi11 be palnted inside and outside, block walls and fences will be repaired; that landscaping wi11 be rcnovated or replaced as needed; and t~~at the rccreatfon bullding ar-d pool wtll be refurbished and they wili pr~vide general m.~intcnance and repairs needAd which wtll create a pro,~ect that is vlrtually brand new. Fic pointed out plans to providc for an ordcrly converslon and c.onvenient trans(tlon whie h will not yreatly inconvenlencc tlic present tcnants: (1) tenants would be given a mi~imum 120-day notice to ~elocate; (2) they will be given a minimum of 60 days' nottce to purchase ~ unit after approval is r;:ceived from the Depertment of Re~l Estate. He poln ted out that tenants des i r 1 ng to purctiese the un i ts wi I I be refunded four montl~s of tha) r r~nt to be used toward the downpayment; that financing will be pr~vided~ hopefully, up to 95 ~ of the sales valuc and refundable depos(ts will bc returned; that those tenants desirin g nut to purchase a unit wi11 be refunded two months' rent to help with tfie cost of relocat(on and all deposits will be returned; and th~t each tenant will be provlded a list of apartment projects in th~ area that will include information as to the proJect location, project name, manager's name~ type of units~ rents~ and otl~er emenities~ and whether or not they take children or pecs~ and a locatlon map~ and that a full-time emplayec wlll be ava(lable to help any tenant find a new reside~ce. He stated in Orange County there (s ltttle or ~o low-ta-moderate income housing and feit conversinns could provide this type housing; they realize some people wouid be inconv~nienced, but a lot of people would benefit by this conversiorl; and felt this wlll be upgradinq the project which will be a~+sset ta the c~mmunity for a long tirt~.+. to come. Rodney Lambert. one of the prese~t owners of the property, ind(cated he felt the co~version would be a benefit to the community for several reasons: (1) that it would increase the tax base for the Ctty of Anaheim and (2) provide lew-cost housing and (3) would accept chitdren. Ife did not see any problems relocating the famtlles who did no t wish to purchase a u~it, and pointed aut they could purchase these condominiun~. at a v~ry lo~ cost. He stated he has been in the business for about ten years and that the operattng cost for a family unit is 48$ of the gross scheduled (ncome and for a single unit it is about 3~~~ so owners prefer renting to adults only fo~ economic reasons. 2/t3/78 ~ ' ~~ MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Februa~y 13~ 1918 76~85 EIR Cl1TEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1. VARIANCE N0. 2990. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 5107 (cont.) Do~ald E. Payne~ 630 South Knott. Apt. 2 1B~ Knott Garduns~ Anehetm~ prese~ted a petition (n oppositlan which hed hn~n clrculated within the Apertments and to the homcowners su~rounding thc complcx, Ile InJ{cated ho had becn asked t~ spcal: for th~ opp~sltlon. Ne stated he haa hcard e lot ot talk about this being Ic~w-cost housing end would be of great benef 1 t to thas~ currantly r~nt(nc~ tt~e unl ts ~ and then raferred to an article whi ch had been published in the newspaper which steted the u~its would scll for appraximakely S37,OOQ~ raqulring a downpayment of 52.E350. with e monthly payment of about S35o. He indlcated that if the tenants could afford to pay S35Q a month~ they would not be Iiving at Knott Gardens. ~le I~dicated tliat personalty this would be an lncrensQ of about 5105 per month and~ in add(tlon. he would have to rapay money he would have to borrow to make a do+vnpeyment and he cauld not af ford i t and i t was aut of the questlon. He statdd Knott Ga ~de~s i s hasl c~l ly rent~d to ret i resd c~oopl c or younq fami 1 leg who do not have an ab undance o f moncy . H~ yuestlu~~eJ tlie canveralon .' thnse u~its to cvndominlums ~~nd pointed out there are things which are not acceptable in condominiums which are acceptable In rental propQrtles~ sucl~ as no frant yards and very smal I patfos~ very 1 ittle storage spacr_ inside and out~ not enough parking~ and that the wal ls dyerc ~iat soun~l-proof, Ne stated he felt unless extreme ct~anges were made in the existing structures~ they wauld be selling repainted apertments. Concerntng the list of avail~~ble ap~~rtment ccymplexes, tie indicated he had tried for elqht weeks to fin~ a suitable apartment and that he had r,hosen Y, ott Gardens because of its elose proximity to Cypress College sinee his wife attends that school and because the rent was reasonable for this area and was v~ry conducive to family liv~ng, and thtre is a very d i re shortagc of faml ly rental uni ts i n Oranye Lounty. He di d not know where fami 1 les were expscted to live. Ila indicated t1-~at it had eve.n been suggested to him that he take the extreme measure and put his animal to sleep. He IndlcaGed his pet has not done a~y damage to the apartment but tl~at the managers are not intcrested ln r~ferenc~s or past records and felt th(s was discrtminato~y and now he Is sur~denly being asked to vacate the p ~ami ses and try to f i nd a p 1 ace to 1 1 ve and thac he hes J us t done that ~ and he d) d not thlnk it is falr. Ne Indicated he fcl t that grantin,y this request woul~ be setting a p recedent and there wi 11 be other peop 1 P who wi 1 I~ant to convert epartments to eondominlumg. He feit thi s could becorne a very dangerous trend for those who must rent propcrty. He su99ested the property vwners should maintain tl~e living format as it is now because new families depend upon this eomplex in this area due t~ the shortage. Hx i~dicated he and his w(fe ars trying t~ establish a home and had just gatten things unpackeG~ and the day their child ~+as born they were informed they would have to look for a pl acc to 1 i ve. He stated that when they had found thi s apartment and made s c'epos i t he had informed the manager tiiey were looicir.g for a long-term arrangement and no mer;tion was onade that a conversion was being consi dered. Ile atated a frtend had just recently made a deposit on an apartment at Knutt Garde ns and nothing was said to thcm about the con~omir.lum pr~posal. He suggested that conEomi ~lum bui lders bui ld on vacant si tes and that they bui td t~ comply with all codes~ and suggested there is a need for more family complexes and places that will allow pets and children; that even though these units are rental apartments~ they are home to him and his wife and he felt this conversion would be disastrous and will have a great impact on those people currently 1 iving at Knott fardens. James Lucht~ 630 South Knott~ Apt. 6A , presented ~ petltion co~taining approximately 100 slgnatures of persons oxpressing opposftiun to this request. Mrs. Joseph Johnson Smlth, the friend referred to by Mr. Payne, indicated she had looked at the Knott Gardens apa~tments and found them to be suitable and reasonable and had made 2/~3/78 ~ Februa~y 13. 1978 78-86 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 510 (cont.) EIR GATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 VARIANCE N0. 