Minutes-PC 1980/07/14~r
Civic Center
Aneheim~ C~1{fornia
July 1~~ 1~80
REGULAR MEETINf OF THE ANA11EIh C_ITY_PLA~INI~IG COMMISS_lAN
--- -
REGULAA
MEETING
PRCSENT
ABSEN7
ALSO PRE5ENT
PLEUGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
- The rec~ular meeting of the Anaheim City Pianning Cart~isslon was called
to order by Chainvoman aarnes at 1:3~ P.m~, July 1~~~ 19t'~ In the
Counci 1 Chamber~ e quorum bcing present.
- Chal rwoman: Qarnes
Commisstoners; Bushore~ Fry, M,tng~ Tolar
Ono v~cant sent.
- C011MIS51(111ERS: HEREiST
- Ronald Th anpson
Jack White
Jay T) tus
Joel Fick
Annika SantAlahtl
Jay Tashlro
nean Sherer
Edi[h Harris
Plannlny Dlrector
Ass(stant City Attorney
Office Engineer
Assistant Dircctor for Planninq
llssistant Oirectar for 2on{ng
Associate Planner
Assist~nt Planncr
Planniny Commission Sncretary
- The Pledye of Allegiance to the Flag was led by ~.ummtssioner Fry.
ITEM ~IQ. 1 PUHLIC NEARING. OW~IERS: J~MES D. BAKER~ i l t AND
EIR- AT G ICAL EXEMPTIptI-CLASS 5 JQN h1ARIE EiAKER~ 5E~3 Paseo Ganado~ Anoheim~ CA 92807.
VARtANCE N0. 31+ Petitioner requests WAIVER OF PERMITTEp LOCATION ANb
ORI EIlTA7101~ AF STRUCTURE TO CONSTRUCT A S It~f;LE-FAMI l.Y
friJELLING on property described As an irregula~ly-sheped
parcel of land consistiny of appro ximately 1.OG acres tocated at the south~ast cfl rner of
Canyon Rim Road and Paseo Ganado~ h aving approximate frontagcs of 300 feet on the sauth
side of Canyon Rim Road and 8(1 feet on thc east side of Paseo Ga~ado, and furthar
described as 5~3 Peseo Ganado. Property presently classifled as R~-720f1(SC) (RESIDENTIAL,
S I I~GLE-FAMI LY) ZOt~E.
SubJect petitton was continued from the meeting of May 5, 19ti0 and June 2~ 1g80 fc~r
specific plans.
It was noted the petitioner has req uested a continuance to the August 11~ 1980 meeting tn
order to submit revised plans.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offerc~l a mation, seconded by Canmissioner Toiar and MOTION
CA- RRIEO (CorRmissioner Nerbst bei.g abse~t~ and one seat being vacant)~ that consideration
of tha afarementioned iter- be wntinued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 11~
1980~ at the request af the petitioner.
80- 385 7/ 14/ 80 .,;~
~
MINUT:S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ JULY 14~ 1980 80-386
ITEM N0. 2 READVERTISEQ PUUIIC IIEARI~IC; REQUESTED BY pRAiILE
~~VE O~CLARATtON INSTITuTE OF AMERICA~ 7~+1 North Vernx~nt Avenue~
„~_~ lQS ANGELES~ C~ 3~~29. AGENT; CNaIS A. NUSELLA~
7G1 VERNOriT AVENUE~ LOS ANGELES~ CA 90~29.
Petttioner raquests ~ermtsslon to permit an
expansion nf an existing prtvote aclucatio~al inatitution in thc RS-A-~i3~00~ ione on
property cfescriberi as e rectangularly-shape<1 parc~l of land consisting of two percels
epnroxtnx~ttly O.t.~ acre havin~ a frontagc of approximrtely 220 fe~t on the south slde of
Crescent Avenue, ~nd a frontAge uf ~~ fect on the west sicfe ~rf D~I~ Aven~~e~ having a
maxlmum ckpth af flpproximately 12~ f'eet and beinn loc~~ter1 apnroxlr~ately 14: feet west of
tho centorllnQ ~f dele AvQnuc (Orallle Instltute). Prapcrty presently clessified RS-A-
43~0(10 ( RCS I DE-~TI~L/A.r,RI CULTURAL) 70t~E:.
Tfiere was one rerson 1 nd i cat 1 n~~ h i s nre~sence i n ~ppos i t i nn to suh.~ect reques t~ and
alth~~~ugh the staff report to the Planntny Comr~~isslon dated July 1G~ 19~~ was not reaci at
the ~~ubllc hearing~ it is referred tn and mAd~ a pArt of the minut~s.
Ch rls N. Nusell~, a~ent~ stated their ortnl~al canditional use ~ermit granted in 197~ was
for propcrty .~t y27 Narth Dalc and in 1972 thev acqulred the p roperty ~t 533 North OAIe;
tt~at duriny these ten years the facillty t,,~s exp~rienc~d a very nraduai natural growth;
that inltially thcy h~~d 4~ students~ and today ~iave iG~ students. but beceus~ of staggered
class scheduless w~ulcl havc a rn~ximum of ~0 stuclents present at Any nne tirrx~, H~ explatned
thelr arim(nistr~tiv~ facil(tles arc very cr~mp~d and ~rc no longer adequace; and thAt they
diJ not purchr~se the ~roperty wf th tl~e intent tnn of expansion~ but to mc. •e properly serve
the ataff ancf students.
A. T. ZAmora~ 5z3 North Dale~ stated he d-+ns 1/2 acre on thc southeriy sido of the ~rail)e
Institute end wanted to say hc th(nks they are doing a fi~ie Job and his family has worked
as volunteers at tfic (nstitute and his san has becn Staff Gfrector therc. Ne stated hls
only objectian is to t~~e water cirainaye frcxn tf~~~t pr~perty onta his property. I~e asked
that someone explain the present anJ future dratn~ge plans because the instltute has
expanded wtth more cen~ent~ bl~~ck[op~ anJ buildinqs and now t,AVe a water catching trap
wh~ich is a parl:ing lot adJacent to his property; that Cven at thr corner with the natu~al
lay of the land~ wAter wll) all flow south towards Lincoln along Dale ~nd onto hts
prope~ty creating a real watcr problem along the north side of his property. Ne tndicated
he understood there wes to be somc type improvement but to date nothing has been done. 11e
stated he and his famtly are w111ing to dc~ anything they can to help the btlnd~ but are
very concerned about this dratnage problem.
Mr. Musella stated he has only been wtth the aralllc Institute for about i-1/2 years and
is not totally famiitar with the dratnage problem; however~ he knaws the problem has been
dtscussed wtth Mr. ZaMOra in the past and in consultation w~th thetr legal staff was made
to understand tt is Mr. Zamora's responsibility to handle the dratnage on hts awn pr~perty
and (f it is ciecided otherwise, thcy will w~rk with him to solve the problem.
THE PUHLIC NEARING WqS CLOSED.
Commi~sioner King dfd not understand the water dratnage problcro since there is a wal) on
the south property line.
Mr. Zamora explained the catch basin he was referring to is a parking l~t and with al) the
buildings, cement and blacktop~ a11 the water flaws southerly and catches in the basin;
that there is e deep well sump pump which pumps the water to the cdge of his praperty. He
expiained Braille c~wns the pump and it is (n the center of thrir pa~king lot.
~
MiHUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSIQ~~~ JULY 14~ 1980 80-~87
EIR NEGATIVC OECLARATION AND CONDiT10NAL USE PERMIT N0. 2035 (CONTINUED)
~..i. ..~~..r~^~r^~.wi~~..~.r~.~i~~..r~ .
Commisttaner Toler polnted out tha~e was a similar problem with thts property three or
four yea~• ago.
