The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/09/09~ r ~ , ; Civic Centar Anshelm~ Calitornia September 9, 1981 REGULAR MEETIHG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING Cc~~ISSIdN . ~ ..~ - ,. ----- REGU~AR The regul~r meettng of tha llnahelm City Plenning G.~mmitston MEETING was called to orde~ by Chairman Bushore at 10:00 •.n+.~ Septertber 9~ 1981~ in the Counct) Chambe~, s quorun~ being present. Tha Commisslon brtefly ~evfewed plen: of Items on today's agenda. Re cess: 11:30 e.m. Reconvene: i:WO p.m. fo~ ~ublic testimcmy. PRESENT Chalrman: Biishore Commisslaners: Bsrnes~ Bc~uea, Fry~ Ilerbst. King~ Tolsr ABSENT Commtssior+er: Nane AL:: ~ENT Annik~ Santalahtt Aaslstant Directo~ for 2oni~g J~ck White Assistant City Attorney Jay Titus Office Engineer Paul Singer Treffic Engineer Dean Sherer Assistant Planner Edith Harris Planning Cainreisston Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG L~ ED,9Y,- Jeck white~ Assistant City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Commissioner King offe~ed e motlon~ aeeonded by Can~nisatoner ~an~-MO N- t~R;ED (Chalrman Dusho~e abstalning) ~ that the ~ninutes of the A~ust 10~ 198t~ maetinq be app~oved as submitted, ~nd that the minutes of the August 24~ 1981~ meettng ba approvad as corrected on page 517 to reflect Joel Mthman's correct name . CONTINUED ITEMS: M N0. 1: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 8U-81-4~- AND CONDITI ~'~` N0. : PUBIIC NEARIKG. 01dNER: ANT110NY A1~D LEA GOUYEIA~ 837 South Besch Qouleverd~ Anaheim~ CA 92$04. AGENT: LA CRESTA BUiLQERS~ JIM FREDIN6URG, 8322 Clatr~enwnt Mesa goulev~rd~ San Otego~ CR 92111. Preperty descrtbed as a ~ectangul+~rly-shaped parcei of lsnd oonslsting of approximetely 0.75 acre, 837 South 9each Boutevard. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS•A•43~d00 TO CL. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 45•UNIT NO'fEl. Subject ~etitlon was continued fran the meetings of Ju1y 13. 1981~ and August 10 and 24, 1981. at the request of the petitioner. it v+as noted the petitioner has requested a continua~cs to the ~neeting of September 21 ~ 1981. 81-53? g~/81 _.. _ .. ;. ,,.. ~.,~~~,., ...~:.,.~.,:,.~ ~ ~ / $, ~ t MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COKMISSION, SEPTEMBER 9~ 1981 81-538 ACTION; Commtssion~r King offared a motion, secondsd by Commissloner Ne~bst and '~~ CARP~EO~ that ths A~~hs1m CitY Planning Commission doc~ hereby grant a continu+~nce of ths above-mantion~d Itam to the regul~rly-scheduled meeting of Saptember :1~ 1981~ at th• reque~t of the petittoner. RECLASSIFICATI~IN REQUEST: RS-~•b3~~00 TO RN-3000. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLISt1 A 1-IOT. 18-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISiON. Subject petitio~ was contlnued from the meeting of August 10~ !981~ at the raquest ~f the peti ttcx~er. It wss noted the petitic~'~er hes requested a aontinuence to the meeting of Saptember 21 ~ lgE~l . ACTION: Comr~issionor Ktng offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Nerbat ~nd M i N CARR{EQ. that the M ahelm City Planning Commisslai dces hereby arant e conttnuance of the above-nr~ntioned Item to the regula~ly-sc~eduled meeting of Septenber 21~ 1981, at the raquest of the petitio~er• ITEM N0. : ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2k2, WAIVER UF CODE REQUIRLMENT AND ON01 I ONAL_USE~2~+~ ~ PUBLiC NEARING. OWNER: EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURAIICE SOCIETY OF THE UNITEp STATES. 1285 Avenue of tha Americas. New York~ New York~ 1001~. AGENT: MARRIOTT CORPORATIAN. ATTENT{t~{: GARY D. SMITH, Marriott Drlve. Washington. D. C. 2nn58. P~operty desc~lbed as ur~ lrreguiaYlysh~~nd parcel of land consiftl'nt~y clasaifiede~R 15 acres~ ~00 Convention Wa (Marriatt Notel). Praperty p (COMMERCIAL-aECREATION) ZOtiE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERr11T A 15b-F~OT HIGIi~ 300-ROOM HOTEL EXPANSION WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. ~ub,ject petition was continued from the meeting of August 24, 1981~ at the ~equest of the petttioner i~ order to submit revlsnd plans. There wero eppraxirt~ telY ten ~roP~e indicating their presence ln oppositto~ to subJect request. and atthough the stsff report waa not read. tt Is ~efe~red to and mad~e e part of the minutes. 9igia~ PUBLIC FI~ARINC. OWNER: DONALD G. HEYOENDNIL, ET AL~ 205•211 ~brth Weste~n Ave~ua, Anehelm~ CA ~:dUi. AGENT: SUN-Cl~l INVESTMENTS~ ATTENTIOH: BRUCE ELIEFF~ 2006 Ik~~th B~oadway~ /102~ Santa Ana~ CA 82706. Property descrihed aa an Irrequla~ly-shaped parcel of land cflnslsting of approximately 1.4 acres~ 205-21~ tbrth Weatern Avenue. MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBEa 9~ 1981 81-539 Chairma~ Buahore expl~ined he was abser~t on August Z4th~ havever~ he had reviewed thn mtnutef and felt he w~s arepared to t+~ke p~rt In tc+dey~a dtscusslon. Phi) Schwertze~ Vice Prasident~ Phlllfps 8~~ndt Reddick~ asked thet gr~phlcs be pas~ed out to the Cammissto~e n pertatning to the submltted revised plens and also referred te e lattsr addresaed to the Commtsslon deted~ September g~ 1981. He atated subsequent to the leat meeting~ they hed revised pians relocatinq the parking structu~e further a-~ay from th~ property Itne and explalned the plans, as ;~osted on thn wall, reflect those changes. Ne stated the originei plan sha+ed the structure 67 feet from the property ltne a~d noted It is en~ther 20 feet eu the residenttal •kructu~e~t. He expl~t~ed the rosid.~ts h~ve nat seen the revtsed olans and noted one alternative pten cells for th~ structure to be 100 feet from the property line but that by moving the structu~e thet distanca~ the str.e of the structure is reduced end a groater p+~rktng varlanco wlll be requi~ed. Ile stateo the o~ther alternatlve plsn shawa the structure 8a feRe from the property 11ne and noted both plans cAll for s solid wsll in the south to block the nolse for the restd~ents. Ile pc~inted out the comparison matrtx attached to the September 9th le,tter. CharlQS Newbury~ 2058 June Place. Sherwood Village. stated he is an the Boa~d of Directo~s for the Sherwood ~'~meawners Associatinn and r~ad a lette~ dated September 9~ 1981~ IndlcAttn~ their opposixlon to the new convention hall benquet storage and service cnrridor~ the new loading dock And the new parking structure, A capy oF the above-menttoned letter is avatlahle in th~ Planning Department fties. N~ also read po~tions of the Envir~nmentel Impact Report to substantiate the lette~. Ne explalned a petttton was prevlously s~bm(ttcd which was signed by a maJo~lty of the restdents In Sherwo~d Vtilage and that photoyr~phs were also furnlshed showing Lhe height of the wall. 1~e stated they are not asking that th~ hoCel not be expanded~ but are asking that it be expanded in a way that does noC sit o~ top of them. He stated a solid wsll w(I1 not be an attractlve thing ~o see~ but it will help with the noise directly from the south. but will ~ot help the n~ise aoming f~om the sides of the structure. He stated ~oise does radtate snd does not travei in a stretght line and wil) be heard from the open sides of the structure. He stated they feet the pArktng structure should be moved beceuse the Marrlott has vast amuunts of space close~ to Convention Way. Mr. Newbu ry steted it is their envtromm~nt that is being tmpacted ano they should have been given more censideration beceuve these tmpects wiil interfere with the enJoyment of their hanes and also thefr p~aperty values will bc decreased. Davfd Thanas stated he lives in Hunttngtan Beach and is spaaking for Thriftimart whlch is located tn the vicintty of this praposal; that they hsve no obJection to the hotel expansion plans end appreclate the fact that similar parktng varisnces have been granted for othar motels and hotets in the ar~+ and he y+ould assume the perking probiem would not affect the 7hrtftiraart; hawever, the additior- of the Conventlc~n Center could ca~caivebty creste an overflow parking problem ft~r them. He stated they have tied a~roblem tn the pest when the A~ahelm Convention Center had overP~c ~ parking~ particularly lest March when ther~e was a trucking co~ventlon and they had 51 9/9/81 , MINUTES~ ANAItE1M CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ SEPYEMBER 9~ 1981 81-540 etghteen-wheel trucks on thdir pa~king lot which virtuelly stopped thelr oper~tion. He ~tated after the Convsntlon Cente~ was notifted of the probinm~ the drivers were siorteJ and the trucks wero ~emoved; hawever. they did have ta post a guard for th rea deys to prevant •dditional trucks from p~rking o~ thsir parking lot at a cost of S100 per day. N~ ststed they ~ealite this w~s a~ unusuel situetlon~ but wsre ca~cerned th ~t the Mar~lott Conventlon Nall could concelvabiy ettr~ct e lot mare peapie to the area ~nd (f the hotel perkinq lot w~s full~ those people would heva to park sanewhera end he hoped that would not be on tha Th~tftfinert parking lot. Cer) Ducsterhaeft~ 2076 June Place, Sherwoed Village~ sisted he likes the Marriott Hatel bdceuse it looks ntce and adds to the beeuty of the aree, along wlth the other hoteis in the ar~e~ end