2 0 TENTATIVE WhetherTor`n~tOthe a deposit for one of tho u~lts. She indicated she did not knvw man~gers wer~ eware of this conv~it°^ ShePstatedbtheyhhadnyinv~antnotice~whera theyt wfi°n ahe had made her deposlt on tha p~esently ilve snd tliet they wou~d ba moving this Seturday but now did nr~t know whet to since this proposal had come up. Goldle Evenson~ 63Q South Knott Street~ Apt. ~bo. scetcd she wisl~ecl to present a chlldron's petition slgned by the children in the apartments. Jeck White. Oeputy City Attorney~ potnted out that the wrlter of the petltlon must be p~esent in order for thc PeL~~~On ~, harPmother~wace~~~s~^teSha+~~~~ecisheewasinotrpresent. Gretton had written the petitinr~ a Mr. White sta'~~d the petition could be accepted ~nd the sic~nAtures considorad as oppositlon~ buc the ~c^:e~ts c~uld not ~°aSkedtthat~itsbevplaccd in thc file~)Q• ~rne Com~(ssluners ~oo~.ed at tt~e ~~titlon an ust befare Thanksgivin~ and was not told Ms. ~venson stated she moved lnto Kn~tt Gardensroximately six wecks to flnd a s~iteble about the COItvCf~lOn~ and it had taken them app p1ACe to live; th,it they had checked all over Anahetm outside~C8nd9ithwas er~~thard toeds; that they I~ave a two-yea~ ald child who needs to play find an apartrnent which would ii~' ~~~at~onen*.ime andsmaybe itHwashn t~~odhardEto~findten Bros. tn conslder they were ch place to live then. She stated her h~sband works two Jobs end they would have a hard t me flnding anothe~ place to Iive. Stewart Cohn~ 630 Snuth Knott Strcet, Apt. lOC. asked if the ch' ren's petition could be accepted if the minor's mother styned it~ and Mr. White reported that he was not sure that it was needed as testimony. M~. Cohn polnted out he had owned a conhanhQi~u~~^ershassoclation~r1whichucouldubeefrom S3~ newspaper did not include the fee fur t roved~ would Covington Bros. establish a to S50 8~nth~ anJ asked if this proJect were app fund for this purpose. He asked what Is considerrd ~OM~an~ec nomicngssue,stated he felt the impact of this project on 83 families is certainlY Chairman Tolar pointed out that tee afenstr9ctlynla~d~plannersnand9realizedvtheitenants economics of the project; that th y are economically involved~ but that the "lanning Commission must look at the property as land planners. Commissioner Barnes pointed out that ;~~^oL~n~~~ aLetheaeconomicmissue~nthat theyra~e by law and that they could not~ and shou . land planners and must look at that~ and that only. M~s. Wendell G~atton~ 630 South Knott Street~ Apt. SA. mother af Kimbe~ly Grats~~c who had written the children'shusband had~decldedQto movefintocthe areatbecause, ftthe schools and indicated she and her desire for pointed out they felt -if xheeplace~proposediforrrelocatio wouldtben1ntthe sam~ school their child~ and askea distrlct. that this was very important to them. Mr. Cohn indicated he did not fekedtifSCovi~gtonnBros~uls going,toerepair«this~ituatiane the ce{lings creak badly, and as or someone would be buying them and finding out later that they were substandard~,an R 2/ 3/7 MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Februery 13~ 191$ 7~•87 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1. VARIANCE N0. 2990. TENTIITIVE MAP OF TRAf.T N0.__5_1_Q7 (c:ont.) potnted out the rocafs miglit not tast very long. tle tndlcated he felt peopie would be buying sevcral af these units and renting them Instead of liviny In them, Mr. Fitzpatr(ck revlewed the peti tlon submltted and indlcatod he would Ilke to answesr one of the questions; that ~ovingto~ Oros. i s not agalnst childro~ or renters; that they have built a lot of proJects In th~ C i ty of MAhetm and all of thesc pro}ects have benn for fami l ies wl th chi ldren and pets; fhat th ts p~oJect wi l l not rest rlct chl ldren since they we~e not proposing the proJect to ho an adul t•only project; ~nd that there wl 11 be edequate play area for thc ch(1~i~on in tt~e proJect. ConGCrniny :lie In~prov~nents tU bd made, he state~l they understc~oci this complex is nat in tip-top ~~~ape but they wauld bring ;he projeet ~~a to current standards~ tncluding sou~d walls and whatever is necessary to provi de a h~ 'chy and safe cnvlronmc~nt for the purchasers of these units. Ne i~dicated the petio are~s qre over 200 squAre feet~ and that 1~ as I arge as many ~f the new condomi~ i um pr~.jc~cts ~f today : that they a~•e propos ( ng a proJect that can be afforded by peopl~ who c~nnot afford to buy h.~rnes on today's market. Concerning the repalrs and the hamcowners association~ he stetcd ti;~r~ would be a homaowners association and that Covlnyton Bros. is refurbishing the proJect and p{an to bri~y it to a point wherc it wi 1 1 not requlre any Immediate funds for replacements. In addition~ the proJcct will be guaranteed for one year and they will bc respons(blc for any expenses untll funds are accumuiateJ by ~he homeowners association. THE PUBLIC NEARII~G W~S CLdSED. Ccxrrniss ioner Herbst referred to the ord i nance for condominlum convers i~•~ns rr.qui ~'!n, tfiat each complex be brought up to presont condominium standards. 11e indicateJ the ardin~nce was adopted because convers ions were hac~peni ng wi thout the Camrret ssic~n's knuwiedge Ne stated the Anaheim Planning Cammiesion is responsible for providing ~~ous~ng for a'~ segments of the population and apartment I~ouse liv(ng is one of those ty~.'s of llving ar~d is necessary for young people and the e lderly, ite felt unless the aprrtmeni c~~pler :ould be brought up to current stand~~rds, (t shoul d not be ellowed because a persan I Ivl~t !n ~n apartment can move, but that e persan buying a con~.~c~minium and later finds aut tt !s substandard is stuck wt th I t. ~~^.~ ~~~at thls particu;ar corr~lex daes not meet those requiren~nts for c~r.~ominium livin~. H~ ~tated he thought the petitioner w~s ask~nc~ far too many waivers a~~d the praject Is not a~e~ ctose to the stan~:ards for condor,iinlu+~ living~ and tha.t it would be taking ho~~inq away from th~t segment of the population and he felt tl~e Commission should try t~ ma intain apartment living to supply that housing. Ne stated he fel t, i f approved~ th i s wt~ul d be substandard condomin i ums and that this particular pro)ect, in Its present state, would noc be acceptabl~. He felt even tt~ough the proJect is rebuilt and sound walis are installed~ wh(ch would upgrade the butlding~ tt would not necessarily upgrade the living conditions. Ile was also concerned tha4 this would set a precedent in Anahei m, Mr. Fitzpatrick pointed out the orlgina 1 plans submitted were inadequatc but had bean updated and the resubmitted plan ton~es c1os~ to meeting the standards for candominiums and that thls nroject could be a vr_ry good 1(ving environmr_nt if tt were converted. Chafrman Tola~ indicated he was not sure after t:,lking with staff how many varlances were requir~d with the revised plans, but th.aught tt~ere wer~~ four or five variances still required. He stated he was not sure apartments would be allowed on this site if built under tod~y's standards. He fe lt one ~ssajor problem would be thE lack of par~,ing~ a~d this would be a precedent-setting si tuat'o~. Ne stated hc felt if this request is approved~ there would be a half a clozen ~equests in the next month for the same thing. He indicated the parking places are p~ovided. but tt:at u~der home amer :hip they mu~t be enclosed 2/13/78 MIIJUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANFIIIJG COMMISSION~ February 13~ 1978 78-88 EIR CATE6Qa1CAL EXE MPTION-CLASS 1. VARIANCE N0. 2990, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. ~107 (cont.) .~~~.~~~~r i~~~~~~~~~ • ri~.