Mr. Zamore potntec: out the problam anci the naturbl f1c~w of the weter on the plans. Ile
explolnod the subJ~ct ~roperty wasoriqinally developed with oronge groves and there was
no problem untll It waa davelopeJ with bulidings and ceme-nt.
Jay Titue~ Office EnWineer~ statcd he (s femtllar with the general aree snd Mr. tamora's
propc~ty end tt~e 9rallle property are both lower then the street and the natura) dretnaga
i s ~o the sauth and wQS l. Ne w.~s not awarc ~f the pur-~.
Cholrwom~n Bernes expleineJ tt~c water is being pumped to thc front af tho 8ra(lle
property to Dale Streot but not into the ~treet and it is fiowing around the block wall
onto Mr. Zarnora's property.
Mr. Titus stat~~ thr. curb en~is alnast at tl~c property Ilne between the Orallle Insticute
anc: tlr. Zartqra's Aroperty anJ If the curb wAS cxtanded alon~ the street to the souct~ to
thc exfstiny curb~ tt would keep the water off Mr. Zemora's property~ but would not solve
thc water Wroblem on the bralllc praperty.
Chatrwaman Eiarnes fnlt It is the responslb(ltty of thc propr_rty owner wh~ has created the
problem to solve it and in th(s case the purs~ ts purt~(ny wt~ter onto someone else's
property and she dfd not feet that is acceptabi~. She stAted she is not oppc~sed to the
use or the developnx nt if the water ~roblem is can~letely r~solvcd,
Nr. TttuS statQd tlic petitloner should have an en~lneer lool: at the problem and provlde a
solutlon.
Comriissioner K(ng ask~d if the petitloner is wllliny to stipulate to solve the p robiem.
Mr. Muselta statcd they are williny to work wtth Mr. Zarr~ra to solve thn problem, but they
havo n~vcr been Informed by th~ Clty or le,yal counsel that it is rhetr legal
responsibility ansf tl~at the pump does put weter out onto thc streec and not onto Mr.
Zamc,~~a's ~rop~rty and this has been discusse~ with him in the t~ast.
Chairwaman Barnes did nat think this water drainage prablam is something ta be taken
liyhtly and suggested a cont(nuance unttl thc Issue is ~esolved~ pointing out cxpanslon
will incrc~sc the problcm. She sCated an engineerinq report (s needed which will pr~sent
some mttigating mcasures.
Commtssloner aushore felt the number of students allc~wed by the original conditional use
permit should be amended when this issue comes back before th~ Carmission.
Respt>nding to Commisstoner Bushore~ Dea~ Sherer, Assistant Planner, explained the orlqina)
complaint was from a nearby propcrty owner to ttie west near the recreation
fleld cornplaining about the r.oise. He explained that property vwner was nottfied of the
hearing, but had indicated he would be unable to attend.
Commissioner Bushore asked how lon~ the petitioner would need to submit an engineering
r~port, noting the petitioner and adJacent property a~wner da not agree on whose
respansibility it is to s~ive the drainage problem. Ile stated it appears the water
problem is being caused by the E3raille Instttute and the l~ealth, safety and welfare of
adJoining property awnnrs is ln ,jeopardy and that matter must be cleared up bef~re the
Planning Cortanisslon can proceed witl~ the hearing.
7I~4/An
~
MINUtES~ ANAHEIM CITY PL,ANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 14~ 19$0 80-388
EIR NEGATIVE DECI.AMTiON AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 2_Q35 (CONTINUED
~._.. ~... ...._..__..._.._......~.._~.._.._......._.._,.
Mr. Muselia atat~d ti~~•y wi11 nat pursue the issue of fault and wtl~ simply contract sn
enqinaer to present a solution. Ne Asked tf there ere ~pecific r~gulations requtred by
the Ctty. (Chsirwoman Bernc~s sug~ested the petitiane~ contact the Enc~ino~ring
Departmont.)
Annika SantnlAhti~ Asststant Diractor for 1.r~nin~~, st~ted thc m~tter should be conttnued to
~ certaln dat~e en~~ if tl~e petltionar needs nddlttc~nAl time~ he can rec~i~est a~n addittona)
c~ntinuencc.
Mr. Museile askcd if a report will be done by the C(ty's Enc~lnec.ring Department and
Chalrwrxnan Dernes clarifin~l the petitloncr will have to hlre An engineer to prepare a
report ancf sugycsted a onc.rx~ntl~ continuanc~.
Ue~dr~ Halc. U(r~ctor of the Dr~~lllc Institute. indicatcd she~ thought such a report had
bean do~c prevlously and [hougF~t thcy had cor~pl ied.
Mr. temora stated he p~rsnn~lly contactec! Mr. Kirby and he had sald the Ctty shauld be
contattad and he has dlscussed this problcm with Art Dah) and R~b Joncs (n ~he C1ty's
Enylnecriny Uepartn~ent.
Ms. fiale stated the pum~ had bucn InstAlle~d according t~ City req~trements.
Chain~oman Barnes stat~~d the pr~blem Is thar. water is clur~pin~ ont~ Mr. Zamora's prope~ty
and there ls ~ City ordlnance protecting tt~e lcwrer property from water drainage from an
upper p roporty . She fe 1 t 1 t I s up to the pct i t i oner to takc cara of the water p rob l~m and
the Corr~(sslon w ants an enylneering report shc~winy mitiyatlon measures.
Commissinner dushorc asked for a rcrort from those (n the Engln~erine~ Department fomilla~
w i th the p rab 1 em.
Jay Titus respondad ~ report could bc submittc~i from the Engtneertng Dapartment and also~~
the petlt~oner's ~nginecriny recbrt cen ba rcvicwed by the E~gineeriny Department and
thelr analysts present~eJ.
Commtsaioner King asked about Clty barricades on the sidewalk and Mr. 2amora explalned a
water meter was installed.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushore offered a motion~ se=onded by Cortr.~issioner f ry and MOTION
G~RRI~EO (Commissloner Nerbst being absent and one seat being vac.~nt). that consideration
of the aforementloned item be cantinued to the reguiarly-scheduled meeting of August 11~
1980, in ~rder for the petittoner to submit an engineering raport indica[ing mttigating
measures regarding the water dralnage probelm.
Jack White~ Rssistant City Attor~ey, explAined It is possible the August 11th meeting wlll
be held in the new C(vic CCnter Council Chember at 2~0 South Anahelm Boulevard.
Commission~r TolAr teft the meeting.
7l14/80
: __:
_ ... ,
~
MINUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 14~ 19l30 $A-3~
Ite~ No. 3 was continue~i to later during th~ mectinc~ because the~ p~tltioner was not
present.
ITEH No. 4 PU[1LIC IIEARINf. OW~ICRS: LIIIpA M. GRAI~AM~ 1223G
~~~~VE DECLAR~TI0;1 East Navard~ 1lhlttt~r~ CA ~OG~1. AGENT: At~TJE
N 0. •81-2 NF;t~DERSOt;~ f:~~ West Rnberta Avenuo, Fullerton~ Cn ~2632.
VARIA(~CE N0. 31~~~ ProperLy described as a reccan~~ulerly-sh~ped parce)
of land ac~nslstiny of approxlmately 5)70 squAre feet
haviny n frontayc ot apnr~ximately ;0 feet on thc east side of Cherry Way~ having a
maximum depth of Approximetcty 115 feet ~~nd belnc~ locoted approxirtwtety 15~ feet south of
the centerline of Romnnya Urive~ and further descrit,ccf as 11G0 Cherry Way. Property
prQSently Glassifl~~i R$-7~0'1 (RkS~DC~ITI~1L~ SINGLC-F~MILY) zn~~r..
RECLASS I FI CATI Ot{ RCQUf.S i: RM-12n~),
VARIAfICE REQUEST; (e) MAXINUII STRUCTUiV~L ~iElr,itT~ (b) MINII~UM LANUSCAPEO SETaACK TO PERMIT
A 4-U'lIT APART~1EtlT UUILDI~~G.
