Minutes-PC 1981/01/12~ ~' )
Civic C~nte~
A~aheln~~ Calito~~ta
Janwry 12, 1981
fIEGULAA MEETING Of THE IINAHEIM CITY PLIWNING CQNMISSIOtd
REGULAR - The re9ular me~ting of th• A~~haim City Pla~ning Commisslon was
MEETING c~ll~d to order by Chairman 1'01~~ at 1:30 p.n~.~ :anusry 12~ 1981
in th~ ~uunci l Chsmber~ s quo~um b~inq present.
PRESEI+T - Ch~ t rman Tol ar
Gommlssion.rs: Bou~s~ Bushore~ Pry~ Nerbst. King
A~SENT: • Commtssion~~: Barnea
(Commtssloner 8ushore arrived at 1:40 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT - Ronald Thonpson
Annika Sant~l~htl
J~ck White
Frank Lcwry
J~y Titus
Paul Singer
Dean Shere~
Greg Hastlnqs
Edtth Ner~is
Plan~ln9 Dl~ector
Asslatant Olrector for lo~ing
Assistant Ctty Actorney
S~nior Atsistant Clty Atto~ney
Offlce Engin.ar
T~sffic Engineer
Assistrnt Planner
Assist~nt Pianner
°la~ning Wmmtsslon Sacrat~ry
PLEDGE OF - The Pledge of Ailegiante to the Flag was led by Commissio~er llerbst.
ALLEGIlINCE
APP ROYAL OF - Comni ss 1 a~er Kt nfl of ~er~d s niot ~ on ~ seconded by Comml as loner Fry and
THE MIN~TES MOTION CARRiED (W+m~issionera Barnes end Bushore betng abaent and
Conmissioner Herbst sbstaini~g) that th+~ minutes of November 1~~ 1980
be approved. includtng the oddition of pages 6g4a ~nd 694b; that
the minutes of pacembe~ 1~ 198~ bc approved as submitted; and that
the minutea of December 15~ 198n be approved as corrected on paga 761
to show Camnissione~s Bushore and Toler's negstivs vote on
Conditional Use Pe~mit No. 2142.
ITEM N0. 1: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-LLASS 8 AND CONO!T10~lAL USE PERMIT NQ. 2056:
Pl10LiC HEARING. QWNER: MICHAEL J. CRUCIL. 292n ~~st L~ Jo11s St~eet, Mafieim~ CA
928oG. Praperty described as a rectangulsrly-shaped pa~cel of land conslsting of
epproxinMtely 1.1 acres. 2920 East la Joila Street. Property prese~tly classified ML
(lNOUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
REQUESTEO BY THE C~TY OP ANAHEIM: UNOER AUTNORIIY OF CODE SECTION 18.03.091. THE
CITY OF ANAHElM PROPOSES TO REVOKE CONOITI~HAL USE PERnIT N0. 2056~ fOR Ft.ILURE ~0
COMPLY WITH THE CONDiTIONS OF APPRaVAI.
Subjact petitlan wsa continued fmm the meetings of ~ctober 20. 1980 and Oecembar 1,
1980 at thc request of the potitlone~.
s~-> >/~2/a~
~
~ x
MINUTE5~ ANAHEIN CIT11 PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12, 1981 81•2
It was ~oted th~ p~tltlon~~ was not prasent st th~ be9lnning of tha msettng and
fotlvwtng the public h~arinQ on ItNn No. p~ It wa• note~ atatf hed contacted th~
p~tltlone~ and he hsd ~~quested • Mo-w~ek contlnuance.
ACTION: Comn+isilonar K{n~ offtred a motlon~ se a ded by Commissiuner F ry and MQTION
t~D (Comml~sionar~t Bor~~s end Herbst belny ~.,~nt) ~ th~t the Anaheim Clty
Plenntng Commisslon do~s hereby 9r~nt a two-week cantinu~nce of lhe ~fn~ee~tntloned
matter to the reflularly-schsduled meetin9 af January 26~ 1981 ~t the raquest uf the
p~ti tloner.
1 TE+M H0~ 21 E I R NEGATI VE DECLAR/,T ION AND VAtll ANCE N0. ~175:
PUOLIC HEARING. OWNER: Blll i. AND BETTY F. 41EHUNT, 213~ West 11th 'Street. Santa
Ana~ CA 92703• Property descrtbed ss a rectangul~rly-shaped p~rcet af tand
consisting of approximately 7Z8y square feet located at the northe~st cor~er of
Velencfs Avenue and Cluudina Stre~t~ 211 East Valencls Avenue. Property p resently
classified Rhh1200 (RESIOENTIAL~ MUI.TIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF (a) MINIMUM LANOSCAPEO SETBACK~ (b~ MIt~IMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN BUILOINGS~ (C) REQUIRED SITE SCREENING AND (d) REQUIRED VENICUTAR ACCESS TO
CONSTRUCT A 5-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
';ub~ect petition waa co~tlnund fmm the me~ting of Decamber t~ 1gA0 in order for the
appl(cant to be present.
There was one person indi:ating he,• presence tn opposition to subJect ~eq uest~ end
although the staff report was not r~~d~ ~t is referred to and mede a pa~t of the
mi~utes.
BI11 W~hunt. 21~0 Wast llth Street~ S~nta Ans. explalned ha ts Croposing to build s
y- u~it complex ea provide Ivw rer.t housing a~d felt lt ts necessery to butld flve
unitt fn order to make the proJett feasible eco~omica~lly~ and he did not feel It is
possible sny other way.
Marie Brace. 2651 Jackson, stateQ she is rep~a:enttng he~ father who a+ns the
property Immediately north of this prapesed proJect; th~t she is in the p rocess of
buying this prope~ty from her father and is apposed to the walver of distsnce bet~-een
bulldings because It ~s too closa.
THE PUaLIC NEARING 41A5 CLOSED.
Chalrman TolAr explsined the Commisston Is requtred Dy state laa to st-o~w hardahipa in
order to approve varia~ces and that (t would appear to him Tn ehls case that this
proJe~t wauld overbuild the property. He stated he had su~yestad to the destgner at
the p~evious hearing that multiple untts would be appraprtate and he had ~o probiein
atth the use~ but fett five units were tao msny because they violate the health~
safety and welfsr~ of the neighborhood; that thls is spproxin~etety a 72dt~square faot
lot ond maybe a fdurplex or trtpiex we~ld be acceptable. potnting out there are
pa~king problerta (n tha area na-. tle state~A he could not peraor~ally find any
ha~dshtps and asked the developer to justify the hardships.
Mr. Wehunt ~ttatsd eco~omtcs ane nat as much a w~ncnrn ta him snd the Con~misaton ss
they aro tn Lhe p~opl~ who want to rent property st a ~wso~ebie ~eni and that he
felt the oniy way to provide ~easanable ~ent is xtth projects such as this. Ha
1/12/81 ~
_.,:.:~
MINUTES. IWANEIM CITY PLANNItItf CQMMIS~SION, JANUARY Ix~ 1g8t 61'3
statsd n~y older pl~c~s ar~ b0In9 torn dann end redevetoped to provide ree~onabla
~antal units.
Ch~lrrn~n Tolar axplatns~ •galn ths! the pctitlone~ must justtfy the hard~hlps
accordfng to state lew. H~ ststed the Con~nit~tion understands there Is a hou~ing
c~isis tn Californla and ar~ trylnq to res olve those probtems.
Commi~sicmer King falt the requasted watve~ o~ requlred site ~creentng can be
aliminated if the petitton~r wil) pravtde ga~age do~rs and Mr. Vahunt replled he
would be wi~ling to p~avide 3arage daors. CommlsYloner King continued th~t he felt
he coul~ Justlfy wAive~s (~) and (d)~ but wented the petitloner to Justlfy waiver (b)
for ml~imum dtstanca between buildings.
Mr. Wehunt replted th~t walvar (b) eould rwt be alimtnated and still provide ftve
unik~; s~d that he recantly bui lt three of those units with most of the area In
co~crete and tenants like it because they can just hose it off •nd there 1~ less
gret~s und shr~bs ta care for.
Commissi~ner Y.ing stated ha did not feel the project ts overbuildinq that praperty.
He pol nted out ~he elderly ~ young cc~upies , ret 1 rees~ etc. need hous Ing.
Commlssioner Buzhore asked if Nr. Wehu~t ~s sr+ying that he wtl) char~e less than
markct rent If these five units sre allaw~ed and Mr. Wehunt res~onded thai he would
and explelned that he rents other piaces Tn Ssnta Ane and hes fo~nd a lot of people
ere doub 1 i ng up because they cannot affo~d the rents . Ne responded to Commi ss tone~
Bushore's cone~rn that IF he ao1~1 tha uni ts. the ncw ownesr could charge h~gher rnnts,
explalning that hi~ purpost is to keep the units becsuse he has been in businoss ?.5
years and 1s ~aady to reiire end ne~ds th ia lncome for retirement. Ne stated he
fel t thl s would stl 1 1 benef t t the commun i ty end help clean up the c( ty.
Commtssioner Bushore statad he u~derstood wfi~t the petitioner is trying to accon~lish
and there is a fourplex to the north bu t most af the other developments are duplexes
or trlplexes in that area; that ha has co~cer~s reg~+rding ehe garages backing up to
withfn one foot of the adjecent prope~ty end falt that would become a problem a~ea
because it would not be maintained end wo uld becane an area for storage; etc.
Respondtng to the petitloner's commant chat he r~uld be wtlling to make that a so11d
wal l~ Conmtssloner Bushorc fel t that woul d bG mora detrimenta) to the neighbor to the
nor~h betause he would be beb~-een two so i Id wal ls, He stated he was also a~ncerned
b~scause devetopera ssy thay r+tll charge la+ar rents tf allowod higher densities and
the~ afte~ approval~ the rents are as high as the rriark4t dictates. He stated thi~
petitin~er could prave he ts restly inta tested in providing !ow cost houstng by
working out an egreement Ki th the Nousi ~g Authorlty, but even i f that is done, he
would stt l l be concarned sbout tha 1-foot "no man's land" mentlaned earl ter.
Chairn~en Tvler ststed he is not opposed to the units. but to the number of untts and
ths~ backtng these flva unlts up to th e properey line will completely enclose the
two-u~it spartment coniplex to the north and ha felt those peoplo are entttl~d to
prtvacy. He felt, hr,~wever~ the propert~r toutd be developed with a triptex or four-
plex.
Gommissianer King painted out a two-story spartment con-pl~ex exists two doors to the
ne~th u~d Chaira~an Tolar felt that compou~ds the probid~n because it would completely
enclose the dupiex betwesn.
1/12/81
( ,
MINUI'ES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNIi~G CONMISSION~ JANUAIIY 12~ 19$1 81'~+
Comnisstone~ Herb~t felt a m~Jo~ polnt is betny missed end that ia that I~ndscaped
araas h~ve been requi red In the pest beeause they ara needed to provid~ good al r
quallty and h~ felt tf the Conwnis~lon conllnues !o eliminata this g~aenery~ problems
will be created b~caus• the gre~nery does replenish tha oxyge~ supply.
Commtssioner Ki~g staced land ts ~cerce and expensive ~+~d tt Is differe~t than In rhe
past and he felt the land should be utiti:ed to tts utmost.
Cammifs Ianer Nerbst agreed~ but felt the heal th snd safety of the communl ty must be
conslde~ed also and the green a~eas ahould not be u~ntlnu~lty elimineted.
Chelrnwn Tolar explsinad to the petitloner that he ts entttl~d to s decision on this
pro~ect as presented~ or that the Commi ssion c~n al low a continusnce i~ order for th~
plans to be revised.
M~. Wehunt stated he would 1 1 ke the Coa+miss ton to vote on the p) ons as subml tted.
ACTION: Commtsslone~ King afferod a motion~ seconded by Commissioner fry and MOTION
~D (Commlsslon~r Barn~s b~ing ebsent)~ that the A~aheim City Ple~n~n9 Comr^isslo~
has revlewed the proposa) to cronstruct a S~unir. apertment complcx v+ith walvers of
mintmum landscaped setback, mi nimum distence beMse~ bulldtngs. requt~ed slte
screening and requirad vehtcula~ access on a ractsnc~ularly-sheped percel of land
consisting of spp~oximately 7285 square feet iocsted et the northeast corner of
Yalencia Ayenue end Claudtns St~oet~ (211 East Valencia Ave~ua); snd does hereby
approve the Fingati ve Dacl arat i cm f rom the rer.~ui ren~nt to prepsre sn envl ronmenta)
tmpact report on the basl~ that there .+ould be no sig~ifica~t tndividual or
cumulative advarsa envi ronmental ImpacL due to the app~ov~l of thi ~ Negative
Declaration since the Anahetm Generat Pi~n designates tha subJect property for medlun
denslty-t~aidential laRd uses eonn~ensurate wlth the propasai; that no s~nsttive
environmental impacts are t~vaivod in the proposai; thet the Initial Study submitted
by the petltioner tndicates nc~ slgnlficant indlviduel or cumulatlve adverse
environmental tm~acts; and tt~at the N~gative ~eclarstion substantiattng the foregotng
fi~dings is on file in tha Gtty of Anaheim Planntng Dap~rtment.
tommissioner Y.tng affered a r~solutio~ end rt~ved for its passa9e and sdoptio~ that
Yariance No. 3115 be granted on the aasls Chat denial woul~ dap~ive subJect property
of a privllege being enjoyed by othar properttes tn the seme zona and vicintty. and
denying waiver (c) on the basis that the petittoner stipulated ta provlde ga~age
doors and s~bject to Interdepartmental Committee ~ecenMnendatlons.
On roll call. the foregofng ~~solutio~ FAILED TO CARRY;
AYES: COMMISSfONERS: FRY, KING
NOES : C4MM1 SS I ONERS : BOtJAS ~ BUSHBRE ~ HERBST, TOLAR
ABSENT: COMMtSS I Ot~ERS : BARNES
Commtssioner 8ushore offe~ed Rdeolution No. PC81-O1 and moved fo~ its pasgage and
adoption tfiat the Anahafm Ci ty Planni nq Comn~taaton does hereby deny Ve~iance No. 3175
an the basis that the pctitio~er did not dan+~nstrate a hardship due to the slze~
shape or topo~raphy of the property and there are no exceptio~al ar extraordinary
ci rcun~ttances er conditio~s :ppllcab 1e to the prc~perty or intended use thsi do nut
appiy gene~ally to the prop~erty or class of use In the zone~
t/12/81
~~ ~ ~ j
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM Cf1Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANl1ARY 12. 1981 81•5
On roll aall~ tbe forofloinq r~~olutton was passed by ths tollowing votes
AYESt COMMISSIONERSt BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ NERBST~ TOLAR
NOESt COMMISSIONERSt FRY~ KING
A6SENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES
Jack Whlte~ Asslatsnt Ctty Attarney~ prasonted the writte~ rtght to eppeal the
Plan~ing Commission's decislon within 22 days to the Clty Counctl.
TE
IRONMENT
Y APPROVED). WAIVER OF
READVERTlSED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: M. J. BROCK AND SONS~ INC.~ G767 Forazt Lawr.
Orfve~ Los Angeles~ CA 90068. AGENT; M. J. BROCK AND SONS~ INC.~ 1698 Greenbrier~
Suite 224ti Brea. CA 92621. Prope~ty dascribed a~ an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approxlmately 19.3 acres~ navfng approximate frontages of 300 fRet
on tha north stde ~f FelrwuLh Avenue ~nd 904 feet on the south side of Coronet
Avanua, havtng e msxlmum depth of spproximately 15~0 feet snd being located
approxlmately 650 feet west of the centerline of Romneya Drive. P~operty prese~tly
clASSifiad RS-A-43~400 (RESIDEMTIAL/AGRiCULTURAI) lONE.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 12G-UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX
wlTtl WAlVERS OF: (e) MAXINUII STRUCTURAL NEICd~T AND (b) MINIMUM LANOSCAPEQ SETBACK.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO CONSTRUC7 A 12F-UNIT. 14y-lOT SUBDIVISION.
Subject petitlon w ns continued from the meettng of November 17~ {980 at the reauest
of the petitioner and from the meeting of Decerrber i. 1980 for readvertisement.
There were approximately 20 persons indicating tt~e(r presenc~ In opposltion to
sulsJect reque.s t. and al though the staff report was not read, I t 1 a referred Lo and
made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Conlon~ represent{ng M. J. Brock Conpany. stated this ls ctielr ftrst proJect in
Anahelm and th~y a~e anxious to go shead with it and have a 79-unf~ ta+nhouse p~oJ4ct
in A~ahelm Shores and plen to cc~ntinue the same program on the other side of the
prop~rty .
Gil Ftartinez, Florian Escobar Martfnez~ Planni~g snd lsndscape Architecture, 13~3~
N+ewport Avenue, Tustin. presented sltdes of the proposed prnJect whtch is pArt of the
M aha(m Shores Planned Ca~nunity. Ne stated the intenstty of the developmertt has
been reduced; that the prtmary acu.~s of the proposed pr~Ject is on Falmouth; that a
decorative 6-f+oot high wall ts proposed along che wasteriy property line; and
Qresented sildes of typtcal units. Na explai~ed 3.5 parking spaces are proposed for
each unlt.
William Heckman. 1218 Noily. statcd he has bee~ Itving here 20 years and thts is a
stable cQrtMnunity wtth good neighbors and he and hts wife and severat neighbors who
could not attend the meeting are opposed to the project because they want to kaep the
ne~ghborhood open, safe a~d relatively traffic-free as it is naw. He stated he hoped
the Ca~nisalon wauld stick with the 20-foot setback requlrement for landscaping.
Eleanor Bay~ 2148 ~est Grayson. presented a pettticx+ co~tatning spproximately 138
~ignatures of p~ople ~n the nelghborhaod ~vho aTs apposed to the requested walver of
maxtmum structural height because It would allow two-~to ry structures to be built
behtnd the existl~g o~e-story houst~g on the wesce rn bounda ry of the s{te and the
t/t2/81
( ;
MINUTES~ Af11WCIM CITY PLAIlNING COMMIS510N~ JANUAlIY 12~ 1981 81-6
waive ~ of mintmum landscaped setback would allaw buildt~g •t a dist~nce cinse~ than
o~lglnelly indicated from tha ~xisttng hou~inq on the weste~n bcwndsry of the slta.
l1~. Bay continued th~t she hes b~en Inwivad in the development in thls are~ since
1973 and felt she had to spaak against this proJect; that she read ~he applicant's
statement for Justific~tlon of the raquested waive~s a~d wanted to potnt out the only
difference in thls property ~nd the surrounding •tngle-famlly property ts that It is
undevaloped~ She discussad the setback of the proposed units In camparison with the
exlating homes snd stated there are 13 home~ proposed within the 150-foc~t setback;
thet single-f~mily proparty to the west doe• not enJoy varied sntbacks and the
p~aposed 10-foot landsc~ped arca does not appeal to the extsting sin9le-family
residents. She referred to the developer's mentlon that no windowa ere proposed for
the rear wall and stated that wlll creat~ ~ soiid two•story high wall adJacent to
these single-fsmtly homes end also the one-story hon-~a wt11 be o~ pada tw~o or three
faet higher than the existing pads. She fclt the Comntsslon must cantinuc to hava
conce rn for the single-family homes. Sh~e ~xplalned she had revt~re~i the grsding
plans which ahav the ecreage graded dewn to the existtng praperty level and was
concerned about water runoff and felt e ~etatning wal) at the west property line will
be necessary and noted when these untts are sold, the home~ownsrs associatton wtil be
res~onsible for damage to the ad]ofning nelghbor'a p~oacrty. She f~:lt the 6-foot
high wall should be measured from the hfghest point of the gr~de. !~he stated they
havc no complatnt wlth the praporty being developed aut hoped the Ccrrimisstan atll
agren wtth the existing ~esidents that is that there is no herdship ar reason to
grant thesc waivers.
Mr. Marti~ez responded to Mr. Neckman's cortrr-ent relating to an open~ safe, t~affic-
free comnw nity by explatning the eariler planned canmunity for this area was for
condominium type develapments at 18 units ~er sc~e and this propo~a! is ~~uug~.~y for o
untts per acre and Is detached petia homes rather than condominlunn. He stated they
attempted to keep the denstty down to meet some nf these concerns.
He r~ferred to the eoncerns r~garding the 10-foot setback and explained the minimum
lot size of the lats adJacent to the exlsting single•famlly homes on the west is
5,000 square feet~ plus the proposed 2 Lwo-story structures have 25~feet and 35~f~at
setbacks~ and there Is a 6-foot high decorative wall and landscaptng to create a
visua) buffer. He stated the code requtrements were Imposed a~hen the PC zone was
before the Commisslon and a condominium proJect was envlstoned whi~ch wsa much higher
density. He also expiained he felt they •re responding to the tntent of the code
pertatning to the 150-foot setback ~equirement.
M~. Conl~n stated they agree with recommendattons made by staff ancl indicated they
would be wilitng to raise the wall to six feet on their side. He :;tated these will
not be normel ~ everyday tomron type condominlunss and noced single-fami ly attached
un(ts have fivr foot satbacks.
Dean Sherer, Assistant Planner~ explalned normally the wall is measured from the
hi~est point of grada.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chatrman TolAr stated tttiere are Chree two-story untts which t~~ could not support
bscause they do encroach an the single-family residents' pPivacy and the 20-foot
1/12f81
~.