+. ~~r~~ pa~rking ~peces and that these spaces are carports. Ne stated that as one Commissioner he was oppoacd to this convcrsion. CommOssianer Johnson statod he could not suppo~t the proJect as pres~~ted~ but net for the reasons as given by the oppositton~ and wanted tham to be aware that If thts proJect should come up egai~ thet the problem the Planning Camrnission fs faced with that the owners af the propertles are under pressure to make tf~em pay~ and that the tenants ars ccxning to the end of the road where they cs~ rent these epartments for the amount of rent they are paying an d the(r compleints should be directed to Washington~ D. C. and not ko the Planning Commissl~n. Ne indic~+tecf he was going to v~te ag~+inst the proJect~ not because the bulldin gs are not sound-proof but because tl~e structures are too hlyh; not bucause the front y ards ~re not big enQUyh but because there is not enough recreational sp~ce; and that he wanted tu ~iert ttie opposicion to be p~epared to attack the problem an the proper basis. Ne stated he was vating agalnst the proJect because of the waivers requested and beca use thesre are not enouyh pa~ktng spaces. It was noted that thc Planning Director or his eutho~lzed representative has determined that the proposed praJect falis within the definttlon of Cetegorlcal Exemption~ Gless 1~ as defined in Paragraph 2 of the Clty of Anahcim Envl~anmental Impact Repart Guidelines and Is, thereforc~ cnteg~rlcally exempt from the requircment to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissloner Linn offered Resolutian No. PC7(3-2~1 and rroved far tts passage and a~c~OptTon that Peti tlon for Variance t~o, 299o be denied on the basis that the~e are no spec~~) circumst~n ces which would make this praperty differ~nt from other prnperties in the same zone and vicinity as to the sixe, shape, topc~gr~phy, location or surroundfngs and approval would set an undesirable precedent allowing convers(ons f rom apartments to substandard c~~ndomin(um unlts~ which do not comply wi:h dFVelopment standards adopted for the protection of purchasers of condominiums. On roll call~ the forego(ng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSInNCRS: BARNES~ DAVID~ NERBST~ JOtIN50N~ KING~ LINN~ TOI.AR N0~5: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE Commtssionnr Linn offereiJ a motion~ secunded by Commissloner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commission does he~eby find that the proposed subdivislon~ together with its dcsign and improveme~t. is not consistent with the City of Anahelm Generai Plen~ pursuant to Gave~nment Code Section 66473.5 and does~ therefore~ deny the request for Tenta tive Map of Tract No. 5107 fo~ a nne-lot, condominlum proJect. Jack White, Oeputy City Aitorney, presented the petitioner with the writtcn rtghc to appeal the Planning Commission's decisfon within 22 days. RECESS Recess was called at 3:35 p.m. RECONVEt~E The meeting was reconvened at 3:45 p.m., with al) ~- Commts~~oners present. z/~3/78 ~ MINU?~S, ANAIIEIM CITY FLAI~NIt~G COMIII~SIOW~ February 13~1~78 78•~9 ITEM N0. G PUBLIC IIEARING. OWNER: FRCUKICKS UEVELOPMENT LORP.~ EIR CA EGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 12 Braokholl~w Drfve~ Senta Ana, cA 927~5. AGENT: I~ 0 U M N. JQE CARUSO~ ti45 South State Collcgc doulevard~ Anahe(m~ CA 92~06. Petitioner reque~cs permisslon ta ESTADLISH A COCKTAIL LOUNfE on propnrty dascribed es a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cc~nsistiny af approximately 1.6 ecres located at the nortt~east corner of Winston Road and Magnolia Avanue~ having approximate frontages of 142 feet on the north side of Winston Road and 490 foet on tha east side of Magnolla Avenue~ and further descrlbcd es 1274 South Magnolla llvenue. Property presently classitled CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) 20NE. There was no one present indicating their opposltlon to subJect request. and although the steff report to thc Planning Commission dated February 13. 1978 was not read at the publlc hearing~ It is referred to and made a pert of the minutes. Commissioner King noted hc had a confl(ct of intcrest os defined by the AnAheim City Plonning Commiss(o~ Resolutlon PC7G~157 adoptEn~ a Confllct of Interest Code for the Plenniny Gommission and Government Gode Sectlon 3G25~ et seq., in that he bclieves Fredricks Develapment Gorporatton ls owned by Pactfic Ltghting Corporation dnJ he owns Pacific Lighttny Gorporation coamon stock~ and pursuanc to provisions of tf~e above codes~ declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing fram the heartng in cnnnection with Item No. G of the Planning Commission agenda and will not take part In either the discusston or the voting thereon~ and that he has not d{scussed this mattcr with any me~..ber of the Planning Commlss(on. TIIEREUPON~ COMMIS~IOMER KI~IG LEFT TNE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 3:~~6 P.M. Joe Caruso~ agent~ poi~ted aut the est~blishment is th~ Coronado Lounge, And that it 1s the petitioner's desire to serve Gocktalls only~ and the kitchen area is n~ longer fn existence at said premises. TIIE PUBLIC MEARING WAS CLOSEO. Chairman Talar clarlfled that the Coronado Lounge will exist as it is today~ with a ch~nge of own.~'~'~ip and the elimination of f~od serv(ce. Commtssiur~er Herbst poin[ed out a request could be made in tt~e futu~e for a r~staurant and wantecl to bc sure the petitioner understood if a restauranc is established in the future, a conclitional use p~rmit will be requi~ed for that use. It was noted that the Plannl~g Director or his authorized representative has determined that the propose~' proJect f~alis within the definition of Categarical Exnrtq~tion~ Class 1~ a~ :~••`tned in Paragraph 2 of the Lity of Anaheim Environmentai Impact Report Guidelines and i' •-.~ef~re, ~ategorically exempt from thc requir~ment to prepare an EIR. ACTI~rI: Commisstoner Herbst off~red Resolution No. PG78-3(l a-~d moved for its passage and a~'op~tTon that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.18~f- :::; g~anted to permit a cocktail lounge aithout thP service : `ood; and that if thc restaurant operation is re-establish~:d~ a conditional use permit w;., be reyuired; and sul~Ject to Interdepartmental Gommittee rec~xnmenda t i oRS . On rol) call, the foregoing ~esolution waa passe~t ,y the followiny vote: AYES: CONMISSIQNERS: BARkES~ DAVID~ HEaBST~ LINN, T~LAR N0~5: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON AliSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING Conmissio~er Johnsan iRdicat~d he felt e cocktail lounge should have a placc for people to ea t . CONMISSIONER KING RETURNED TO 7HE CO~.~. CHAMBCR AT 3:50 P.M.. 2l13/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ February 13~ 191~ 78-90 ITEM N0. PU6LIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT A. SCNLEGEL ANU Tustin~ CA ~2l'~UB. E R 1,A EGORI CAL EXEMPT I ON CLASS ~ E I LEEN A. SOW~RSBY ~ 1~38) RoanokeAEFER 8()7 Oaks tu~e ~ AGENT~t JOtIN T. AND DOROTHY SC, ~ Wey, Anahelm~ CA 92846• Petitioner raquests perm{sslo~ to ESTABLISI~ A BQARp A~~D CAaE~ectan1ulsrly shaped~paWce) ofllend~consNstingFofNT YARD SETUACI( an prope~ty described as 9 approximately 0.3 ~~~a located~fa11thfcetronEthd norti~rside~oftEastwoodvDrive andt105rfeet having approximate frantagcs 3 on the east slde of East Str~cRE51DENTIALhcSiNGLErFM11LY) ZONENprth Cast Street. Property presentty classified RS-7200 ( 7here was one person IndicaeanFebruarys13.n197a wasjnot~read attthe9p~btlicghearing~,~tt is the Planning Commissian dat referred tu and made a part of thc minutes. John Schaefer~ agent,indicated he was ~resent to enswer any questions. Jay Tashlro. Assistant Plan~er~ explalned the applicant (s requesting a conditionel use permit to permlt 14 persans f^mi~imumefro~t yardasetback~nd care facility for the dged a~id is requesting a waiver Josette Falkenburger indicated sh~ owns the propertye~~ ~'enddMr.sTashiro explai~ed^Chey intarested in how tt~is proJect would