Thcre werc 1~ pcrsons indlc~ti~~~ thcir presencr. ln o~+rosltion tn subJcct rcquest, ~nd
a 1 though thc a tef f rc~port to the P I ann 1 ng Cortm( ss i on d.~tcd July 11- ~ 1~A~ was not ~ead et
the public hcaring~ lt is raferred t~~ anc! madc a p~irt of the minutes.
Ant,Je Ilenckrs~n~ G~~ West f~oberta~ Fullcrton~ stated thcy artrec to all the
recomn~endetions~ but potnted out thcr~ is a flre hyclrant exts[lnc~ 1-1/?_ blocks to the
south. He stated photn9raphs of surraunciing property werc prescrtteJ to famllarize the
Comn.-Ission wl th the arr..i. Ile stated ~r.vclapn-ent plans were ortc~inal ly discussed seven
years ego~ but w~re drnpped; tha[ it is economically not feastble to eonstruct a single-
famlly house on this lot in this neighborhood and he felt this p roJect i5 quite an
sttractivc but ldtn~~ and wi l l fit int~ the ncigliborhood very wel l and wt 11 e~hance the
nelghborhaod. He statecl they cb proviJe off-street p~~rking, pr~per lAr.dscaping~
underyround utilities~ etc. anJ felt it will enhance the neic~hbonc~~od although the request
is f~r a RH-1200 classificetio~ in a predort-inotely single-family nelghborhood; that
varlnntes have bee~ previously issued; that the~e is not any roan nn thts lot fo~ anythtng
other than a two-story structure; that there is A duplex developnent directly behind
subject pr~~erty across th~ alley and next cbor there is a two-story single-famlly
dwelling. Ile felt the issue here is that th~s ts an er~ty !ot wh~ich csnnot be developed
any oth~r way because of today's economtc siruation. Ne did not think a single-family
dwelling would be feasible; and nated he fee ; thak this Is a very nice netghbofhood, but
it is within a certaln pricc rangc.
C i t fford Be l i aey ~ 111iG Che rry ~ s tateci he purchased h i s property new i n 19fi2 and the area
was a nice oamfqrtable area with nice neighbors and was conveni~nt to hia wife's p1aGe of
employrt~nt~ Anahclm Memorial liospltal~ and that he has matnt~'ned a certain standard ~f
residence and wants to continue to mainfain that standard; that he was not aware
originally there w as muttl-family zoning adJocent~ but there is a large apartment complex
there and ha ha~s had to live wlth the Inconver~tence of the children playtng close to his
back wi~dows, etc:, and he has had tu replace wlndows because they wil) not take the
~espo~sibiltty. He felt that Ci~erry Stirect tavards Romneya has been graduaily
deteriorating be~ause variances h~ve been ailawed and the property exactly norch of
subject property has bcen an eye-sore for about a year.
Mr. Beliarty stated the petit(oner had referred to la~r-cost rental units and he felt
peaple~ by large~ who rent tow-cost units do ~at maintain a htgh standard of maintenance.
Ne was also concern~d because there is a house across the street o~ Ramneya which is
supposed to be single-family~ but deviattons have been rr,ade and units hAVe be~en rnnted to
7/14/60
~~
~ ~
MiNti'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMWISSION, JULY ip~ 1980 80-390
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARIITION~ RECLIISSIFICATiON N0. 8h-B1-2
ANO VARIANCE N0. 3158 (CONTINUED)
~.~......._ ......~...
two or three femilies and h~ obJect~u to approvol of this rcqucst bacausr_ It couid cause
~equests from oth~rs In thc arca.
Ile~ley Schaefer~ 1233 Glen Drive~ ststed hc has been happy Iivinc~ In a single-fam(ly area
for iG years and obJeccs ta sr.cinr~ the multi-fami ly d~velopnxnts creeptn~ slowly tc~wards
hts netghborl~ood.
Llnda Ken~li~ 1194 Cherry Way, stateQ she lives on the prancrty dtrcctly north and
she rents from hrr nx~Chcr wt~o awns th~ property bcing rrferred to wlth a helght variance
and explaln~cl it was arir~inally two-story anci dnes not have variances. She stated sht and
her husband ere in the process of remc~dcling.
She stetccl her com~~laint Is thcrc arQ pcaple from thc ~portmcnts bchtnd thcm parking on
the street and usually er~ch home hos two vel~icles and thts propo5ol (s for A units wlth
only G parking sreces and she was cancerneJ that thase peo~+le will also be pArking on the
street. Sl~c stated she can ~~~rk their threc vel~i~lcs (n I~cr d~lveway but ~~sually cannot
have any visitors because th~r.re is no ~lacc to park~ She st~ted with hcr twn-story house~
the lower wlnck~ws ore: about G fcet from the property Iine anci with the proposed unit~ she
would be looking incn a block wall and chere would be no Itqht cominc~ tnto he~ hame. She
dtd not wAnt to be in the mtddle of apartments~ pointine~ out shP already has them on one
stde and bet~lnd her end the house flcross the street wliich was recently sold h.~s been used
for apartrr~nts. Shc felt therc w(11 be a p~~rG.in~ problem,
Itrthur Mara ble. 119G Ch~rry~ state~l he bought the ~uplex nn thP corner with the intention
of ltvtng there and it is built more itkc twcrsinr~le f~-mt'y dwellings. Ilis conce rn ts that
with f~ur addltlonal units~ therc w(11 be additiona) parking problcros. Ile felt 90~ of the
people da not use thetr parkiny stalls anJ these pcoplc would park on the streets. t~e dld
not think the pet'tioner will liv~ in one of the u~its as incllcated ~nd there is e
possibillty of twc. yentlemen Itving in onc unit witl, additlo~al children i~ the area. Fie
pnlnted out currently Romneya is like a spee~iway and there have been accidents. Ne did
not feel this ts a suitoblc ~lace for apartn~ents, especially for people with children.
Colleen Q~ddario~ 11L~ N. Crown~ Co-Chairman~ Patrick tlenryr Neighbonc~~od Council~ stated
this g roup is r~ade up of r~sidents i~ the area boundecf by lia~bor~ Euclid, La Palma and
Riverside and was establishc~i when the City of Anahetm detcrmined this was to be a"target
area" for la+-interest lanns becausc the A~e~ neecfect hetp anc! their basic concern and the
matn reason for tl~is area becomin~ a"t~+~9et area" is because it has a t~lc~h density
problem; that the 197G special census of the area revealed this area is ~ne of the tap
four most densely populatcJ arcas in AnahciM w(th populati~n beta~een 12~~~~ ~nd 15.OOQ per
square mlle.
She stated four years ago falinwiny a lengthy hr.~rinc~ for a 144-unit proposcd tmit, the
Pla~ning Cormslssion det~rmine~! that it was not acceptable and workcd with the developer to
provide somethin~ nore accertable and nice townhomes have now been constructed which add
to the area. She stete~i the City Counctl sharsd thc residents' concerns regarding the
high den3ity. She prescnteci a petition anci stated they feel this propesal would only add
to tht high density probl~r~s and other problems menttoned.
Mrs.Deddario rec~uested that she be notified of any requzsts for variances in thi5 area.
ilarrell Ament, 1414 West Glen~ statecl he wantcd the Corra~ission to be aware that a
substantial amount of planning has gone inta this ~rea by the Patrick Henry Meighborhood
Counctt ancf they are working with various C1ty Departments end are prAsently arepsring a
ptan far the overal) are~~. He stated they strongty ob,ject to increased denaity in the
area; that they are not apposed to devclapment, but do not feel thetr area should
~~'
i i
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JULY 14~ 1980 gp_391
EIR NEGATlVE DEC~ARA710N~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-2
AND VARIANCE N0. 15~ (CONTINUEO)
continually bc solactad and~ in fact, tha Clty Council has ~one on record In op~osttion to
ac~y fu~thor hl gh densi ty Jevelopment.