MI NUTES ~ ANIWEI M CI TY PU1NN1 MG COMMI SS 10N. JANUARY 12, 1961 a~' ~
setback 1~ roqulrod to protect the aln9ls'f+m11Y homos. He stated he o4u1d not a~~ee
with the devalopment te~ f~et fran the property 11~ bec~use if ~anabody builds a
Ne ~tated he ~ecogniz~s the
patio, the structure Is a11 the way to the fence.
p roJect ts less dense than pravtously to~~ldered ~nd tc does ens»er a lot of
co~cern~; that he likes th~ pto)ect overall~ but Is cnnce~ned about the structu~e
height and landsc~ped tatback. Ha st++tod ha felt wich redesign~ moving the two-story
struct~res and reducing the threa untts backing up tb the sinple-femtiy develcpment~
the concerns could be a~swered. 11e stated he recognl~es some of the sir;gla-famity
st~uctures are developed tawarda the front of thetr property~ thereby cr~~ating quite
a df~tance betwaon the structures; that h~ dtd not think the nelghbars are opposad to
dev~lapment of the property; that the wate~ runoff {s a great concern ~nd must be
answnred; and that the aix•foot wall must ba at che highest levol to I~sure privacy.
Commissioner Herbet~ ~h~`ds' ~ wi~; aO~~~admandtmaintained'by~the~tndivldualeowne~s.
Mr. Conl~n answa
Conmissioner Narbst stated he lives in a p~+tlo home and knaws what the homeowner's
association has ta do and he did not think this a~ee would be properly n-eintsined
unless it Is the assoclation's responsibility. He felt the vwne~s will be able to
bulld latticec;°?famtl~ arease ~H~aPQ~~tcd'outelt will,benatfd~kyears beforebthetng
up to the a i n,~ Y
trees are ta11 enough to prUVlde protection.
M~. Gonlon s~eare desiir~ d~.t Ieiaxplain dntho structu~esiwill9bea16~feet high.°! the
way the units 9
Commtssioner Nerbst stated that would mean a 16-foot htgh wall right behind some of
the homes. t1e felt it ts the Commissto~'s responsibility to protecNets~ated9he could
fami ly srea a~d not a1 low use3 thst wi 1 i destroy thcl r{ i festyle.
~ot Justify a ha~dship due to the stze ar+d shape of the parcel and felt there is room
to develop within code. He suq~csted 5~~00-square foot lot develaRments to provide
tha b uf fe ~.
Chairman Tolar stated the petTtione~ Is ontitled to a wte or can ~equest a
continuance to redestgn the proJect to answer some of thc concerns.
Mr. Conion ~eferred ta the conwnents ragarding the 10-foot setback being a part of the
co;mmen area andofttheSCommfssion pollcYkrequlring~twentyyfeett but had tre~tedstheed
hc was advised
project as single-family detached unlts.
Chairmsn Tnlar agreed that the~~e can be some bslance. but not tesn feet a~d felt all
the, questlons can be answered by staff.
Commissioner King suggested any revised plans be discussed with Ms. Bay and othe~
ne i ghb o rs .
Mr. Conlon requested a two-week continuance.
ACT~ON: Commissloner Herbst offered s motion~ secflnded by Commissioner Fry and
M 1 N CARRIED (Commisstoner Barnes being absent). that the Anaheim City Planning
Commis'ionscheduledemaetingiofeJanuarye26ti1981f at the~~eque~t~ofdtheepetltioner.
~eguta y
Chairman Tolar poi~ted out to tfiose present in opposition that no na+r natlce will be
sent.
1/1?J$1
~
MINUTES~ ANANElM CIYY Pl.ANNIN3 COMMISSION, JANUARY 12, 1~81 81-8
~+: ENVIR4NMENTAL IMPAfT RCPORT N0. 238 (PREVIOUSLY APPROYED~,_WAIVER
Tac _ ~i'FT'S~fd"C'1T~"'~€1CM'T'F'~FiS~'~'f'~'o ~-"~.~
PUBLiC HEARING. OWNER: CITY OF ANANEIM~ Clvlc Cente~~~ 2~0 South Anahetm Boutev~rd.
Anaheim~ CA 92BU5. AGENT: HiLT4N/WRATMER~ c/o KAPLAN~ IIVINCSTON. GOODWIN~
BERKOWITZ b SELVIIJ~ 4$A North fbxbury Orive~ 8everty Hills~ CA 9fl21Q. Property
descrtbed as an {rr~gularly-ahaped p~+rcel of land consisting of spproxirt~tety 2~
acres~ locatad at the northwest carner of Convention Way end Harbo~ Qaulaverd a~d
having approxtm~ete frontag~s of 1243 feet on the noi~th side of Conventton Way ~~d 802
feet on the west side o~` Harbor 9oulevard. P~opert~/ prosently classifted PR 6 CR
(PUqIIC RECREATIONAL ANU COMMERGIAL-FECREATION) 20NE.
CONOITIOT~AI. ~.,_ PERMIT REQU~ST: TO PERMiT A ly~•F~JOT HIGH HOTEL WITH ACCESSORY USES
AND WA1 VER t~F M IN 1 MU"~ NUME3ER OF PARKI ~IG SPACES.
There were approximstely ei,yht persons indicating tt~eir presence In opposition to
sub,ject requQSt~ and ~lthaugh the staff re~rt was not read~ it is referred to and
made a pa~t of the mi~ute~.
Chairrnan Tolar cxplained che Lammission cAn not act on this appl(cntlo~ tod~y
because the parking walver was nnt adequatoly addressed in thes cnvlronmental Impact
report. No explained tha City Attorn~y has determined that the EIR did not
smtlsfectorily address this tssue. He sta~ed the Commtsston realtzes the petttloner
is a~xlous ta move al,ead with khls proJect b~cause of rising interest rates and
building costs and thac the Commisstan is nct trying to make it difficuit for thts
project to ga ahead will hear those pcople preaent tn opposltton and the p~etitianers'
presentation of this project.
Russell MacQuiddy. Vice President of Development for WrAther Hotels. introduced Ron
Aarons~ projtct a~chitect~ F~NTV~ who presented a slide presentatton of the pro!~osed
project. Nr. Aarons explalned thts proJect was origlnally ln d competttion situat~on
end the hotel was to be plated in the parl.iny lot easc of the Anaheirn Convent on
Cante~; that they will be utilizing the east parktng arc~a and ti~e Inn-at•the•l~ark
slte. 11e stated they would like to retain the existtng t~er at the I~n-at-x.he-Park
with 4g5 rooms and also retain the Overland Stage restaurant and that the r~cst of the
Inn-at-the-Pa~k facitities ~ill be demnlishecf; th~t the front entrance of t!~e new
project wili be on Harbor Baulevard sa that trafffc wiil not cohflict with Conventio~
Way or Katel ia to the r+orth. A sl ide v+as also prr.sent~d of a~ scale model rx~ display
in tha Cou~cil Cha!nber. hie poinLed out the pa~kiRg areas propused end thr service
areas, hotel rooms~ recreatton areas. canventlon activity area~, banquet i°aans.
ballrooms and meeting space fo~ convent(on activlties. Ht explained thr~t the height
af the hatei tower confnrms to the D(sneyland hcight restrictiona.
Jemes Philon~ 5enio~ Vice President. Htlton Hetal Corporation~ Rea) Estate and
Dtvelopment~ disc~~ssad the request for minimurn nu~rber of parking spaces with respect
to the amount af perking rnquired by the flty of llnahaim code. He ~tated they at the
Htiton Corporation feel the ~~rking codo overparks convention hotei factiities. He
explalned th~y had been aslced by staff ta p~e~aare s descriptton of what they rn~errsd
to as the "meet and eat pri~ciple of ,yr~u~ me~tings". He stated mee.*.ings seldom
accur du~ing tha meal psrfods a~d meals seldom c+ccar d~ring meett~g perlods and that
this ts particularly true in cate~ing to ~~attonal conferenGea or convention
a~ttvlties a~d reterred to a chart whtch ~ad been prepared sho~ing a nrythlcai
natio~al hotel schedule. Coples of the chart prepered were passed c~ut to the
Plannt~g Commission and are on file in :he Planning Department f~les. Ne ~sxplained
1/12/$1
_ >>~
~
MINUTES, ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JIINUARY 12, 1981 81•9
the cha~t Nill dadcrtbe haw Nilton Notel wlll aperate the vital seco~d P1oar witl~
•pproximately 82~000 squa~e feet of ine~ting space. He st~ted no one wants adequa~e
parking mr~~e than the Hilton Hatel operator. Ne explalned the Anahelm Cade rehuires
parkfng for the ~neeting facilitles as if it were s separato facillty f~om the hotel
itself~ roqui~tng on~e parking stall tor 35 s~uer~ feet of er~e, ar a total of ?~3~+3
pa~king spaces. Ha stated i+f the Anaheim Htlton is ta be successfui a~nd the
obJective as set forth by the city for a conventlon hotal, thst y0; of their business
wi11 be in the convention acttvity aree af tha hot~l.
M~. Philo~ read hfs lette~ dat~d Jsnuary 12. tg81~ to Annika Santslahti rega~ding the
parking walvcr justificetion~ a copy of the letter is on flle in the Pianntn~~
Uepartment flles. The lettor basicelly states that the wncurrQnt occupancy of more
than 60$ af the public facilftles is not likely to occur end at least 50$ of the
occupancy wlll be guests of the hatel and they frit utllizatian of the publ~c
faclliti@s for the purpose they ere desic~ned bringing m~Jor conventtons to Anaheim~
wiil not ~equlre tho amount of parking formulatad tn the perkinq code. Mr, Philon
brlefly reviewed che convention proflle for a netto~al co~ference. Sunday r~oon
th rough Wednesday ~(ght. Ne stAted the spoca works together to the mnximum potential
single use of any space and Is a single occupancy because one use is bein~~ set up
during another use, but (s counted by city steff as doubi~ use. Me expl~ined this
seme principle applies to conference ext,lbtt aneas +~nd th~ seme people or~: vier+inc~
the exhibixs who are at a mceting ln another ~*rx~m at different ttn+es. He stated
these uses work in conJunction wlth each othrr. so th~t at no timr during a natlona1
conventlon would there be rrore then 60~ of -nr squsre Footsye occupted by peopie. He
statad the parking requirert~nt for the qur:~t-t, at t~he hotel Is also overlepping in
that some af those guests ere t+ttending ~~r --~mren~tio~s. ~.e brtefly revlew~d tMe
parking walver Justi fication inforn+atlo~ ~~rit~t by the engineers who prepared the
report from information pertaining to =eR~t~~'+~~~~ton Hotel convention facillties
throughout the Un i tad S tates. Ile cc~mpa~u *fie+~ '~ote 1 p~rk i ng requt r~rtwents i n other
c i t i es to those requ i red by Anahe 1 m m~ -*r-~r ~i. •spec i f I ca I 1 y to the ~as Vega~ H i 1 ton
involving 2600 rooms wlth 2.8~0 park.~-*~ ~~c1+~. Ne explalned that hottl requlred
2,80Q parking stal ls becavse 9t has a'~.'~t"' ~et sports pavi l lon. He pc~tnted aut
that park I ng r~qui rements for a 1 I ~th~rC -wc~~1~ ah I ch +~re va~f ous s i xes are
substantlally below what he i~ ncw acl~wft~c ~~ ;~8~0 * code requ{red p~rking spaces
for thts 1~500 room hotel. He statetl~'~ on thc parktng demand analysls prepa~ed
by the p rofessional consulting enair-e~- ~ncl dn the Hilton's experienca ln operating
maJor convention hotelx, it is tNel~ :~-~iered o{~Inion that 1,~0~ to 2.0~0 parkt~g
spaces will adequately scrve the part~.~na~; rrqulrements of this Anahetm Convention
tbtel.
Mr. Philon cxplained usinc~ the fta~el~Dn- S3t~+ventlon Center's expe~lence that 2.7
p~ersons per car attend c~nventions, rh+e~ the 2~343 spaces they are required to have
to bring people to tfie s~cond flaar of ~t~etr `ote) would brtng b~4~7 pMople not
staying in the hotel to the hotel, ntus a ma ~mum of 2~500 guests at the hotet for a
co~ve~tio~ for a tatal of approx~i~~eai~r 9~0'' ) on the second floor of the hotel for
conventian activities at the asme tiar; and that the largest sfngle room they have
wilt only acco~+~nod~te aiou~ ~~~fl~ people and in order to aceammodate 3~000 people
they must hawe otf+er equa~l' accawiodatians so that when th~se ~,00~ pe~ople break fran
one type use, they mov~ ri=ght into another type use. He stated if they were to
contt~ue to ~k thet seaond floor Co hsve concurrent occupancy of 7~O~A ta 8,~~00
peop 1 e. tMcy «wu 1 d no:t eis~d thr i, yrJG1 gues t rooms becausa they wou 1 d not bc a
conventian i~~sdqiwrtars hote! and this would not beneftt the developer, the Anaheim
Canv~ntiwn i~ente~r or the City of Anaheim.
1/12/81
~
MINUTE3~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAIilIING COMMiSSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-10
M~. r~hi lon I l lust~atod that a typica) conferee staying tn ihe hotol would prob~nbly
cam-s down early in the mc~rning to buy a newspaper or wfiatever in the one car pe~r 200
squara foot space~ have breekfa~t in a 125•square foot coffee shop~ attend a meeting
at 9:00 tn the one per ;y square faot meeting rcom, wslk through the exhibtts and
tttand the noon luncheon~ sttend afternoon wo~kshops and probably havc coGktails at
5:00 or 6:00 in the coekteil lounge~ have dinner at either a sit-down banquet or In
the restau~ant end then probably stop at A reteil shop befora ~nturning to his room
and he occupias all that hotel space ~~d tha only car he prob~bly gets in all day ls
the elevator. He stated he used this illustration to demcnstrate thst the
requlrements for convention factllties are signlficantly ove~st+~ted and it is their
fealing while 1.800 to 2~000 spaces wouid adequetely serve hotel needs~ they a~e
willing to enter into an agrooment whereby they would be givon the opportuniky to
demonstrate their positton on the requtred parking and give the city the opportunfty
to ~equtre them to increase the parking if It can be demonstrated that hotai use and
occupancy have caused a parktng problem.
Phil Schwerrze~ rehresenting Phillips~ Redick Brandt~ PBR~ stated thei~ charge was to
look at the plans and present to the city a document whtch discusses in detail the
environmental a~d phystcal irt~acts of the hotel structure; and that envl~onmental
impact report was taken to the City Council and certified several months ago and
subsequent to that several minor changes have been mpde. He explalned he has not had
the chance to discuss the problem which has been mentioned wlth the EIR with the City
Attorney~ but that thelr chtrge was to address the hotcl tn the EIR~ and that the
exact a~de requirements wa~e unknown at that ttme. He statad wiCh the best
inforn~wtion thet could bG obtainod from nat only PaR but fram thelr traffic
consultants, they are saying to the city a~d to the hote) peopla that after rediewing
the plans and carefully rcvtewtng the perphiria) area around the h~tel~ that the
amount of parking required is less than 2.OfN) spaces and that it rcally dces not make
any differtncc~ what tfis ~~de rec;uires becausa th~ EIR says Hhat they think the
parking requtrement should be.
Jack Nhite~ Assistant City A~torney~ explain~d that he was concerned about the
statement on the first page of the environmental impact report which describes the
proJect being covered by the EIR in the terrtLS of the 1~000-room hotel and the helght
waiver and then the paragraph at the bottom of the page which says~ "additionally, a
variance from the te rms of the pa~king ordinance may be requlred prior to fina)
prQJecc (mplemention. harever, plans have not been suffictently deta(ted as yet to
determine if this variance should be required. Should a variance from the terms of
the parking ordinsnce or any addittanal discretionery required (other than those
actions assessed herein). the City of Anaheim will undertake the necessary
envtronmental assessment in conformance with CEQA." f!e stated he is concerned as to
whether o~ not this document addresses the waiver as being requested today; thAt
there is no doubt that the environmental impact report is certainly adequate for
purposes of the hote) and the helght watver but he was c:once~ned whekher or not a
parking waiv~er has been adeyuately addressed in this EIR whlch has been certified by
th~ City Council and if It had been adequately covered, what was the reason fo ~ the
language of this statement. He asked Mr. Schwertze to point out where in tha
environn~ntal impact report the parking walver has bEen adeq uately addr~ssed.
Mr. Sc.hwartze answered that that statement was put in the repart so that if the
proJect changed significantly from what was sib mttted~ that they would wish to take
another look at it~ but that the hotel hss not changed significantly and in some
cases, it is e~ren ~ess of a concern. Ne felt the Clty Attorney is really lookTng for
a parking repo~t and not additional environmental impact informatiar, and that a
1/12/81
~ '
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C11Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-11
parking repo~•t can be a f~ee-standinq dacument to eddress tha parking issires. Ne
stated they think there will be a cart~ln nu~b~r af ca~s that wt11 come there~
desplte of What tha code says •~d that that has basn addressed in the EtR.
Jack Whlte stated th~t he ts looktng fer samething tn these documents which s~ys what
the environmentel In~act wiil ba If the ps~kin~ watver ts approveed by the Plann~ng
Commission or the City Cou~cil.
Phil Schwartze referred to Attachment 8(n the Supplert~antal ib port whlch dlscusses
the (mpacts as they see th~m on the ~unber of rooms and the number of ~tpaces that
have boen requested. 11e stated he did not see any reason for dotng a supplementai
EIR beceuse thefr resPonses would ~e the same ~nd that ls thst they think there will
be a certsin number of cars w hich wtll come and go there and that a11 of these issues
s uch as nalse are related to thx~t informatton.
Chairman To1er explained~ after havtng read the EIR~ Chat he !s not concerned that
it does not ~~swer the tssues. but is matnty concarned that the Ctty Attorney is
sattsfied th~t it is oppropriate for the Commisslon to act on this rcquest. lie did
not thtnk that the parking requiremcnt for New York City or Las Vegas or other cities
can be compared with the parkin9 ~equirements of Anahetm because those areas da not
have the nunber of cars whith we have In thls erea. Fle stated that he felt the
Commisston must ect on what the Clty Attornoy advises.
Jack White explained he is concerned with the fact that under the terms of CEQA~
environmencal docwrwentatlon is requtred to be prcpared for any discrettonary approval
by the Commisslan ar CtCy Council in the terms af a canditlonal use p~rmit or a
varia~ce a~d thac ~s saes this proJect a~s three-fold~ (1, a con~ditlonal use permit
for the hotel, 2. the height weiver and 3• ~he parking watver) end that the flrst
two have u~dAUbiedly bean covered. but that he sttil hes serious reser•vations about
ttie Commissinn taktng action untii such time as he finds that the e~vironmental
documentattan whlch has been prepared a~d recelved by the appraving bady, details and
considers the third aspect and that is the environme~tal effect the proJect wiil hava
i~ ~educing tfi e nurt~ber of parki~g spaces from ~.854 to 2,500~ based on the
contingen~cy plan of the developer to provide tha extre space and his ~~nly concern is
that the Commission has complied with the terms of the environmenta) ~~uality act by
having that information. He staced the first step to obtain this inf~~rmation would
be that an environmental assessment whtch is s short docume~t be prepered to
determine whether that particular devlatio~ could hav~ a stgnificant effect on the
environment and depending on thet document either a supplemental FIR or Negative
Daclaration coutd be prepared and brought ta the Conmtsston in connec.tton with the
proJect. Ne stated he has not seen anything that teils hlm that exi~~ting documentton
has considered that part of the proJect, whlch is a deviation of the parktng
requirements by approximately 50$ of the code.
Bob Branden~ Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Dougias. Inc. expleined their firm
prepered the traffic and parki~g portlon of the environmentel impact report and it is
their view that they did cover this issue and determtned that less than the code
required parking spaces were needed; and that the only impact would be on the
developer requirtng him to provide parktng spaces whtch would not be utilized. He
stated if spaces per code ware provided~ there would be s lot ~f empty spaces. He
stated the e~vironmental impact report~ in their minds~ did addr~ss that iss~e of the
parkfng waiver and that the demand d~d not chsnge at all.
t/12/8t
~
~, '
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, JANUARY 12, 1981 81•12
Jack Idhita stoted that if someone could polnt out where cha envi~onmental impact
~eport covers this lesue adequZtely~ then the Planning Commtsslon ca~ proceed snd
noted that he does not wenL to be s stumbling block but wants to be sure thet the
Commission h~s covered themselves ingallY.
Commisaloner 9ushore potnted out thet tl~e firat supplament t~ the EIR taiks about the
stroata and t.reffic patterns and how to mitigate those rege~dic~s of how meny people
are now using the atreets~ but that the additlon~l tmpact that would be creatad by
the hotel is not covered~ and thst the original envtronn~ ntal tmpect report dnes talk
about the code requlremonts, etc. and spectflc mitigation measurr.s ond required
modtficatlons to the pla~s end discusses tlie surrounding aroa; and that the repo~t
points out that ft wtli nead to be assessad when the proJ~ct access potnts to the
strents arR finetiy designed. Ne did not feel the sup~lement actually c~lscusses the
additionel tmpact.