affect her prop Y~ plans to her. After raviewing ~h;nssmuch as,the,pro)ectedoesdnnttaffecc herspropertya ~~n answered end she was nat oppose THE PUBLIC HLARING WAS CLOSED. Comnissianer Hnrbst asked if Annika Santalahti~ Assistant reason. thc hardshlp ~as partially the widening of East St~eet, and Director of Zoning. explained this was probably part of the Commissioner Johnson pointed out thet recently a request forfeit,lt,wsshamdlfreWent situn[lon. was denied~ and Cortwnissioners King and Tolar indtcated they Commissioner Herbst pointed oux there is a strict 5tate code And requirements which must ~e met by ~he p~titioner. Mr. Schaefer pointed out that his wife had operated at 883 South Anehelm Boulevard for 14 years and had like to go into business again. Commissioner King pointed out he had obse~ved never seen any parking problems there a~d the It was noted the Planning Director o~ hls authorized representative has detarmined that the proposed project falls within Anaheim`Envi~onmentalelmpact,ReporttGu(delines andais~e~jned in Paragraph 2 of the City of the~efore, catagorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an E1R. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution No, PC78-3) and ra~tdPetition farsage and n ption that the A~~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby g Gonditi~nal Use S'ermit No. '~Qrfminimumefrontdyardesetbacktonfthe,basisethaiatheawideningY persons, granti~g the waive of Ea~t Street with dedlca~ion to the Cihi °~u~~hbemcaused~toirelocategit;tandhsubJect ~ond the building is existing and a hards p 2/13/78 a residsntial care home (Midway 'ianor) retired~ but recentfy decided she would the operation on Anaheim ~oulerard and fie had residenca ~Iways looked we16 maintained. ti_. ~ ': MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSIOl1~ Fcb~uary 13~ 197g 7$~~) Elit CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION~ CIASS 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1801 (continued) to th~ stipulatlon that any modtftcatlon to the development plen as presented shall be r~vlawed and a~p roved by the Planning Commission prior ta the issu~nce of butlding permlts; and aub)ect to Intordep~rtme~tal Committee recommendatlons. 0~ roll call~ t'~ foregoing ~esolutian was passed by the following vote: AYESt C~MM1551UNE.RS: l3ARNE5, UAVI~~ HERBST~ JOI~NSON~ KINP~ LINN~ TOLAR NOES: COM-"ISSfON~RS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. tS PUULIG IIEARING. OWNER: AMIL SHAB~ 521 North Lemon ~~ t E OitIGAL EXEMPTI0~1-ClASS 1 St~eet~ Aneheim~ CA `~2805. AGENT: E.W.A.P.~ INC.~ t GONUI~IONAL SE ~tE MI N0. Q2 2103/ Superior Screet~ Chatswortl~~ CA 9131 . ----- Petitloner requests permisston to ESTABLiSN AN AUULT F30UKSTORE WITN WAIVER OF MINIMUM `~UMBEa OF PARKII~G SPACES on property descrlbed as a rectangularly•shaped parcel of land consistlny of approximately 3375 square feet having a fronter~e of approximitely 25 fcet on tl~e sc~uth sidc of Lincaln Avenue~ h.avinq a maximum Jepth af approximataly 135 fnet~ being locat~d approximately f~0 feet w~st of the centerline of Phiiadelphia ~treet~ and further described es 242 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified CG(COMMERCIAL~ GENCRAL) ZONE. There were five pe~•sons Indicating their presence in opposition to sub)ect request~ and although thc staff rcport to the Planning Commissian dated February 13• 1978 was not read at t1.~: pubilc hcaring. it is rcferred to and made a part af the minutes. Comn,`ssicmer Kin~ nated that hP had a c~nfllct af interest as defined by Anaheim Clty Plann~ng Commission RasoluCion PC7is-15% adopting a Conffict ofi^n~hAtsthe proJecttis Plann!~•n Commission and Government Code Seciion 3625 et seq., located n~~~ ttie Southern California Gas Gompany affice and the Southern California Gas Ccxnpany is affiliated with Pacific ~ighting Corporati~n~ in which he owns commc+n stock and hc felt his vvte would be biased and~ pursuant to the provisions of the above todes~ detlared to the Chal~man that hc. was withdrawing f~um the hearing In connection wi[h the above referenced item and would not talce part in either the d(scusslon or the voting thereon, and I~e had not discussed tliis matter with any member of the Plann(n~ Commission. Tt1EREUPON~ COMMISSION KING LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 4:00 P.M. Uon fcars~ 601 Kiama Stre~et~ Anaheim, architect~ explalned that subject building is curre~tly vacant and in need of repairs. lie state~s the ~aetitioner would liice to take down the sheet metal stgn and clean it up and put up a dark brown paneting behind the wtndaws and would like to u~se signs that are completely in confo~mance with the Sign Ordinance. He indicated he feit ct~is project would improve thP area; that the applicant is thinking of this as a short-term or,cupancy; that it had been discussed with the Redeveiopment Agency and they had i~dicated it would probably bc three and one-half to flve years before they would have to vacate the prcmiszs. Margaret Taylor, 941 South Claudina Street. Anaheim, indicated she was co-awner of property at 120 South Philadelphla Street and felt another bookstore tn this area would be detrimental to Anahelm redevelopment. She referred t~ the waiver of parking spaces requested and pofnted out tt-at tl~e avail~ble parking across Ltncoln on Philadelphia as listed in the staff repa~ts~e ~~i~tedEOUtVtheaPoliccdDp artmenLuhashstronglylurged denialj f this,«equest. this area. po 2-13-78 MINUTES~ A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSiON~ February 13~ 1978 78•~~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1802 (continued) ._.._.r._ - - Dan Oavidson~ Paato~ of the Anah~tm BAptist Church~ 305 E. Hroa~lway~ lotsted one block south of subJect property. was concerned about the parking. He polnted out thc difticulty flnding pleces for perktng arnund the chu~ch ~t the presenc time~ especlally when a new movie Is thown st the sdult theeter~ and to edd anather place of this type would ettract the same typa of poople snd would increase tha parking dtfficultl~s. Ile indicatod he belteved MNther adult book stare would have a negAtive morol impact on the conmunity of Anahetm. IM ttated he was sure the C~nlssion was mostiy concerned with the legelity of the proJect, but that the morallty Impect shauid be considered. Ile referred to tlie Police Uepartn+ent's roport stating tlils same organization has sold animal pornography and kiddi~ pornography films in msny of thair stores~ but due to pressure heve rcmoved those matartals from thelr shelves. Me stated It Is comnion knowledge that even thoug4~ thPy hAVe been ~~movcd from the shelves~ they are still sold from under the co~nter; that ance the operators get to know thetr rcyular cus[omc~s~ they can yet anything they wanc from them, He felt this type business ettracts e type of Deopl~ ha did nat th(nk we want in downta+n Anahetm. lie +~iso felt Rnahelm has its share of pornogra~hy, and asked the Commission t~ seriously consider• denying this conditlonal use perm(t. Reverend derthold Jacksteit~ Pastor of tlu Ftethel Baptist Church an South Lemon Strn~t, atated he recognized that every sdult has the right to ~ead what he wants to read, but fnlt another book store would be a detriment to downtown Anaheim and added nothing to t~~e environment and s(mply would not fit in and was tocally out of kceping wtth the plans ac~id purposes of developing a flne comnunity. Captaln ~~ea1 Nogan of the Salvatiun Army, 201 E. Gypress Street. t~olnted o~~c there is a youth center in close p~oxlmity to subJect location and