ssked why spoil tha aro~ by putting tn this multt-story pe~kfny structure. He stated there wili be more psrktng prnblems wlth this expanston and noted another expan=ton w~s app~aved to the east~ whtch cauld Gauae perking problems when tt is evantually ca~atructed. Ile stated there ere areas an the east stde of Ilarbor where parktng could be provtded and suggested the city provide a psrkl~g ares end lease a portton to the Msrrlott liotel, N~. Sct~wartze explained the Narriott has agre ed to InstAll e msst~r antenna to service the resid~nces impacted by the receptlon problem and that they wlil also malntain ihet meste r entenno. lic stated the hote) was not there when the orlginel constructlon was going on~ so ths co~sLructlon N~s being handled by the const~uction compeny; f~owever~ with thts n~w constructlon. obvtously thera will be hotei 9uests in eddition to the proparty owners to the s~uth~ and the hotei mana~geme~nt will be interested tn making sure their guests end tl~e neighbors are not disturbed. H~ stated these past two weeks would be a good exernple of the overflow situatton because this is a busy time of the year and that tf~ere was ~mple perktng on the Marriott parki~g lot a~d potnted out that all of these plans presanted have sufficient parkino aveilabie. Ne stated tlie perking spaces sha+~ are for full siz~ Ame~lcen vehlcles~ such as Ca~lilacs~ and the hotel ts propostng to have compact speces to accommodste the decreased stze of automobtles and notad th$ structure hss dis~onai full spaces whlch ~ou1d be mada (nto ^,~0 degree sngle spaces whlch would previde a 10 to 15$ increase In tlie nurtber of avallablc spaces. Mr. SchNartze stated reg~rding the air and noJse problems as rzferred to i~ the environmental document. they have incraesed the dlstance to the parkin~ structure and the soutfi w~ll wlll be solid. He noted~ howevcr, the final dete nnination has not been msde on the arch(tecturr and that thry would Itke the opportunity to return to the Conmission with snme archttectu~a) thernes so they wili have the oppt~rtunity to make it as picesing as possible to the hotef guests and the residents to the south because right nav It is a fairly large blank wall. Ne steted they hape one of these plans will be favorebly received by the Commisston and that they fecl the parking variancc is appropriate constdering the abilltles of tha hotei and the r~ount of parktng they have aval lsble based vn the expert's opinlor~ who studied the problems . TNE PUBLIC lIEARING LIAS CLOSED. 9/9/8t MINUTES~ AI~AFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER g~ 1981 81•541 Commissioner Tola~ ctarified th~t Mr. Newbury had reviewed tha revise~ plens and steted tt would appear to him that Revisi~n Na. 2 a,swers some of the concerns of the oppositt~n; hcwave~~ tha one concern which was not eddressed Is the losdtng dock. He statod he did not think raising the fenca helyht on the property wfi) be of any benefit and Revislon No. 2 hss a soltd wal) o~ the south and he felt that would et least answ er pert of the noise c~ncerns. M~. Newbury ~tated there Is a 4-sto ry hotel building and a one•story ball~oom area In existence and those bulldings are 100 feet to t~~e north of the extsttng black wall end th eir first request would be th~t nothtnc~ be closer than what is there already; that the original plan was oniy G~ feet from the property 11ne and Revislon No. 2 ta 88 feet s~ay. which still leaves the dock 90 feet from the property Itnr. end the existing dack is 100 feet from the wall and ts a source of noise a~lready. He stated tha corridor to be added would be 90 faot from the wall; that the corridor an~i the one-story~ 20-foot high structur~ and the loadfng dock would be thelr ftrst concern and the parktng structure at 46 feet high is a visual impact and wtll be a noise producing structur~ and Js not a hotel building which Is plessant to look at. ~le referred to the C(ty Hall parking structure whtch is anly three levels and noted this atructUre proposed at five levels would b~ closer than the Ctty Hall parkt~g structure is to thls bullding. -1e stated tl~e- solid wall wlll help fran a sound standpoint but will not help the sound cominy from the sides and will not help the visuol fmpact end a slightly modifled blank wall wlll ~ot be very pleasant. Ne stated people staying (n a hote) or motel c~n expect ta laok at e blank wall~ but people c~wntng homes do not want this typr; ~f building on tnp of them. Cortmissfonar Tolar asked about the block wall and Mr. Newbury referred to the photographs presented at the pr~vious meeting and stated the hetght is approxlmately 2 to 2~1/2 feet dtffcrent from one stde to the Acher end it varles from 7-1/2 to 9 feet on the Sherwood V(llage stde and fmm 6-1/2 to 7'2" en the M~rriotts side. He stated they are not obJecting to the fence hetght; that the potnt they are trying to make is thet the elevation nn the grou~d on the Marrlott side ts higher. so any constructYon starts that much ni~her. He stata' their problem o~ concern is the pr~ximity of the parking structure t~ thsir residences and that they feel the Ma rriott Hotel has enough property to relocate the parktng structure closer to Convention Way. Chairman Bushore asked if it is possible to put doors on the l~ading dack and Mr. Schwartze replied it would be possible and clarified the secondary loading dock is to service the exhfbit h~)) only. Commissloner Tolmr stated it is ve ry apparent that the exhiblt losdtng dock could be utilized ar•ound the clock wtthout eny both~r to the people staying i~ the hotel. but it would b~ e bother tA the residents because exhibltors would bring their exhibits in and set tt~em up in the evrning hours and he felt the oppasit~on's concerns are Justiflebie. ile st~ted he felt the loading dock could be moved. Ne stated thts plan aeems to be answe~ing most of the tasues prevlously discussed but the concerns regarding the loading dock hours surfaced several times and bsked why thts co~cern 9/9/81 ~ , 1 MINUTES, ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ SEPTE148Ea 9~ 1981 81-SWZ was not recllfied wtth the revleed plans. Ha st~tad he wnutd rather see a five-tevel structure then a•maller six-levnl st~ucture and he felt e greater problem will be created if paricing 1~ nc~t providod naw. Nc ~dded le felt Revislon No. 2 gives grester protectlon bccause of th• solid wall and agre~d it haa to be designed so that the residents will not be looking at e blank w~ll. li~ stated he dld ~ot thfnk constructlon noise wi11 be s problem during this expansion bacause there wtli be someone thero to raaolve the prublexns end he would make the recomme~detion that the loeding dock nat be used during the e~rly mo~ning hou~s and thn hours limitnd to 7:00 a,m, to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Schwartze statcd the ro are several w~ys to resolve this problem and thst the Merriott woulu be ag roeable to 1(miting the opereting hc,ura e~d/or including ~evised plans to enclose tha d~~ck to make tt s~undrroof. 11e steted they were concent~ating more on the pa~king with the revised plans And did not addr~ss the loading dock sttuation~ but thery would be willtng to study the situation. Commisstcx~er Tola~ stated e conti~uance would cost everyone nwre time and money ~nd askad if the petittoner stiputeted to moving the loeding dock~ If the Commisston c~uld approve che submttted pla~s. Jack lrhite~ Assistant Clty Attorney~ replied that if the dock is moved~ reviscd plans wauld have to be submltted; however~ the Commisston could Act on these plens todey~ subje~t to the condition that the dock be moved and the oniy question before the Commisston would t~e whether or not they wanc to tle dawn the location of th~ dock or whether It could be stipuleted th~t the dock be rraved a certain dtstance. tia aeld the approvt~l should be subject to tha condttion thst revised p1Ans with refe~ence to the loading dock be approvcd by the Planning Commisslon. Commissioner Barnes asked ebaut the landsceping and the solld well of the parking structure and Mr. Sch~rartze repiled they have not had the opportunity to look at the architectu~e nor the iandscaping treatment which Is the reason they would Iike ta ~eturn to the Commtssion wlth p~ecise plans. Commissioner Barnas was concerned thst r~vised ptans reviewed under tfie Reports and Recommendetlons portion af ihe agenda would not r~nui~e notificatio~ to the neighbors and she thougt~t they would be interestcd ir revl~wing the plans and heving sane Input (nto the approva) of th~ revised plans. Commisstoner Tolar felt the oppositton feeis thac if the docks ere located further away, the sound would be adequately attentuated and if the loading dock ts moved from the south end of the structu~e a minimun of 150 feet. he dld nat think there waa much else that could be ~ccomplished. Wmmissioner Herbst stated he has worked with sound problents for some time and there are ways of accomplishing thi~ withnut moving the dock~ and if it can be rearranged with absorption walls placed along the edge of the loadtng dack, it would virtually eliminete the noise~ even better thsn relaGating