Mr, Nenderaon stated he tertrinly d(d not intend to antac~oni2e so meny people and
understancla their concerns and would not want someone to move into his nelghborhood and
complntely change it. He stAted to liis knowledye this is the oniy open lot in thia
sinc~le-femtly erea and hn did not see how approv~l of this proJect w~uld start a flaw of
cort~areble uaes in the neighborhood. Fla pointe~ out regarding the density~ the staff
report (ndicates 3G units per acre are permitted, ancl thta proposal is for 3~.2 units per
acre and that thts erea h~~s becn designated on the Generai Plan for medium-density
restdentlt~l uses. lie fclt the drawinys will show these units to be one of the finest
looking residences in the neighborhood and would not be a deterloratlon; that this would
be four onc-bedroom ap~rtments with slx parkiny places and he felt peopie living in one-
bedroom units will not generate marc ttian six vr.hiclcs. Ne pointed aut existing problems
have becn dlscussed because: apartments are being renCeci (llegally In the area end he has
talked to annther person In the neiyhborhood who wanted ta do this~ but was refused
permits by the City and he ts pro~osing four legol unlts which will be very beAUttful and
up-to-date; an~J that thfs Is the only open lot in the neic~hborhood an~i hc could not see
the obJectton.
lie understood the concern when a v(ew ts sucidenly bincked by development and suggested if
a view 1s desi red~ the property sho~~ld be purchASed and noteci sometimes progress hurts.
tie referre~ to the parking anci increased population concerns and felt with four one
bedroom units~ the number of chil~irr.n and tt~e parkine~ problems wi11 be minimal. lie
pointed out egaln the General Plan designation is medium-denslty.
THE PUQLIC HEARING 1JAS CL~SED.
Chairwdnan aarnes was really qutte concerned about more density in this neighborhood. She
stated she understands the a+ncr's p~oblems in wanting to dcvelop hls nroperty~ but her
concern is for the pe~ple who alr~ady live there and potnted out the Cnmmissfon likes to
avoid "spot zoniny" because they have founJ It ta be not advantAgeous for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner King statecl he had not scen any other two-story apartments proJects tn the
area.
Commissfoner Bushore stated as much as tl~e Cortxnission ltkes to see in-fill tots developed
to p rovlde much neeckcl housing, this goes beyond that concept and, as planners, the
Commisslon cannot des[roy the integrity of the nef~hborhoad and he did not thtnk it i;
~ight fo~ this nei~hborhood.
(Commissioner Tolar rtturned at 2:2~ p.m.)
Chalrvvoman Barnes st~ted thts ls a very stable ncighborhoad and no other property owner
seemS interested in converting.
Mr. Henderso~ askec! if the Commission would cunsider a duplex and it was noted that was
not the issue before the Commission.
ACTION: Commissloner aushore offered a rr~tion~ seconded by CommPssioner King and MOTION
~t 0(Commisstoner Herbst beiny absent~ ane seat vacant and Cormiissioner Tolar
abstaining)~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Cortmission has reviewcd the proposal to
reclasstfy sub,ject proport/ from the RS-7200 (Residcncial. Single-Fami)y) Zone to the RM-
1200 (it~sldential, Muitiple-Famiiy) 2one to construct a 4-unit epartment oomplex with
~
MINU?ES, ANAHEIM CITY PL/INNING COMMISSIOF~~ JUI.Y 14~ 198Q
EIR NEGATIVE OECLAAATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-61-2
AND VARIANCE N0. ;158 (CONTINUED)
~0-39Z
waivers of maximum structural hel~ht and mtntmum isnd~csped setback on a rnct~ngutarly-
shaped parcal of lnnd consisting of approxlmatGly 577~ squ~ra feet~ h~ving a frontaga of
approximr+tely ~0 fcet on thc east side of Cherry way, havtng e meximum depth of
app~oximately 115 feet ~nd being locoted approxlmately 15A feet south af the centorline of
Romneya Driva; anct does hereby dis~pprove the Negetive Declaratlon from the requlrement to
prep~re en onvironmental (mpact report on thc basi~ that there would be signtflcant
lndtvldual or cumult~tive adverse envlronmentt+l Impact due to the approva) of this Negetive
Ucctaratinn; that sensltlve environmental Im~acts are Involved tn ihe proposal; that the
Initiel Study submitteJ by the petftianer Indicetes signlflcent incltvidual or cumulatlve
adverse envt renmE~ntnl impacts; and thet the t~ehative Declarettc,n substantiettng the
foregoing finJings is on fllP In the Clty of An~helm Planning DepArtment.
Comm(ssia~cr Eiushorc offr.rPd Resol~tion No. PCf30-112 and moved for tts passage and
adoptlc~n tliat the Anaheim City Plannlnc~ daes here~by de~y the f'etition for Reclassification
No. 84-L1-2 0~ the basis that this would be sp~t zoning and not conalstent wtth
surrounJtng sinylc-f~rnlly uses.
On rol) coll~ the fo~egoing resalutian was passe~l by the foliowtnc~ vate:
AYES: CnMMISSIOiaER5: BARr~ES, BUSNORE~ FRY~ K1N(;
t~OCS: C011MiSSION~RS: IIONE
ABSE~lT: COMNISSIO-lEP,S: tiCRI~57
At3STA11~: COMNISSIOriERS: TOLAR
ONE S EAT VACIINT
Commtssioner aushore offcrecJ Resolution ~10. PCB~-113 and moved for its passAge and
adoption that thc Anah~im City Planning Comnission does hereby deny Pctltion for Variance
No. 315~ on the basis that the prop~sed use would not be ~ansistent wtth the surrounding
sinqle-fami ly uses encf no hardst~ip exlsts end the property could be substantia) ly
developed within present zoning requirements.
On roll call, the forec~oing resolution was passed by the follawing vAte:
AYES: COt1MISSI0NCR5: BAftNES, BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING
i~OES : COMM 1 SS I Ot;E RS : NON~
ABSENTt CAMMISSIONCRS: NERI~ST
I1I3STAIh1: COMMtSSIONERS: TOLAR
Ot1E SEAT VACANT
Jack White, Asslstant Clty Attorney~ presented the written right to appeal the Planning
Commission's declsio~ wlthin 22 days to the Clty Council.
7/ 14/80
1~.>~
Mi NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C I 1'Y f'IAt~N I NG COMMI SS I ON ~ JULY 1~+ ~ ig80 Page 393
ITEM t~0. ' PUOLIC HEARING. OWNERS; DANK, OF AMERICA N. T. b
EIR NEGA IVE DECLAitAT10-~ S. A. ~ i3~1 North Msin Street, Santa Ane, C.A 92701.
~ U M 1!T l1GCt~T: R. II. E~1~IGIIAM~ SR. MGMT. OFFICER~ BANK OF
NO U , htl N. 2~(3S AMERICl1~ Fi01 Narth Maln Stroet~ Santa Ana, CA ~2701.
Petitiuncr rec~ues~s permisslan TO RETAIN AN AUTOMOaIt,~
pETAILII~G FAGILITY WITII WAIV~R OF MItJIMUPt l,At~DSCAPF.p SCT~sACk I~~ TIIE ML ZONf, on property
deacribeJ as a ~ectonc~ularly-shaped parcel af lanJ ~onsistinc~ of approx(metely ~.G ecre
locateJ ot the nortliwest corncr af Mi ralon~~ livenue and Krr~emer poulevnrd~ having
approxim~te frontages af 12; feet on the north sidr of Mtraloma Avenue r~nd a frontoge of
~5~ feet on the west side of Kraern~r Bouelvard. ancl furthcr described as 3~93 East
-ltraloma Avenuc (Auscam Internatlonal). Praperty presently classtfled ML (I~~DUSTRIAI~
L IFIITED) ZQtIC.