he did not feel t-~is use acould be proper and would set bad examples for the youth by allowing a store of chi~ typr ~nd telling t~em we da not epprove of this type activity. He stated he underst~nds ihac ~ith the redevelopment of the dcrwntown area~ we are attempting to build a gaad ir.iac~t and thia busl- ness would not substantlally benefit the community and pointed out Guulic `u~da would be spent to rclocate this business. Mr. Fears staLed he apprGClated the concerns of the citizens ~f Anah~im and indicated he was impressed with E.W.A.P. Corporatian because they are lnteresced in seeing that peace and quier is mair.tatned becau~e ttiat 1s benefictal to their busin~ss. 11e referred to the parking concern ~~nd stated they could provide more on-site parking~ and indicat~d they were 6 inches short of having th~ee legal parkiny spaces and suggested the operator could parl: tandem against the building and there would be cnough ~oom for parktng other vehicles behind chat car. I~e feft they could accommodate five cars on site. He pointed out this particular location had bsen used for a variety of purposes~ some of which had a highe~ occupancy than being proposed. Ne pointed out the Police Department report refers to problems in other carmtiun i t i es and other areas. ~~e s tated I~e was not here to j udge the mora I i mpact on the a~ea; and stated that this is a business and it is legal. Mr. Fears stated th~e petitioner would like to be abie to relocate the sign to put (t flat agatnst the building above the windows. but that it would be within the present Sign Ordinance and they did not want to be limited to nat having a sign above the windows. TNE PUHLIC HEARING WAS LLOSED. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ pointed out ta the Planning Cortimission that the material submitted was a hfstorica) profile prepared by Detective 8arry Hunt of the Anaheim VIGe 9ureau and that material had also been dist~ibuted to the applicent. He cautioned the Commission that references made to the redevelopment proJect and th~ possibility of relocation payments being made to this business is not pertinent to their decision and that this business, like any other business~ would be allowed certain relocation be~~fits if the conditional use permit is allowed~ so the (nformation regarding relocation payments and benefits from the Redev~lopment Agency should not be considcred. 2-13-18 ~ s~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ Februery 13~ 1g18 78~93 EIR CAt~GORICAL EXEMPTIQN CLASS 1 CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT ~~0. 1802 (Continued) Mr. ~lhite continuad that the statenent from the P~llce Department contalning certain info~matlon regarding convtctions of crimas at various other locations should not be cohside~ed as evidence In this hearing; that because there have been violatlons of the law by thls applicanc et other locations. does not nacessartly mean they would violate thc law at this locatlon. tle stated this information can ba used to shc~w the type of patron or cheracterlsclcs of the patrons at an establishment of this type~ and to determine whnther or not the use is compatiblG with thc area and whether it is competiblc wit~ the h~~lth~ welfare end safety of the citlzens of xhe City of Anahelm and whether or nnt any conditlons should be imposed. Commissioner Herbst stated he felt the Commisslon had hea~d e lot of conversatio~ regarding bonk stores in this community a~d that they have had some good testimony from ttie opposi- tlon reyarding the closenoss to the youth center and churches and regarding the redevelopn-ent of the downtown area which is proposed to upgradc the area. He stated he felt thts partlcular appllcatlon does not deserve the operatlon+~l rights of the City of Anaheim t~ epprov~l of a conditional use permit and felt it was not conducl~~e to th@ health and welfere of the citizens; that the locetion is undesira~~le~ for ane reason~ be~.ause of the parking~ Il spaces requlred and 2 spaces proposed~ and that the addltional perking rcferred to in th~ staff ~dport has been rem~ved by the Redevclapmcnt Agency. It was noted thc Planning Director or his authorized representative has determincd that the propose~ project falls within the det`initlon of Categorical Exemption~ Ctass 1~ as defined in Paragraph 2 of the Gtty of Anaheim Environrt-ental Impact Report Gutdelines and is, the~efore~ categorically exempt from the requiremnnt i~ prepare an EIR. ACT101~: Cortmi~sloner He~bst offered Resoluti~;, No. PC78-32 a~d moved fcar its pa~ssage and a opt on that tl~e Anaheim Ci•v Plannin; ;,ortmiss(on does hcreby deny Petitio~ for Conditional Use Permit No. 1802 on the basis that Inadequate on-site parking is provided and that the p roposed use w~uld be in violatlun af Section 1~.A3•~32 of the Anaheim Munlcipal Code because it would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood includtng the youth cente~~ churches~ businesses and residences; and also in violation of Section 18.03•035 because the lack of parking would contribute to traffic and other safety problems; and that the surrounding area currently has two adult bookstores and an edult movie theater. On roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: COMNISSIONERS: BARNES. OAy1D, NEkBST, JOHI~SON~ LINN. TOLAR NOES: COMMISSiONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONEaS: KIHG Comnissioner Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Conxnissio~er David and MOTION CARRIEO that the t'equest for waiver of minimum number of parking spaces be denied on the basls that on-site parking is fnsufficient for the proposed use and the addittonal perking area referred to is nu lonyer av~ilable and additional t~affic and parking p~oblems would be created; and there a~e no speclat circumstances that apply to this applicattor. regardi~g size, shape or topograpt~v of the land. Commi~sioner Linn pointed out a slmita~ request was turned down recently for a church because of the lack ~~t parki~g. Jack White, Oeputy City A:torney~ presented the petitioner with the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision wlthin 22 days. ~OMMlSSIONER KING RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL LHAMBER AT 4:15 P•M• 2-13'7~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION~ Februery 13, 197~ 78-g4 (TEM N0. 10 R~G VE DECLARATION PUBLIC 11EARING. OEVEIOPER: EASTER ISLANO~ LTD., M 0. 1022 2435 East Vine Street~ NC~ ~ran~e~ CA 92f.69. ~EQU~ ~~~VAL~ EMOV L ENGINEER; ERVIN ENGINEFPIN~~ ~+;~~ Campus Drtve, OF SPEf.IMEN TREES Sulte 114~ Newport Beach, CA 92~69. Petftioner proposes a slx-lot~ RS-72~~(5~) (RESIDENTIAL~ SIN~LE-F~MILY-Sf,ENiC C~RRI~~n ~VERLAY) Z~NE subdiviston on propertY dcscribed as an trregularly-sh~ped ~~rc.el ~f lan~ consistln~ of approximately 1.9 acres l~cated at the northeast c~rn~r of Santa Ana C~nyon Road and Plnney Drlve~ havlnq .~pproxlmnte frontA~es of 77~ Per_t ~n the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and ~2 feet on the east sidc of Pinney Drtve. There was hnP ~~rcnn tn~tc:.ting hPr pr~senc~ in onposition to sub!ect request~ and althouqh thP st•'-ff report to thc Planninq Commission dated Fchru~ry 13~ 14/~i was not reed ai Che ~ubltc hcarin~~ It is rr.f~rrP~l t~ and madp a part of tl~r~ minutes. It was noted tlie arcl~ltect was in the huil~linn but not ln the Counci) Chamber. Csthy Ilrtght, a312 Bergh Drlve~ Anahetm. stated she anrl s.rver~l nelnhbors were concr.rnecf about the lrrigatlon ditch and iccess off Santa .'1ni Canv•~n p~ad, whlch is the only access off Plnney to the RCIIAAI and oark, and n~lnted out shc had n~t s~cn th~ nlans. She stat~d the acc~~ss was .