the ciock. Ne stated a sound 9/9/81 ~ ; , MiNUTES~ J1hAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 19$1 81-54; ~ engln~ar wauld h~ve to parform ~ study to determina what Is rtqulred so the sound could nat be h~ard at th• property lina. Mr. Schwartze replled the petitloner would be wliling to agree to that stipulatio~. Ch~trms~ Bushore ststed he thought tl~e loading dack la In the proper pisce end ttiat the sound could be properly sttenuated. Commissioner Tola~ polnted out the loading docks at the Disneyland Hotel ere located tn the c~nter on the Walnut Strnet side and are not located on the south side. Ne atated he thought with the proper sound ettenuation meaaures and movi~g the dock, more could be eccompllshed than was originelly asked and asked why it is felt the dock hes ta be on this slde. M~. Schwa~tze stated the structu~e directly tnterfaces with tho exhibtt hall whfch ts the primary reason the loading dock ts loceted where it is and he did not think tt would be posstble to get the trucks through the structure if it was relocated. Responding to Commissioner Tolar's questlon as to why the dack could not be movad further east~ Mr. Schwartze repiled it could probabiy ba moveci fu~ther east falrty easy. Commlss(oner Bou~s pointed out the I~tatton nxntiened by Commisstoner Tolar would be the encra~ce to the Convention Hal1 from the perkfng structure. She stated she realizes a lot of people wlll be ~~mi~g to the conventfons by airplane~ etc.. and thet these natghbors should certa(nly be considered. but if th~ ~ound can be mitig~ted~ then that location should be accept~le because they have eligned the structures with the exlsting bullding. Mr. Schwartzc pointed out the exi~ting and proposed facfl{ties on the plans. Commtsstoner Herbst asked tf the petitloner Mad considercd havTng ~ny of the ps~king structu~e levels underground and M~. Schwartie repiied he believed that posaibility had been explored~ but the cost would be extr~mely prohibitive. Ne stated it wss not thc hotel's desl~a to have a stx-ievel st~ucture and that they wouid probsbly prefer a four-level structure because they feel tt~e parktng they have would accommodate the needs. Commissloner Bernes stated she is very co~cxrned during con~~entio~s becausa the problems are already vrall known. She stated she is not concerned sbout the parkln5 f~om the hote) standpotnt. but she did not want to see it ~educed; that she felt the parking structure at 1Q0 feet from the property ltne would be sufflclent and she also thought the parktng st~ucture could be designed to be pleesi~g. Sh~ staLed, howaver, she is also concrsrne~ about the loadi~g dock nolse end the times of detiveries because ~he hes seen trucks sCtttng up co~ventions 24 hours a day. M~. Schwartze stated Mr. Rothnsan has indicated Chat it is his responstbtlity to see thst the canventions are set up wtthin the limited hou~s betause he !s the manager of tha hot~l. He stated they are willing to provide the sound attenuati~n walt if tt will aid 1n reducing the noise. 9/9l81 ~ r' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C11'Y PLANNINC COMMISSIQN~ SEFTEMBER g~ 1981 81-54A Commis:toner Darnes •tated sha haa grave doubts that Mr. tbthman cen actuelly do what he wants to do and control the hou~s of operetion~ and ~ttlt h~ve conventtons. Coormtssionwr fry esked if thts s~condairy lo~ding doCk ts mandatory and Mr. Schwartxe rapiled it (s probably mo~e a conve~lence tha~ e r+ecesalty but they felt It was part of a good ~iesign to ~ut the loading dock f~irly c1~se to the exhibit hall. Commissioner F~y at~ted he felt with the sound attenuation that can be accompllsed today~ he would have no problem having the loe;ilnq dock ss close to the exhlbit hall as possible. Ile di~sgroed with Commisstoner Eia~nos end statGd ho would rather live 8g feet from e 5-story parking structure then 1Q0 feet from a 6-story structure. and noted with a 6-story structure, they would lose some perking spaces. Chalrman Duahore esked if the petitiioner would stipulate to putting In the sound atten wtlan walla And a door on the loading dock wlth a sign indiceting that haurs of operation are 7:Oi3 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. ~ and +nlso st(puletc to lock the doors. Mr. Schwartze replied he was concern~d thst the doors wuld not be locked becauae of f i re regul ~ttons. Chalrman Bushore asked if the problem has been resolved concerning loading and unloading other than dayltght hours at the ortginel hote) d~ck ~nd Mr. Rothman repl ( ed t f there i s a prab lem, ho has not been made awerc of 1 t and he teeves thn building b etween 6:00 p.m. and a:~0 p.m. eve ry day and he has no~ seen any trucks at that dock. Cf~atrman I3ushore asked the size of the exhibit hell betause the staff report and plans do not cg~ee and Dean Sherer explatned the actual footage of the bulldt~g is 4S~k$0 square feet and the ?~~000 squrire feet r~fe~s to ~he actua) eachtbit space. Commission~r Fry stated Mr. Rathman had verbally ac~~eed to the malntenance of the master entenna system twa weaks ago~ but that he would ilke to chsnge the wordtng of Interdepertmental Committee Recomrtendatian No. 6 as follows: That the applicant shall provide ~nd m~lntain a n~ster televtsio~ antenna or equivalent system to insure televtsicx~ reception to those rcsidents that are impacted by the structure. The applicant shall also instal) the connecttons between the impacted residences and the meste r a~tenna and shell permane~tly rnatntatn the connectlons. The applicant shall also grant an easement permttting qu~lifted televislon perso~nal for the purpose of inspecttng connections. Mr. Rothma~ asked if tf~ts change to the condition involves what is gatng an (n the tndtvidual homes and Commissloner Fry c1a~Ified that he 1s referring to thE master antenna system only on tha Merrtott prope~ty end M~. Rothman ag~eed. Cortmissloner Bouas referred to a"pvwer pact" whlch was located ir. one of the hanes mentloned at the previous meettng and r~sked if it would be removed end placed on the 9/9/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER g~ 1981 81•545 Marrlott proparty ~nd Mr. Rothman agraed. Gomml~stoner 6ouaa ~~ked if tha cables will be Inatsiled in condult and Mr. Rothman replled (t would. Commissione~ 6arnas esked how the loeding dock hau~a w111 be limited for the exhibit hsll and Mr. Rothman asked tf ths hours wtll have to be ltmited if the sound w~il is (nstailed. Chairman Bushore stated he felt the hours ahotild be ltmtted beeause the trucks wtl) be waittng with thetr e~gines running and that couid craate qutte a sound problsm and also the d~ors would be openi~g and cinsing which could be another aou~d p rob 1 em . Commttstoner Fry stated he did not believe the hours from 7:00 e.m. ta 7:00 p~m. are vory ~nallatic and suggested 7:00 e.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Commissloner pouas polnted out the orlglnai conditlonal use permlt ltmited the hours of deliverles to daylight hours anly. M~. Rothma~ stated ltmiting regular deliverles to dayllght haurs ts a different situatton the~ llmiting the exhiblt hall houra which would create an undue hardship and he felt 1Q:00 p.m. would be mora reasoneble. Chairman Hushore staced he tives near Otsneyland and moved the~e knowing it wes the~e. but he cannot get his child~en to b~d before ~1:35 P•m. after the Di~neylend flreworks in the sumner but that these people did not knaw they would heve a parking structure and a loading dock that close when they twught their house end he fdlt Lhe hou~s between 7:00 a.m. ~nd 7:00 p.m. are ~eaSOnable. Commissloner Fry suggestcd trytny it on e tempora~y basis wlth tha haurs iimited to 7:00 a.m. to 1A:00 p.m, Chairman Bushore pointed out that some events at the Convention tiall could go beyond 10:00 p.m. Mr. Rathman stated he feit they would be at A competitlve disadvantage to ston people from loading and unloadi~g their exhibit except during those ltmlied hours. Chairman Bushoro statsd the Commtssion does nat wsnt to inhibtt competttic,n and in orde~ to have the exhibit hall wlth the restdences that close~ something hes to be do~a to pratect the ~eighbors and he did not think llmit(ng hours would create that much of a problrm and the only problem would be during the setting up of conventions. Commisslaner Herbst asked if the hours of operation could be reviewed at the and of 6 months and Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney~ stated under the cur~ent code, even if the condition was not Included ~nd it is found thsre a~e prablems In the neighborhood which are causing a detrtrnental effect. the~ the Comr~isslon could bring the matter back for consideration to impose addttlonal conditions. such as limiting the hours of operation, etc. 9/9/81 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMDER 9~ 1981 81-5b6 Commtasloner Ilerbst feit the appltcant wtil be more cautfous during the first 6 months and the neighbors will be watchl~9 the operatton very closly and during tha review perlod the neighbors would have a chanca to testtfy. Ile steted he sgrees with the 7 to 10 hours because he has beo~ to conventions with heevy machine~y +~nd knows how they have to work and once the conventlon ts closed~ eve~ ~t midnight~ they go right to work because they have trucks standtng by whtch costs e 1ot of money. Ne stated they would lika to give the petittoners a chs~ce to prove whet they can do and lie f~it G mo~ths would be an adequete time. ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offe n d a mntion~ seconded by Cammissloner King and MOTI0~1 CARRIEO~ that sfter considering EIR No. 242 for the proposad expenston of the Marrtott Hotet and revtewing evidence. both written and oral~ to auppiement Draft No. 242~ the Planntng Commission finds that: (1) Uraft EIR Na. 242 is tn compltanc~ wlth the Caltfornla Environrt~ntal Qualtty Act end with city and state EIR Guideltnes end that the foltowing envtronmental impacts havr been id~~ttfled as betng associated with the p ropased proJect: (a) there will bo temporary Inconv~enience to surrounding propertles es a result of nolse~ dust~ and trucks durtng constructian, (b) the project will cause an tncren-ental tncrease tn trsffic~ ai~ pollutlon. and notae levels~ (c) there wtil be addtttonal vlsual and r-oise intrusion to the rQSidentiel aree south of the proJect site, (d) the project may contrtbute to the need for additional sewage treatment plant capacity in the futu~~, (e) the increased number of hote) employees may cause further pressufe on the suppty of low and moderate income houaing in the area~ (f) the structure m~y interfere wtth t~levlston receptton In adJacent restdentlAl a~eas ar~d that the following mitigatton rneasures wtll be employed to reduce these envtronmental impacts: (a) compliance wtth city codes~ poltcies~ and pracedures Including 1(mitatlon of working hours and site watertng. (b) incorpo~atio~ of pertmeter landscaping In the parkiny structure to reduce the visual irtq~act~ (c) a maste~ televlsion antCn~a will be provld~d for thoae residences whtch experience interferenoe with TV ~eception as a result of the project. Ther~fore. the Planning Commission certtfles EIR Na. 2~+2 and adopts the following Statement of Overridinc~ Conside~ations. The approval of Conditionel Use Permit No. 2245 for the proposed e xpanston of the Marriott Hote) could result In the significani environmental impacts whlch have been identified above and which rnay be reduced to an acceptable level by the mittgation measures indicated. The proJect wil; bring substantiai eco~omic benefits to the clty by providing employment~ increasing tax revenues and providing facilitles and serviCes for tourists and conventioneers visiting the Anaheim Camnerctal-Recreation Area. These e~onc~mic and social considerations make it infeasible to eltminate entirely the slgnificant environmental impacts which have b een identified in the Environmental Impact Repo~t. 9/9/81 ~ '1. , r ` . . . . . .. _ . ti~r MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEF~ER 9~ 19a1 81-Sy7 Commissloner Talar o~ferod e motion~ t~econded by Commisslone~ lierbs~t and MOTION CARRIEO UNANIMOUSLY~ th~t the Anaheim City Planning Commlaslon doen hereby g~ant tha welver cf code ~equtrement an the baais that a ce~taln percentage of guests ~rrtve by trsnsportetion m~des othe~ than private eutomobllo end denial would dep~lve subJect property of a p~Ivilege en)ayed by other propartids 1~ the seme zc~ne and vlcinity end on tha ba=Is that compact car sp+~ces cen be provided when the A~ahetm Municipal Code (s amended to altow compsct urs spacas. Commissia~er Tolar offered Resolution No. PCnt-187 and moved for its passaga and edoptlon thet the M aheim City Plenning Commtsslon does hereby crant Conditional Use Permi~ No. 2245~ Exhibit B~ sub)ect to the stipulatlons of tF~e petitlonor pertatning to tho notse attor~uation measures tu be conmlPed wtth on the pa~rking strucCure south side and the hours of operation being restrlcted from ~;p0 s.m. to 10;OQ p.m. for the exhtbit hall loading dock a~d pu~suant to Secttons 18.03.~3~; .~31; .032: .033; .034 end .035. Tttle i$ of the M ahetm Munictpal Code and subJ~ct ta Interdepartmenta) Committee recommendetlons. Commissloner Tolar stated he woutd like t~ r~mind the M~rriott m~nagert~ent that if' the conditions are not c~mplied with, tncluding t1~e cunditians ~f the ortgina) us~ permit~ that (t may be b~ought back to ~he Commisslan fqr revlew to brtng about revocation of the permit. He atated tt wlli be up to the pettttoner to control these mittgation measures. Conmissioner I~erbst asked if the sound absorptlon wa11s are to be required Around the londing dock and also that that condttions be re+viewed 1n six-months. He st9ted he would like to note if 10g compact cars spaces are allowed, the number proposed would be 17II0 and he felt by 1985~ rtpst people wil) be driving compact cars. Jack white cl8rified Condition No. 11 should be eme~ded ~elating to the plans and spacifications to provide that the plans shouid be tn conformance wlth Revision No. 2 es presentcd~ and that the hours of ~pe~ation for the loeding dock shall be limited~ however~ thls would not include the existing dock whlch wes app rovad for the hotel under the origlnfal use permit and he asked tf the resolutlon ir~cl~des the revlslon to Conditian No. 6 pertaining Ko the master entenna system and Conmissioner Tolar replied that Mr. Rothman had stipuiated that they would mai~tafn the antenna. Mr. white referred to Candition No. 5 a~nd the ca+~nts rn,ac4e by the Convention ~enter operations manager~ on page 3-d of the :taff report~ Item No. 19 which tndlcates there might be a signlficant p roblem wlth regard to the locattcm af the service entrance. Ne stated this is a prfvate eccessway and is not a private st~eet and if the Planning Commissian pla~s to approva that cond~tion, he would ltke it understood with additional wording that approval of the candttian is not to ~e deemed a commitment by the city to apprave that partlcular accessway ~nd that an agreement woutd sttll be required between the ctty and the Ma~riott. Ne stated a sentence to be added to Conditton Na. 5 shouid reed, "That nothing shall be deernld a comviitment by the city to approve said acte~s wlth4ut the approval of the Ctty Caunctl.~~ 9/9/81 MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 1981 81-54g The~e were ~pproximately Lw~slve paraons Indice~ting their pre9ence in oppositlon to subJect request~ ~nd elthou41h the st~ff report was not reed~ it i~ referred to and mede e pert of the minutes. Steven L. McMi l laii, president af Castt I le aui lders, stated thts hearing is n~ecessary because of aame uniqu~ leg~l circumstances and is e reapplJcatlon for a 13•lot~ tract map (No. 9594 approved 1-1/2 years a~o) and they fod) the plan is tn complete cancRrt wtth tha city's master plan a~d r.onforms to all ordinances and wtll beautlfy the canrtKmity. He stated they sta~ted construction in February or March of this year and afte~ two weeks tnto the grAdtng~ this lega) probiem surfeced. Mr. McMiilan reftrred to the staff report and noted tht ,judgement h~s been signed and the city hes a copy of the Judgement and It does not addr~ss the Issue of e nQgative declaration or the need for an environmental irnpact report as staff has tndicated In tl~e staff roport. Me stated tl-e Judge does say there was a problem with CM~ process Af serving ~oticcs whtch Is the main reason for this heartng. He stated tl+~y do not fae) tt would be even thinkeble ta have them,as a reapplicantibe~r the c~+~ts of new fees and assessments to the c(ty. 11e stated thfs p~oject has a t~mendou• ftnancl~) Impsct on flve younc~ familles. Jeffrey Oderman~ attorney~ Rutan t- 'iuckrr~ 611 A~ton Boulevar~~ Goste ~1csa, stated he represents five fiomeawners contiguous to th~ proposed dcveln~+rc (Lo~s 25 through 29 of Tract No. 84y6), located to the south of the prnposed de~h~.•an~ent-. Ne stated their obJection to the development~ as rAl~ed in court. 1s ~. +~i~ one; that they dc not oppose clevelopment of the property~ but do objact e~ ~~~ a~iu~ of the developme~t, on a limtted basis and are concerned aboui v~: ~ e,~w ~i natural sl~iftcant canyon eree which is approximately 2 acr~x o~~'~+n~ .~a~.! area located dt rectly adjacent to thei r property. He stAted the ar~ ~-~- ~•xfsnd of mature eucalyFtus trees and sycan~ore trees and is a wt ld~ i fe ~~»~t~t ~r deer~ coyote, opossum~ etc. Ne explainnd the houses in that erca ere =~~`rt o~ ntiings and have no f ront or ~ear yards; that the iots are very steep and th~~~~r p~rpose for bui lding than was to maintain vicw lots; and that these lots ~to ~~ ~i;t~ectly lnta that canyon; a~d that the butlders of these homes did tc11 '!~*e e~wr~rs that area would be preserved in Its natural state. He stated his clteRts ~-~ 'thair own civil engtneer and lAnd survcyor to ttivlcw the pla~s and explained thc s+~»~er had critiqued the Q1ans and detPrmined that the property can b~ developed .