Subject ~etltton was cdntinued f~...., the n,eetin~~ ~f Junc 30~ 193~ tn order for revised
plans to be submitte~.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request and elthough
the staff report to the Planning Commission datcd July 14, 1980, was not read at the public
hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
John Cains~ 1959) Country H~ven, Santa Ana, operator of the automobile detaiting Pacility,
indicated he has been operating for three years and originally unders4ood he had the
necessary approval.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
Mr. Cains further explained he has a business license and other necessary permits and
leased the p roperty fro~: the Bank of America and ic was a trust and chey informed him
they would make the applications and he had complied with t~elr requirements then And anly
recently found out hd did not havc the proper permit. He expiained t~e original business
license was issued for a service station and it was ~n equipment rtntal operation w~en he
leased It. Ne explained he had indlcated the use would be an automobile wholesaling/
detailing facility when he applied for a business lictnse.
Dean Sherer,Assistant Planner, explained the Redevelapment Cammtsston recommended approval
with the condttion tha~ the pump islands and canopies be removed.
Commtsstoner Bushore felt the petittoner is probably here because of the conspicuous wey the
business is being operated, noting the existing landscaping is not bcF''.g maintained which
draws attentlon to the use. He noted a c~rtain integrlty is being st--ivcd for in t~is area
and this use is probably in a qood loration~ but in order to be abie to stay there~ the
petiitoner will probably have to stipuiate tc~ making~ctrtain improvements. He was not as
toncerned about the removai of t~e csnopies and islands as the Redevelopment Comnission,
but did want a sttpulation that the property wi11 be cleaned up and improved to rt-ake it
more compatiblc with the area. He felt a unc-year time IPmtt should be included in the
approval~ in qrder for the use to be reviewed. He clariFied that all the vehicles parked
bthind the fence are being detailed.
Chairwanan BarneS stated in viewing the property she was very disappointed thet the land-
scaping has been all~d to d1e. She did not obJect to the use, Dut felt it must be
brought up to the standa~ds of the surroundfng uie~. SAe determfned the lease exptres
in November 1982, end indicated she would like to see the aedevelopment Commission's
recam~endatio~s ca~ried out and tha landscaping wit~ sprlnkiers improved and suggested
the agent try to work something out wtth the property owner.
7/14/80
~'
t !
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, JUIY 14, 1980
Rage 394
ITEM N0. 3, EIR NEG. OECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
N0. 208~ (continued~
Mr. Cains replied the sprlnklers were replac~d last week and stated the area could be made
to look nice and ~greed to bring it up to stdndard,
The gasoline pump islands were dis~ussed and Carmissionar Bushore felt someone will Imprnve
the property in the future and remove the islands and Mr, C~ins explained he pians to purchase
the property and develop it as soon as possiblc~ probably within three or four months.
Commissianer Fry nsked if the Fire Department was concerned about the underg~ound storage
tanks and Mr, Cains explained the Fire Department has inspected the property and given their
approval.
Commissioner Tolar stated the Commission has npver supported any gas station conversions
leaving the canopies~ but he would be willing to support approval of this use for six
months without r~noval of the Islands and canopies since they wlil be removed when the
petitloner is able to purchase the property. Ne stated he wants the lanclRcaping improved
immediately because it would nat affect what is done later. He stated he would not suppart
the use after six months, however, unless che istands and canopies are removed.
Commissioner Bushore referrcd to the nlans whiGh indfcAte a landscaped setback of 10 feet
and noted the staff report Indicates 14 and 25 feet existing.
Dean Sherer,Assistant Pl~nner~ exptained those figures represent the distances from thc
property line to the ~dge of the canopy and pump islands and the waiver will be required
in ord~r to retaln the islands.
ACTION: Comnissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CARRIEO (Commissioner Herbst being absent and one seat betng vacant} that the Anaheim City
Planning Cammission has reviewed the proposal tA retain an aucomobile detailing faci{ity
in the Ml(Industrial~ l.imited) Zone with waiver of minimum landscaped setback on a
rectangularly-~tiaped parcel of land conaisting nf approximateiy 0.6 acre located at the
northwest corner of Miraloma Avenu~ Find Kraemer Boulevard~ having a frontage of 125 feet
on the north side of Mtraloma Avenue and a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of
Kraemer 8oulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Decla~ation from the requirement
to prepare an environmental impact report on the basi, that ther~ would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of thls Negative
Declaration since the Anaheim General Pian designates the subject property for general
industrial land uses cortmensurate with the prapasal; that no sensitive environmtntal lmpects
are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates
no significant individuai or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the
t~kgative Declaration substantiating the for~going findings is ~n file in the City of
Anaheim Planning pep~rtment.
Commissioner Tolar ~ffered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commission+er Herbst being abse~t and one seat beEng vacar-t} chat the Anaheim ~ity
Planning Cc~mmission does hereby qrant thc request for waiver of code requirement of
minimum ~an~scaped setback o~ the basis rh~t tha structure is temporary and the pump
islands and canopies wlll be remaved when subJect property is purchased and ultimately
developed in approximately six months,
Commissianer Tolar affered Rtsotution No. PC80-111 and moved fo~ its pas~age and adopti~n
thAt the Mahaim City Planning Ccxnr~ission does he~eby grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2085 for a periad of six (6) menths, ko axpire on January 14~ 1981~ subjact
to the petitione~'s stipulation that the exi~ting landscapi~g will be improved and main-
tained and subjuct to interdepartmental Committe~e Recommendatlons.
i~
:
i
s.
y;
s
;
~
7/i4/80
F`''
~
M I NU1ES ~ ANAHE 1 M C 1 TY PIANN I NG CQMM I SS I Oi~l ~ Ju) y 14 ~ 1980
Pe~e 39~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. MAtVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 2065 (cont.)
---- - -
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc,wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ KING 6 TOLAa
NOES: COMMISSIONER S: NONE
ABSENT: CONMISSIONERS: HERBST
VACANT: ONE SEAT
Commtssionar Tolar expl~ined to Mr. f.alns thac if he doea not purchase th~ property and
wishes to continue his c+pe ration at this location et the end of the six month period~
he will be roqulred to spply for a new conditlonal use permit and suggested it might
be of benefit to try and improve the proporty because if he decidRS to reQuest another
permlt~ the Commission and Zor+ing Enforcert~ent Officer will be r~ally looking closely at
that corner.
Mr. Calns explsined he was planning co buy the p~operty before: put.'ng in any improvements~
wh(ch is the reasan nothing has be@n taken ~:ore of to date.
~ITEM. ~N0,.,.,~ PUBLIC NEARING. Oi~MEFtS: TEaRANCE A, ANO MARY D.
EIR CATEGORICAL EX~MPTION-CL~SS STROUSC~ 842 So~ith Mal 1(day Streot, Anaheim, CA
VAaI CE NQ~3157 9280G, Petitioner raquests WAIVER OF MtA7(IMi1t~
FENCE NEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE on yrc~pe~ty
descr(bed ss an irreguis~ly-shaped parcel af land consi;~~nc~ of approximately 6913 s4uare
feet located at the no~theast corner af Glon Holly Orive and Haiildey Street, hAVfng
app~oximate frontages o` 105 feet on the north side of Glen Nc~lly Drive and 5 2 feet on the
east side of Nallidsy Street. and further descrlbed as 642 Sauth Halliday Str~et.
P~operty p~esently clsssifl~ad RS-720~(RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
There was no o~e i~dicating their presencc Vn oppositi~r. to subject request ac+d although
the staff repart tc the Planr+ine, Commission dated July 14, ~96o was not read at the publ tc
hesring, it Is ~~efer~~d to and made a part of the mi~utes.