~lready ove rconqested and the hnmco+~rners are c~ncPrned br.cause they do not feel [hcre is r~om for six houses on the site. Commissloner Nerbst ~olnted out the drainag~ ditch w~is ~ninq t~ he ftiled and used as back yards for the houses. Jay Tashiro~ Assistant Planner~ revle~.~ed the ~lans ~~Ith Ns. Wriqht~ anci she indicated her concern regarding the 1~~-font seth~ck requlred since Sa~ta flna Canyan Road Is a sc~nic highway. Chalrman Tolar explained L.he devetnpe,• had dedicaxed riqht-~f-w~y to the ultimate rridth csf Santa Ana Canyan Road. Ms. Nrlght explalned her questions had bee~~ ans~yer~d, but that she was stil) opposed to the proJect because she fett it would be over crowdrd ~nd indtcated she caulct present a petitton with sinnatures of apnr~ximately 4~~ people whn vro uld he opposed. Commtssloner Herbst pointed out that the Planntnc~ Commisston had held public hearings concerntng this tract aopr~ximaieiy slx to etght weeks ac~o, and Ms. Wright replied she had ~ot been notifled. Commisstoner Herbst ~olnted out that the property owners within 300 feet of subJect praperty e~r_re notifled c this he.arinq a~d scx~P of the,n were present to discuss it. (She indicated she did not live withir, 3~0 fret of suh)ect site.) Jim Ki~cannon, archltect~ was ~resent to answer any questions. TI~f. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. C~xnnisslaner Herhst asked the type of l~ndscaping Intended on either side of the fence on Santa Ana Canyon Road~ and Mr. Ki~cannon explalned that the landscapinq concept has not been wc~rked out at the present timc and vro uld have to be tricorpc~rated with the equestrian trail. He point°d out f,anary lsland pines or Cypress trees~ or something suitable would be planted in this strip inside the fence. 2/13/78 a MIf~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~OMMISSION. February 13. ~97a 7a"'.)5 EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10223~ REQUEST F'OR APPROYAL OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (Cantinued) ._~..__~, _,_~~ Commisslone~ Herbst state:d he wc~uld l ik~ a stipulatt~n .~s to what w~~g !~~Inq to be out In the~e so that the neo~1F ~~~ould not be tooking at a solict~ 11.-foot hinh ~•:all. Ne indicsted he wc~ulci llk~ ,~ stl~ulnti~n ~s to ths type of trees and how they will h~ speced~ and Mr. Ktncannon replled he wauld rather not stl~ulate to havlnq the tre~s ~n rec~utarly spaced centers~ is it may be morP ~eSthetic~lly pleASing to grnu~ the trees. Ne felt that It w~u 1 c1 h~ m~notonous to Spe~CP. t r.r.es nvPry I ~ feet . Commissloncr Herhst fclt wlth the long narrow fence, thr. trees c~~ild not be qr~uped ve~y we i l ancJ Corrnn 1 ss ioner JohnSur~ fe 1 t s f nce the ob) e~ t i v~ i s tn hreaE•. u{~ thr, monotony of the wall and gr~upinn the trees at one end would not ~~ccc~¶nllsh th~t h~ d1~1 n~t se~ ~~ny reason for the ~etitioncr nut t~ stinul.~tc to spacln~ thr, trees. Nr. Kincannon su~q~sted a minimum ~u,~ntlty of trees~ for instance~~ r~qulrin~ ~'~ minimum of 1~ trees for e ~~~ fo~t wall, t~ h~ ol~~nted In suc:h <~ pattern to brc~~~ u~ th~ r~onotony nf the wall a~d not develo~ ,Z rythmlc pattern~ ~+Ith Canr~isstoner Nerhst SfALIf1q there should not be ~i 3~ ~r 4t~ f~~t ~nacP ~t any one ~I~~ce~ z~n~i suagesce~l s~me typ~ of cl imhina vine be planteci. Commissl~nr_r Linn v~as corcerned thnt wlth the narrow stri~ ~af qruund~ th~ tree raots would damage the wall, t~ointin~t aut this would restrict what could b~ plar~Ced. Comr~iissioner Barnes ~sked the type oi hlock ~+A11 propose~cl al~n~ Sant~ Ana Canyan Road~ and Mr. Kincannon rerlied that bec3use of the r~t~lnt;~^ wall re~uirer~ent they wc~uld be using Class A r_oncrete hlock, which Is ~ structural concr~te hlock ~nd not a splt~-face texture~ hut that it c~uld be done in color. Conxntssioner Harr~S isked if a dACOrativP v,all coulri he pl~ce~~f on top of the retaining w~ll, s~ that there is s~^~ething othe.r th~n th~ plarn cancrete block w~ll~ and siated Lhat alonu Santa Ana Canyon Ftoa~i there arP decor~tivP hlock rr~lls ~~nd she was s~~re many were partly retalning walls; and since this is thc 5cenic Canyon Corridor she wanted to make it as beautiful as nossibte. Mr. Kincannon replled that a sArayed textured coatinq with se~me woo~ treatment could be applied to the wall after it is constructed~ t~ut that they were li~~lted on the type of block they co~~id us~~ fo~ the lower ~ortion. Commissloner Barnes stated she felt the Ccxnmission should requlrP a stipulation betause they would want something other than a black a1a11 and Chairman Tolar• and Canmissioner Johnson agrr.ed. Comm(ssioner Herbst suggr.sted nilasters. AnniN.~~ Santalal~ti, Assistant Dtrector for Zonina, suggeste~i ~erhaos the Ccxnmtssion would like to see the precise construction drawinqs for ti~e wall and the landscape plans prior to any constructivn activlttPs. Commissioner JohnsoR stated the Commisslon had voted in favor of this proJect ovar the objections of ~ lot of peorle because they could not figure ~nythinq hetter for the land~ and felt the Corrx~i~sion should keep a tight rein on what is allowed to qo in to protect themselves and the people in the area. ACTION: Commissioner David offered a mation~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED, thet the Anahelm City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish 2/13/78 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ February 13~ 1978 1$~9~ EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION~ TENtATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10223~ REQUEST FOR A?PROVAI OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (continued) a 41x-lot subdtvision ~n an Irregul~~rly~ShA~C~ p~rccl nf I~~n~ consistlnq ~f approxlm~tely 1.H acres loc~ted ~t th~ nnrtheASt corner of Sent~ ~nn Caryon Road .~nd Pinney Drive~ havin~ anrroximAce fronta~es of 777 fcet ~n the n~rth tl~ie of SAnti An» Car~yon Rw+d and 92 feet on the ~ast sid~ of Pinney Drive; anA d~~s ti~r~hy ap~r~v~ thc N~antive D~~laratlon from thr_ requirPment to ~rep~re ,~n envlronment,~l 1mp~Ct renort nn thc h.isls thnt there would he n~ qignificnnt tndivldua) or cumulative ~dvers~ envir~nment.~) impact clue to the ap~rnv~l of this Ne~atlve Decl~iratlon since the An~heim Rener.i) Plan ~fesignetes thc subiect pruperty fnr hlllsldr 1oa,-den4ity rr~5ldential land u.r,; commensur~te with th~ nroposal; th~~t no S~~nsltiv~ envir~nmentA) im~icts ar~ Inv~ivrd in th~ proposAl; that the Initial Sti.i~iy Suhmltted by the petitloner indlc~tes no 4lcrnlficant lndtvirlual or cumulatlvc ~dverse envlranme,~ta) im~acts; and thae the Plen~civ~ Decl~rAt(on substantiatinq the foregoing findln~s is on fllP in th~ Cttv of Anr-hefm Planninq ~e~artment. ACTION: Conx~issir~ncr Davici ~ffered ~a m~tian, scconded t,y CormissionPr Kin~ and MQTION C/1RRIF~ (Commissioners Barne~~ and L(nn votin~l no)~ thit thr 11nnh~(m f.ity Planninq Cc~rtm~t~si~n does hereby ftnd khat the rr~posecl subdivisl~n~ t~~lethPr with tts deslc~n and improvement~ is consistent with thr. Ciiy of l1n~h~im ~+encr,~l Plan, pursuant to ~~overnm~nt Code Section 6~473.5 ~-nd CIOCS~ therefore, inprovc Tentative~ Nap oP Tract No. ~0.23 for a six-lot, RS•72^0(SC) subdivision~ subject tn the netitioner's stioul~~tirsn that preclse development ~1.~ns for the concrete block wall and precise landscapinc~ plans shall be approved ~y the Plannir.g Commisslon~ prlor to any c~nstruction acitlvl~es~ and sub_~ect to followina conditl~ns: 1. Th~t shoulcl this suhdivislon be dPVeloped as more than one suhdivision~ each subdivlsion thereof shall he sutNiitied in tentatfve fnrm for appraval. 