+1't+~ the same density as proposed without any ef the adverse impacts hts cllre~ts a+~a ooncerned about with these p roposed ptans; and that the engineer wlll presen~ ~ 1~ar superior alternstive which was very simple ta develop. Mr. Oderman stated his client's viewpoints were not co~~%defed •hen this tract was orlglnally approvcd because thsy were not natified r~ x+~+e hear'ng and dtd not find out about the proJect until they saN the buildoze~s on the sice. He stated they do not feel the pro,ject. as presently designed, could be a~proved without first having an adequate environrt~e~tal Impact rep~r~rt pne~ed wl~ich was the issue raised in the lawsuit. He explained Judge Edw~~d ~latiln i~niLia~Dy indicated t~at the ~egative deciaration was not appropriate the~. He ~a+d a portion of the court repc~~ter's 9/9/81 ~ MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING GBtiNISSION~ SEPTEMDER 9~ 19~1 R~-548 Wmmisstoner Herbr~t added that a co~d~tio~ should be added that the Plenning Commis~tton will ~~evlew tha precise plans which includes the archttecturai t~eatmsnt of the gerage structure under Repo~ts and Raconmendatlons. Chsirmen Bushore ssked if ths ro solution includes the conditicx, thst the loeding dock doors be post+ed and locked~ aub)ect to the opprav~l of the Fire Depa~tment~ and Commissioner Toiar steted reminding the petittoner th+~t the hours must be controlled (a aufficient end that (f the condittons ere violAted~ then the condttional uae ps rn-It can be revlewed fo~ revocation. Chetrman Dushore esked if the resolution includes the r~qutrement for g~rage doors snd Camntssioner Tolar replied ha felt the ebsorptton walls have to be tested~ but door a~entng and closing ~ould be more ~oise snd Commissioner Herbst statod he did nat fe~el the door is needed if the absarption wslis ~re plenned properly and that they must be designed by professlon~) saund engi~eers. Chalrman aushore indicated he could accept thAt condition. Un rol) call~ the foregoing resolution was pessed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIOIIERS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIqNERS: MONE AE3SENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE .~ack Whtte~ Asststent Clty Attorney, presented the wrttten rlght to appeal the Rlan~ing Commisslon's decistvn wtthtn 22 ciays to the City Councti. RE~ CESS Tliere was a ten-mtnute recess at 3:~5 P•m. REC~ONVE_NE The meetl~g was re~onvened at 3:15 p.m. iTEM Np. 4: Ela NEGATIVE DECLARATfON. TENTATtVE MM 0_F TR11CT_N0. 11600 ANQ REQUEST ~ . ..... ,. ~ . ~ t~A ~PAL FOR REMOYAI QF SP~ i~~N- ~E~ . - PUEIIiC HEARING. OWNER: CASTIILE BUIZDE~tS~ LTD., 1669 East Ltncoln Avenue, Orange~ CA 92665. AGENT: JACK P. NQRRIS, R.C.E., 160 South Centennial Way~ Suite 3, Tustin, CA 92680 and KEETON K. KREITZER. ~'HE PLANNIMG CENTE R~ 240 New port Centcr Drive~ Sulte 215~ Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conststing of approximstely 8.3 acres, located on the eas~e of stde Henning Way~ opproximately 1104 feet south of Arboretum Road. P~operty u~resently classified !~S-tiS-22.000(SC) (RESIOENTIAL~ SINCLE-FAMILY 4i1LlSIDE SCENIC CORRiDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. TENTATIHE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLISH A l3-LOT~ ~S-HS-Z2~A00(5C) ZONED ~UBDIVISiON. SubJect petition wes continued f rom the meeting of August 24, 1g$1~ at the ~equest of tihe City Attarney's Office. 9>9 /81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNC CQMMISSION~ SEPTEIN3ER 9~ 1981 81-554 t~~nscrtpt of the hsartng a~d expl~ined It was true the judgement as signed did not apecificislly mention an environmentai impsct report becauae tfie Judge felt alnce the oppositlon had not baen bcfore the Planning Cammisslon bafore~ they should take that first step, hvwever~the Judc~ dtd stress that this shouid not be construRcf by the city es sn indtcatlon on his part that !f the mstter w~~ returned to him ~feer reapprovel; that an envtronmental tmpact ~ po~t would not be orAered to be prepared. He steted he did not think th~re would be any raason to 0o through another round of Iitigation after tha Judge hsd elready indlcsted~ at loesc tentetively, what his ruling would be bascd on the facts as presentcd t~ hlm. ~ie stated he ts esking the Planning Commtssion not tu apprav~ the negattve d~claration ~nd t~ order that en environmentat impact report bn prepe~ed if thc appiicant reelly wa~ts to move fon~+ard on this proposat. He presented daclarations sinned hy the p roperty owners under penalty of perJury whtch were admittad into evidence to the court case. Cornmissioner Bushore asked if the alternative ~+lan would be acceptable to the oppositlon and tf they are stil) asking for an r.nvtronmentnl impact report lf thelr plan Is approved. Mr. Odcrman stated they feet witl~ the alternAtivc plan~ the advcrse e~vironmental impects cen be mittgated and no envtranmentai tmpact report be requtred and a neyative declaration would I,e appropriate. Chalrman 6ushore asked if a separate pubiic hearing woutd be required lf the Planning Cortmission chnse to approve the aitc•m ate plan. Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney~ stated ti~e P{anning Cc~mmission is hare for A publlc hearing on th(s tract and wlthout renoticiny the hearing, the ~i+~ns ~~uld be revtsed if the applicant desires. ~ Mr. Oderman continued thaL they are concerned about fitltng a natural cenyon because the currcnt plan ts to yradc and flt) the canyon to a depth of 20 feet and staff has Indicated 2S~A00 cublc yards of earth would hav~e to be excavated whlch would = cort~letelY destroy the canyon. He stated the or(glnal devel~per camn before the Planning Commiss~on with a plar~ fo~ a 9-1ot subdiviston which would take access from a dlfferent side and would have totnily preserved thls naturat canyo~ area wlth no adverse impacts in terms of gr~dtng, ioss of wildlife ereas ar cutting of any trees. He referred to a lette~ from the developer to the city wri~ten in Novesmber 1976, verifying it was not their intent to cut any t~e+e end that no gradtng would be donQ~ other than the grading requlnd for the butlding pads. Fle explalned that plan was approved in December tg76 by the Ctty Council~ but because building did not occur +~ithin 18 mohths~ the tract mep exptred and res~~bmittal was made in 1979~ whtch agein did not involve destructlon of the canyon ar the cutting of t~ees. He noted his clients were not notified of that hearing; however. property owners on the other side were conce rned btcause of access which woutd b~ing increased traffic on their street. Fle stated the Commisston~ aft~er heari~g only their side of the story~ asked that the access be r~oveci and the deve lape~ rcsponded 1 t coul d be movnd, but i t woul d cause destruction of the netura) canyon. Ne stated slnce no one obJected, because they were not notifted~ that ~evised ptan wAS approved in Juty 1979• 9/9/81 c MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINR COMMIS510N~ SEPTEMDER 9~ 1981 81-551 Mr. Oderman stated the apposttion asked their engineer to come up wlth a plan which would rosolve the ac~ess problem and not tncrease treffic for the property c~wners on the othar side and elso saive the problem of destruction of the cenyon and that auch a plen wauld ba prosentad. he steted the General Plan tndicatQ4 the density for that ares Is a msximum of 1.5 dwelitng units per gross acre and the p roposed plan represents s denslty of 1.6 dwelling u~its per gress acre; thet there are also ~ nurtb er of goels end policlos set forth in the Canyon A~ea Generel Plan which deal with the subject of grading and the proservatio~ of wi1d11fG areas~ etc. and he reed partions of the General Plan gaals and pollcles end polnted out it is repeeted agaln and agein that developnwsnt of tha a~e~ sho•rld not alter co~toura of the lend and thet thia propossl ts not consistent witl~ thosa atatemcnts. tle stated the Commisston Is required to make a findtn~ of consistency and they wouid submlt fo~ the reasona of danstty and these poltcy statements that the Commisslon cannot mako that fi~ding. Mr. Qd~rman stated regardtng the ~pectmen tree renaval permit~ the ordinance requtres that certain findings be made for apprc.v~l and tho finding that seems to ba pertinent to this p~aperty ls thn one that was made at the previous hearing that e reasonable and pratticable development of the p~ope~ty on whtch the tree is located roqutres ramovel of the tree whose removal Is sought. lie stated thls rr~~ns the Commission has to sey whether there is a prsctlca) alternattve and if there ts~ the ordinance does ~ot allaw the trecs to ba removed. Mr. 8derman refcrred to Condtti~an No. 7 whlch talks about off-site dratnage factlites being dedicated and stated a nevlav of tho plans lndicates that the grading and dratnage~ in order to be accommodated~ requires modifted off-site lmprovements which are on hls citents' property and they do not give pe rn+ission to enter upon thelr property. Ne refe~red to the equestratn tratl tndicated beck and fortt~ between his client's p rope~ty and this development and stated the~e Is no dedicated horse tratl easement or cxisting t~ail end chey do not give permtssion to ~liow the t~ail. In additio~~ I~e stated the plan (ndtcates greding on his cllents' property and they do not glve per7nisslon for thet and thls condtttc~n indicates off-site facilities are necessa ry and he thoughc it