Phtl Schwartze explaincd thet thelr flrm Is telling the Planning Commtsslon that In
thair Judgment of the proJect that a fixed number of spaces wlll be requlred desplte
what code requires and that thcy have suggr.sted mitigatlon measures and the city wlll
have to docide which one they want to a~dopt.
Chairman Tolar expleined he ts goi~g to proceed with the hearing by allowing the
opposition to voice thelr concerns and then give the retitioner sn apportunity to
answe~ those concerns; and than wtll close the public hearing and ellcyw a ten-minute
recess in order for the attarnRys to discuss the environme~ta) impact re~rt
ad~quacy .
,loe Havorka~ 1115 West Dcwey Place~ explained he lives }ust wast of the Conventio~
Center and that there has been a parking prablem in the area due to overflow
tondtti~ns. He stated the petitloner has pres~nted statements as to why they think
the porking requirements are overrated and that no onc wants sufficient parking mo~e
thon the hotel prople~ but that he wanted to sCate that is not the cese, because no
one wa~ts edequate parking more than the a~oe residents. Ne explalned they have had
to restrict parking tn the area. Ho referred to the petttioner's comparison of
conventtc~r~ parking faci l itles in Las Vegas wlth AnaF,elm and stated there ts more than
o~e type of convention; that he ts an electronics engineer by profession and that
they da have nation~i conventtons fo~ the electronic profesalonal people; and he
thought the people who prepered the figures for this presentation assumed that iro st
of the p~ople associated wtth the conventfons will be staying at the hotel or tn
nearby hotels, but that tt~is ts not necessarily true. He stated these types of
conventions move from city to city from year to year and they are interested in
attracting local people Into xhair conventions tn order t~ see thesir dispiays~
equtpment and products. Ne stateci these local peoplC wi 11 drive to the hotei end
wiil require parking. Ne referred to the National Computer Conference recently held
at the Anahetm Convention Ce~ter and stated it was one of their largest conventi4ns
and caused c,nc of the btggest problems i~ thelr htsto ry. He stated Southern
California Cakes about 50$ of all classiffed electronic contracts gtven out by the
Department of Defense, dnd this is a primc area for that type of convtntion. He
stated he ~'Qlt that some of the arguments stated are lacktn9; and that compa~ing
parktng requirements fo~ the l.as Vegas Notel ts not fair because there are targe
groups of local people here who would be interested in ettendir,g these conventions.
He stated the opposition foels thts wouid affect their neighborhood and it could
affect tham in the future in whatever steps the City of Anaheim felt it was necessary
to take to provide th~ addiCional p~rking. He statcd that he would like for the
opposition to get a copy of the ar;,.~~eents presented and be able to respond to them
1/12/81
~~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P UlNNING COMMISSIAN~ JANUAltY 12~ 1981 61•13
because the parking p~oblems et the Conventton Csnter has alraady aftected thetr
ltfestyle. Ne stated thero sre a 1ot ot r.onventtons which they hava seen which do
not compAre wtth the typical figures th~t have been preaented and there Is the
~ddltional p~obiem of where ~dditional parking wlll ba darived. He stated they would
ltke to respond to tha arguments preasnted end would ltke to hnve their input of the
anvlronmentsl impact on the natghborhood co~atdo~ed.
Bernie Alp~rst~ir~~ 1904 Morgan Lana~ stated he 1 ives riqht acraas the streec f~a» the
Co~vention Center and the frant of his house (s on Eleanor Drive. Ha sct~tnd he (s
conce rned about the employees p~rking and felt it should be discussed by the Htiton
rapresentetive:. Ne stated he is also concerned about the retentton of the permtt
parki~g for the residents becausc it took them 7 to 10 years to get tt approved and
that lt was only app mved two manths aqo and It ts a dellght to be ebie to walk out
and see the Convention Centcr full and thelr streets not clutterad and that it ls
resulting in less robbery~ etc. He stated he would Itke to exp ross concern that he
has heard from others~ and thst (s, wlth the Convention Center cresting perktng
pressure in the ares~ tha possibility of condemnatton of varTous homes in the ares to
make room for parking. Ne stAted ha realtzes this ts a Planning Cammisslon and it
ta not their funccton to get Involved in this Issue~ but tha~t he is telltng th~s
Commi s s I on the re s I dents concern end fe 1 t i t shou i d be cove red i n sc~rtie way and the
ansrers g i ven when tha reso) ut lon t s made.
Nell McClure~ resident c:ounsel st Disneyland, rPferred to the helght restrictlon and
the non-habiteble penthouse proposed and asked if that was included in the 157 1'eet
or if the buildtng is actually 171 faet high. Annika Santelahti responded that the
20 feet Is In addltion to the 157 feet, bui that the code does allow a non-habit~eble
arca to not bo counted.
Mr. McClure indlcAted that they arc concerned that the penthouse wtll intrude with(n
the Ilne of sight th~at hes been d~awn in the height restriceton ordtnance.
Ann!ka Santalahtt~ Assistant Director for 2oning~ explained that the calculattons
were madc on the height guidellne map and it did give sn estimated 157 feet as the
maximum permissable height, but it is specificialiy addressed tn the code and the
penthouse i s not counted.
Commisstoner Herbst pointed out Chat the one way to prove this potnt is to fly a
balloon at this height to determine whethe~ o~ not it can be seen and referred to a
prevlnus hotel which had to remove one entire floor because it could be seen.
Mr. McClure asked thax that same procedure be followed in this tnstance and Anntka
Santatahti repli~ed that the calculetto~ns were made from the map and will have to be
veriffed.
Chairman Tolar pointed out that the neighbors are concerned and that the Commission's
conce rns are the same and they are directiy related to the fact that parking is a
Rroblem in the area.
June Harvoka, 1116 West Dewey Plac~, stated that she and her neighbors a~e very
worried about the condemnation af property far parking pleces for both the Convention
Center and the hotel In the future. She stated she has l~ved here for two yaars and
has put a lot of money into her home and is very worried about her property and her
neighbor's prope~ty. She stated she is nat against the Conve~tion Center or the
hotel, but would be very uncomfortable fina~cially to have to flnd another place to
1/92/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JlWUARY 12~ ig81 81•14
liv~e. Sha stated they lika tha neiqhbnrhood and do not wish to move and would like
for Che CttY Attorney to check tnto the poaatbillty of thls property being condemmed
so that they can get an attorney to fight the issu~.
Chslrman Tolar expiained that he did not think this city has ever tooked taw~.rda
condemnation as a method of developtng property.
Jack Whtte~ Aasistant City Aktorney~ explatned he hss baen daeling with this proJect
slmo~t datly and that this is tho first person he t-a~ e~ie. heard usin~ the word
candemnation. He explainad the hote) developer wpuld n~t havA any powers of
co~demnatton. H~ stated he has never heerd eny Commission member or staff inember use
that term or bring up the subJect and th~t he ts very confid~nt the issue has never
been considerad.
Ruasell MacQuiddy steted it appears the opposition's c~ncerns are a rrsult of the
exiattng operations of the Aneheim Canventton Center and they ere cancerned that the
hot41 would then edd ta the existing problem~. He explatned the employee parking has
been addreased and the c~de does rcquire a speciftc nurrber of employee pa~king speces
and that number has been considered tn the total. H~ stated in their proposal there
wes to be a Jolnt commlttee ef the CCA. the City and the Anshelm i~titon
representatives to try and a~tictp~,te parkinq problems e+nd plan remedies to prevent
perking probtems by voluntary appltcatton of mittgetion measures stmtlar to what the
Anahetm Conventinn Center (s currently doing by using the Dfsneylend parking. He
stated should unanttcipated problems occur more than 20 times in one year~ the
Anaheim Nilion people would bn required to Implement and maintatn one or ~ny
conbinatfon of the mtttgating measures fo~ the balance af the remaining pertod of the
lease. Ne stated the new convention facilitles wtl) have epproximatelq 4~000 psrking
spaces and if the city was ~equirad to comply with the Anahaim Code, they would be
requi ~ed to have 15,Q00 parktng spaces.
THE F UBLI C HEARI NG WAS CLO~ ED.
RECESS Th~re w~s a ten-minu!e. recess at 3:55 ~.m.
.......r...
RECO~ NVENE The menting was raconvaned at 4:05 p.m.
Commtsstoner fierbst teft the me+eting and did not return.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, explat~ed to ciear up some of the
misunderstandtng that has existeo ..p to this point regarding the envtronrt+enta) impact
~eport, that in r~vi~ing Environmental Impact Report No. 238 end Its supplement,
that it is evident that the figureS a~d cetculations that were us~d we~e predicated
upon certain parking statistics and a c~~tain number of parking spaces being
previded. He asked Phil 5chwartse if he could sta~:, far the record and as part of
the hearing that in preparing the environmentai data tn E~viranmental Impact Report
No. 238 t~et the nunber of parking spaces that was oantempleted was 2~000 speces or
lass; in ather words that this hotei would have 2~000 or less parking spaces and all
the environmental effects which could result contempletsd on that number of parking
spaces hov~e been cons i de red.
Mr. Schwartze responded that the envtronmental doc~nent did contempiate less than
2~000 spaces being prov~i ded for the faci 1 ity.
t/12/81
~
5 3
MINUTES, ANAHFIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12. 1981 81-15
Chstrmsn Tolar referred to page 4d In the st~ff report conterning a break-down of the
p~rking tpaces and stated he is sAti~fied the Planntng Co~mitst~ton can act on thit
document today. He stat~d that under current City Code the requlrement~ Nould be
3r~Sk P~rkl~g s peces and that th• total to be provided Is 2,022 whtch raprasent• 53$
of the total required. He st~Led he would a~rea that the environmentai tmpact rApo~t
did edequataly discuss the p~rking and that he would h~ve no parsonal discanfort
accepting the City Council's certification of that report.
Chairm~n Tola~r stated the Plenning Commission hes done a lot of itudtes rega~ding
perktng for a lot ~f hoteis and matels during tha last faw yoars~ especially with th•
success the Convention Center has onJoyed~ and that he daes shere sama of the
concerns that the nelghbors have ~egerding parki~g. Ne stated the Conventlon Cente~
has helped the City and the reaidents~ but the Commission and Counctl do not went to
seo further intrusion Into the re~idantl~l areas and wants to protect thoae ere~s and
conseq uently~ felt thet each development sfwuld provide an-site mittqation measures
so thst these type problems cannot be creat~~d on surround(ng ar~~s.
Chai~man Tolar atated he ha~ been to convdnttons in Atle~te. Chica9o and other citlea
~he ro the parktng rec~uirements were not as high~ but that those areas do nat have
~xisttng problems with the higl~ car count end nx~tor trave) as ln Southern California
~`'`nd that Southarn Californta doas not have the transportatton system these other
cities enJoy. Ile stated he thlnks this wlll be a beauttfui facility and an asse! to
tlie cfty; that (n the past the Pl~nning Conmission has provided the latitude to grant
a va~tance of 32~ of the required parking spaces and hes said that meybe the pa~kinq
ordinance ts not reilistic end Is too h(c~h because a certain percentege of the
people attending the conventlons arrtvc by other modas of tranaportation than
automobtle. Ile statod the Comn(ssioners have discussed chang(ng the axlsttng code.
lie stated he ts prepared to a~ct on thls conditional us~ permit prpvided that the
waiver does not e xceed 32$ of the coda requlrements~ or 2610 perking spaces or 600
nare than proposed.
Annika SantalahtT referred to pagP 4 of the staff rcpert and Che analysis of the code
parking by speciftc use and stated according to that. 897 spaces are actualiy
requi rcd for hotel rooms. She steted the var(ances the Planning Commission has seen
recently have been based on actual room counts of motnls and that the 3z~ vartances
have bern based on the room counts alone ~nd based on that~ 360 spaces would be the
di fference.
Mr. Sctiwartze pointed out that an additional 1,400 parking spaces would cost between
6 to 10 mi i l ton dol lErs.
Commtssioner Ktng asked if Chairman Tolar would be wtlling to approve the request fo~
2~600 park~ng spaces instead of 3~854 as rec~ui red by cnde.
A~nika Santalahti ~xplained using the 32$ deviation o~ the number for hotel ~.~oms
atone and rnducing the 897 spaces requlred by 1/3 would change the total nunt,er
requi red to appraxtmately 3~500 spac~es.
Chairman Tola~ tndicated he felt 3~500 is too high snd Commissioner Ktng feit 2,6Q0
ts ~aasonable.
Commissioner 8ushore refer~ed to the ~eciprocai parking ag~eanent between the hotel
and the convention ce~t~er and Jack White explained th~ pa~~king agreement cannot be
considered by the Planning Commission as pa rt of this hotel pa~king. He stated thare
1/12/81 .~
f
~ ~r ~ ;
MINUTES~ /1NAHEIM CITY PLANNINA CQYMISSION~ JANUARY 1Z, 1981 81'~6 ~.
wi~y beeuch an ag~a~msnt ex~cuted In the future and ho wa• su~e the city would llke
ta have suoh en •greemsnt. but it~ted th• Planning Commisslon should only consider
the Pect th~t the hotel developmenL needs 3,~~ sMcea and whether or not It is
resso~~ble th~t e ve~la~ce should b• ~llowod tor somothing less.
Com~nleelo~er Bushore Indicated concern re9s~ding the vtsual intruilon for Dianeyl~~d
and esked if e belloon will b• flvwn e~d is there is • vieual intruslon~ whet would
l~appen~ Annika S~ntslahti expleined thet If tha Conenission doea take ectio~
determining that the height guidelina should be compltad wtth~ that st~ff would
interpret that to me~n that al) structuret would have to a~mp1Y and (f the penthouse
is an Intwsion~ they would hava to modify th~ir plans.
Chalrmen Tol~r a:k~d tf the CItY Couneil h~d diseussed the halght end JeCk White
expleined the conditto~st use pe~mit has not baen h~a~d by tha City Counctt; th~t
they had approved the leesc agreemnnt~ ~ubJ~ct to the approvai of tho xoning and that
he did not ~emember whether o~ not t-.e height hed been discusaed. tle ststed
developmental pien~ or achsmetic piens ware epproved and that those plana probably
did ahow the 177-foot high tower.
Mr. Aarons expiained the araa ebove the ~arepet Is referred to as the penthouse snd
that area Is the mechsnical space for the air conditioning~ qears for the ale~~stars~
etc. He stated h~ was not suro whether or not the penthauae could be s~en from the
interlor of Dlsneyland~ but thst It does complY with cade.
Commissioner Bushore ~tated the Comnlssto~ would constder the visual intruslon a
problem and if the praject is apprnved tod~y. it would be on the bests that there is
no visual intruston into D4sneylend Park.
Chelrmon To1ar expl~ined there had been a prevtoua request for a tower at the
DI sneyla~d Hotel where one story t~ad to be removed because tt w~s an lntrusio~ and
they were required to bring 1C (nta conforn-ance with that viaual height gufdeline.
He stated if the Gammisston can agree on the parking then thera would still have to
be some stipulaticm ~egarding the hel~ht.
Mr. Philon stated tt is carxalnly not thalr Intentlon ta violate the viswl line of
sight and that they will not violate the helght guidelines. He stated throughout the
planning tfiey had inten~ied to atay beloN the visuel line both ways and the plsns
would be adJusted i f there is a,- i ntrusi on.
Gommissioner Bushore stated he cauld go along wtth the 32~ wa~ver even if tt does
Include other areas~ b~csus~ if it turns out there is a parking problemwith e+ither
the Conventlon Center or Fx~te) ~ he thouyht there a~e certein things that could be
done to a 1 1 ev i a te the p rob 1 en~a .
Commiss ioner King stated a shortage of parking would oniy hurt the hoie) .
Comnlssioner gushore stated with *°.~s sddition to the COfY\311LIOn Center~ there will be
conv~entlons held tn chese facitities by local peoRla whlch will generate traffic snd
chat this is gaing to impsct tt~e area.
Cheirma~ Tolar pointed out the applics~t has heard from th~ee C~n~missloners s~d asked
If the patitioner would lika to request a continuance Ar if chey would iike fo~ the
Commission to sct ~ the plans betore them. He poi~ted out that the oode requires
i/12/81 '
-~ ~
l ~ f~ ~ '~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JIWUARY 12~ 1981 81•17
;,8~4 spac~s •nd that th~ p~tltlone~ has propos~d Z~0~2 space• and that he ha•
sup9ested thst hs wl) t support a 32x devlatlon o~ approxinu+tely 2~600 spaces.
Mr. Philon ~sked Chat~msn Tolar to clartfy wMth~r o~ not they would be 9ranting the
waiw r dav~ to 2~600 sp~ces~ pointing out th~t they havo eg~eed to provtde 2~500
spacas~ but to InlttellY deveiop th• 2~422 •paces.
Chsirme~ Tolar stated he would not support tha proJect c~~ the basis that the parking
sp~ces would be developed in tha future if needed; thst he felt the problem which
exlats toddy hes to be setisfled. Ho stated he would hoqe tor the Hllton Hotel snd
the city that th~ra is a problam that wtil havo to be rectifled in the future.
M~. Phllon steted he is trying to cl~rtfy that they wili not be given tha opportuntty
to dema~strate that thc Impact of th• hotel o~ the ~=~king will not be +~ probl~m.
Ha stated in thet sltuatio~ he would ltke to raquest a contlnuance.
Chstrman Tolar explalned that revised plans would have to be in to the Planntng
Dapertmant offtce by this Frtday tn order for the matter to be he~~d at the January 26th
meeting. Cheirn-an Tolar stated that enyone in the clty of Annheim wiil be proud
of thts facitity and th~t he Is not trytng to meke it a altuation of s~ying we do ~ot
want the hotel here~
Mr. Philon stated he would like to reverse hts decision and r.~'< the Planning
Commission to act on the plans before them.
ACTION: Commissloner King offered a motlon~ seconded by Cormisstaner F~y and MOTION
'~I~O (Conmisstor~ars 8~rnea ond Nerbst being absent)~ that Environmental impact
Repo~t No. 236 wss certifted by the City Counctl an November il. 1980 (n connection
with the hotel facilities end that the Plt+nn~ng Commtsston has co~stdered the
contents of s~id envtronmental Impact report end finds that the prop~sed ,roject la
wlthin the scope of said report.
Co~anissioner King offe~ed a motian~ seconded by Conn~isstoner Fry a~d MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Barnes and Nerbst being absent)~ for den{sl af the rcquested wslver of
minimum number of parlcing spa ces on the basis that there are no exceptiona) or
extraordinary circ~m~stances ~elettng to s~ject property.
Jack lahlte, Assistant City Atto~ney, asked the Planninq Commissian to be suro thnt
this is the action they want to take.
Chai~man Tolar expleined the petitio~ar has rcquested an action on these plans as
presented so they can automsttcatly appeal the dectsioc~ to the Ctty Council.
Jack 1~Ihhite explalned that the Commission had discussed approving the walver for a
mintmum numbsr of 2.610 parki~g spaces and ailowing the petitioner to decide whether
ur not he wanta to live with the 2.b10 spaces or appeal to the Clty Council. He
suggested that the previaus ection taken to dany the waive~ be recar~aidered.
Con~tssioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cammissio~er Fry and MOTION CARRIED
(Cc~mmiasionen 8arnes and Herbst being sbsent)~ to recansider the previous actFon to
deny the wai ve~ of code requi rament.
1~12/81
~X'
~1 ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIiiG COMMISSION~ JANUAIIY 12, 1981
81-18
Cornnl s~toner KI ng of terod e mot lon ~ seconded by Comm) ~s lener Fry and MOTi 0~1 CAilRt ED
(Comml~sto~sr~ 6arno• and Msrbtt belnq abs~~t) ~ that the Anahetm Ctty Planning
Co~anisslon doat h~raby g~an~ the rsquest for waiver of code requlrenwnt~ in part~ to
pravide a mininwm of 32~ or ~~621 parking spaces on site on the b~sl~ that p~evious
welvsrs hsd bs~n g~anled altowing thl~ pe~centage of devtatlon f~~~m the code b~caufa
certain percant+~get af gues~i arrlve by transport~tion modas other than p~ivate
d u tomiob f 1 e.
Commissloner Kinq offe~ed Rstolutlon No. PC81-02 And moved far its paseage and
adoption that th~ Anahelm C i tY Plannin9 Coneniss ton doas hereby g~a~t Patl tion fo~
Conditlo~lal~ll~e Permit No. 2t 30, in part, tubJect to the petlttoners stlpulstio~ thet
there will be no aight intru~lon from the Dtsneyland Park davelopmant and subject to
I~terdepertmantal Committee recommendetions, except Conditien No. 3 being daleted.
0~ roll call~ the fore9oing rosolution wss passed by the foliawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEaS: BOUAS, BUS~iORE~ FRY, KING~ TOLAR
NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 8AlWES, t1ERBST
ITEM N0. 5: E I R NEGATI VE DECLARATI bN. VARI ANCE NQ. 3192 AND TCNTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: CONRAD J. AND JOSEPt~INE M. LETTER~ 3102 Vellejo D~tve~
r~~ahe im~ CA 92804. AGENT: WALTER K. B041MAN ~ 793E, :.errt tos Avenue~ Stanton, CA
90680. Property dascribed as an irregularly-sha~sed pa~cel oP land conststtng of
apRroxim~tely .47 acre, loeated at 126~ Eas• le Palme Avenue. P~operty prese~tly
clessified RM-1200 (REStDENTIAI~ MUL71r;.E-' ~ILY) ZONE.
YARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE~S aF: fa) MINIMUII BUILDING SITE AREA~ (b) MAXIMUM
STRUCTURAL IiE1GNT~ (c) MAXI HlIM SITE COVERAGE. (d) MINIMUM LANQSCAPED SETBACK, (n)
MItIIMUM RECitEATIONAI•LEISURE ARE/1 ANO (f~ MINIMUM NUMHfR OF PARKING SPACES TO
ESTABLISH A 1-LOT, 7-UNiT tON00MIN1UM SUBDIVISIOM.
There was one pe~son indlc~ttng his Fresence in oppositlan to subJect request, a~d
although the staff repo~t Mvas not resd. it is referred to and made a part of the
mtnutes.
Walt Bowman~ agent~ exp~alned aith the rlsing Interest rates and dlfflculty getttng
flnsncing for khis epsrtn+ent proJect, the p~titi~ner is requeating epprova) te
develop the aite axactiy as ac~proved for co~dominiums rether than apartments_ He
explained he hsd talked wi th the naighbor io the south and that he (s not opQosed to
the proJect.
Ken Ou~lavy~ 728 Juniper P~ace~ stated the notice he retetvrd states the proptrty is
located approxlmateiv Z00 feet east of East Street and the map shaws that it is 800
feet east of East Streat +s~+d there is a possibiilty that there we~e people «eho were
not notifiad. He stated he ts surprlsed that thls was approved to permit tl~+~se
apartmenta in a pernisnent residnntial ares with the nunber of waivers requested
includtng a~ envtronmentsl imp~ct negative declsratlen. He stated he ts r+ot
co~~cerr+ed sbout san~ of th~e watvers, but that he 1~ concerned tfiat a precedent wil)
be set wt th approvsl of th is request. He stated the proposal is to use ove~ hatf of
the prope~ty wtth the strueture a~d that his lot is very shailew wf~ich ~uts l~ts house
very close to tfils property snd he was concerreed becausn ftras are increesing s~d he
1/ 12/81
~ ' ~. . ,~
IIINUTES~ ANIW~IM C1'rY PUINNING COMMISSION~ JANUAR1f IZ~ 1981 a1~~9
wondered whs~her or not the Fire D~pa~tment c~uld do much goc~d if ther~ v+as e fire
~~d did not thlnk the posstbt lity of fires hAd bs~r+ caneidsred. H• ret~rred to the
parking waiv~er requ~sted and polnt~d aut this affecta che pec~pie who ~re 11vi~g
tharo.He statad th~ plan only c~ils far 8 fcet of landscapl~~ an l• Pa1ma which is
probably ono of the mast L~aveled e~st/wss! 'treets durin~ peek tr~tfic hours In
A~ahelm; •nd thst vitlon Is restricted on the south side of La Palms alr~ady a~d
sugy~sted th~t police ~ea~rds be chacked to determine the nun+h~:r of eccidents on La
P~ime ~nd East St~tst. He felt the petittoner Is esking fa~ too much and felt the
vote should be negetlvE.
Mr. Bowmsn explained the proJer.t would hav~ to be spprnved by the Ff re Departmenc.
~le referr~+d to th• rcductlon In the number of parktng spaces and polntad out that
tliey do have two covered spaces for eech unit. Na stated the city has anttcipatsd
the trafFic concarns and the avn~rs are ~equl red to dedl cate 23 feet to the c{ ty for
streot wtdening purpose~. ~~e mxplelnad al l irtgress and egress weuld be to ls Palma
end Knott and there would not be any ecc-ess on Ju~lpsr and Hemlock. atc. He ststed
if the pro)ect w~s parallel to La Pe1ma~ there would not be a hordship, but that It
ia a long~ narraw prope~ty with the drlvcr+ay down one syde which has causad a~roblem
concarning the bullding site area.
TIIE PUBL I C HEARI NG WAS ClOSEO.
Commfsalonar Dushore stated h~ felt If this Is n~praved taday~ the next request would
be for the 4U untts next door and IC would appeAr thot the Plsnninc~ Commisslon hes
thrown the codes out the window. F1e stated he would even laok closely at thls if all
7 uni ts wero bei ng pruposed far Af fordeb 1 e hous t ng and wa~~ concernad r+hethe r or not
thc l imi ted nurrber of assoclation members could ~andle thr. responsibi l ity of
maintenancn. Ne stated he is not qoing to supc~rt this under ony conditions until
the Planning Comm(ssion comes to g~tp5 w{ th whet they a-e cl~inq wlth housing in the
ctty. He stated he hes vot~d for sll other affordAhl~ c~ro)ects~ but (s not going ~°
sat a prececknt by appraving this 7-unit proJect because all tMt ac+~~tment proJects
that have bean approved r~cently wi ll be cc~ming in wl th thr tA:y: r,~euest.
Chairrnan Toler stated he ce~uld not support t~is sinca he felt the denstty was tec~
h 1 gh when i t was app roved for apa rtn~nts :,nd for tflwnl~onr~s ur ~~~~~om) n t ums the
dansity ~s e.von worse because they do provlde ~ differe~t lifo~cyle wlth peaple
buying ttic nrn;,~;;~ a~d that the avr~ors would exaect a different enviro~ment tha~
the;~ ~ruu2d ha~e with rental property. Ne stnted he understan~s financing and the
~+roblerre the a.~er ;s having but that he could not s~~tx~rt th~* reyuest. He st~ted
M~. Bowmar and the Cor~nission hsve revlewed the development Gf thts property several
tin~s and he thought t1~at there were a lo~ oF trade•offs. Ite stated the Commlsstor~
hes been confro~~tod with requests for conversiona during thls dast year for very
obvioua reasons and thet is that tha awner of the property can come out econanically
better than with en apartment con~lex. He stated tha Cor-e+ission has gone over end
ebove whet ( a expected i n t ry 1 ng to re~ch the af fordab 1 e ispect. He s tated he ( s rat
goi~g to support this pra~ect. and in fa~et~ r+ould not support it even i f they we~e
a 11 ef fordabla because i t is too many un i ts on the lot. He atsted the 4a-unl ts ~ext
door ma~y not be buiit, but that he would expect wlthtn the ~ext cnuple of yesrs they
would be caming before the Planntng Commission aakl~g for converston.
1/12/81
.~
MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNIMG COMMISSIQN~ JANUARY 12~ 19$1 81-20
ACTION: Conmi:sloner 8ushore off~red ~ nK-tlon, s~conda.+ by Conm~ssiar+er Fry ~~d
~ tARR1Ed (C~na-isiton~ n Sornes snd Nerbst b~l~g •bsent)~ th~t the Anshatm City
Plenning Commisslan hst ~evlawad the proposal to establish a 1•lot~ 7•unlt
condominlum s~b division with waivers of mininN~n building site aree~ mnxtmum
st~ucturel helght~ n-~ximum site cover~ge~ minimum l~ndscaped setbaGk, minimum
re~:reatton-leisu~~ ar~s ~nd mininn~m numbe~ of pa~king spaces on an ir~egularlyshaped
pa~~el of land co~fistin9 of approximat~lY 0.~+7 acre~ havtng e frontage of
approximately 80 feet o~ the south side of La Pelmn Avenue~ h~ving a maximum depth of
epproximately 2E~~ feet, and being locstad epproximetoty 8Q0 feet east of the
centerltne of East Street (1Zh0 East La Paln-o Avenu~); and does hereby app~ove the
Nega:ive Declaration from the requl ren~ent to prepe+re an anvi ronn+entel tmpact report
o~ the basis that there would be no significrnt indivlduel or cumulative adve~se
environment+~! tmpact due to the dpProval af this Negative Decl~rAtlon since the
An~helm Gene~al Plan designatss the sub~ect property for medlum density restdentlal
land usas commensurata with the proposal; thet no sensitive environmentai impacts ara
(nvalved In tha proposal; chat the I~Itia) Study submitted by the petitloner
Indicates no significent indlviduai or cumulattve adverse envlronn+ental impacts; and
tl~at the Negative Deelaretton substantiatinq tha foregoinc~ findings Is an flle in the
City of Anahnim Plenning Department.
Conmissione~ Bushore offered Rasolutlon tlo. PC81-03 And moved for its pass~ge ancf
adoptian th~t the Anahalm Clty Pla~ning Cortimisslon does hereby deny the request for
Va~{ance No. 3192 on the basts that the petltioner dtd not ckm~nstrate that a
h~~dship exists due to the size, shape or topogrephy of the sub.ject property and on
the basls that it would set an undosirable p~ecedt~t.
On roll catl, the foregoing ~esolutlo~ aas pessed by the follvwing votes
AYES: COMM15510NERS: BOUAS~ dUSIiORE~ FRY~ KING. TOIAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONF
Af35ENT: COMNIS510NER5: BAP.NES, 11ERDS~T
Wmnlssiane~ Bushore offend a mution, sacondesd by Commlssloner Fry and MOTION
CARRIEO (Commissioners Barne~ and Nerbst being ebsent). that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby find thst thn p~opc~sed subdivision together wtth Its
desfgn and improvemant is consistent with thn City of Anahelm General Plan purausnt
to Gove rnnbnt Code Sectic~n 5G473.5 i~ that the site is not physically sulted far the
type of development propased end docs tharefare deny r~quest for Tentetlve htap of
Tract No. 11362•
Frank Low ry~ Senior Assistsnt City Attorney~ prese~ted the written rtght to appeat
the Planning Commlsston's decision within 22 days to the Ci:y Council on the variance
dnd w) tt~i n 15 days on t`~e tract.
1/12/8t
~
J
MINUTES. 11NAMEIM CITY PUWNIN~ COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-21
FiCAT18N N0. 80-81-
PUDIIG HEtiRING. OMNEaSs EPHRiAM BEARO~ ET AL. 1542 "B" Moulton Parkway~ Tustin, CA
92680. AGENT: JONATHAN WE88 c/o FOaEST CITY DILLON~ 11611 San Vicente doulev~~d~
SulLe 74Q. Lo~ An~l~s~ CA 90049• Prop~rty described as a reetanqulsrly•shaped
percel of land conststinq of epp~oximately 4.7 acros~ located at 12~1 South Beach
Bouleva~d. Prope~ty presently c1~sslfled CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) 20NE.
RECLASSIFICATION ItEQUEST: RM-3000
CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: t0 PERMIT AN 81-LOT. 8A-UNIT CONDOMiNIUM COt~P LEX (25~
AFFORDABLE) WITIi WAIVERS OF: (a) aEQUIRED LOT FRONTACE~ (b) MININUM ~OT AREA PER
DWELLING UNIT~ ~c) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE~ (d) MINIMUM LANpSCAPEO SETBACK AND (e)
MINIMUM NUMBEa AND 7YPE OF PARKIN~ SPACES.
TENTATIVE MAP REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT A 81-LOT~ 80-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION (25Z
AfFOROABLE).
Thera was no one Indicating thelr p~esence In oppositlan to subJect r@quest~ and
although the stsff report was not ~ead. It ts referred to and m~+de ~ pert of the
mtnutes.
John Webb~ agont~ 227 5outh Sheffer, Orange~ stated this proJect is new con~truction
of an 8b-unit townhouae projcct and that thay heve committed to sell 20 of the unlts
as law and nbderate income. H~ ~etated they hava made a couple of changes to the
plans upon NUD's reconsnendation ~nd one is to pravide an actlve solar gystem rether
th~+n a passive sola~ system for the onttre pro]ect. Ne pointed out the donsity bo~us
at 35$ is the lavest o;~ el) the density bonuses granted fo~ n~,v constructed proJects
and that the parking a~t 2.5 spaces per unit Is the second highest of all sffordable
proJects. Ne stated xhey accept end agree with the recommanded c.flnditlons of the
staff report.
John Fisher~ architecC~ explained Chat 77 unlts are oriented north and south in order
to take care of the pa~ssive snd acttve aolar measu~es and also the orlentation ts to
mttigate against trafflc noise from ~each Boulevard. Ne explsined there ls a loop
~oad with two entrancas and nxits to maxtmtze the abitity to qet out of the site. He
pointed out they do h~ve tontrol of the p~oparty to the south in St~nton and plan in
the future to expand this same project into Stanton.
Commis~ionor Fry left the Council Chamber at 5:~J0 p.m.
TNE PUBIIC HEARING 4lAS CLOSED.
Ghatr^-}~°: Tolar stated this a-s~s probably o~e of the nicest projects he h~s s~een; that
he recognizea parking at Z.; ~poces la prabably acceptable and th~t 3•5 mlght be too
htgh. H~+ stated that he weuld not want this project ~edeslgned but that he would
like to .ee the guest Rarkt~~~, distrlbuted throughout the proJect~ noting it has been
condensed in Mo araas on thiu pien. He suggested th~~ developar conaider redestgning
the guest parking spaus because it n~ight nake the priaJect nare saleable potnting out
that ~t hes been a probiem in the past.
1/12/81
~~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981
e~-zz
Mr. Wabb r~plled lhat he had trtsd to redastribute the parking snd polnted out that
esch tawnhome untt hat •~ ~ttached 9Arege provldtn~ two ~ttsched spaces for eech 2
~nd 3-bed~oom unit end 1 atteohed apace for each 1•bedroom unit.
Chsirmen tolor polntod out that guests vistting on the west end of the property wouid
hava quite a long w~lk.
Commtsatoner F~y ratu~ned to th~ Cauncll Chamber at ~:05 p.m.
Mr. Wabb polnted out the parking problem wll) bo mitigated by tha frct treG epch 1-
berlroom unlt will have s5signed psrkinq spece ad]acent to it.
ACTION: Commtssionar 8uahore offered a mmtton, seconded Commissioner Kinq anA MOTION
t~ED (Conmis~tAners Barnes and flerbst k~eing absent)• that the Anahelm Planning
~ommisston has revie~ved the proposal to reclaasify subject property fra~ the Cl
(Commerctel. I,im(ted) Znne to RM•3Q0~ (Res(dentlal~ Multlple-Femily) Zone to permit
an 81-lot~ 80-untt condominlum subdivtsion (25$ affordabic) wtth walvars of requlred
lat frontag~, minlmum lot area per dwelling unlt~ msxlmum lot cov~rage, minlmum
lendscaped setback and minlmum number and type of parking spaces on e rectsngularly-
shaped pnrcel of lend co~sisting of approximately ~~.7 ac~es, haylnca a frontage af
approximetely 330 fcet on ~.e west side of Be~ch Boulevard~ hAVing n ma~ximum depth of
approximatcly 620 feet~ and belnc~ lacated a~proximotely 33~ fact south af thr
centorl Ine of Ela) l Road (12~~1 South Bcech aoulevard) ; snd cbes harcby approve the
t~egsttve Decleratl~~ fror+ the requi ron+ent to prepa~e an envi ~anm~ntal Impact report
on the basis that t~tiere would be no signtf(eent individual t~r cumul~tiv+e adverse
envtronmenta) impact due to the approv~) of thls Negattve Qecl~r~tlQn since the
Anahetm Generel Pla~ destgnates the sub~oct praperty for lcx~r medium d~nstty
~esidenttai end generai conxnerclat land uses eomn~ nsurata with tMe proposrl; thet no
scnsitlve environmental impacts are (nvolved in the proposml; that the IniCial Study
submitted by the pet(tioner Indicates no sihnificant indiv~dunl or cu~nulative sdverse
environmrntal impacts; end that the !~egative Declar~tion substantisting the f~rego~nc~
findings ts on flle in the City of Anahelm Planning Depert~nt.
Commissloner Bushore offered Resolutton t~o. PC81-~~+ end enaved for Its passage and
adoptlon that the A~ehelm CitY Planning Commisslon does i~ereby grant Reclassiflcatlon
No. 80-81-21 subJect to Interdep~rtnkntal Committee reconrn~ndations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSi0NER5: BOUAS~ BUSFIOaE~ FRY~ KING. TOLAR
NOES: COMMIS510NEaS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIO~~ERS: BARNES~ HERBST
Commissloner Bushore offered a notton, seconded by Comniss'oner Fry and M!OTIOM
CARRIEp (Commisslone ra Barnes and Herbst betng absent), that the Anahelm Clty
Plenning Commission does hereby qrsnt tha rec~uest for wa~iver f~r eocie requiremen*. on
the basis that the developer has entered into en ~qreemant wtth the City of AnAhetm
purxuant to Government Code Sectlon G$g1y Co pravtdc 25'~ affordsble untta in
accordance with said Code SeGtlon 65915.
Commtssioncr Bushore offernd Resolutio~ No. PC81•05 and nrsved for its passage snd
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cor.xnlsslon do~s hereby g~ant Co~ditiA~al Use
Permit No. 216b subjACt to Interdeps~tmental Conn+tttee recemmendations.
1/1~/81
l ~.. ~ '~ 1
MINUTES~ ItNIlMEIM CITV ~IANNING COMMISSINd~ JANUAaY 12, 19$1 8~1-23
D~an Shers~~ Asststant Planne~~ +~sked ~hat a condttlon b• addad requl ring tound
•ttenuation.
On roll call~ the to~egoing rosolutto~ was patted by the followtng v:~t~t:
AYES: CQMNISSIONERS: 80UAS~ BUSNORE~ fRY~ KING, TOI.AR
NOESt COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A~SENTs COMMISSIONERSs BARNES~ HERBST
Commisstoner Bnshare oftered a natio~, seconded by Commiasioner Fry and MOTION
CARRIED (Comrnissioners Bsrnes anci Ne rbst being ~bsent). that the Anahelm Ctty
Plenning Commtsslon does hc~eby find thet tlse proposed s~division together wtth (ts
design and tmprovement (s consistent wtth the City of Anahetm Ge~e~al Plan~ pu~s wnt
to Governrnent Code Sectto~ 6647;.~ and does therefore approve Tentative Mip of Trt~ct
No. 11364 for an 41-lot~ 80-untt condomintum subdivision, subject to the followtng
conditlona.
1. Th+~t the approvel of Tentattve Mep of T~ect No. 11364 ts grsnted subJect to
the approval ot Condittonal Use Permlt Ho. 216p.
2. Th~t should thts subdiviston bo dev~eloped aa more than one subdivi~lon, each
subdivtsion the~of shail be submitted tn tentatlve form for dpproval.
3. That subJect property sh~il be served by underground utilities.
4. That dreinage of sub)ect property shall be dlspased of tn a m~nner
satisfactory to the City Engtneer.
5. That the awne~ of subject p roperty shali p~y to the City of Anaheim the
a~propriate park and recreatlon 1n-lleu fees as determtned to be approprtate
by the City Council, s~id fees to be patd at the ttme the buliding permit is
issued.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with appraved plans
on ffle with the Offica of the Executive Director of Public uorks.
7. Thet street names shall be app roved by the Ctty Planning Department p~(o~ to
appraval of a finsl trsct map.
8. Thet approprlete water assessment faes as dAte~mined by the Offtce of
Utiltties Genaral Maneger sh~l) be paid to the City af Anaheim prlor to the
tss uance of a buiiding permtt.
9. That ail prtvate streets shall be dev~eloped in accordence wtth the City of
M aheim's Standard Detail tio. 122 far p~ivate at~eets, includtng
tnstallation of st~eet n~ne atgns. Plans for th~ private street iighting,
as rcqutred by the standard detetl~ shatl ba submltted to the Buildtng
Dtvision for approval s~d t~clusion wtth the buildtng plan: prtor to the
iss uance of bullding permits. (Private streets are those which provide
primary access snd/or cfrculatlon within the proJect.
10. Th at the owner(s) of ~~bJect property shall pay the traffic sign~i
assassaient fee (Ordinance I~io. 38g6! in a~ am~unt as deterr~ined by the City
t/12/81
, _. ..__._
- ~
f ~ ~ '
4.~
MINUTES~ JINIWEIM CITY PIANNING CdMKISSION~ JANUARY 1Z~ 1981 st•Z4
Council~ for s~eh ~~ d+sili~g unit p~lo~ to th~ issuance ot a bullding
permit.
11~ Th~ s~11~~ shall provid~ the purchase~ of each condomintun untt wtth w~itt~n
Infon~atian conc~rntn~ AnaMim Nuntcip~i Codt 14.32~5Q0 pertatnlnQ to
"pa'rkinq ~e~tricted to facilitata streat sv+~spin~". Such Nrttten
I~tor~natia+ w111 c1~ar1Y i~dicat• wh~n on•street parktng Is prohibitad ~nd
ths penalty tor vl~latlon.
12. That th• on-stt• sanitary sewn n shali be privately awned end mal~t~ined by
the honieawn~rs assocletion.
t;. 1 f pern+anent s t roet name s I gns have nnt b~en i nst~ i l ed ~ tertiporary t tr~et
name slgns sh~ll be inctelled pr1o~ to sny occupancy.
1~+. That ths developer shall ente~ into on aqreeenant Nith the CItY af Anah•tm
pursusnt to Governmsnt Code Se~ctto~ 65915 which ag~eamant shail ba recorded
concurrently wtth or prlor to the a~prov~l of the Final Map tmd v+hich sha11
provide that ZS$ of the units shali be sold as low or mod~r~te tncome
housing as dsflnad In Gove~nment Coda Section 6591S +~nd wjth appropriate
rasala controls ea approved by the CitY of Anahelm.