2. That tn accordance with City Council policy~ ;~ E-f~~t ~asonry w~ll shall he constructed on the south ~+roperty llne. Reisonahle lar,dscapfnq, Includinq irriqation ~acilities~ shall be installed in the unc~~mented portlon of the arterial hiqhway parkway the full distance of said wall; plan5 fnr sald l~ndsc~~nlnq to he suFx~itted ta and subject to the .~p~rnval of the Sur.erintendent ~f Parkway Maintenanc.~; ar~d foilowinq installation and acceptance~ the City of An~helm shall assumc~ the respnnsih,ility for maintenance of sald lanJsca~inc~. 3. That all lots withln thls tr~ct sh~~ll h~ served by undPrnround utilltles. 4. That a final tract map of suh.~ect pro~erty shill h~ submitted to and ~p~roved by the City Council ard then he recorded tn the ~fftce of the Or.~n~e County Recc+rder. 5. That the c~venants~ c~nciitions~ ~~nd restrictions sh,~-11 he sutxnitted to and approved hy the City At[orney's Offtce prior f.o City Council ap~+roval o` the final tract man ~n~i~ further~ that the approved ~ovenants~ condition5, and restricttons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tr~ct map. 6. That street names sh~ll he approved hy the C1ty Pl.~nning Department prtor to approval ~f a ftnal tract man. 7. 7h~t drainaye of subJect Froperty sha~l be dispose~l of tn a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. a. That the owner(s) of subject pro~erty shatl pav to the Clty of Anaheim the appropriate parl: and recreation ln-lieu fees as determined to he appropriat~ by the City Councll~ said fecs to be paid at the time thc huildiny ~ermit is issued. 9. That all priva±e streets shall be developed in accordance wtth thP City of Anaheim's standards for hrivate streets. 10. (f F.ermanent street name signs have not betn install~d, tPmporary street name signs shall be inst~lled prior to any occunancy. 11. That the oam er(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anahelm an addttlonal 10 feet along Santa Ana Canyon Road for street wideninq purposes. 2/13/78 ~. ~ MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COWIISSION~ February 13~ 1978 78'97 EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATIO~l~ 7ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10223- R~QUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF SFECIMEN TREES (u ntinuad 12. That ~+pp-o~rlate water as~~g~fcA~ahelm~prlorctortheclssu~nc~ ofraVbulld~~9ublit Utilltles, shall bc paid to the Clty permit. 13. Tht~tnfl~hehGhieft~fSthe1F(re1Departm~r~t~,~~~i~~~~~~~t,~'~"'encement of~structural to be necessary y framinq. 1~+. Th~t ~ 3~~f~t r~dtus he ~rovided ~t th~ terminus of the prlv~~te cul-de-sac. 15. That a 6-f~ot hlah rt~agonry w.~1) shall he constructed al~n~ th~ north property line. 16. Th~~t the ~wner(s) of sut~Ject ~ra?erty Instrll a ridtn~ ~n~t hiklne~ trail per C ty of Anahclm '~rail Speclflcation5 in the 1~;-`oox rrid~ park,ln~1 nrr.~ ~n thP n~rth side of Sant~~ An~ Ca~y~n Road~ .ind that the landscaping and irrlaafilon ln this ~arkway be adJusted to accamm~dat~ ~~ trall a~proxlmatetY ~ fe°t In wiJth an<1 surfaced 3 inches of de~c~mposed granltt+. 17, That in ~ccordance ~~ith the re~ulrements of S~ctfon 1".~?.'1~~7 ~ertaininn t~ t e Initlal 5ale of resldentlal homes ~^nt'~f~~mat~o~Aconcnrninnnthc~ryAnahFir*~~eneralSPlanrand sh~~ 1 1 provide each buyer wl th ~~r 1 tte the exl~tinq r.~nin9 within 3~~ feet ~1` tl~e hound~rles of suhject tract. ~A, That iny speclmen tree remov~l shal! he sut>ject to the renulations pertaining to trec preservatiun in the Scenic Co~ridor Ovrrlay Zone. 1?, Thatkpy~~ ~srynd~he,~outhtproperty~l ineebe~~reviewe 1Qan~i~'approvcdthyothef Planning concrete blac Commisslon prlor t~ any constructton activltles. Cannissloner BarnnS in~iicited her negative vr,te reflActed her opinion th~t this devPlo~ment w~u1d nal create a~~~~ 1lving envirr.nm~nt. Commissioner l.inn indltated his n~y~tive vnte reflncted his feelinn tha[ the watt was r.oo ciose ~ind there was too much Jevelopment on thts n~rticul~~r slte. Camrt-issloner Da~iid offered a m~tlon~ seconded hy C.~ils5loner ,ierbst and '10TI~N C~RRIED (Commissloner ~arnes v~ting no)~ that the Anaheim City Plannl5~e`omm;nQi~~atponehspecimen approve the tree rem~va) plan submitted for Tract No. 1~2?.3, P Y tree (pepper) located ~n the building pad site for Let No. 1 be ~emaved. 2/13/18 !t~_ .~fti MINUTES, AN1111EtM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Febru~ry 13~ 197~ ITkM N0. Il ~'~~ RECOMMENDATIONS A. AMENDME ' TO 71 TLE 1~ CIIAPTEItS 18. ~~ 1 18. 44 11N0 18. 48 - Str~uct-ur..l e ght an aree m tat o~~~. Tl~e sc~ff report to the Pl~nning Commission dated February 13~ 197~ was presented~ nattng that staff recanmends an~ ndment~ tn se~c~udl~18those~propertles~wh~ich~are under8resolutions eliml~ete ttie I~eig!~t restrictions by x q of Int~nt to c~mmercial or multlple-family residentlel zones. AGTION: Gommissio~cr Kin~ affered a motlon~ seconded by Commtssion~r darnes and M0710N CA~_~ ituns 18r4An062i011~L18P4Gn~G2~Q{1 andg1Hn48.062hbecam^nded tollread ascfollowsouncil that Sect CO SkCTIpN IH.41.0(~2.011 The heiyht of any bullding or structure wlthin one hundred fifcy (ISn) feet of eny singlc-family resid~ntial xan~ bound~ry (other thon property under a resolution of tnte~t to any con~rctel or multiple-famlly Zone) slia l 1 not exceed one-ha 1 f the di s tance f rom [he t~u i~~i i ng or s truc ture to such zone boundary. Ueoicated streets or alleys sholl be includeJ in cal~ulattng distance. CL SECTION Ia.~~4.Ob2. 1 The hrig~it qf any bui Idinc~ or structur~e witl~ln three liundred (3Q0) feet of any sing~e-family resid~ntial zone boundary (other then property under a resolution of fntent to any cortmercial or multiple-family zo~e) ,hall not exceed one-half (1;2) the distance from the huil4ing or structure to such zone boundary. Uedicated streets or alleys shall be included In calculatiny distance. CR SECTION 16.4b.Ob2 Thp I~eight of any building or structure withln one hundred fifty (150)feet of any sinyle-family resiJentlal zone boundary (other than property under a resalution of intent to eny cmwnercial or multlple-fomily zone) shal) nut exceed one-half (1/2) the distance fron~ said building or structure to the zonc boundary. Uedicated streets and alleys shall be included in calculat~~g distance. REPORTS ANU RECOr~MENOATIONs B. CONUITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0. 1703 - Request for approval of precise landscaping plans. An~ika Santalahti~ Assistant Uirector for Zoning~ reported a staff report to tht Planntng Comnission was not available as the petitioner had jusc requested approval of precise landsGaping plans and tl~ere was insufficient time for a report to be prepared. Floyd Farano~ 2555 E. Chapman, Fullerton~presented the l~ndscape plans to thc Commissi~. Chairman Tolar asked when the landscaping construction would sta~t~ and M~. Farano replied Llie appllcant is ready to proceed but the~e is a water problem in that the anly water to s~rvice the site is from a well or the adjoining property; that they have discove~ed the water from [his well is not suffitiient to mest Fire Department specifications and also an old water line put in by the State that run~ f~om the west side of Dowling appraximately 1620 feet and ad,jotns this well was discovered which does not provide sufFicient Na~ter and a water line must ~e installed to accomrnodate the property. He indicated the petitioner approached the Redevelopment Agency for ffnancial assista~ce in order to put in the water line, and pointed out the landow:~er wo~~ld not be willing to spend $150~000 to bring a water pipe underneatti the freeway, and tha: this matter has not yet bee~ resolved. Miss Sa~ntalahti pointed out a 90-day time limit had bee~ added as a condition when ths co~ditional use permit :.