was highiy (rregular for tt~e city to bal) out a developer fo~ a lousy p18n by tnitiating condenn etfon proceedings. ChalrmAn Bushare statCd Mr. Oderman Is Inte~preting the condittan wrong and Jack White stated chax is a standard condition and he dtd not think that one sentence referred to this particular devclopnr:nt. Jey Tit~+s, Offlce Engineer~ stated the dra(nage facility oandittQn refers to a dawn- stream off-site facility a~d he belteved all those faciliti~s arn constructed and (t does not necessarily refer to the up-streem facilities. Mr. Oderman statad that satisfled him that there is no tntentions of tondemnatton~ but ddes not sotisfy ~,im thst the plans are acceptabie. Lawrence McDersnott~ 13702 Onksyha Circle~ Irvine~ stated he is a registered civil engtnee~ and presented a revised plan on the wall. 9/9/81 , MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMUER g~ 1~81 A~-ti5Z Chalrnnan Busha ro clarift~d that the petitloner has not seen this plan. Commisstnner Tolar stated thls Commission is suppose to be reviewing thls plan as presented by the petittoner and not an alte rnate plan presentod by someone elae. He stated he Is nat in favor of revicwing thts altern~te plan and feit rather than listening to an alternata plen~ a continuance shu~ld be granted since the attorney for the opposition has indicated that thRy are not oppose:d to some type development on this property end he felt the devetoper could n~et wtth these property owners and work out e vlable solutlon. Jack Nhite axplatned (f the p~ttttoner agrees 20 o revised plan, the Commisston could approve i t. Chatrman Uushore stated he did not ltke to hear the opposition saying that if the Commission wilt accept thntr alternate plan~ an environmental tmpact repo~t ts not needed~ but if their plan is not accepted. a full ~eport will be required. Jack White stated he beiteved it is the opposltion's tnCent to show there are feaslblc alternatives whicl would not have the same type af adverse envtronmental in~ects and that they are saytng they feel the current plan~ as prasented, w111 have signlficant adverse environmental impa~tts and therefore~ an envlronmental Impact report ts reyuired and that they elsa hsve an alter~atP plan which the appllcant has not cansldered. Ne suggested the Commis~ion hear from the appltcant as to whether or not he wlshes to har~e a continuence tn order to have a full environmental impact repc~rt prepared or whethen c~ wants to consider an alternatr plan. Commissioner Tolar asked why this alternete plan has not been presented to the petitioner and Mr. Od;;rman replied the matter wss considered by the cuurt last week and since the Judgement did not make It clear that a fult e~vironmental impact report would be necessary~ they did not have tirt~e Co prepare the plan a~d present (t to the potitioner. IIQ stated if the _)udgement had been cle~r. the nnvlro~mental Impact rcport would nova bn in pre paration and thts hearing would not be necessary and the oppositton would havc the opportunity to give their input durtng that preparation. He stated he did tell the petitione~ they had an altGrnate plan~ but did not have tht opportunity to give it too him, but they have discussed the posstbility of a comRromise wlth him, including an alternate type development. Chairman E3ushore stated if the petitioner hsd brought a revised plan before thQ Commiss(on without staff review~ th~ Commisston wouid automaticaliy ask Por a contlnuance (n order for staff to ~vta,r ehe revtsed plan. Jack lfiite explatned the current lttigatton is against both the clty and the owner/developer of the proporty and the current owner was not thc awner befo~e the Commiss(an at the prevtous hearing and he felt before any action is teken today~ the Commistton should hear fmm che petitioner. 9/9/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING f.OMMISSION, SEPTEMBER g~ 1981 81•55~ Cortmtssloner Tola~ stated h~e la not oppoaed to the petitloner ~e~ponding or to a contin wn~n; t~~at this ts not a court of law and the Conmtsaton is not here to make e Judicial Judgement~ but feit listening to another plen ts not a reasonable thing for the Comnisslon to do and stated again~ he does not want to see enother plan which hes not been reviewed by the steff. Chairmen Bushore pointed out normally an environmental tmpact report is not ~cquired for a p roject of thts size~ end asked how the opposttion had made ti~e relative Judyement that ~o ~eport would be required tf their alternate plan is approved. Mr. Odermar~ statad the opposltion has idcntifled ce~tatn environmental impacts th$t wtil be caused by the plsn thsk Is proposed a~d a~e trytng to show the Commtssion that an elte rnattve would eitminete thoso tn~acts. Commiasioner Barnes asE:ed the cancerns of the ctient (n terms of environmenta) tmpacts and Mr. Oderman replled the tmpacts would he the loss of vle.w~ loss of open spece areas~ 1o,s of wtldltfe habitat~ loss of -lgnlftc~n~ vegetation~ substantiel grading and filltng aperat(ons~ encasement af :. ;.;:tural d~afnege course tn a concrete plpe, etc. Commissioner 6arnes clarlfled th~t their conce~ns were n+4stly from a~ aesthettc view. She statod sF~e aro uld like to heer from the oppositlon so thst the eppltcant can hear their conce rns and then '~ear from the applicant so he can suggest e oonttnuance in ordcr to review their plans. Conmtssioner I'erbst stated he would iike to hea~ from thc applicant as to whether or not ht would ~'ke to reques; a wntinuance In orde~ to revl~ this plen because this ts his heori~g and he felt revtewtng this alte rnate plan now would put the applicant at a dtsadva~tago because the praperty requires e lot of engfneertng and also this plen should be rrviewed by Glty stdff ta det~+rmine whether o~ not it is even feastble. 11n felt this (s also putting thc Commisston at a disadvantage because the plan hasn't been ro viewed. Camnissioner Tolar asked Mr. f~cMt',l~n if he would conslder a continuance so that he could meet with these residen~s and try ~o resolve the problem and to se~ tf a better plen can be devetoped. He steted Che Commission has found if the developer will meet with the property owne rs or their attornrys, many problems can be resolved before they come beforG the Cornmisslon. Mr. P1eMi l lan stated approval today would put thexn bae~: tnto eons*~uetion as fast as anything they can do~ that they haNe ~eviewtd chis slte plan for over 1-1/2 years and feal their product and r~eputation in Mahctm speaks for itsclf and they do have t~e best intentian for these loLs. Ne stated they are probably alreacty going to lose the proJect. Commisstoner 1lerbst stated it appears to him that the Commisslon will probably requiro that an envtronmenta) Impact r~eport be prc~ared and that would teka several 9/9/8~ ~ ~ , MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 9, 1g81 81-554 months. tie •dded he feel• the oppo~itlon will force that actlon ona way or anather end he thought it mtght be to th~ Qetitloner't 'dvintaga to requast A continuanc~. M~. McMillan sl~ted h• is nat hare to have ~ public foruT or debate with sansone in oppositlon to his given rlght to prese~t hts c:oncept on a development that compli~s •nd sll he Is aski~g is that tha Commi:sion ro view the pla~s end mske a determinattan ~o that they can go out today with a decision. Chelnnan Bushore stated then the appositlon h~s tho right to present thelr plans~ fuliy rcal i:ing that staff has not rovtewed them t~nd therc ma~y be variances required. etc. Commisslo~er Tolar stated he did not wsnt to se~ the plen~ but dld not obJect to hearing the opposition's vicws. Co mmissionQ~ Herbst stated ha ~~~ould be tn fava, of seeing the p18n because he wants to sec all the information availeble to help maka a d~clslon. Commissioner 9ernos stated Nr. McMillan t~as a right to s detlslon todey, but she did not fecl it is necesRa ry to seo the oppositlon's plen~ even though she is sure it is a good plen and has a!ot of mittgating measu~es~ but that is not the plan before the Commi ss ion. Commissionars ~ouas ar,d King stated they would Iike to see the opposition's plan. Scott Immell~ Actorney for Castllla Builde~s~ 166~ East Llncoln. Orange, stated he thought it (nappropriatc fa~ the Cammisslo~ to consider the oppasitton's plan; that he has heard the suggestion that the Commlssion should require sn envtronmental Impact ro part and thought it would be appropriat~ if the Commission made thst deterrnination~ that thts plan miqht be pre3ented by the opponents of the project as part of the tnput into the envtronmentel impact raport. Ile stated he is requesting that the Commission act upo~ tha appitcatlon before them. Mr. Oderman stated this plan is betng offe rad for the pu~poses of showing a concept and tf~ey are not asking the Commissio~ to ~+ct on that pla~. M~. McOermott, (Civil Engineer whc~ drew the alternate plan for the opposttton) stated he had crlttqued the develapers plan and he thought some of thc radTuses and slte distances wero prrbably sub par; that the dralnage from the outsfde slopes as proposed by the plan (s conveyed through the lots and all the nuslance