{/1?/E1
~'
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CIT1f PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81'25
(TEM N0. t EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSL~ Y APPROVED). CONOITtONAI USE PERMIT
N . :
REAOVERTI5ED PUBLIC HEARING. 041NERs SAN ANTONtO CHURCH~ 253 Laandro Stroet,
Anaheim~ CA 92807. AGENT: .JONN 9ARTLETT~ 37 wast Huntingt~n Orive~ Arcadia~ CA
91006. Property describad ~s ~n trregularly-shaped parcal of lsnd consisting of
approximately 6.0 scres~ located at tlie southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road snd
Solom~n Drive~ havt~g app~oximete front~ges of 328 fcet on the south side of Santa
Ana Canyo~ Ib ed and 1015 feet on the west side of Solomon Drive. aS-A-43~000
(RESI~~NTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: PETiTIONEa REQUESTS DElET10N OF CONDiTtON N0. 8 OF PlAN~11~G
COHMI SS I ON RESOLUTI ON N0. PC79-60 PERTAI N 1 tIG TO MEbI A~~ LANDSCAP I ~IG ON SANTA ANA
CANYON ROAO.
Thare was no one Indicating Chefr presence in oppositinn to subject requesk. and
although the staff report wds not re~d~ it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Reverend Seamus A. Glynn~ San Antonio Church, ststed they arn ready ta occupy thei
ndr ehurch and are in the process of landscaping, but ara here to request deletton
Condition No. 8 pertalning to the medlen strip in Senta Ana Canyc-n Road~ He state
he feels thls ts the "straw that breeks the carral's back" because thay have gane
along with all city requirements and have spent approximat~ly S39r000 for permits
feel thls request to irrl~ate and landscape the mcdlan ls unre~sonable. He stated
hes been told by the cixy steff chat the church is considered Just like any other
developer ond he would like to chelicnge that because develope~s arc ablo to paas
their cxpenses on ta the buyers of the homes in the future. He stated tn a sense
church is like a p~ivate cittzen and because of the requlrements of the city,
f h) 5 6 acre arcel will cost between S85~AR0 and 590~000. He
of
and
he
the
landscaping or t s. P
stated they ~+ould request to be relieved of this requlrr:me~t to landscape the medlan
strip. Ha pointed out that Canyon Nigh School was not required to take care of the
median strip and there Is another church to the west whlch was not requt red to
provide the median landscaping three years aqa.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer~ explai~ed historically builders and developers alo~g
Santa Ana Canyon Road have bean required to landscape and trrtgate the median and
parlaray and that the hlgh schooi was built before that condition was origlnsted. He
stated that conditlon was not placed on the church to the east end he did ~ot know
why~ but it was a condition piaced on che church and the school approved last meeting
east of Eucalyptus.
Chairman 7olar noted ther~ :ra Eucalyptus trees currentlY exlsting and Father Glynn
explatn~d that he is spcaking of irrigation only.
Chairman Tolar asked who wouid maintaln the ~est of the median and Nr. Titus
explained the city maintains the medians to the east where the landscaping is already
in. Ne also explained the largest expense will be getting the water under the
t ravelway to the median a~d noted water i s al ready to the median further to the east
but not in Chis area.
1/12/St
~ ,, ~ -~
c :
,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PlAf~11N6 CONMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81•Z6 ~
Commissloner 9usho ro stated this condit~~cuatt~acsd on a church )ust one nwnth ago
a~d the church is tha dsveiop~r In thts s
Father Glynn asked about th• development to tha north o~ the south flde of ths road
and it was natad th~t th~t proPerty belan~s to M~s. M~99 and has not b•en davelaped.
F+~ther Glynn stated that the high school and Lutheran Church did no~ paY for
Irrigatlon and la~dscaping so the procadent has already baen set.
Frank I.a+ry-, Senlor Assistant CitY ~ttorney. PQ~nted out the city has no power to
even revlaw the school distrtct's plan snd cennot requi~e them to provlde lendsc~ping
an~ irrigatfon,
Commisslone~ Bushore stated he loaks at this as a development even though it ts not a
conunerclel development and that he did n~t know why the Lutheran Church was relleved
of this reaponsibllity but th~t he could ~ot support this requeat.
Fsther Gly~n felt they shouid be given speclel conalderation because they cannot pass
the cost on llke th~+ developers cen ond c~olnted out the church is for the benefit af
the cammun i ty.
Commissloner Bushore stated that the church Is a benefit for a segment of the
commun i ty , but not the enti re commun I ty.
Chalrman To1~r stated churches anjay a tox-free situAtton bacruse they a~re non-profit
organizations and there are some off-setting benefits. He steted che oniy discomfort
he hbs tn denying the ~equest ts because a precedent haa been set and it would appear
the city is only requiring this tn isolatcd sttuatlons.
Mr. Tttus stated tha landscaping has been put in by t~c developers and is quite
extensivn and once the lanclscaptng ts tn ~~d acccpted, the city then maintains It.
Answaring Chairman T~lar's questien~ Father Glynn explalned the cost estimates he has
for this i ~ri~ation are between S3.000 end S4~c100.
Commissloner 6ushore stated the church asked for ~ vsriance end found 'he money to
build a tall skeplC so their church cao bs a~si nificant amount~ofbmcmeyt heefelti'~
community snd althouqh S3•000 to 54,~0 9
with the size of this proJect, it is an Insignificant amount.
Father Glynn stated this is the and of epproxlm~tely S~+'D,000 that they have already
pald to the city because they came in at a bad time~ )ust after paasage of
Prc~osition No. 13 a~d +ere do~ly assnssed for everything and potnted out the
d~ainage f~ e~ toebe~a~d also0the city hash requiredtnxtensiveplandscapington theirEs
what they
property which cost more than S8b,000.
Commissioner 8ushore stated he stiii h~s to loa~k st this as any other developer and
must ask himself wh~ther or not he would waive this ~equest ~or them ~nd although the
church does serve a certain portion of the communlty. the Commisston has to look at
the overall communlty and thta is a requirement regardiess of whether or not tt was
ove~loolced for the property across the st~eet t~nd the requirements have to be fatrly
passed out and he s~r+ ~o justification for waiving that condition.
~~~zia~
.. .__~ ... .
~_.~._....W.~..~......~.,~~._ ;.~~. _
~ r
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C11Y PLANNINQ COMMISSION. JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-2~
Mrs. Edward B~rry~ 6191 Cl~lo Vlsta~ •tatad she Is • parishtaner ot this church a~nd
is also in wived In raal estste in the cenyon and st~t~d the Commisslo~ is mtstakan
when thay s tatsd th• church Just benetl~s e certein portlon of the commu~lty beceu~e
the whole cancept is that thla is ~ communtty and a p+~rt of the ctty snd without
churchas snd sclwals th~re ts no cammunity •nd that the homa~ dre n+ore ssleable with
churches and schools ne~rby. Sho felt the church wlll ben~~it the entira canmunlty
and th• city and they are a non-proftt organization and the p~rishlan~rs ratsad the
mo~ey to bulid the church. She steted they have to pay e g~est dea~l of interest and
wil) ba in debt for a gre~t meny yesrs. expleining the Bishop loened them the monoy
ta build the church at sn interest rate and that t~ey had to show a certaln
percentego of pledges.
Commisslaner Bushore askad if Ms. Ba~ry would tikc it if she w~re a tAxpayer davn the
street attending the Luthe~en Church and tt~is requlrement was waived for this church
and Ms. Barry stated she would like It because she feit churches help the value of
praperty.
Commissi~ner Bushore asked tf she fnit It was fair to the paople who cb not live in
ti~e canyon to hetp support that S~-~000 cost and Ms. Barry s*.eted she felt it 1~ fair
because they have their own churches end responded to Commtssianer Bushore'a question
that the mcmles they hava peld should be refunded to them.
Ms. Barry strted obviously Mra. Maggs' p ropGrty w11) be dovaloped into a profit
making project And could ba commercl~+l or hort~es and ti~at they cen afford to put tn
the landscaping. She felt Canyon Nigh Schc~ol was tn first and they are non-profit
and did not have to pay end ~hat P~lbe~tsons came tn later and pald for the median.
She sugqe:~:ed that the devetoper who co+n~s {n wlth e profit-making proJect on the
prnpe~ty z:ross the screet be requlrc~d to p~Y for the landscaptng.
Chalrman Tolar stated hc felt it is a matter af record in the United States that
churches hav~e a lot of money and control e c~reat deal of the weelth of the country
and he recogniz~s the beneflts are passed on to the community~ but the blgoest
problem fi e hes wtth walvl~g this requt~ement Is that in the future development of
this city and ce~yon~ the priv~te developers wlll be requtred to pay for the
trrigation and the la~dsceping ta lmprove the community ~~d to waive those same
requi~ements for churches and schouls would not be fafr. Ne stated butlders of homes
In the canyon are requtred to lmprove the streets and n~dtans and those costs are
passad on to the consuner so the conswner actuelly pays doub~e because thty are
psying taxes on those things after they sre in. He steted he understands the church
Is entitled to the support of the community.
Ms. Barry ststed she dops not feel the developer of the Magg property will r~bJect to
paytng and the church not ~+aying because the church being there ls going to be a plus
for his development.
Chalrman Tolar statod developma~t is headed on towards Wetr Canyan and he dld not
knvw where the line will be drawn and who will be exempt from paying these
requi nemen+~a i f th t s is approved today.
Ms. Barry stated theY have dona everything required by tho city and it Is t~ue the
churches are ve ry rfch but that they waiked door-to~door qetting pledges to buiid
this cfi urch and it has cost nwra than was originaliy estimated.
~i~2ia~
~ ~r .~~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981
Bt-28
Commi~alo~er Bushoro stated as a reel estate per~~~n, Ms. Barry probabty b~ileves In
tree enterprise sna th~ us• of proparty rt~hts; thot the Commtsslon must remember in
thls country there is e•epar~tion ot church and state and whe~ it comes to the
church nat payin~ theae fees~ there should be no spact~l constderatio~ because of
that sapar~tio~ of the chu~ch end etate. Ne stated the Commlssian really debates the
dactsions they m~ke end have to ltve with thase dacts~ons and have to Justify them as
belny fair and serving the most ~ood. He stated mAybe one church has been overlooked
but o~e we~ Just requirod to p~y those aame fees and sll tl~e taxpayers a~e paytng far
these thing= and n~t ove ryone who p~ys those tax~es wants to see tho money used for
that purposa.
Ms. Barry ssked if tha develoqar across the street could be ~equlred to reimburse
them for at least h~if tha cost.
Chatrman TolAr explained the new members of the community whr~ would De brought in by
the development across the street prabably will be part~hioners of the church and
wti) be providing incam~e to the church so the church would benefit. Ne stated ell of
the Cdmmissioners want to help the church but the blggest p roblem Is that ff the
Commission deletes tho requirement for thls developer, it would open the door for
deletton fo~ eve ry other develope~ and that the Commisslon cannat Justify requtrl~g
someone else to pay the fees which have been doleted for thts development.
Commisstoner King agreed that if thQ church does not pay the fees then the taxpayers
will have to pay It and he dtd not think that is fafr.
it was notad a Negative Oeclaration was approved for Conditional usa Permtt No. 1939-
~n March 26, 1979.
ACTION: Commissfone~ B~shore offcred Resolution Na. PC81-06 and moved for tts
pa ass~ge and adoption that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hQreby deny the
request to delete C~nditian No. 8 of Resolutlon No. PC79-60 ~ertalning to medtan
landscaptng on Senta Ma Canyan Road and that it would sr~t an undzsireblc precedent
af future development of the city and the canyo~ area.
On roll cail, the fo~egoing reso~ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 80UAS. BUSHORE~ FRY, KING. TOLAR
NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOr1ER5: BARNES, NERBST
Annika Santalahtl. Assistant Dtrnctor f~r Zaning~ stated there is a possibility that
when the prope~ty across the street is developed, tf the chu~ch has maintained
adequate records for tha improveme~t of the n~edian~ that they can ask for
reimbursement of 50$ of the actual cost. She poln~Qd out~ however~ the Planning
Dapartment or steff have not seen any plans for the development of that property.
Chairman Tolar stated he falt it is Justifiable to e~rmerk that property so that the
cost of irrigation and tandsceping may be off-set by 5~$ if the proaerty across the
street is developod in the future.
Frank Lo+~rry, Senlor Assista~t City Attorney~ presented the written rtght to appeal
the Pla~ntng Commissian's decision within 22 days to the City Co uncii.
~i~2ia~
~ ;
~,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMiSS10N~ JANUARY 12~ 19$1 g~.~9
REQUIREMENT AND CONQIT
PUBLIC NEARINC. AWNER: TAMOTSU OTA 6 KA7.UK0 OTA~ 920 North Anahetm Boulevard~
Anaheim~ CA gZ805. AGENTs YOSN R. KANESHIGE~ 112 North San P~dro Stre~t~ /2Q4~ Los
Angele~~ CA ~0012. Prope~ty dascribed ss a ract~nguisrty-shaped ~a~cel of land
con=tsting ot approximately 55~0 squ~re feet. loceted at ~ZO North An~heim Boul~vard
(clhts-Metic Transmtsslons). Prope~ty pre:ently clessifled CG (COMMERCIAI, fENERA~)
ZpNE.
CONOITIONAI. USE REQUEST: TO RETAIN A AUTON081LE TRANSMISSION REPAIR SHOP.
There was no one indtcattng thelr presence in opposl~lon to subJect reque~t~ and
•ithough the staff re~ort w~s not ~esd~ tt is refQrred to end made a p~~t of the
minutes.
Yosh R. Kenesli i ge ~ agant ~ exp 1 a i ned th i s requas t I s to reta t n the use of th~ property
as a transmisslon repoir shop at A20 Nortn Anahelm Eioulevard. He ref~r~ed to the
condltton pertaining ta tl~e required dedic~tlon end asked who would prepa~e the deed
and also as-;ed whet tha street ilghttng fees are elonq An~hetm 9oulevard.
Daan Sherer~ As slstent Planner~ explelned that Conditlon Nc. 2 raqulres that the
1lghttng be Instalied or tl~at a bond be posted to guarantee the Instailatton of the
street i lghts.
M nika Sentalahtl~ Assistant Dtrectar for Zoning~ stated staffwill hsve to verify
whether ~r not the lights are exis'cing and explalned the fee is S3.50 per front foot.
Shc stt~ted ther~ are a lot of old bulidings In Anahetm on which the fees have not
bean pald~ but she was cance rned that the conditlon asks for Installstion snd dld not
think thet wes torrect.
Oean Sherer explatned research of the recerds showed the fees were never paid and if
lights are extsting~ the petttioner wouid be required to pay the front footage fee.
TlIE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Tolar asked abaut the c~mplalnt received from the adJoining property orvner
and Dean Sh erer stated this was one of ttx~se situatlans where the applicant just to
the south was rcqulred to get a oondittonal use permit and decided stnce he had to
get a permtt, his nelghbor should have the same requtrement. He stated there are
some lega) non-conforming uses tn the area a~d explained this complalnt was not
relatlve to the wAy the property (s being us~d.
Comrnlssioner King asked if the chein-link fenced-in area abuttl~g the alley could be
used fo~ pa~king~ explaining he felt 1~ cara couid be parked In that area and it was
noted tandem parking spaces do not meet parktng requtrements.
Dean Sherer stated as far as staff fs concerned~ the petitioner has six legally
acceptabie parking ~:paces.
Jay Titus~ Office Engineer~ Qxplained the clty will prepare the deed for dedication.
1/12/61
~..;
~ l
MI NUTES ~ ANANE I M CI TY PI.ANN I Nti CQMMI SS 10H ~ JANUARY 12 ~ 1981
81-3Q
ACTIONs CaMnl~slo~er Kinq '~fB~~~~ ~d~ erbst be1n9 ~bs~~1~~~h~~ ~~p~Mh~in~ Ctty
'I'~T1VA CAaRIED (Cam~~s~lona
Planning ~ommisston has ~evle~ved,th~n.'~lla=onm withia v+alvar~oltminiTUm~numba~~ot
~tpai~ ~hop In the CG ~Comme~cs~ ~
pa~king sp~ces on a ractanqul~rly-sha~feAppro~~~Lely•50 ~~1o^,thepeastpside of 1y
5a00 squars feet~ having ~ front~ge
M~h~lm 6ouleva~d, havi~g •^bxl^~ Centerl tn~ oroLaPalma Avenus~(92~d~~~h9Ana eim
•pproximotely W00 feet south af th•
Boulev~rd); snd doas h~reby approve the Nenstive Dec~~rstle~ from the rsquireinant to
prepere sn envtroi~ ~~°oricumulativeradversaeenvi,anmentalhimpactuduebtonthe approv~l
signiflce~t indtv
of this Negattve ~eciar~t~~ionialnlendhuse~afiec~nsurate with theiP~oposalhcthat ~ot
property for ganer~l co~
sensltive envlro~mc~tal imp~cts'c:~~~ o~s~~~tficentpindividu~iho~ cuinulative,~dverse
•ubm) tted by the peti tl oner i nd
dnvtronmental impects; end that tfA~~n~im~P1~n1„9~Dep,r~~nt~nt~ating the foregol~g
findings is on file in tha ~Ity o
Commissloner KIn9 offs~ed a motiobelneCabsent)Y thatithe~AnAhe1maCltydP1anningCARRIE~
(Commissloners Barnes and Ilerbst 9
Commi s- lon does herety grant thc wa 1 ver of code requt rement on the ba~l s the~t the
requeL. 's minimel and tha use is exlating and has had no ~dverse affect o~ the
surrounding erea.
Conxnissioner King offe red Resolutiv~ Nu. P~81-07 and nwved for ~~antdto~ditau~al Use
adopt) Noth~i ths~~actt to Interdepa~t~nental1 Commltt earec'~ndations.
Pe rmit 59
On roli cA~l. tha foregot~~g resolution was passed by the follawin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BOUAS, HUSHORE, FRY. KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, NERBST
~~~z1a~
:~:
MINUTES, ANIWEIM CITY P4ANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY lx~ 1981
e~-3,
ITEN N0. t EIR NEGATIVE DECLAllAT10N AND CONDI'fIONAI USE PEitMlt N0. 216At
PU9lIC HEARII~G. OWNEIts RALPH G. ALEXAND~R~ 18~~~ South Aneh~tm Boulev~rd~ Anaheim,
CA 9~805• AGENTS: MICNAEL JACOBS~ HANAN STANLEV~ 12~-32 saJ~ Pano~~nr~ Santa Ana, CA
gZ~py. Property describ~d~oc.ated'~teQ87WrSouth~Anahelm~Boulevarda Propertyg °f
approximately 1.01 •cr~ss
p~es~~tly cl~ss~fled Ml IINQUSTR1Al~ LIMITED) ZONE.
CONDITIQNAL USE REQUFST: T~ PERMIT A aECYClI1~C~ CENTER IN TNE ML ZONE~
fiere we: ono parson ind~~wss~not' ~ead~~itcisi ~eferredtto^a~~d mede~etParc oftthend
slthough the staff repo
mt nutes .
~{~~e~ Stenloy ~ agant, stated thaY have cont++ctad one of thel' neighbors to the south
and hav~ stipuleted to QxtLod rovldesat~~dentcCOnt~olaandCthe nelghborols,tnY ~~
feet and siso hsve agreed p
egreement with this request.
Walter Erickson stated there wo~c seve~al people present In opposltton but had to
leavn~ that he is ona of the princlArls af The Ge~rge T. Hslt Company~ 1850 South
Anahelm Boulevard end that thcy are opposed to this request bec~use they pald a
premlum eo be located adJacent to the Sante Ane Frcw+ay and did not feel this type
business is consistent with the rGSt of the area; that most of the new businesses are
officns end warehouses and thts opar~+tion is strange to thelr operatlons end would bo
e high traffic operatlon; thet the report stetes there miqht be twenty to forty
vehicles a dey ~.oming to this facility and he was cencerned because there could be
more. He stated they sra also concerned about noise; that every bustness there has
people coming and departing In a no~mal manner end this business would be open an
Saturday end most of usinr its~~eSPerktng,dturninqsaroundthetc.~rppcrties would then
be sub)ect to people 9
Herold Rollins~ awner of property at 191W South Anaheim Bo~~levard~ stated he was
opposed to thts request until the petitloners assurod hHe StaLedhLhey~eve 70 to 100
reduction in noiso and there would be rode~t ~o~trol.
people living at this motel but wltn these assurances o~ ~ecord he would not be
opposed.
Mr. StAnley stated they are a~so paying a premlum f~r thls locatton even though they
are leasing the p roperty; that the zoning permit~ e recycitng c~enter in this area
witi~ a conditlonst use permit; tht~t they heve budgeted S2~0~00(1 to open the facillty
and will not ba opening a small busin~ss adJacent to these expeniQ~stated~he9didnnot
that it will be as good~ if not better~ than what is existing•
like to hear the apposiCion degrading this bus1nfaci1itlesGfor thelr Incomin9t
b usiness. He stated they have adequate parking
vehtcles which wauld conslst of pick-ups and automobiles with an occasional large
truck to remove meterial from the site.