~as ~ranted and a request for ~n extensio~ of tim~e wtll be going to the City Council in the near future and that the landscaping plans must be appraved by the Plan~ing Ganmissio~~ and these co~ditions have not been met. z-13-7a ,~ 6 '7A-~9 ... .. MINUTES~ ANANEIM GITY PLIWNING COMMISSION~ Fab~uary 13, 197~ REPORTS b RECOMMENDAT I ONS - 1 tem l~ - cont I nued Mt'. Farano In dicatad he hnd suggestod thet the petitloner not proceod with the landscepi~g until he knew whether or not the water quastion Gould be resolved; that there w~s ~o reo son to spend the money and than not be able t~ proceod w:ith the operatlon. Ne Indicatad th ey aro na+ close enough to resoiving the problem to go eheed with the oper~tlen. Ne state d If weter could not be provided to the proJect. tt is In sert~us Jeopardy~ buc thet the petltic~ner ha s the e!tornatlva uf elimtneting the one butlding on thr wcst side wh(ch is the paper ope ration. Commissloner Johnson statnd the petltlonor has the altar~attve of terminacing the opera tion and was concerned that providlny water to tha slte could take a long time a~d dld nut feel ttic Commission should be put in thet posltion. Mr. Farono tndlcated the petitloner is aware thr~t this has taken a long time. Ile (ndteated h~ knew a great deel of nffo~t hos gone Into getting thc wetnr ~ucstion resolvGd and poir-ted out thot if i t could not bc resolved~ tl,e paper ope~ration would be discontinued. Chalrman Tola r askcd if the pro}ect would be feasible if the paper operatlon wore elimi~ated; that he was wondering if tl;e nroJect should havc becn approvcd slnce it was presented t o tl~e Commissio~ as a very clean ~peration. Ne inditated he haci looked at the stte a numbcr of tfines and if the present conditions continue~ he feels the proJect is In v(olatlo~ o f what wa5 prornised. Mr. Farano s e ated he agreed tl~At the project should bc developed (n the manner 1~ which it was ~res:.nted, ile stated they did not know tl~e Ftre Q~partn~ent rrould require as rnuch w~ter as they did i~ order to have a firc hydrant and Chet they h~ve been trying to come up wtth a way to meet the requfrements. t1e indicated a part of th~ e~proval was that iand~capi~g pluns b~a approved by the Plenniny Gommtsstan. Chairman 7olar asked how much tin-e was n~~cded and Mr, Farano pafnted out chey would be asking the Gity Council for a 90-day excensior, of time, fle indicated thav inten: Lo ~o ahead and 1~ ndscape the perimeters whlle the building plans are bei~g prep~red. I~e s~ted according t~ the original conditi~ns of aph~oval of the conditional use permit, they had to havc landsc a pe plens approved wtthin 90 days~ and that they did not meet that conditio~~ basically b~eause they did not have the +~ater. Comm(ssione r Ilerbst indiceted he understood they would have enough water to proceed wi th th~ project with the present coraitlo~s~without the paper operation, and Nr. F'arano replie d if they were not able to obtain rellef on co~structio~ of the waterline, ttien rhey ar e gatng to eliminat~ that builJiny until such clme ~s they havc a sufflcient amount of water. George Adans . petitioner, indicated the landscaping would be done within the 90-day extGnsion if weather perm~ts. Commissione r Barnes inditated she was concerned about the 1-gallon and 5-gallon pines which are s hown and felt (t would taka a iong ttme fo~ tham to ma+ture~ and Mr. Farano pointPd out there Is an 6~•faot chainlink fence with intrrwoven redwood slats and the Acacia trees and Oleanders proposed grow very fast. CommisSione r Johnson was concerned that furtihe~ requ~~ts for extensions of time would be made. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ pointed aut extensions of tirt~ could only be approv~d by the C(ty Counci! and tt~at the Planning Commission can only aQprove plans for lands eaping. 2-13-78 .~ ]8- I 00 MINUTES, ANIIHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMI5SIAN, Fobruary 13- ~'11B REP_ ORTS ANU RkCUMMENUATION_ 5_,ITCM Ei - contlnucd ~Conrnls~lone~ barnes indic~ted she felt ths proposed landscaping doe~ conform with what wes ~pproved. She Indlcated ahe was conce~ned bec~~se (t cak~s several ycer s for thR troea to reech sufficlent hetght to sc~ee~ the operAtion~ and ~tated ehc fclt this opr.raklon wes ons of the uglie~t things she has ever see~. Mr. Adems polnted out the nxlsting Oleander~ ara b f~et tall end Commtss ioner Johnson ststed he hes Olee~ndors tl~at nre about 6 fr.at tai I and i t took them 15 y~Ars to reaci~ that hclght, Cammis~loner tiarnes askcd Mr. Farano if It wes his optn(on that th(s la ~ dscapin~,~ would fui ly sCreen anything in tlie yard~ and Mr. Fa~ano repl ied he fel t i t wc~u ld scre~n everytl~ing excnFt tl~c baom t ranes . AGTION: Coamissianer linn offered a rnc~-.iun, secund~:d by Commisslnnrr Ut+vicl n~d MOTIQN CARR I E U~ 7hat tlie Anahe 1 m C 1 ty P I ann i nq Gomn i ss i on does he ruby approvc [ hc I andscape plans for ConJitional Use F'ermit No. 1I03• C- ORANGE GOIJNTY USE PLRMIT APPLIGATION N0. UP-77-$Of' - ac c Out oor Advertising ompany oar . Annika Santolahti~ Assistunt Oirectar for Zoning~ polnted out that a no tlce had been received from tl~e C lark ot Lhe Ooa~d of Supcrvt s~rs :~,at the Paci f i c Ou ~door Advertlsi ng Company has appea ( ed the act ion of the Qrange County P I ann i ng Co~xn( ss i o~ on the ( r Use Permlt ApQlica~~~>: `~o. UP-77-~OP to permit the construction of an outdoor advertislny billboard sly~~ tf~ ~~. high instead of the 35 feex p~rmltted by the Cod~ in thc Ml "Light Industrlal" Ulstrict ond in a~ area desiqnated es (3.2) Light I~dustrfa 1 on the Land Use Ele.ment of the Gcnera; Plan~ located at the A7s5F Railway Compa~y ~ight -of-way between Dc~ug 1 ass 5 treet and the G i ty of Orange boundary ~ and s ta teJ th i s i tem w i I 1 be consl dn re~d by the Orange County E3oard of Supervtsors nn February 22~ 1978~ at 9:3n d.m. ln Room 503~ Orange Gounty Administration ~iuildin9~ 51~ t~orth Sycamore Str,set~ Santa Ane~ Galifornia. Miss Santalaht( stated th(s locatior. was within the sphere of Influenc~ of the Clty of Nnaheim a~d that thi~ sign was more than twice the height permttted by the Lity af AnaF~eim Code~ and she wauld like the Planning Commissiun to detr_rmine whether o r not a letter si~oulJ be written in apposition to this request. ACTIO!~: Commissioner 9arnes offered a mot(an, second~d by Comnisstone ~ Linn and MOTtON 'LAt~ p, That the Planning Commission Secretary forward a le:tar to th~ Clerk of the Board of Superviso~s that the Anahelm City Plann(ng Cc~nmission daes hereby r~commend denlal nf Use Permit Appl(tatton No. UP-77'SOP on the bssis that it is within the City of Anaheim's sphere of (nfluence and~ therefore~ shoul.i complv with the i.ity of Ansh~im standards per- taining to billbaards, which do not permit a billboard at th~is location (pe~'mttted only at the intersectlon of arterial h,ghways) or a height of 80 fcet (a maxie+num of 3S feet permittedj. AOJOURNMENT Thcre being no further business~ GcHnmissioner Li~n offe ~ed a motion~ seconded by Cortwntssioner Bar~es and MOTION CARRIED~ :hat the meeting be sdjourned. The meatin~ was adJourned at 5:1~ ?.m. Respect~ully submitted, ~~.~ ~i~~-~:.. E~i th L. Harr i s, 5ecretary Anahetm City Plannin~ Canmtssion ,~ .,.......,...._~ ..r ... . - . .. r~Ki~i.Wl(,:Yn'L'wW'.Y .