water wtll go an the surface across dther properttes and he felt there should be sto~m dratns. HQ ~tated the plan ~e has preparcd has trfed to ellminate the expensive grading and d~ai~sage prob lems. t1e explatned the pian presented on the wat l and pointed out the street and trees that would not be rcmoved end explatned there would be an easy 12 lot development and nated thero is aiso an alternatlve with a different street pattern which would provtck 13 1ots. 9/9/81 MINUTES~ ANAtfE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTCMOER 9~ 1981 81-555 Ch~trman Dushore asked Mr. McDermott not to~ continue with his p~esentation bncause the prnsentacton of this plan is showin9 hlm tha~t there a~e many alternatives and ha wauld like to off~r a motlon to conti~ue this rr~tter unttl the proper environmoncel Impact rapart cen be prepared based on the testlmony ~resented. Commissioner Fry seconded thc motion. Commissloner Tola~ asked if the court deemed thet an anvironmental impect report would be necessa ry b~aed an a speciftc plan as presanted to the Commisslon by the petitloner. Jack White replled that the court dtd not make thut determtnation. Commts~loners Toler end 9arnes statod they would not support ihe motton fo~ continuance. Commissioner aarnes steted these property awners were not notified of tha origtna) hearing and that is the reason fo~ this hearing. She ~tatad evidently there is reaaon to believe thet there arr~ sc~ne mftlgating measures that cc~uld be taken~ but she wes not surr thst d fu1) environmentel Impact report ts neceasary; that thts Commisslon hes~ in the past~ looked st environmental impact reports on th~ basts of ports of them and meny tlmes do noC requtre full cnvironrr~nta) impact reports if thare are only a few issucs that have to ha answered, for exsmple~ thls praJect would prabably not have en axtreme tmpact on the school poputetton and probabiy woutd not have ve ry much poilutton and she thought (n this pertlcular cese~ the Commission does not hav~e the tnformatio~ they need to make a determinetton as to the grading~ whtch Is usually done by ti~e Cngineeriny Departnbnt. She atated agaln she does not see the necess(ty for the full onvironmenta) impact report whtch csxemincs the f lor~l ~ fauna~ etc. She stat~d having 1 tv~ed In the c~nyon, she was on the Task Force which ck velopcd the Canyon Area Genernl Plan and knaws what the intent was and they did want to prese rve the natural habltat~ however, betweon the ttmn the plan was devcloped tn 19yy and 1976~ ~nd now things hava changcd conslckrably and thero have been vnry loose interpretations of that C,~neral Plan. She stated the Commission probab~y r~nds e study on several diffc~ent Issues~ but does not need a ful l envi ronmental impac:t repo~t. Conrnissloner Herbst ask~d (f approvel of the removal of 47 specinren trees was Invalid~ted by the court as indiceted and JACk 1fi ite a~swered the court Invaltdated the trec removal pe~mic. Commlssioner Ne~bst clarified thst tf che Commission denied the removal of those trees, the tract tssue becort~es moot. Jack Nhlte stated in order for the tract to be developed In the way as shown on the map, it would be nec.~sssry for the trees to be remeved which could only be done u~der a vaild tree removal permtt. IIe explalned the court indicated it acted on the narrowest basis passible and that wss thc fact that under the law~ as interpretad by anothar court case~ the city was found not to have given adequate notice to the su~roundtng propqrty a,-ners because the notices were rru~tled ta thoae names appearing on the last equalized assessmeni role and there had been a signtftcant number of sales In the (ntertm Ana thoscs p~oplc were not notifted. tonmfssloner Herbst statad he reali2es the opposttlon has had their attnrney ~peak for them~ but he thought it very important che Commisston have input from those 9~9/81 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEM~ER 9~ 1981 81-556 poopte who livn in the ~rea. Ile st+~ted he ayraed wlth Commissloner Darnes thet o full rnvironmental impact roport probably would not ba necessary. Commissicx~er F~y withdrew hiz second on the n+~tton fo~ s Gontinusnce. Commissianer Tolar stated he would itke to hear from the oppositlon instead of ~oviewin9 tha plsn and then tha Commisston csn make s decislon a~ roqussted by the petitianer. Commissioner Fry asked if it is correct that t1~e troes hav~ been removed as indicated in the staff re port~ paragr~ph 6. pegc 4-• and Jack Whito r~plied he believad rnost of the trces have b~ en ~emoved. Cholrman Bushore stated the Comntsslon wit) hear from the netghbors but do~s not want to hear ebout tha alternativa plan. Jeff Welsworth~ stated ho llv~es diroctly to the south of the s~liject property (6351 Via Arboles) and lie has pe~sonelly been on the scane and It is a fect that 40 of the t~eea heve not been removed; that t~e has askad his adJoining neighbors to verify the fact that they havc caunted the treea marked for ~emoval end the~e are in excess of 20 remalning~ in addition to app roximatety ly eucalyptus tre~s which heve not been removed for ~he locattan of tha roed. He stated they are concerned for the trees that are still In existen a Na stated the plans ho reviawed as submltted by the petltioncr to the Cortmtssion show a horse trail that has to bc g~aded on hls property and he personally does not want the develof~~r gradtng a horse trat! on his prope~ty and also tha: the plan calls for greding o~ two prop~rties adJacent to his and those propcrty a+nors have statad theY dA not w~nt thc developer grading an their properties. f~e stated there ts a declsration filed with the Orange County Superior Court, signed by a certtfied Soils En~inaer. Cecti Holland~ under penalty of perJ ury which states he has examined the soils rcport end has done sotls analysls tn the area for the p roposed ~rading p+~rticularly at the sout~ end of ~he projact a~d feela the grading wauld Jeopardize hls homc and he personally does not feel that should be allawed. lie stated the developer's engineers ~esponse to that was thst they would examin~ that p roblem if it arises. Fie stated they ere trytng to show wtth thc alte rnattvc~plan that the propc~tY can be developed without Jeopardizing the slopes~ wtthout ~ moval of thn trees and v~ithout horse t~atls on other praperttes and without destroying the canyon so that thc developer can stitl ie~ake the money he wants to make. Mr. Walsworth stated birds are~ abundant i~ thls canyen and removal of these trees would not be appropriate and that there are ali Cypas of wildlife ltving in that carryo~; and that he realizes the developer should not be required to give up his propo rty and ail they are asklrog is that the property be buiit in such a man~er to malntaln these things. Ne stated the~e is a hlgh pressure gas line that goes ~long the p~operty 11 fcet from where they are p roposing to remove the canyon slope terrain an~d Mr. Holland is wiiling to testlfy that th~ cutting of the slopes as proposed in 9/9/80 MINUTES~ ANANEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMaER 9~ 1981 81•557 thoae plans would Jeoperdl=e the stebtlity of thet slope which holds the high prossured yss l ine. Georgs Abe~bnathy. 6381 Vi~ Arboles~ st~+ted he and his wt fe are not oppoeed to the proJact but cio obJect to destructton of the canyon and the gradinq and ere aiso coneerned obout the high ~ressure gss 1 ine. Ile ~tar.ed they a11 live an extremely steep slopes and he cannot welk down the back of hts property and his biggest aonGern ( s the g~eding becaus~ hla deck s its out ovcr ti~e construetlon ar~a abaut 60•feet and thero ore edditlonel slopes above hts p~operty. Don Ves~ 471 South Paseo Est~lla~ treasurer of Woodcrast Hamec~wners Associatlon~ stated thet r assoc(attan consists of 37 praperty owners t ~ the eraa and that most of the paople do not have a view over th~ arem and that he fett the intent of the hamevwners is to prese~ve the areo in as natu~rl a state as possible and thero are obviously some grading problems and possible damnge to the homes because of the way they are supported 5y props aver the ca~yo~. Ile statQd the plans as shown Ind(cate there are other alte~natlves and he thought If the bullder weuld take a look at the a) ternoti ve plen. sortie corr~romi se coul d be mado beMeen thR develope~ and the p~operty owners and it would not cost the develac~er a lot of ttme or money and nosstbly the alternative plan would sav~c them monay. Relph Tenioka. G3b1 East Vla A~boles~ stated a petitlon wras circulated and over 100 people sfgned it op,~ostng tlie tree romoval. Ne asked how a tract could be approved for the second tirt~e that cuts into other people's prnperty and stated that raally grtpes him. George Re .haw~ h371 Yi a Arbol es ~ stated he sol tci ted s) qnatures for the Qetiton and was ~eal ty amazed at the post Cive respo~se he had et oach house; that a lot of peop 1e were not sure what was reslly going o~; and that they did not c~nce discuss dotng away wlth the pmject or stopping anyone from butldtng but m'~ely to perheps save those trees and keep tho onvi ~onment they hav~e. Ile stated they have a real concern and a~e extremely pleased the Plsnning Cortmtssion wlll take thls tl~r+e to llsten to them. Inez ~~enning, 350 Snuth HennJng Way~ stated she was the awner of the property end has 1 1 ved i n the canyon for about 35 Years and loves i t there and was raal ly qui te upset when these pcople st~rted ~roving in arovnd her~ but (t wes progress and she fei t they have taken i t real ly quite r+~l l. She statcd th is ia a smal f canyon a~d not al) of it belongs to the developers a~d she still owns a portion. She stated wildlife used to be abundant all ever the hlils and the r+tldlife in this one littl~ spot is not a fraction of what it was in the past. She steted there aro two sides to the issue snd everyone lives son~wher+e where no or-e w,ants than and st~e really feets for the young pcople trying to devetop tl~~is property. She stated they were not that eager to have netghbors that close, but have accepted it and do try to ba good neighbors. She clerified shc still owns 3 0~ 4 acres. Sidney Ncre~ f~3G1 Yia Arboles, stated his biggest conce~~ ts the gas ltne which is right below his hause. 