Sylvia Alexander~ ane of the a+ners of said property, stated shs had talked to Ken
Knesee today and he was'su~PoRand abcopy isnavailable incthenPlanningvDepa~+tment tter
ta read. She read the et
f i les.
1/12/81
t- ~
~.. ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMIS' ION~ JANUAaY 12~ 19$i $1•;2
Ms. Alsx~nder edd~d th~t wheth~~ this ~roperty is develope~ ~s a recycling center or
industrl~l oftices~ etc. th~t the tretfic problem would be the same.
TNE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS ~,LaSEO.
Commissionor K) ng pol nted out s~ercel map wi 11 be requt red to separete the ~on-
cor~forming dwel l Ing u~ 1 ts from the proposed ~ecycl ing ~ent~~ A~d Ms. Alexander
rep 1 1 ed th~t they are • 1 ready wo~k I ng on the pa~ce 1 map.
Commissloner King refe~~ed to the condltton requiring sidew~iks and potntad out that
the ~e a~e no s t dew~ 1 ks 1 n the a rei.
Jay Titus~ Offtce Enginee~, explsined the petitloner would have the optlon of
tequesting a sidewalk weiver.
Cammissioner Bushore clarifled that there would be storage bins for a11 the mat~rtals
•nd that the containers witl be covered. He asked (f there wil l be a sleredder and
Mr. Stanley replied that thay are not planning to have a shredder at thts time bu~ if
they do need one in the futura~ thay will c,~e-.t proper app~oval from the ctty.
Answaring Conxnissioner Bushore pertatning to the notse ad.Jacent t~ the motel ~ Mr.
Stanley stated thG noi se wl 11 not be aiiy mare than tha noise craated by trefflc on
the Sante Ana Freeway. f~e •xplalned ihe beler Is e hydraulit downstroke baler ond It
wt t 1 be fenced. t1e stated no one wi 11 he al lowed to ~nter the pruperty without
clothing end shoes.
Chsirman Tolar asked the length af the lease and Mr. Stantey re~lied iy years.
Cornmissioner Bushore stated he xanted the petit(oner to stipulate that the operatton
will be conducted Inside thc boundarics of the ette so there will be Rc~ unloadtng
outside the gate or on the street and that all e~ulpme~t and vehtcles utillzed in the
operation wi ll be perked or stored on s~bject property.
Mr. Stanley statcd thery will have parking only wlthln the property and that no
equi pment or vehi cles wi l l be parked on the street.
Coa~missioner Dushore asked if the petltloner would obJect to s time limlt af one-yea~
and Chairman Tolar stated he was yoing to suggest a time ifmit because there wauld be
no on-s ( te Improvemrnts other than the equt pment but changed h i s mind because of the
1~-year lease and beeause (f there are any viotatlons or the operation is bein~
canducted to affect the health~ safety or welfare of the aurrounding neighbors, the
P i ann i ng Commi s s i on ca~ revi a+ the use and revoke the permi t. Ne pa t nted out thare
have been a couple of ~ecycl ing operations tn this city whlch have done a terrible
? cb .
Mr. Stanlev stated thz rode~t problem is existtng in the area and he wants that on
the record so thet t n the f uture i t cannot be s~t d that the recyct i ng center caused
the problem~ Ne ststesd he has dlscussed the~e matters with the netghbors and has
assured tham that he will da ~•rrything tn his pawer to cooperate to prevent anythtng
of that nature from happmni ng.
Comntssloner King raf~rred to the staff report comnent that a chaln~link fence wil)
be tnstailed along the south pro~,erty line and M~. Stenley replied that there is ar~
exlsting 6•fo~t high btock wsll along the araperty itn; and he hes agreed to exte~d
the wall by bwo-feet.
1/12/81 _..~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1g8t
81-33
Dean Sherer explain~d that no walver 1~ requlred for the w~ll +~bove s1x-feet and e
chaln-Ilnk fence wt 11 bs necesssrY wher~ there Is no block wt~) l.
Respo~din9 to Comnlsslaner Bushoro, Dean Sherer explalned the trei ler wi l l requlre
sepa~atc ap~roval from the P1an~ing nlr~actor.
Commissloner Ktng askad if the use would be hidden from the street ~nd Mr. Stenley
stated there wi l l be s chain-I (nk fence 30 feet from the strest, It wss pointed out
that the mat~rtsl canr-ot be stacked any highar than the Fence and Mr. Stsnley replled
that ha is not Intendtng to atack any higher than the fence.
Raaponding to Conmisstone~ BushorG's concer~ regardtng the sign~ tt w~s polnted o~t
the s 1 gn w 111 confonn to the s 1 gn ordinance.
Cortmi asiuner 9ushore stAted he has no problem wlth the use but cannot support a 15~
ysar time lim(t and would only vote for a minimum of three-years.
ACT{Oli: Commissioner King offered a nntlon, seconded by Cortn+issfone~ Bouas a~d
~O~I Cl+RRIED (Commtssioner Barn~s and Herbst being absen:), that the Anshaim City
Plenning Commisslon has reviewed the proposal ta permit a recycltng center In the ML
(Industrial~ Limited) Xone on an i~regulerly-shaped parcrl of land consisting of
~pproxtmetely 1.01 acre~ having n frontage ~f app~oxirnately 196 fQet on the
northeasterly slde of Anahelm Boulcvard~ havtng a maxlmum ddpth of approxlmately 473
foet and b~ing located spprnximattly G~0 fcet northwesterly of the ce~te~line of
PecEfico Avenue (187~+ South Aneheim Boulevard); and does hereby app~ove the Negattve
Declaration from the rcqu~rcment to prepare an envtronme~tal impact report on the
basis thet there would be no significant indtvidual or cumuletiva edverse
envi ronmental impact due to tl~e approvai of thts Negattve Oeclaracton since the
Anah~lm General Plan designates the subJect ~roperty for generel indust~ial land ~ses
comrwensurate w 1 th the proposal ; that no sens i t i ve env i ~onn~ntal 1 mpacts are i nvol ved
In t3~e proposel; khat the Inltiel Study submitted by tha petitloner (ndlcetes no
sign ificant individual or cumuletive adv~rse ~nvl nx~mental lmpacts; a~nd that the
Negatlve Declaration substantiating the foregotnq findings ts on fille tn the City of
Anaheim Plan~ing Oepairtment.
Cotnr~issioner King offereo Resoiutton No. PC81•08 and movcd far tts passage and
adoption thet the Anahaim Ctty Planning Commission dnes `+ereby grant Co~ditlonal Use
Per~it No. 2160 for a pertod of thrce-years~ sub.ject to revfew upon written requ~st
from the petltioner and subJect ta Interdepartmentsl Committee recar.,,endations~
amcndtng Conditlon No. 3 to requlre a payment of fee for street 1lghtinc~ factlittes
ratt.er than instailation.
Chairman Tolar stated he was gotng to support the resolutlon but did ~ot think that
the th~ee-yeer time iimit was necesaary because if the permit is violated, it can be
revoked.
Con~issioner Bushore sLated he wantnd ta have a closer handle on the operetian
because of what has happe~ed tn the past and because of the natu~e af the business.
pean Sherer pointed out that normal iy these type of uses h~ve been granted far three
to fi~+~c year periods.
Coas~issianer King added that his resolutlAn would include those stipulations rtbde by
Mr. Stanley pe~tt~ining to the operation af the businass.
1/12/81
{, :
;~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANN~t~G COMMISSION, JANUAaY 12~ 1981 81- 34
On roll call~ tha foregoing resolution wes pessad by tha foll~ving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BQUAS, ~USNORE, FRY~ KING~ TOLAR
WOESt COMMISSIONERS; NOME
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: 9ARNES~ HERBST
ITEM N0. lOt EIR NEGl1TIVE_OECLARAt10N AND GONDitIt1NAL USE PERMIT N0. 2161:
PUBLIC NEARII~G. ONNER: LE ASE-ALL LA PALMA~ 15~4 South Anshcim 8ouleverd~ Suite "A"~
Anshelm, CA 32805. l1GENT: THE LEAVERTON COMPANY~ 1594 South Aneheim Boulevard~
Sulte "A"~ Anahsim~ CA 9280 5, Property descrlbed as an irregulerly•shaped parcel of
land consist(ng of approxtmately 5.2~ ar.rea~ loceted et 40~5 East La Palma Avenue.
Property prase~tly classified ML (INOUSTRIAL. LIMITED) ZON~.
CqN01TI0NAl USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A SANDNICII SNOP WITH ON-SAI.E DEER AND 411NE IN TNE
ML ZONE.
There wes no one IndiGating their presence In opposition to subJ~ct request~ and
although the staff re{~ort wes not ~ead~ It is referred to end made a pert of the
mtnutes.
tany Natalle. agent~ stetc d this (s a request for a sandwich shop and explained they
prevlously had a condttianal use permtt which was granted by the City Cauncil
follavinc~ recommendatlon for denial'by the Planning Commisslon ahich permttted
certain uses, but sandvich sliops wa~e excluded becaus~ they had been t~formed by the
Planning Depa~tmcnt staff that the Commtssion 11kes to have tndividual control ovar
thts type use. He stat~d their hours of operatton are shvwn in the stsff report as 7
to 7~ b ut that is longer than they would rrobsbly utiltze and there hours wauld be
ad~ us ted to tht needs of the area.
TtIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED.
Chairman Toler steted one of the Conmissfoners who is absent today has a real problem
in approving on-sale beer and wine in the industrial zone because there are people
who frequent the sandwlch shop who operate machinery.
Mr. Natalle explatned the users in thts srea do not aperate heavy machineryr.
Chairman Tolar stated he h as no problam with the use as a sandwtch shop but that tha
industrial ~cttdent rates have tncreased which cAUld be due partly to the on-sale of
beer and wtne in the tndustrial r~rea.
Commissioner Bushore poin ted out the petitioner will be trying to appeal to the
drive-by traffic also.
Mr. Natafle explatned the u3ers in the area would not use heavy equtpment,
responding to Chetrman Toiar's concern thst there would be haavy tool and die
operetors tn thls area. Ne expl~tned that the units and thei~ ~roJect wauld be
sXarting from 800 square feet~ up to 3~000 square feet.
1/12/81
t ~~ ;
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION. JANUAItY tZ, 1q81 81•35
Ch~l~nwn Talsr steted he will aucport the use but with a time tlmit.
ACTIONs Chairnrn Tol~r offcred a motien, seconded by Comintssianer Ktn~,~ snd NOTION
~0 (Cammissioners B~~nes ~nd Nerbst boinq ebsent), that the An~hetm City
Planntng Commtssion has re,vlew@d the ~roposal to pe~mit s sandwieh shop in an
enclosed restaurant In the M~ (Industrl~l, Limited) ione ~n en trregul~~ly•shap~d
pe~cel of l~~d conststing of approximately 5.3 ac~e~ havl~p a frontage of
approxlmetely 21p feet on the north side of ~e Palme Avenue~ hevtng e msximum depth
af approxtmately 6;0 feet snd being located approximately 675 f~et east of th~
centerline of Van Buren ~t~est (4A95 East Le Palma Avenue); and doas hareby •pprove
the Negative Decl~retion frc~m the requirement to prepnre ~n envtronn~ntal impact
~aport on Che basia that there would be no signiftcent individusl or cumuleCive
adverse environmenta) impact due to the approvAl of this Negatlve Oeciaretion since
the Anaheim Gena~a) Ptan destgnates the subJect property for gen~ral (ndustrlal land
uses comniensu~~ta with the propoael; that no sensitive envtronmental Impects ere
inwived in the ~roposAl; tha~t the Inittal 5tucty submitted by the petitloner
Indicatas no significant individual or cumulative~ adverse onvironmental tmpacts; and
that tha Negattve Decls~~tion sub:tantldttng the foregoing findings is on file in thn
Clty of Ar;eh~elm Planninc~ Depertment.
Cheirman Toler offered Rn~olutlon No. PC81-09 and moved for Its passage and adoptton
that the Anehetm Ctty Plsnning Gommtssion docs hereby grant Conditlonal Use Permlt
No. 21G1 for a period of three-yesrs~ subJect to review for a poasible extension of
time and sibject to InterdepArtn+enta) Cois*nittee recoan~ndettons.
On roll call~ the fo~egoing res~lution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ FRY~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMI55IONERS: 8US110RE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BARNES. NERBST
Commfssloner Bu~ho~e expialned hts negetlve vote reflects hts feeling that beer and
wtne should not bn allowed in the industrial eree.
1/12/81
~~
MINUTES, ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-j6
ITEM N0. llt EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AHD CONOITIONAL USE PE~MIY N0. 2163;
~........~...~..._.._~----
PUB~IC HEARING. OblNER: FRANCNISE REALTY INTERSTATE CQRPORATtON~ 109f,0 W1lshtre
Boulevard~ Los Angeles~ CA g002A. Property descrtbed as a rectengutArlyshsped
parcel oF I~nd consisting of epproximataly 0.7 acre~ 1~ceted st 2411 West Ball Rodd
(M anald'a). Property presently classifled Cl (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
COh1DIT10NAl USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A DRIVE•TNROUCH RESTAURANT~
There waa no one indicattng thel~ presence in o~posltinn to subject request. and
al though the a taf f ref-ort was nat read ~ i t is referred to and made a part of the
minutas.
Gordon Grey~ egcnt and awner of MacDoneld's franchise~ explained he is applylnq for s
drtve~througti ta be added to tl~e exlstinq restsurant.
TIIE PUDL I C HEARI NG WAS CI.OSEO.
ACTION: Conmtsgioner King offe~ed a motlon. seconded by Commisst~nef Bouas end
MO'~ION CARRIED (Commissloner Barnes And tlerbst being absent), ChAt the Anahefm Ctty
Planning Commtssion has revt~w nd the proposa) to permit a drive-through ~estaurant on
a ~ectangulerly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre~ having a
frontege of anproximately 7.1~ fset on the north side of Ball Roed~ h~vin~ a maximum
depth of approxlmately 150 feet and be(ng located approxtmate~y 175 feet wast of the
csnterlinc ~f Gllbert SCre~t and described as 2411 west 9a11 Road; and does hereby
appro•.e the Ncqative Dacl~ration from the requlroment to prepare an environment~l
tmp~;.t reporC on the basls thet there woutd be no signlfica~t individual or
cumulative advcrse environmental impect due to the approval of this Negative
Declaratlon stnce the Anaheim Genera) Plan designatcs the subJect property for
general cammercl~l land uses commensurate with the ~ropasal; that nc~ sensitive
envlronmentol impactx are involved in the p~oposal; that th~e Inltial Study submitted
by the petitioner i~dfcates no significont indivldual or cumulattve adverae
envlronmcntal tmpacts; an~ that the Negative Declaration substantlating the foregoing
findtngs is on file tn the Ctty of Aneheim Ptanning Depertn+ent.
Commtsstoner King ~off~red Resolutlon No. PC81•1~J and moved for its passage and
adoptlon that the Anahctm Clty Pla~ning Corm+ission daes hereby grant Condltlonel Use
Permit No. 2163 subJect to Intardepartmentel Committee recortn+~ndations.
On rol) call, the foregaing resolution was pessed by tht following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, KING~ TLILAR
N(?ES: COMMISSIONER5: N~NE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST
ITEM NA. 12: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 216y:
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: D. R1IYMONp AND ApA MAY WOI.L, 4G60 East La Palma Avenue,
Aneheim~ CA 92807. AGENT: Mi~ES JACKSON~ 32611 BtadlGy Road~ Sun City, CA 92381.
Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of
approximatcly 2.W acres~ located at 4460 East La Pstma Avenue. Property p~esently
classifled ML (INDUSTiIIAI, LIMlTED) 2one.
i/12/81
~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1g81 81•37
CON01710NAL USE REQUESTt TO EXPANQ AN EXISTINR EQUIPMENT RENTAL YARD TO INCLUDE
CONCRETE MIXINC OPERATIQN IN THE M1.(SC) ZONE.
There wero two persone Indic~tl~g thelr pre:enca tn oppositlon to sub]ect request~
and elthouqh the ataff repo~t wa~ not read~ it is referred to and rtu~de a part of the
minutes.
Mlles Je~ckson~ agent~ explAined they propose to Instell a u-haul cc~ncrete facility on
an existing equlpment rent~l ye~d.
Don My~rs~ 441) Eest La Prim~~ llnehetm Lock end Supply Com~nny~ stated thetr property
Is located directly -x~rthweat of the subject pro~erty end thet the prtncip als of his
company are conce~~ed because the Commisslon h~s previ~usly qranted other uses thet
have p roven to be relativety oompotible to the sur~ounding eres, but they feei that
this use may not b~ conducive tn e lot of the industrial and offlce .~ses In the area.
I~e steted Anehelm Equipment re~tal has besn s good nelqhbor and has camplied wtth al)
the requi rements , but they are ~rtmari ly concern~d tha~t the~re are other concrete
manufacturtng ftrms which would not be compstible wich thc are~ e~nd with the type of
ope~ation in the tndustrlel ~rea thst they saw ~n East La Palma Avenue when they
purchased the property. Ne stated tl~ey wAnt to be assured that this type ~peratlon
does not tnclude a 12~ ta 13~-foot hlgh structure wtth a lot of nolse end dust thbt
would be scattered by tha prevailing winds.
Gary Freednwn~ representing the owne~s of k421 E~st Le Palma~ stated they operate a
light menuFacturing servtce company and I,eve thefr admintstrattve offices there and
feel the use fo~ concrete mixing Is inconslstent with the use they heve and saw when
they purchased thetr property. tle pointed out that there is single-famliy ciwellings
located in the area and that the buslnesses are based on people cominn and gotng for
the purr-o~ e of showrooms and seles offices and felt conc~ete mixing trucks would not
be compatible and wvuld detract from cortplete utlllzatlon of the area. Fle explefned
thsirs Is the second butlding west ebout 1~0 yerd~ on the south stde af Le Palme.
Jeff Thraup~ U-Cart Concrete Systems Company~ stated hc represents Southern
Californta and explained this Is not the large reac?y- mtx trucks ~armally seen
delivering reaciy-mix cement to large commerclal bus(nesses~ indust~tal buildings or
housing tracts; that this system entatls t~eilers where people or contrectors who
require small amounts of ready-mlx concretr. can abtain the concrtte; that the system
takes up approxtmstely 400 square feet of spacc and would sIt on the back of this
renta) yard where people can come In and take small amounts of concrete~ the rrpst
being one cubic yard. He explalned the height of thts system will not exceed the
height of the storage bu(ld(ng and the tallest part of tha operatfon Is th~: cament
silo. He expleined this wi)i be the most up-to-date system avatlrble and meets all
Federal requirements pertaining to dust, etc. and that lc is oonducive to a rantat
yerd and rrwst of the syst~n~s sold in the United States are in rer~tal yards. He
stated a lawnmowe~ creates more ~oise than thls syatem; that it is a paddle type
mlxer utiltzing four paddies within a fou rfoot squarc mlxer and the paddles push the
concrete into the t~atler and the trailer is taken awey by the user. tie expiained
there is ono system in Chtno and there have been no complaints and (t has been ln
operation for over one year.
THE "UBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairman Tolar~ Mr. Myars explained the traiiers are singie-axle
trailers and wtll hold up to one cubic yard.
1/12/81 _l~
i~:'.
MINU?ES~ ANIWEIM CITY PIANNiNQ COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81•;8
Co~nnissionar Fry axpl~inAd he ha~ uaed a systeM simtler to this •nd if a hame awne~
wanta to pour a'Ider+alk~ he goes h~ro •nd thay hook a itttle traliar onto the back
of his car and hs drtves away v~ith tha concr~te in tha cralle~.
Mr. Mye~s explalned the hoppe~ on the treller dc~aa not turn whtie the vehicle (s
nwvtng bec+~use th~~e ts an additive in the concrete whtch keeps tt fran setttng up.
He explsined tharo wouid be e truck into the f~ctlity eve ry other day to deliver tha
aggrogate end once s manth te dellver the csment~ if this operetlon reaches the
natinnel average.
aasponding to Commtasloner Bushore's question, he explalnad the helqht of the cement
sllo would be 27' 6" or htgher than the sto~age bulidtng next tao tt.
Commissioner Kinq pointed out that th~ Trafflc Engineer has esked th~t the easterly
drtvawsy be closnd and Mr. Jscksnn statsd they would like to requast a waiver of that
conditian. He explained the equtnn~ent yard Is About four years old snd the drtvaw~y
was appraved ortginally.
Dean Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ expl~ined he thought th~ Traffic Engineer was
concerned ebaut the traffic impacts already occurring at Lakeviev+ and Le Palme and tt
was hts feeti~g that closing tha driveway would relieve some of thet imp~ct becsuse
i t(s cxtrert~ly close to the corner.
Commissioner King asked Mr. J~ckson lf he needs that easterly driveway and Mr.
Jackson re plied that he ne~ds it and pointed out tt is 30-feet wide.
Chatrman Tolar asked how far tha~t drlveway is from Lakcvicw a~d Dean Sherer pointed
out the plans do show the tocatlon of th~e driveway and it Is noc more thA~ 25 feet
from the corner.
Chairman Tolar r~sked if tt~ere isn't some way ort-site to get the ingress traffic back
out rather than onto l.a Palma beceuse It Is a rather dangerous sltuatlon.
Mr. Jackson ~eplied that is possible but that he would have to check wtth the owners.