Terrence Strouse~ awner, stated he purchased the property one year ago and it wss the eye-
sore af the n~ighborhood and he has cleaned it up; however~ the arapesteke fe nce (s
falling down and needs to be replac~d and a variance permittinq a six-foot fe nce will
permit him to use the proper ty Cn the fullest advantage af~his threehchildre n~notob~act.
Ne explained the fence is needed for privecy and safety
Chere has been a problem with someone coming 1~to the yard and also la~~e dog s can get
int.o the y;~rd. He felt the proposed fence will e~hancc and beautify the prop+erty.
Ne presented a petition with stgnatures of 20 immedia*.e ~eighbors who fulty s upport the
fence.
THE PUBL 1 C HE1~R I NG WAS ClOSEO.
Commissioner King was cance rned ebout visability for vehicles comi~g ~round t he carner
and Mr. Skrouse repiied a study wss p~essented which shnws tliis will give the ~irivers en
additio~A1 flve feet at the intersertion of Nalliday and Glen Flclly.
Ths pianntng D6rector ar his authorized r~pr~sentative has determined that the aropnsed
proJect falls within the de flnition of Categoricel Exemptton. Class 3~ $s de fined in
Parag~~ph 2 of the CTty ~f Anaheim Environmental Impact aeport Guidel~nes And i~~ therefare~
categorically exampt from t he requiremant to prepare an EIR.
1I14/80
~ ~ ~ ,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION. Ju1y 14, 1980 P~ge 396
E 1 R CATEGOft I CAL EXEMPT ION, CLASS 3 snd VAR 1 ANC~ N~O. 3~ 157 (cont t nuec')
ACTION_: Commi ssioner Bushore of fered Reso t ut ion No. PC$0-114 end naved tor i ts passage
and adoptlo~ that ths Anahetm Ctcy Pl~nnin g Commisstan does hereby grant the Petttton
for Varianee Nn. 3157 on the basls that s ubJect property Is e re verse corner lat and is
irre9ularly-shaped and subJect to Inte~departmental Committea Recammendationa.
On ro) 1 ca 1 I the fore9oing resol ut ton wes passed by the fol towi ng vote c
AYES : COMM I SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ BUSHORE ~ FRY ~ K 1 NG 6 TOI.AR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT : COMM I SS I ONE RS : HER95T
VACANT : ONE SEAT
ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC N~ARING. OWNERS: uERARO LAVELLE WERNER~ AS
EIR NEGA'~IVF DECIARATION TRUST E E OF THE GERARD L. WE RNER ANQ 1015 6ERNICE
WAIVtR OF CODC RE, ~U R,~E_ME~,~T WEaNER 1976 TRUSTS~ 61 Cambrla Qrive, Corona Del Mar~
~ONQITI~NAL U~~E~CRMIT ~IO. 20$9 CA 92625. AGENT: IdERNER CORPORATION~ L.M. WERNER~
-~ 201 East Conmerclet Street, Anaheim~CA 92801.
Petit=cner requests permission TO EXPAND AN EXISTING
CONCaETE BATCHiNG FACILIT~ AND OPERATION 4tITH WAIVERS (a) MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SETBACK~
(b) REQUIRED ENCLOSUaE 0~ OUTDOOR USES on propcrty d~sc~ibed as an irregularly-shaped
~arLel of land cons(sting of approxtmetely 2.69 acres~ having a frontage of approxlmatcly
322 feet on the north side of Comme~cial Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 335
feet and being i~cated approximately 335 f~at west of the cente rline ~f Patt Street~ and
further described as 201 East Commercial Street. Property pres~ntly c.lasslfed MH
( I NDUSTP.1 AL, HEAVY) 20NE .
There was no one indiceting their presence in opposiiian to subJect request and although
the staff reporc to the Pl;,nnfng Corm~ission daled July 14. 1980, was not ~eed at the publlc
hearing, i t is ~eferred ta artd made a p.~rt of the minutes.
Larry We r~er~ agant, explained this condi t)onal usc permit is being ~cquested prirtdrily to
expand th~ existing oFfice bui lding. He ~xplair~ed the existing bul lding was bui 1: in 1967
and they wish to ex~~,nd with the same setbacks. He ststed they tried different methods
ef situating thc buildin~, but there 1s na other Hay to expand th~ buildiny; thac they tost
a large portior af their pro~erty when the freeway was constructed; that tnis is a heavy
industrfal area end no othtr parcels in the are~ compiy with the setb~ck requirements.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIOSE~.
Commissfo~er King stated he could approve the request, with t~.x~ exceptians; that the fence
:lang Come~erclal Street on the south wi 1 1 be br~uqht up to Cade; that the fe~~ce o~ Patt
~~treet on the east is badly deteriorated and needs to be upg~adeJ; that he agreed the
fence on the west is phrtly h(dden behin d the butiding and sto rage and the fence on the
no~th is hldden by oleanders, but the fe nce on thc east needs to be brought up to Code.
Mr. Werner stipulated to ir~rove the chai~'irL fance with redv+ood slats on t'~e east as
r~quired by Code.
ACTION: Cormeissioner King offered a rm t lan~ seconded by Commis sioner Bushore and MOTION
~~tT~t~tCommissioner Herbst being abs~nt a~d o~a seat being vaca.~t) that Zfie Anaheim
C(ty Pla~~ing Commtsslon has revlewad the proposal to expandan cxlsting concrete batching
fa~i 11 ty and operation with ~~lvers of mi ninxxr~ landscaped setback and requT ~ed enclosure
of outdoo ~ usea on dn I~rey..._ •-shaped parcel of property consisting of approximately
2.69 scras, hsving a frentage of npproxJaautety 322 feet on the nortl~ side of Camiercial
Street~ havlnS ~ meximwn depth of approx~rmetely 33S feet and bei~g loceted approximately
7/i4/8a
~
~ ~ r~ ~ '
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PAI.NNING COMMISSION~ Ju1y 14~ 1980
Pa~e 397
E I it NEGAT 1 YE DECIARAT I ONL 41A 1; ER`OF`CODE REfiU I aEMENT ~ CON01 T I ONAL USE PERM I T N0. 2089_(con t. 3
335 f~~t west of tha centsrltrN of P~tt St~eer; ~nd does hareby approve tha Negattve Declara-
tion from the r~qutrement to prepare an env° nmental tmpact repart on the Dasis that there
would be no itgnifie~nt individual or cumulative edverse e~vtronmcntal (mpact dua to the
approv~l of this N~gativ~ Declar~tion si~ce the An~heim Gene~al Plan destgnete~ the subJect
p~op~rty for q~neral lndustrtal lar~d uses commensurate wtth the propos~i; thet no sensitive
~nvtronmsntal impacts are Involvad In the proposal; that tho Initfal Study aubmitted by
the petttio~ar tndtcates no signtf icant individual or cumulattve adve rse onvlronrt-entAl
Imp~cts; and that the Negative Decleration substantloting the forec~oTnq flndings is on file
in the City of Anahelm Planntng Oepartment.
Commissinner King ofFered r motion
(Commissioner He~bst being absent
Pl~nning Commission does hereby gr
on the besis that denia) would dep
propertles in tha sanre zone and vi
petttioner sttpuleted to improve t
redwood slats in accordance with C
site sc~eentng tu the no~th and we
of a prtvilege betng enJoyed by ot
, secondad by Cammissloner Fry and MOTION CARRIEO
and one seat being vacant) that the Anaheim City
ant tha reyue:t for waiver of Cade roquirement (a)
~ive subJect p roperty of a privileg~ enJoyed by other
einity rrnd granting waiver (b) on the basls that the
t~o fence along the south and east p~operty 1 tnes wlth
cde requiremert end granting the request for waiver of
~st on the basis that denta) would d~prive sub,ject property
her properties In the s.~me xo~e end vicinity.
f,emmiasioner King offered Resoluti on No. PC80•115 and moved for its passage and adcption
tt-at the Anaheim City Planning Ccxr~nission does hereby grant Petition for Condltional Ute
Permtt No. 2089 subJect to Interdepartmental Committe~ Recommendations.