Commissioner Fry stated he did not see any reason why that driveway cannot be closed
becAUSe there is cortq~lete circulatto~ behlnd the building.
Chai~man Tolar wa~ cc~cernad ~hat if this is a requirement of the Gondttiona) use
permit then he would n~t be able to close it, because the owners wouldn't consent,
then the Commission has, in effett~ revoked hEs condttlanai use permtt and Frank
Lowry~ Senior Assistant Attorney~ ex~lained if the Plan~ing Commisston tncludes s
condition which he cannot meet, then obvtously he cannot have the stcond use~ but the
original permtt would still be tn effect.
Cammissloner B~shore pointed out when this was approved i~ 1976~ the landscaped
portion was deleted and the wall heighe walver was granted and r~ow this is a self
tmposed problem because of the trafftc that Is there now which creates a problem and
~t ts mo~e a probiem for those people exiting than it is for the on~s entertng.
AC?ION: Commtssioner King offered a motidn~ seaonded by Commlsstaner Fry and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissio~ers Barnes and Herbst being absent), that the Maheim City
Planning Commfssion has reviewe~~ the prop~sa) to parmit the expansion of equtpmer,t
renLal yard ta l~clude a ooncrete mixi~g ope~ation in the ML(SC) (Industriai, Limited
1/12/81
.t
MINUTES~ ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-39
Corridor Overlay) Zone on s rectan9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ot
approxin~tety ~.4 acres located at the northwest carner af la Palma Avenue and
Lakeview Avenue~ h~vinfl epproximete frontages of 244 teet on tha aouth atde of La
Pa1rtw Avenue and ~09 fe~t on the west •ide of Lskevisw Avenue (4N60 Eaat ~a Palma
Avenue~; and doe~ hereby spprove tha Negetlvc Declsration from the requirement to
prepare An envtronmental impact report on the basis thet there would be no
stgnlfic~nt Individu~l or cumulative adverse envircmmentel imprct due to the approval
af this Negative Declaratlon stnce the Anahelm Cenerai Plan designates the sub~ect
p~operty for generel industrial land uses commensurate with the propos~l; that no
sensltive environmentoi impects are I~~velved In the proposel; that the Initlel Study
submttted by the petltioner Indtcetes no stqntffcent indtvidual or cumulative adverse
envtronrt~~tc~ Impacts; and that the Negetive Declaratlon substantlattng the foreyoing
findtngs ts on file ln the City of Anahetm Planntng Depertment.
Commisstone r Kin9 offe red Resolution No. PC81~1) and mc~ved for its p~ssage and
adoptlo~ thet the Anaheim CttY Planntng Commtsslon does hereby grant Conditlona) Use
PermiC No. 21E~S for a pertod of three years, subJect to revlew fo~ possible
extanslons of time upon wrttten r~quest Af the petitlo~er and sub~ect to the size of
the tretlar being limited to hold no mnre then 1-cubtc yard of ready-mtxed co~crete
and subject to the e~sterly drivavay being closed with sidew~+lks~ curbs ancf gutters
be(ng (nstelled and subJRCt to Interdepartmcntal Committce recommendattons.
On rall call~ the foregoing resalutia~ was passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ dUSiIOR-E, FRY, KING, TOLAR
NOES: GOkMISStONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS; BARNES. NERBST
ITE~ M NQ_ 1~: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONQITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2166:
PUBLIC HEARINC. OWNER: BEVERLY JEAN TROTTER~ 415 South Lem~n Street, Anahetm, CA
9z~5• AGENT: YVQNNE TORRENCE~ 1216 North Tusttn. O~ange~ CA 926b7. P roperty
descrtbed as a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land co~slsting af apprAximately .26
acra, located at 415 South lemon Street. Property prese~tiy classifted CG
(COMMERCIA~, GEN~RAL) ZONE.
CONDITIONAI USE REQUEST: TO PEaMIT A C~NTRACTUR'S STORIIGE YARp IN TNE CG ZONE.
There was no one (ndicating their presence In oppositlon to subJect request, and
although the staff report was not read, ft ts referred to and mada e~art of the
minutes.
Yvonne Tor~ence~ agent representing Beverly Trott~r, explalned the petitione~ ts
curre~tly operating a roof maintenance business from his hon~e and is looking for
sanething iarger; that subJect property has an existing 80-year old house and that it
is in a transtttonal ares with industrial across the street; that sub)ect property ta
zonod for comrrierctal usas;that petitioner w~nts permisston to park equtpment on the
property; and that the structure adJacent to the qarage wtll be used as an offlce
wtth the house being a taretaker's uc~it. She referred to Condttlon No. 2 requlring
comptete upgrading of the house and stated tha housa ts livabie but ix is 80 yea~s
oid end it would be expensive W bring It up to code. She explained the offtce
portion wil) be completely upgraded according to city code.
Frank Low ry. Senior Assistant City Attorney~ stated legatly it is impossible to waive
thes e codes by either the City Council or Planning Conmission.
t/12/81
t
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIT1r PLANNING CONMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-k0
TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ma. Torrence st~ted it would ba a hsrdship to upgrade the h~use;th~t the petlttoner
expects to eventu~lly bulld a buliding and did not want to put a lat of monoy InGo
thla ve ry old buildtng.
Ch~lrmen Tolar asked what typc of equlpment would be stored outdoors and Ms. Torrence
repliad Mr. Elltott has two heif'-to~ pick-up trucks end one three-querter ton ~Ick•up
truck and a hot ter machtne whtch Is 3 feet by fi feet.
Mr. Eiliott explsir-ed he mat~ly does roof maintenence work and the stored matertals
would bm 20 or 30 flve-gallon nalls of plastic roofl~g cement and that Is atl thAt
would be stored on thn p~o~e~ty. Ha steted there would be no shingles sco~ed; and
explained he daes a lot af tnsnectlon work.
Commisstoner Bushore asked if there was any problem wlth tl~e locatio~ of th~e tresh
conteiner and Ms. Torrence repiiad that tl~ey had discussed tf~e locatlon wtth the
Senitatlon Division and will comply with tt~etr reconn~ndatlons.
Co mmissloner 9ushore stated his oniy concern Is tha tndustrlal use an this prope~ty
and pointed out there a~e new apartment buildings beinq canstructed behind the
property and that this area is slowly being turned around; however, he dld not think
thet this use would impruv~ the area end m~~ke it conducive to femity living.
Ms. Torrence steted this property (s impaired in several ways and it ts not prime
residentlal any longer; that che~e arc industrlal uses r~crass the street and suf,Ject
property is zoned for commercial ~n es pres8ntly. She fctt If a develcpcr could put
enough of these smali properties together, nice ~+ulttple-family housing could be
built.
Commissio~er Bushore stAted f~e ~ealites contrectors look hord for places but he is
afreld slla+ing this us~ would loosen the whnle area for that type of use and it may
hurt the reversal that is taki ng placc now.
Ms. Torrence aqraad that tn the future the: best use of the property would be
multi~+le-family residonttel~ but ~ight now it fs not ready for that use and asked if
it is passiblc to approve this for a limited time per(od.
Mr. E{llott responded to Chai~man Tolar's question that he is b W inc the property.
Chatrman Tolar stated he would have some discomfvrt supporttnq the use with Mr.
Elltott buying the property for any longer than 3 to 4 years, atthough he does rat
see that area becoming ~ strong residentisl sres. He ~sked about the hot ta~ machtna
and eskeo if the mixing is done on site end Mr. Etliott e,cplained tt ts done on the
Job sice. explaining when the tar ts hot, it is hard to move becsuse it splashes.
Commissloner Bushore stated he could not support the request even for a sho~t period
of time because he dld net thlnl; lt is the proper piace for It and did not think this
ts naeded in the dawntavn area snd Commissioner King agreed.
Commissione~ Bushore ststad he knws thare is a person whe has assembled property in
that area and there i~ gofng Co ba a cha~nge; that hr. realtzes what ta across the
street. b uC to approvQ this use In the dewntown area would negate what the cify i~
trying to accomplish. He st+~ted h~ was sure this wtli be e claan operetian.
t/12/81
c ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C11Y PLANNING C4MMISSION~ JAkUAaY 12, 1981 81-41
Chairmen Tolar steted he felt for a 3-Year period of time, if Mr. Elilott ts wt111ng
to purchasa the property wlth tha tlme limtt; thst the storage of 3 trucks a~d minor
equlpment would ~ot be detrtmental t~ the a~ea for en interim use. He agreed
the city is trying to claan up the a~ea but did not think this would creete a
p ~ob 1 em,
ACTIQN: Commisalonar Tolar offnred a motlon~ seconded by Commisstoner Bouas snd
I~~ION CARRIEp (Commisstoners Bernes and Nerbst being ebsent and Commisntoner Bushc~re
voting no)~ that tho ~nahetm Ctty Planning Commlsslon has ~eviewed the proposo) to
permit a contractar's storage yerd in tl,e CG (Commerctel~ Ceneral) Zone a~ e
re~tangutarly-shaped percel of land co~sisting of approxlmately .26 acre having a
frontuge of approxlmately 72 Fe~t on the west side of Lemo~ Street~ havtng e m~ximum
depth of a~proxlmatcly 159 fe~t and belnq located approximetaly 170 faet south of the
ccnterline af E1m Strebc (415 South Lenwn Streat); and doea hereby approve the
Neg~ttve Declaration from the requlrcrr~ nt to p~epare an envi~onmental impact report
on the basis that there wuuld be no significent In~ilvtdual or cumulAtive advtrse
environmental Impict due to the ~pproval of this Negattve Decleration since the
Anaheim General Plan destgnates tho subJect ~roperty for rr~edium d~:nsity residential
land uses commensurat~ with the proposai; that no sensitive anvironmental impacts are
involved in the proposa'.; that the Initla) Study submitted by the petitloner
indtcates no signiftcent individual or cumulative AAverse envtronmenC~l Impacts; and
th~t the Nagative t)eclaration subscantiating the foregoing findings is on file tn the
Ctty af M ahetm Planning Department.
Chairman Tolar offered Resolution No. PC81-12 and moved f~r its passage and adoptlon
that the Anahelr~ City Planning Commissio~ does hereby grant Condttlonal Use Pnrmit
No. 21G6 to auto matic~lly exptre on January 12~ 198A ~nd sub)ect to interdepartmental
Committee recommendations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutton was passcd by thc following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BOUAS~ FRY~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE. KING
ABSE~~T: COMMISSIOI~ERS: BARNES, HERBST
Ms. Torrence Asked if the actlon can be ~ppesled for e longer period of time and tt
was nated thst it could be a~oealed And Chai~man Tolar explained that thts
condltionat use permlt wiil ~xpire tn three years end that the petitlon~r can reapply
at the end of three yeA~s.
Frank Low ry~ Senior Assistant Ctty Attorney~ presented the wrttten right to ~ppeal
the Pi~nntng Commtssion's deciston within 22 days to the Ctty Counctl.
t/12/81
_ _-~
1
1
1
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINR COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ ig81 8t'~+2
ITEM N0. 1~: Ela NEGATIVE OEGIARATION AND COND1710NA1 USE P~RMIT N0. 21h7t
PU~LIC HEARINC. OWNER: ANMANSON TRUST CONPANY~ c/o THE MACKLIN C~MPANY, 2861
Pullman~ Sant• M a~ CA 9270~. ACENT: TNE MACKLIN COMPANY~ 2861 South Pullma~~ Ssnta
A~A, CA 92705• Property described as a ~ectanqulerly-shaped parcel of lend
consi~ting of appraximately 19.7 acres, located at 5S(N1 East Le Palma Avanue.
Property presently classlfted ML(SC) (INDUSTRIAL~ IIMITEO-SCENIC CORRID(1R OVERIAY)
ZONE.
CONDITIpNl1L USE RE(~UEST: TO PERMIT AN INDUSTRIAL OFFICE COMPIEX I~I TIIE ML(SC)ZONE.
There w as no ane indicating thelr presence tn opPositlo~ to subJect requast~ and
altl~ougti the staff report wAS ~t ro~d~ (t Is refe~red to and made a ~art of the
minutes.
Rick Macklfn~ egent stated tha pro~erty In the past lias been used by Executive Mbter
tiomes and is presentlY ~nt being useci wlth four vacant b~~its!ings conslsting of
app roximately 1Gy~000 square feet on 20 acres. Ile statrd it is tf~eir Intontton to
remodel the prc~ erty to accommodete rasearch and development type facllitles which
would be compliment+~~y to the industrlal t~ype uses; thet they have rn~nttaned 13
dlfferent catRg~r{ns of uses whicf~ they ~re propasing for this property and that
there is a leiter to thai effect on flle wh(ch woulcl be a c~nditl~n af the permtt;
that they will be catertng to engi~e~ring comnsnies, ~etro-chemical companies~ semi-
conductQr campanies~ etc. which wouid go throu~h the engineerinc~~ light storage,
ass~ntly and delivery of a product. Ile ~~sed the I~vine Industrial Compiex as an
exan~le.
Mr. Macklin stateJ the project wi11 be develo~cd ~7 five~ different phoscs wlth two
butldings being remodeled with fu11 IandscAping~ etc. in Che ft~st phase ~nd the
second pha~e being the renadeling of the other two existtnc~ bulldOngs and the
additional phsses would bQ catering to +~~iminist~etive offlces. He stated they
antlclpate the possibllity of a partlcular tenent taking ell thr~e buildin~s and ~lso
thet each ono of the bulldfngs could be orlented ta an indivldu~l user (n which they
woulcf heve seven diffe~ent uses on the pro~e~ty. Ne stated it Is their tntent to
generate a complate identitY for prlm~ry res~arch nnd developmentai CyP~ facilities.
which would compliment the existing end presently ccrostructed development dc~wn the
street with the Warner l.ambert/ Uunn property ~nd the Bsnk of America distributlon
fecillty and exlsting GTE facllities.
THE PUBLIC HEARING wA5 ClOSED.
Commisslonsr f~y esked the smalizst area that could be leased and Mr. Macklln replled
the ~mallest divisible space thet they wtll have ts Approxima~ely 20,O~A square feet;
that they feel this (s obviously ~n upgrade to the existing area; that in the offtces
comtemplated across La Palrt-~ is quite conceivable that they wtll be catertng to a
smaller user but that the existing four bulldings to be remodeled would be catering
to a minimum of about 24.OA~ sc~uarc feet.
Commtssioner Fry was con~erned that tho products coutd be sold and installed on the
premises.
Mr. Macklin stated it is clearty understood that rotai) s~ies are not parn-itted on
the propdrty. t1e sta~ted the product wouid be assembled on the site and maybe sane
service c.ould be done on site such as to a comp~ter where the actuai sales faciltties
1112/81
~
~ ~ 1
MINU?ES~ ANAfIEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ JAN~ARY 12~ 1981 S1-W3
•re (n anothe~uarea~oot•speccs andt those, la~gnruthana2~~00~1 squsr~feeL~ tor sn-al ier
ths~ 2A ~000 sq
Cheirman Tol~r polnted out there Is e list of nroposed uses in reletlonship to
commercial uses In an industriel zone and Mr. Macklin Indtcated that he w~s +~vere of
thst 1 1 st.
Commisalaner Bushore asked lf the~e would be any tawyera~ nrortgege comp~n~es~ etc~ ~^
those buildinys and Mr. Macklln replied there will only be those who would ceter to
the indust~irl uses. He pointed aut Rockweil down t1~e street hns (ndustrlA)
dlstrtbution from their facllity wlth an on-st~+ff I~wyer. Ne clarifled thet
attorneys would not be able to acqul re st+ece under tlie reported uses es glven to the
scaff end listed in the staff report.
Ch airmen Tolar i~dicated that the Planning Comnissio~ ts ewars of thdt list but
wanted ic on the record thet the petttioner Is r~ware of the ilst and pointed out
leaslny to eny use other tha~ those an the list would be e vl~leti~r of the
cond(ti~nal use pcrml t.
Responding to Commissio~er Bushore Mr, M~cklin ex(+lained they have acqulred the
property and no oth~r parties are Invnlved end thelr company h~s sole resoonsibility
for the enti re 20 ecres .
q~~ ; Commissloner King offered a m~t(on~ seconded by Commissloner Boues snd
MOTI~N CARalEO (Commissioners BArn~s and Herbst being absent)~ that the Annheim City
Plnnning Comnlssion has revicweE tho propasal to pc~mit an i~dustrial complex in the
ML (SC) (Indust~lal~ Ltmited-Scenic Corrldor Overley) 2one on a ~ectangularly-shaped
percel of lend c~n~isting of a~proximetely 19.7 acres~ hrviny a~ frantage of
eppro ximatcly 9 37 fcet on the north side of La Palma Avenue~ having a maximum depth
~f appraxinu~tely 1,035 fect~ and heing located approximately 6~~ feet west of the
center) I ne uf Impe~i a) 111 ghway (SSOQ East La paln+~ Avenue) ; end does hereb~~ approve
the Negative lkclaration from the requiren~ent to preparo an environmental impaet
report on the basis th~at there wouid be no significant indlvidu+~l or cumulative
adve~se envlronmental Impact due to the approval ~f thls fpge~ndustria~lrlandnuse~ce
the Anehelm Genernl Plan designates the subJect propRrty
commensu~ate with the propossl; that no sensitlve envl~onme~tal lmp~cts are involved
in thc proposal; t~~t the Initlal Study s ubmicted by the pe~ttianer indic~tes no
signifitant lnd{vidual or,cumutative adverse env~~fi dings ispontfilenlntth~ City of
Negative Declarfltion s~s.entlating the foregoing
Anaheim Planning Depertrt~nt.
Cortxnissioner King offered Resolution No. PC8!-13 and moved for its passage and
adoption thet the Anaheim City Pla~ning Conmissio~ doe~ fiereby grant Cor+dit'or+al Use
Permlt ko. 21(~7 subJect to the petitiraners stipulation that only the uses as follows
(a) enerqy consultant firms, (b) enginerrtng. testing
w110 be allawed tn the proJect;
and light asseRbly. (c) sarr,l' conductor engineertng distributlon and light
menufacturing. (d) trsnspo~tation~ e+nolneering firms~ (e) aerospace engineer~~g and
research and davelopme nt. (f) hospitai a~d medical supplY distrlbution and ma~keting
facilicies~ (g) research and testing firms such as; architect and engineering
~ervlces~ (h) retail distribution af products (nn retail sales on-s{te), ;1) research
and d~velopment of agricultural products, ()) petroleum research~ developn~ent and
enarketi~g facilttles. (k) retail dlstributlon of hardware products (no retall sales
on-site~ (1) services facilities such es general contr~cting offtces, (~) comPuter
fecilities; and subjact to Interdapartmental Comnittee recam+endatlons.
i/12/81
~ J
,`
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY P4ANNIN3 COMMISStON~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81•44
On rotl call~ the fore9oing ~nsoiutlon w~s pessed by tha following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNCRSt BOUAS~ BUSHOitE~ FRY, KlHG~ TOLAk
NOE5: COMMI~SIhNERSs NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERSt 9ARNES~ HER9ST
RECESS Thero was ~ five-minut~ raoeas et 7:40 p.m~
w
RECO~NVE_N_~ The mneting was recanvened at 7s0y p.m~
ITEM N0. 15: EIR CIITEQORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND VARIANCE N0. 3~85~
PUDLIC NEARINR. OWNER: GROVE CONSTRl1CTICN~ 5215 East Che~m~n Avenue, ASQr O~ange~
cA g2G6g. AGk..~t: CLASTROt1 CARLSON dOAT COMPANY~ 1177 North Grove Street, Mahelm~
CA 92~G. Property descrfhed es an Irreguleriy-sh~ped parce) of land conststing of
appr~xlmately 5.1 acres~ louted at 117~ North Grove Street (Giastro~ C~rlson doat
Compnny). Property presently clessified M1. (I~~DUSTRIAI.~ IIM~TEb) ZOt~C.
VARIAt~CE REQUEST: WAIVER OF REQUIREU ENCLOSURE OF OUTOOOR USES TO RETAIN A NON-
CONFQRMING FENCE.
There was na an~ (ndiceting th~tr ~r~sence in oppasitl~~n c~ subject request~ end
although the staff ~eport wes not rcad~ It Is r~`erred to ard made a pert of che
mi nutes.
Don Qike~ agent~ steted he Is requestlny a walver of requlred slAiting of a 57•foot
portlon of a chatn-1 ink fence~ v+htch Is loceted heMcen Mo bui l~dings. Ne explainad
they would prefor to tesve that fence open fnr security with police surve(lance
becAUSe there have baen qu i te a few thef ts i n tha arec~.
Cor~missicx~er Fry clarifEed that this operatlon has been at thla lacation for 6-1/2
years and th~t the fence hes not been s_ latted.
TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIOSED.
it was noted the Plsnning flirector o~ his authorized representative has determl~ed
~-+at the p roposed proJect fa11s wlthln the deRinlti~n of Categoricsl Ex~mptions~
~,ass 1, as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impa~t Report
Guidettnas and is, the~efore. cat~goricslly exempt from the requirement to prepare en
E IR.
A~TION: Ccmmissi~ner King affered R~aolutlon No. PC81-94 and moved for Its paasage
an a ption thst the M ahelm City Ptanning Commisslon daes herdby qrant V,eriance Na.
3185 ~+ t~~a besis thet the usa ts existing end open fencinq ts necessary for security
purpoaes end on the baals of the size and sh~pe of the proparty and sub.ject to
I~terdeprrtments) Commi ttee reoommandations.
On rolt catl, the fo~egntng reaolut~on wos passed by the follaving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOU.~S~ 9USNORE~ FR1f~ KiNG. TOLAR
NOES: C~NMIS~IONERS: NONE
AdSENTt COMMISS IONERS: BARNES, tSER85T
1 / 12/81
~~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PVINNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12, 1981 81•~5
ITEN N0. 16t EIR CATEGORiCAI EXEMPTION-CLA55~ 3 AND VARIANCE NA~ 3186;
PU6LIC HEARING. Q~INERs SOUTi':RN CALIFOR~~IA EDISON COMPlWY RIGHT-OF•NAY DEPAitfM~NT,
P. 0. Box 2307~ Sante Ana~ CA 92707• AGENT: DON TAKAI~ 317~ West aome Avenue,
Anahelm, CA ~2804. Preperty described ss s roctengularty-sheped parce) of l~nd
con~lsting of approxtmetely 4.25 acres~ l~csted st 2719 West Llncoln Aven w(Southern
Californla Edison Compeny~ Right-of-Way). Prope~ty ~resentlY classlfted RS-A-43~000
(RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
VARIANCE RfQUEST; PERMITTED ACGESSORY USES ANO STRUCtURES TO RETAIN AN OFFICE
TR/11 LER.
Thero wes no one indic~ting thelr pres~nce in opposltion to sub]eCt ~equest. end
aithouqh the staff raport wss not read. it Is raferrcd to ~nd mede A p~rt of the
minutes.
Tom Lemm~ represcntating Southern f.allfornla Edison Compa~y~ and Randy Ihars~ sgent~
were present to enswer any qut+stlons.
Mr. Lemm explain~d the request (s for e u~nditlonal use ~ermit to reteln a traller
~nd further stated that the Ediso~ Compnny cannot Ilve with the oonditican requtrtng
that the existin~ gate be relocated a minimum of 60 feet from tha front prnperty llne
adJacent to Ll~coln Av~nue. He explsined the property Is occu~ted by two
tra~smisston stee) towers end the whole fence woutd heve to be relocated.
Dean Sherer~ As~lstant Pldnner, explatned the Trafflc Engineer is concerned about
trucks delivering nu~tertals to the site end not betng able to pull off the street.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King asked if tha yatG can be le:ft open during work(~g hou~s ~o trucks
da not hdve to park on the straet and can pull d'.rectly onto the p ropa~ty and if Mr.
ihara would stipulate that e sign would be placed on the gate fndtcat,ing the gate ls
to remein open during business houra and Mr. Ihara replied thbt couid be done.
Mr. lemm referred to Conditlon No, 1 requirtng street lighttnc~ and explatned there
are street lights existing. Ne th~ught meybe the street lighting was part of
Edlson's ngreament wlth the city for street wtdening in the past.
.~ay Titus~ Office Engineer~ explalned tha fleld reports shaw the stroet Itghts are on
wooden poles a~d he assum~d 'che Utillty Oepart~r~ent is asking for ornamental poles.
Mr. Lemm esked for s waive~ of that r~quirement snd Frank Lvwry, S~nior Assistant
Attorney, explained the Planninq Commission couid delete that condition.
it was noted the Ptanning Dtrector or his authorized ~eprexentative has determined
that the proposed project falis wlthin the definitton of Categoricel Exempttons,
Class 3, ~s defined (n paragraph ~ of Lhe Cfty of Anahelm E~vironmental Impact Rapart
Guidelines and is~ therefore. categoric~lly exempt from the requirement to p~epare an
EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offared itasolutton 1b. PC~1-15 and ~rnved for its psssage
an~aaoptian thac the Maheim City Planning Cnmmisstan does hareby grant Varlance Pb.
;186 on the besis of the limtted use. of the pro~.~erty due to the Souther~ Califp~nia
1l12/81
~ j
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 81-k6
e~+~snrnt. and based on ths petttl~n~r~ stipulatlon th~t the gate wiil bs left apen et
•II ttmos durl~g working hour~ end ~:ign wlll b• pleced on the ga !e requlrinq that
It be left open and subJect to Interdspartmsntel Commtttes recort~e ndetions~ deletlnc~
Conditlo~ No. 1 and ~mending Condition No. 3 to ~equire that the gate be lett ope~
rathe~ th~n b~ing relocated.
On roll call~ ths fore9oing ~esolutio~ was pasaed by the follawtn g vote:
AYES: ~OMMISSIONERS: 6011AS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING~ TdLAR
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENtt COMM~SSIONERS: BARNES~ NERDST
ITEM N~. 1]: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AN~ VARIANCE N0. 31$7;
PUIILIC NEARING. OWNER: PNILIP TRUPIANO~ 1124 West La Entrade Cir ete~ Aneheim~ CA
92f~Q1. Property descrlbQd as a~ irrroularly-shapod parcel of land conslscing of
app~aximately .21 +~cre~ located at 1+ q West Le Entrade Cl~clo. P roperty presently
clesstfled R5-10~000 (RESIDENTIAI~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REAR YARD SETSACK TO CONSTRU CT A ROOM ADDITION.
Thare was no one indicating thelr presence in oppositlon to sub,je e t req uest, and
although the staff report was not read. It Is referred ta and made a part of the
minutes.
Philtp Truptano~ ownor~ was present to answer any questlons.
TNE PUf3LIC NEAiiING WAS CLOSED.
It was noted the Planning Dlrector or hls ruthorized representativ~ has determined
that the proposed project falls wtthln the deftnltian of Cetegorieal Exemptions~
C1AS_ 3, as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report
Guidelines and ts, therefore~ categoricaily exempt from the requi~ ement to p~epare an
EIR.
ACTtON: Commtssioner Fry offered Resalutlon Na. PC81-1G and move ~ for its pas~agn
an a option that the Anaheim City Plenning Conmission does hereby grant Varianca No.
31a7 on the basis of the irregulariy-shaped lot and that denial wauld deprivc subJact
property ~f a privilege being enJoyed by othe~ p~operty awners tn the same zone and
vicintty. and s~bject to Interdepartmental Committee reca+~rt~endations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowtn g v~te:
AYES: COMNISSIONERS: BOUAS, UUSHORE, FRY~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS; BARWES~ HERBST
1/12/81
~., F
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pt,ANNING CQMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981
ITEM N0. 18t EIa CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 ANQ VARIANCE NA. 3188s
~~~~~.~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ r~ ~ ~
' ,)
8t-47
PUBLIC HEARING. ONNER: JUAN P. ANp MARTNA E. REYNOSO~ 516 Wsst Vtcto~ Avenue~
An~heim, CA 92801. Property describ sd as a rectanQulsrly-~th~ped parcel of land
consisttng of approximately 6018 ~quere faet~ 1~Gated at 516 West Vtcta r Avenua~
Prop4rty AretenLly clsssifted RS-72A0 (RESI~ENTIA~~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONF.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER Of MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO RETAIN A FENCE.
Thare wAS no o~e indiceting thelr presence In oppositlon to ~ubject req ue st~ and
although ths staff report waa not reed~ It is referred to end mede a pa rt of the
mi nutes .
Juan Reynoso~ awnar~ was present to answer eny questiona and expleined that he h~d
bouqht the property wtth the fence already there.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chatrman Toiar's questton conce~nfng the complaint~ ~a~n S herer.
Assiatant Planner~ explatned It was p~obably from en edJolning ~elghbo r.
It was noted the Planning Dircctor or hts authortzed representative hes cktermined
that tha p roposed pro)ect fatis wlthin the deftnltion of Catngorica) Exemptions~
Class 3~ es deftned tn paragraph 2 of the City of Anehetm Environnental Impact keport
Guidelinos end is, therefore~ ca~eqortcally exempt from the requirement to prepere an
EIR.
ACTION: Commisstoner King offercd Resolutton No. PC81-17 and moved for its passage
and a~optton that the Anaheim Ctty Planning does hereby grant Varlance No. 3188 on
the basls that the request is minimal ~nd denial would deprive subject p ~op .ry of a
prtvilagr nnJaoyed by other properties in the same zone and victnity a~cf subaect to
Interdepertmental Commtttee reoommendatlons.
On rall call~ the foregoing resolutton was passe~d by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, FRY~ KING, TOLAR
WOES; COMMISSIONERS: BUSNORE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 6ARNE5~ HERBST
1/12/81
l
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY pLANNINO COMMISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981
ITEM N0. 19s EIR CATEGQRICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS ~ AND VARIANCE N0. 3191t
,~~~ ~
.'
81-WS
PUBLIC IIEARING. OWNER: RO 6ERT W. AND TONI L. KlWICK~ 2432 East Underhiil Avenue.
A~aholm, CA ~2806. AGEt~T: R. J. ARNOID, 225 Nor~h Sunklst~ Anehetm~ CA 92~Q6.
Prope~ty de~crib~ad as ~ rec tengul~rly-shaped percel of lend consisting of
~pproxin~teiy 8000 sqwre feet. located at 2432 East Underhtll prtve. Prope~ty
p ~esentiY clesslfied RS-72~ 0~RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUE5T; WAIVER OF MAXIMUM FENCE NEIGIIT TO RETAIN A FENCE.
Th a ro was ~o one tndicotinq their preaence In opposition to sub)ect ~equest~ end
elthough the steff repnrt w as not raad~ it is raferred to and mede e part of the
mi nutes.
Ibba~t Kt~wick, owner~ was p resent tn en~+er any questtons and explainad that he has e
petltion signed by his nelghbors supportin!~ the rec~uest and that elao that he had
bauqht kho proparty wlth the fence.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It wAS noted the Planning Olrectar or hls ~+uthorir.ed representative hes dotermtne~d
that the pro~osed proJect f alls within the definitton af Categorical Ezer+~ttons,
Cless 3~ as deftned in paragraph 2 of the Gtty of Aneheim Envt~onmentai Impact Report
Cuidnlines and ts. therefo re~ categorically exempt from tho requtrament to prepare en
EIR.
ACTION: Commissl~ner Fry c~ffered Resolution No. PC81-18 end moved for Its passsge
An ~ tion that the Anahelm City Plannfng Commission does hereby grant Vartance Na.
3191 on the basis that the request is rninimel and d~niai would deprive subJect
p roperty of e privilege enjoyed by othar prope~ty tn the same zone and vltinlty ~nd
s~bJect to I~nterdepartmental Cosnmittee recommend~ttons.
On roll call, the foregoin g resolutlon was passed by the fallowing vote:
A7E5: COMMISSIA~~ERS; BOUAS, FRY~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONEItS: B USHORE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: B ARNES, NERBST
1/12/81
~,
~\ i
MlNUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARr 12~ 1981
~ J
a~-a~
ITEM N0. ZQs EIR CATECORICAL EXEf4f'TION-CIASS 5 ANp VARIANCE NQ. 3189:
....~__..~.......
PUBI.IC HEARING. OWNER: HARaY BRATT~ 35~+1 I~dian Httls Ortvc~ lo~qview~ Washington
9863Z. AGENT: TRUDY PIRt, $74 West Lincoin Avsnue~ AnahelT~ CA 92$Q5. Property
descrlbed sa a roctangul~rly-shaped parcel of land conttst~ng ot •pp~r~xtmetelY .45
acra~ located at 90~1 North 41est Stre~t. Property p~esently ciessifled RS•1A~000
(aESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) zONE.
YARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a~ MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (b) MINIMUM LOT WIL`TH ANO (c)
REQUIREO lOT FRONTAGE TO ESTAaLISN A 2•LOT SUBOIVISION.
There was no one Indicatlnq their presence in oppc~sttion to suh)~ct requast~ ~nd
aithough the steff report wea not ~ead~ it Is ~eferred to and mede a part of the
minutas.
Phillp Boyston~ w~s present to ana~rar sny questlons snd explalned this lot split
would make thts property more in confarmante with the size the city requires and
oxplbtned thay would heve an ossement for the drivewsy sa that both houses crn an off
the streat and traffic wouid not ha~ve to back onta West Street.
TiIE PUHLI C 11EARi NG WAS Gl05ED.
It was noted the Planning Qtrector ar hls authorized rep~esentative has determined
that the proposed proJect falls withln the deftnitlon of Ceteg~rical Exempttons~
Class 5~ es deftned In parayrapfi 2 of the City of Maheim ~nvironmental Impact Report
Guldeltnes and is~ therefore, cetegortcally exempt frcxn the requi~ement to prepare an
EIR.
AC710N: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC81-19 and moved for lta paasage
ana~a~option that the Anaheim Ctty Planntng Cortmission does hereby grant Variance fio.
31a9 on the basis that denial would deny subJect p~operty af a privilege enJoyed by
oth~er people in the same zone and vlcintty subJect to Interdeprrtmental Commlttee
recartwnenda tons.
On roll call, the foregoiny rezolutton was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ KING~ 70LAR
NOES: COMMISSICNERS: NONE
ABSEtJT: COMhI5SI0NER5: BARNES, NERBST
1/12/81
R~-
~ ,
MINUTES' ANAHEIN CITY PUNNING COMMISSION~ JANUAaY 12~ 1981 81•50
ITEM N0. 21: N~GATIVE DECIARATiON AND VARIANCE N0~ ~190s
- ..~.._~..~.._.._._
PUgLIC HEARING. OV~INER: WALTER 0. AND JANETTE R. POSEY~ 52A North Brookhurst,
Anaheim~ CA ~2801. AGENTs ROBERT J. CHRISTOFF~ 171~ South Orsngo St~eet~ Sulte A,
Orange~ CA 92666. Prope~ty descrtbad es e rectanqularly-sheped parcel of land
conais•Ing of ~pp~oxtmataly 0.47 ac~e~ loc~ted at 218r1 West C~esceht Avenue.
Property presently clessificd CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEO) ZONE.
VARIANCE RCQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM NIJMf3ER OF PARKINC SPACE5 TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE
BUILDING.
There was no one tn~~icating thetr p~esence in op~sitlon to subJect request. end
although the staff report was not r~ad, It is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
8ob Ch rt stof f~ aqelnt represe~ : i ng We 1 ter Posey ~ owner ~ was pre~ent to enswer a~y
quastlons and explatned this will be office condominlums to be sold to individual
owners.
THE PUFILIC NEARING WAS CL~SED~
Commissione~ Fry asked how many of these untt~ wili be available for sale and Mr.
Christoff explained of the six-units~ f(ve will be ~jold becausc the owners are
retalning one for their ow~ usc.
ACTION: Commtssioner King offered a rtatian~ seconded by Commisslo~er Boues and
1~ OA CARRIEO (Commlssloners Bernes and Herbst betng absent)~ thet the Anahelm Ctty
Planning Commission hes reviewed the proposal to construct bn offtce bullding with
waiver of mtnimum nurr~er of parking spaces on a rect~ngularly-shaped parcel of land~
consisting ~f appraximetely 0.47 ac~e located et the southwest corner of Crescent
Avenue and Valley Street, having approxim~te frontages of iZ0 feet on the south side
of Crescent Avenue and 1?A feet on the west stde of Valtey Strnet (2180 West Crescent
Avenue); and does hereby approve the Negattve Declaration from the ~equirement to
prepare an enviromm~nta) impact report on the basts tliat there would be no
significant individual or cumulative adversa enviro~N+ental impact due to the epproval
of this Negat(ve Oeclaration slnce the Anaheim Ge~erel Ptan designates the subJect
property for medium residential and conmercia) land uses commensurate wtth the
proposal; that no sensitive environrtr.ntal impacts are involved i~ the proposal; that
the Initlal Study submitted by the petltianer indicates no slgniftcant individua! or
cumulattve adverse envir~,~mental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration
substanttating the foregoing ftndings is on file in the CiCy of Anahelm Pianning
Department.
Commisston~r King offe red Resolution No. PCS1-2!1 and moved for Its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby grant Vartance No.
3190 on the basis that the request is minimal and denial would deprive subject
property of a privilege enJoyed by other properties tn the same zone and vicinity and
subJect to Inierdepartmantai Committee recorm~endattons.
Dean Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ asked that Condition No. 1 be deleted because the
tree planting fees have been patd.
On roil cell, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISStONERS: BOUAS~ 6USNORE~ FRY~ KiNG~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMlMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERBS7
~/~z/8~
MINUT~,S, ANAHfi1M GITY PIANNIN6 COINIISSION~ JANUARY 12~ 1981 8~-5~
IT~N N0. 22
~~ RECOMMENCATIONS
The foltawing Reports and Recommendetlons st~ff repo~ts were presented but not read:
A. CONOITIONAL U5E PERMIT NQ. 198~~ - Request for tcrmin~tlon from Jeff L.
er~ Equ tac repert cs et 66 East Katello Avanue.
AC,_ TION: Commissla~er King offered Resolutton No. PC81-21 ~nd moved for its
passage and edoptlon that the Anahelm City Plsnning Cammisalon does h~reby
terminat~ all proceedings in cann~ction with Conditionel Use Permit ;~u.
1884.
0~ roll call~ the forego(ng resolutlon was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KIMC~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMI5SIUNERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMI55IONfRS: 9AiiNES, HERBST
B. ORANGE COUt~TY F100D CONTROL DISTRICT - Request for determtnation of
con~ormanGe wit t e nner~ an or praperty between Carbon Creek Channel
and itiverslde Freeway~ easterly af Rayrrond Avenue.
ACTION: Wmmissioner Ktng offe~ed Resolution No. PC81-22 and moved for tts
passage and adoption that thc Anehelm Clty Planning Comnisslon does hereby
find that acqutsitlon and ut(Iizatl~n of subJect parcel would be in
conformance with the M ahelm Gen~ral Plan for property between Carbon Creek
Channc) and Rivcrs(de Fr~eway~ easterly of Raymond Avenue.
On ro1) call~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the following vote:
AYE5; COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS. BUSt10RE~ FRY~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ADSENT; COMMISSI~NERS: BARNES~ HERBST
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~f0. 1$ - Request for ~etroactive extension of time
rom M. W. May e Budget ent°a•Car for propertv at 32b0 West Lincoln
Avenue .
ACTIAN: Commtssionar Y~ing offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTIOt~ CARRIED (Commissioners Bernes and Nerbst being ab~ent)~ that the
Anahctm Ctty Planninq Commission does hereby grant a one-year retroactive
axtenslon of time for Condittonal Use Permtt No. 1783 to expire December 19~
~9a~.
0. REVISED RECLASSIFICAT~ON FORMS - Sectlon 18.03.050.010 of the Anahetm
Mun cipe Code spect tea thet the Planning Commisston s~all prescribe tht
fo~m in which appiications are made for reclassifications~ variancea, or
conditton8l use permits.
ACTION: Commisstoner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Fry
an ION CARRIED (Commissioners Barnes and Harbst being absent)~ that the
M ahetm CTty Planntng Comnisston does hereby approve the revised
Reclasatfication Petttion forms.
t/12/81
;
MINUYES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSIOH~ JANUARY 12~ 19$1 81-52
E. CONDITIONAL USE PEaMIT_ N0. 16~0_ - Raquest for a ~etrouctive extenaton o~
Tms ~f rom •rren . aycox, or property located at 1016 East Kstella
Avenue .
ACTION: Cammlasioner King offered a nwtion~ seoonded by Comnissioner Fry
an~~b'TION CARRIED (Commlastoners Barnes snd Nerbst being sbsent)~ thet !he
Ansheim City Pl~nninq Commis~len doet hereby grant a o~e-year ratro~ctive
extension of timn ~or Condttion~i Use Permtt No. 1G70~ to explre on December
6 ~ 1981.
F. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1 1 - aequest for s retroactive extenston of
t me rom Ceorge Ne son or properties located at 600 and 62G South Anaheim
8oulevard.
C~mmissionor Bushore expressed concern thet the landscapt~g (s not betng
properly malntained and requested that staff notify the pctitt~ner of thts
concern. Dean Sherer~ Asststant Plann~r~ explsined the Zoning Enforcement
Officer has dlacussed tha landscac~ing wtth the property owner and staff wtil
follaw-up on this matter.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushore affered e motlon~ seconded by Commissloner
ti'Tng and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Barnes and Herbst be~ng absent)~ that
the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commission doAS liereby grent a two-year
~etroactive exte~sion of ttme for Conditlonal Use Permit No. i917, to expire
on Decembnr 4~1982.
G. VARIANC~ N0. 26 6- Roquest for exce~sion af time from Vonda S. Mason. fo~
property st through 519 East Katella Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner King off~red a matton~ seconded by Cortmissioner Fry
an~aT10N CARRIEC (Commisslaners Barnes and Herbst being absent), that the
Anahelm City Pla~ni~g Commission does hcreby gra~t a one-year retroactive
extcnsion of time for Vartance No. 2696~ to cxpir~ on April 23~ 1981.
ADJOURNMEtIT There being no further business. Cortmissioner Fry offered a motio~.
seconded by Commissioner Bushore and MOTION CARRIED (CommFssloners
Barnes and Herbst betng absent), that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeti~g was a~'fou~ned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfuliy submitted,
~,~~~ ~ .
Edith L. riarris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planntn~ Gommission
ELN:Im
1/12/81