On roll call che foregoing resolut io~ was pa~sed by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: CUFWISSIONERS: BARNES. BUSHORE~ FaY~ KING S TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: HER85T
VACNNT: ONE SEAT
~r ~ aiao
~
, ;
MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt~~ JULY 14~ 198A Page 398
ITEM NC. '
0 tdD RCCOHIIEIIDAT 1 QI~S
A, ADANU(11~MEIIT I~O. ~1-1 A- Rec~ues t f ram LArry I~endersnn ~ Communi ty Canter
~i<irTty. to a an on ths~t portlon af Convent(on W~y from 1177.76 fee!t east of
tl~e centerl ine of u~st Street.
AC71~N: Corimissioner Kin~~ offered A nx~tit~n~ second~<! by Commissi~ner Fry and
MO- T14N CAf~RICU ~:a~~miss(oner Nerbst bc~lnq ebscnt and c,n~ seat befnn vacant). that
tlie Annhr..I m C 1 ty P 1 nnn I nn Cprmi ss 1~~n ~fnes hr.r~hy rrt;r~mrx~ncl to the C 1 ty f.ounel 1
th,~t Abancic.~nment N~. 'J~•1 JA be ap~rovecl as rec~~,~~r~ended by thc CI ty Cnc~ineer.
B. STATUS OF FREMONT AND AP^1.1.0 JI~N I OR H I GH SCHOOLS
Chairwort~n Bornes stated thc Plan~ing Commisslun would Ilke to discuss their thoughts
regardin~ the highest and best usc of surplus schoal properties with the Community
Developn~nt Commissior~ and Housing Commission with a special emphasis beiny placed on
housing for low to moderAte incixne peopi~e or tht usc of existing structures for rest homes,
medical care facilities, or senior cittzen iiousing.
Norm Priest~ Executive DirP~~nr, Community Dcvclopment Oeportment, stated their departmr.nts
have not explored the use ~~~ existing structures in any dapch, h~t have considcred the
vacant tevel sites as housing sites~ but have not drawn the linc at low ~nd moderate income
ho~~inq. He stated it is his understanding that the School District has only quite
recently starting working with a consultnnt on rhis tssue to determine what they feel is
the highest and best use of these proper[ies .. c1 it is also his underStanding that the
Govermenc f,ode dces pr~vidc thet the sites wc~ui~ have to be offered to the Housing Authority
~nd other governmental ~genctes and ~t that poi,-t their dcpa rtment would fook at the sites.
Ne stated they ha ve been approachcd by developers on occesion And have suggested they
contact the School District. Untii the sit~s are offered for sale and a developer is
interested~ ther•e is nothing for their departmcnt to discuss. H~ explainr.d they have
briefly considered the existing buildings and have talked with dcvelopers and the Park and
Recrcation Department regarding their use for cuitural erts, etc. He stated the
"bottom line"~ of course, (s rtaney snd from a Community Qevelnpment standpaint, they dr not
ha~e the money to inv~st in the buildings; tha[ their Community Developmtnt Block Grant
is about tw~o million dollars per year and the Redevclopn~nt Agency would be outside their
authority~ except for loN and moderate income housing and th e Housing Authority could only
b~ invoived wiYh assistpd housing.
Commissioner Tolar felt with the housi~g problems which currently exist, this would be an
excellent opportunity for the City, th rough the School Oistrict. to acquire the p srty
and offer it, through a lease-back type of arrangement~ t4 a developer for housing
development whec.~er it be for mobile homcs~ modular homes, aRartments, or condominiums
which wauld provide the City a good cantrol factor and also an opportunity to provEde
revenu~e with~ut passiny the cnst of the 1and, etc. on ta the consumer. He did not know
wt-at stsps should be taken to accomplish this goal, but felt after discussions with other
Cammissioners that th~se are severa! parcels af praperty wfiich, throuah a Joint effort
of the City, School District, Community Developme.nt Department and ot'~er government
agencies, is an opportunity to provide housing.
Cammissioner Tolar referred to a mQbile home park at Ball a nd Sunkist and felt it is one
of the nicest he has seen wtth S to 10 mobile homes per acre p~d stated he had discussed
the possibility of develoNing a similar park with a developer on Q~e of th~se school site~
n~d was inforrt+~d that, without the cost of thc la~d~ housin g could bt provided for between
S35~000 and S40.000 per unit which would create low to irade rate cost housing. He f~lt a
concentratad effort shouid be made to Jotn with the School District and the City~
7/14/80
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION~ July 14, 198o Fa e 399
~
REPORTS b RECOMMEN DATIONS ITEM B. STPTUS OF FREMONT AND APpLLO JUNIOR HIGH S?OLS (cant,
through acqutsition or some other method to teke control of this p~ope~ty +n order to
make sure tho end product is the creation of low cost housing~ rather than possibly
adding mo~e comne rclal sltes. He polnted out downtown Anahetm is being devefope~ for
comnerical uses snd felt conxnerctal uses should be dtscouraged in the outlyi~g areas.
He felt th., houslnq issue shau~d be of ucmost prior(ty. Ne asked if funds could be used
for the site on Liiicoln which is fn the redevelopment area.
Mr. Priest explained that site An Lincnln is noc in thc redevelopment area and none of the
sites being dlscus sed are in tht redevelopment area wh(ch is why he referred to the three
sources of funding: (1) the Community Develonrtient Block Grant which iy too Itmited in scope
to handle even one of these sites aven thour~h it Is rclatively unfettered and can be used
z,rrost anywhere for community revitalization For low to mod~~ate tncome people; (2)
redevelopment funds which can~ to whatever amount they arr. av~11 31e~ be used for redevelop-
ment purposes only and he was not hopeful that there erE any exc ~s funds there~ but for
low and rmderate income housing could be used instde and outside the pro)ect areA; and
~3) would be the Housing Authority whlch is empowered to manage, ~dminister. and foster
ho using for low an d moderatc income peoplc and that funding is totally thrnugh Section 8
and as such would not be available for such a site.
He agreed and feit there are two points which are wo~thy of discussion with the Schoo)
Oistrict beGause the fi~st decislon regarding leasing would be theirs and leasing is
indeed a way these things have been handled in -ecent years and does provide a lon9er
term flow of reven ue and spreads the cost over a lonqer period of time, ultimately
recnver~ 3 it all. and has less af an "up-front" )olt to thc developer going in. From
that standpoint, if the Schonl Oistrlct ~Nas interested in sharing wtth the City, Mr.
Priest pointed out it has been discussed w~ith them~ even thou9h he daes noc have a defini-
tive responsc from them and is not sure that their Staff at this time cou~d glve a response
beca~:,~ the Hoard has not coRSidered it, but if they were inte~ested in spreading ~hetr
reCurn over a 1~nger period of time~ that certainly would work. He state~i et this tirt~
he is unable to identify sufficient funding to buy these sites for a leasr-back which
would tak~ the School District right out of the picture in one cash purchase.
Commissioners Bushore and Tolar were cancerned about the figures shown un the ~eNort which
are just estimates and Commissioner Bushore was concerned that thtre was nothing mentioned
about the possibility of ~easing the property with the cash ftow back t~ the School District.
He asked (f a developer could wark with the Community Development Department if he was
interestedinaparticular site and could put the doilars up out front.
Mr. Priest felt the first step would be ro work with the Schdoi District and get a firm
response as tfl whe thtr or not they wnuld be interested in a lease-back arrangement and
the second step wo uld be if the Cortmunity Oevelopment nepartment or any public agen~y were
involved~ the bids would have to go out competitively. The only feeling he had regarding
chat was that during that 60-day period, ~he CiCy be givr.n an option and the^ the City could
seek prP-~pprova! from the Housing and Urban Development Oepartn,ent (NUD) which would give
them the right of approval of the developer and the~ the site coutd be offered to developers.
Ca•.~nissioner Tolar felt the Commission's matn objectlve is to be able to of~er their
experiise in the interest of good ylanning in a joini wo~k session with the School District,
Community Development Departme~t, Housing Authority~ etc. to brainstQrm thelr ideas and
determtn~ good use s for these properties~ noting sorx of these sites may n~ot be feasible
for housing.
7/14/$0
~
MIN~rES, A11A1,E1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ .~uly 14~ 1980
REAOIITS b RECOMMENDATIONS. ITEM 9-STATUS OF FRENONT AND APO~
Page 400
IOR HtGH SCHO~LS I
Chsirwomen BArn~~s r~minded the Commtssfon that they have requested a st~ff stud• on the
sthoal pr~pertfes whith msy become avail~ble~ providing Staff an opportunlty to loak at
them and she felt thts ahauid be a Jolnt effort.
Ron Thompson, Pienning Director, feit It couiJ ba premature to do any planning at this
point because it could e+ctuaily draw out th~ p~ocess. He used the Fremont site as an
exsmpie pointing out it is already actually zaned ior multi-family residenttal~ permitting
up te 36 units per acre,end stated a developer w~uld not npcd a General Plan Amendment
for that aite. He felt getting into studi~s before ectually knowtng what is desired would
be a considerable wast~ of time. Ne felt the Commission should wait until after the School
Baard meets to ftnd out whether o~ not the City will be interested in acquirinq the property
or whether or not it will be golny out to public bid.
Mr. Priest felt at least one of the sites being considered is a good housing si~e and
suggested the approech be expsnded to include muJula• housing as well as moblle homes
because that f~rm of housing has a great deal to offer, f~e felt a work sesslon would be
helpful and the Redevelopment and Housing Gommissl~ns would be tavorable ta a work session
if it oFfered a potential to clarify views~ particularly from the standpoint of the need
for housing and the fact thac the Pla~ning G~mmission is one of the key Commissions Involved
in planning the dcvelapment cf tl~e site.
Commissioner Tolar felt maybe a Istter should be written to the School &aard suggesting
a joint work sessfon.
Commissloner Bushore asked if the School Board has been receptlve to discuFSing these
sites with tht C(ty. noti~g it is his general feeling they wfll not be re.eptivc until their
dec(sion is made on what will be the best return to the School District.
Mr. Priest stggested a letter to the Schaol Board should merely statr the Planning
Commissian's concern relative to providing housi~g because he was sure the School Dtstrict
is interested in being a good neighbor and wouid nnt want to dispose of a school slte
in a manner that would cause problems for the Ciiy and they rt~ay very we{I want to meet Es
soon as po:sib~:.
Ran Thompson s~~gested the letter should properly c~me from thz City Coui~cil and the
Conmission's action should be a reconxnendation to tham chat a letter be d(~ected to the
Sthool Board suggesting a,joint meeting with the Commun[ty De velapmen ~ Housing and Pianning
Comr~issians to discuss future development and land use of the surplus school sites.
Nr. Priest stated if che tnvestment could be spread~ it is rn~re attractive a~id the City
of Anaheim should retaln some measure of control over the selection af a developer.
Cortmissioner Bushore did not think values should be shown c,n a report without a definite
use and without a definit~ appraisal being mede by a qualtfied appraiser becau~e figures
become fixed in people's minds and the property couid be worth rrore ar tess than that
shown.
ACTION: Conmissioner Tolar offered a maticm~ seconded by Chairv+ort~an Barnes and rOT10N
C~~D (Commissio~er Herbst being absent and on~ seat being vscant) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that a letter be sent
to the Anaheim Union High School DistrictBoard indicating the City's co~cerns retative
to low cost housing and tf~ Planning Commission'~ willirg~eas to pa~ticipate in a Jotnt
meeti~g i~cluding the Community Redevalapment Commi~sion, Mousinq Commission and the
School Baard to dlscuss future developme~t and land uses of surplus schoot sicas.
~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ?`
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July lq~ 1980 Pa9s 401
Ap1_ QURtIMENT Th~r~ b~t~q no furths~ bu~ine~s~ Commt~sioner Fry oPferod a motto~~ aaconded
by Commtssionor Tolar and MOTION CAaRlED (Commt~sio~ar Herbst bstn~ absent
and one se~t being vacant) that the nNating be adJourned.
An~ikc S~ntalahti~ Assiatant Dtrsctor of Zonin9, a~~ounced she had bean
infarmed ;hat the next meeting would be held in the new Ctvlc Cente~
Councit Chembers.
The meettng was adJourned at 3:25 p•m•
aespectPully submitted~
~~ ~ ~~~~.w
Edith L. Herris~ Secretary
Anahelm City Pia~nfng Commission
~:
:~
. r~
';,x
`~
' '_ :`r,"
'~
. .
~`r
?.~~
~ . . . . . . . . - . . , . ~ , ~ .'F~
. . . .
. . ..
~ .
. . ~.
. . . .
' ~ ~ . ,,(~>
~ t~'s~
, .. , .
~ . .. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. .. . . . .
. . . . .
. .
~ ~
. ~
.
. . .
~ N
, ..
~
. ..
) . . . ~ ~
.
: .
'. .. . .,.
_ . _
~ . ~
. . . . ' .
~ , . .
~ . . ,
~~.
. , +~•-
.
. ..
.
. . .. .,
. ,.~. . .
~'. - ... . ~ , . .
~:'', ,.~.~. ,. . .'. ,. . . . .
.
. . .. ~.
.
' . .
. ~
. .
.
-
..
~ . ~ .. , ,
. ~
~
,
.
... '
~
~ .. .. J"~ ' . . . , . ~
~'
1 . . ~ , .. ~ . ~ .
.
\~ `
}r
~ ~, ~
h Y ~.~ ,
...
~`~~ x -
~~W~-
p '+~
~ . . - La
~'~~
1
y
,~
t
,~
~
t't ¢
,+~4« ~;, t~ :
`y , ,, , (
..
~
t t~3
,
,~
,
,t~-~ ara'~~`itia,° ~~'~~t}y~' ~`~ ~ '- _
c
'~. w
~
~~ ~
, r '~,'~" ~ K~K
~~ 7
~'d
~'
~
.
J~ p ~
~~w tc; ~ a
,
~ ./~ , ~ ' ~',n f ` ~ r
~
~
` d
.
W
7
f
~ ~~
~
~ ' `~ ; y,ti~t ~ .: L~ ,J~ at i
i,R. 'e^~-ff.+ ~ t} c ~ ~. ~
{.1,~,A ~~y~ q4f. f."~~r f
<, ~ -. ~, ..l~~~.~tP°~4iV!^6j ~_1`I 4{~ ~le..:..l.:Bn~Lt.y .. 1 .
. 1Y.l... . . .
~ ',
-y
.•.. .
.~... , .. `
,
1~ 4 ~ ?! w v` 'a~
- wl - p 4~ ' -.~r ~
.;1n -~ 4~{ ,r f-
,JS,.,~ Yl . ~
. e .A _..-: i.,. .. elk;LA]A..~.,.~ . .::1,'L t ~ F
d
~ r sl ~ n ~ ~4
~- {~ $,x ,r ~~ .~ ~T,1J .:9i{ ..
t; ({,. u 1 4 ~ ~ ~'e h -4' }~, )'J 4~~F
:_~}„~.~ .. :., . i ~ . ,
. ...~.'1. ~. . ~,t . _ 1 v _.^~ft'!Y~~'S~?1L~~. ~~~~