9/9 /81 _~ ~ 'l . ? ' o " MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNIFIG COMMISSI0~1~ SEPTEMRiER 9~ 1981 81-,58 ~ ~ Ms. Wolsworth~ b351 Vla Arbotas, stated the homcowners who have snoken in oppostlon ~ todey llve on the street thet borders this canyon and one pe~so~ who apoke eerller `` does not l ivc anywhe~ near the canyon and the atatoment ~ega~ding boing ~nighbarly docs not apply i~ thts situ~t ton. Jack Norrts~ 160 Centennial~ Tuati~~ stated meny of the trees have been removod~ but all of tham wil l be rapleced. He stated it is a city requlrement th~t the equnet~ian tral) be grednd along the proscribsd al (gmm~nt within the ctty's easement which ' exista. He st~+ted they havs not s~a~ this elternativa plan before and would need ttme to study it before making any comsxnts. He stated the canyon being filled has v~ry fow trees and expleined the st te distances are edequate as can be attested to by the City Engineer's Office. He addad he would not cumment on the slope's stabillty because that is nnt his fteld. Mr. McMi I len stated thay are v~ery eoncorned about ~he southerly alopes and have had two separate opi~tons gtven to them hy 1ace1 compenles; that chey had an on-aite tnspoctton of the buttresses and the co~a-~tos have comn back wtth the same i~formstton that was given the fi~st time and th~y do feel this is a go situ~tlon. but therc could bc some problems tf things are not watched professlonally snd that they do have ave ry intentlon of doing thet and experts wil) be there everyday of that oporation and also the ~ss Iina issues havc been address~d. Hc steted the potential is always there for prvblans; tf~at 100 site studies could be done and thera will always be a bette~ way Af dotng (t; and tF~at thay hope thetr concept will create an atmos~hcre that (s pleasing to the canttguous p~op~rty owners. ~1e stated he understands therc +~rCre a lot oF people ot the original hearing but none of them are haro todey ar.d they ware also cenc~e~ned about the site and have drtven in and out of Lhat sar~e area during the last yea~ and also durtng thoir hr.i~~~g ~peratton and they hav~ not had any rea~tive comments. Ilc stated t~ ~ 1 r pr ~ compl les with Lhe Goneral Plan and ~.ith the ordinances and they would '' go on with the(r buslness. Mr, Immell stat~d he agr~ed with Commissio~er ~,arnea' concept that additional studies may be necessnn• with rc~s;~ocf *~~ those areas of conccrn~ but that a full envi ronmcntal JRpact re~ort a. ; ~c,t be appropr)ate. Ne explalned Mr. Walsworth is an attorney and was the person ~~ho fi led the original lawsuit to stop this pro)ect and is on record stattng that rrhe~ he bought his home~ he was told by his broker that that canyon wouid aiways be preserved and stated it is diff{cult for them to u~derstand why he Is na~, saytng thery do not want to stop the development of this praperty. t~e s[ated Mr. i~alsworth ts on record as hsving recelved a copy of the notice of the hea~ing for removal of the trees in Decembe~ af 19$0. as well as t~ie othar hancowners who have spoken and they have alt acknowladged that they ~ecetved the notlce, but dld nothing about it. Ns stated they wauld like to have the Commission act on th~eir applicatiot~ and poi~ted out they had nothing to do wtth the or(ginal approval . Fie added they have bee~ shut down since Aprt 1 13th at a cost of S700 per day and the longer this goes on~ tlie harder it is to make the proJect feasib le. 9/~/81 `~ ~ . i 1 t 1 },- MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 1981 81-559 THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. ; Chairma~ 9u=ho ro stated ths Planning Commisston has tried to hear all sidas of thia {` tt~sue snd stated he hopes •omethinq wlll be rbne todey to preve~t wrong tnformatlan from being g(van out to anyone again. Commissiona~ Herbst stated it appaers to hlm that the tratl is on the Four Cornerx ~' p~Po~ine Eessment end (s ?0-feet ~ide and asked who owns the property where the harse a` tratl is to be lacated. Oean Shorer uteted th~re is on nquestrfan trail shown on the General Plan In that areA and (s tmmedtately +~dJacent to thla proposed tract. Ile steted h~ dtd not beiteve it Fe11s on any ~ublic property ond the tral) altgnment es shown ts a curving tratl and portions are an tlie p roposed tentaiivc tract end portion~ on another tract. -le explalned staff is working wtth ths develo~er and the Parks and Recreatian Department to determtne what would be thn bast end mc,st adcquate alignment gtve~ t:he grading that would be needed and the kfnd of ceoperatton with the homeown~rs in the a rea. Conmtssio~Qr Ilerbst askod if the trai) could be ptaced on the ~Ipellne easement and Jack White stated It needs to be determined whether there ls an eesement far equestrtan tratl purposes and that matter Is currently being researched. ffe ddded It would not be adequate to tnclude it )ust because it Is shown on the Ganeral Plan bacause there needs to be an easement for equestrian trall purposes tf tt is on privatc property. Commission~ r Tola r asked Mr. Walsworth when he became the recorded owner of his pro~~rty and Mr. Walsworch replied it was approximately 1-1/2 years ago and before Decen~ er 1980. He stated sev~ ral peopte called the ctty and asked about this notice and the statement was to not be concerned ~,Ith tt because it was tn the Mc~~ ler Drive area. He stated he called htmself, in addition to the other people~ and ~~sk,ed why he h ad received thts notice and the statenx nt was~ "don't wo~~y, t~~ey se~d it r~ut to everybody in a 5•mile ~adius sometimes and that you can'c see tt from where you ar~e located". Commissianer Tolar indicated he was surprised that Mr. Walsworth~ as an attorney, would acc~pt a statement llke that. He said there are th roe ways tn notify proper~y avne rs within 300 feet ~f the property and the City of Anahetm does a11 threes pos~ the prope~ty~ mail notices to property owners and advertlse tn a new• --Fl .r. M~~ Walsworth stated that incident happened to several other neighbors s~ • w:~R they dc, appreclate the fact the ctty daes notify three different ways and als~ ~,precietes the fact that they a re y(v~en this opportun ty today to show that the trees can still be saved and the developcr can sttil develoa his property. Commissior~er Tolar stated the petitioner has tndicated he wants action on thls pa~ttcular plan and the opposition has presented ve ry precise obJectto~s and that h~e doesn't agree with a11 of the comments; that tn his optnion, Eucalyptus trees should ,~ 9/9181 i > MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEF~IER 9~ 1981 81-560 not evan be con~idered as specimen t~Aer, bscause th~y cause mo~a damage then goad in the c~nyan. Ho stated hs i: alsa Gonaer~~~d that tl~ere ere alte~nattve plans ~nd ways to matntain the se~thetic baeuty oF the unyon and he felt tha Commisslon hes a r4~ponsibillty to soe tha~ the prope~ty la developed ~ea close to the natural terraln as potsibie. He •taCed he dld not agree that 25~400 cubic yards of eerth Is • lot to ba rmmoved~ nottng that a lot of p roJects have had e lot mcre than that ~emoved. Na stated he c~nnot support this proJect today end he would oppc~se tt becausn he thought there have boen juatiftsble canoe rnd expressed which indtcetes there er~ enough p~obloms with this develaprtn ~t tt~at could creatR sortw re~l problems for the surrounding area. Commisstoner Fry stated he feets he is o~ constructive notice that the ro is a pos^tbiltty of ~n alte~nate plan and that he too would vatc agafnst thls pro)cct es it is presanted et thls time. Commtssioner 6ernos stated qurttions have baen raisod~ even by the petitioner himself~ about the grading and tl~e Commisston haa n~t seen any grading report end she was alsa concerned about the ptpellne and tl-e horso traii. She stated she thought if the Commfssion had all the necessery lnforr~atton, she could make a logical deciston conce rning the grading. She steted she realizes the cost of delaying this projact. hewever~ the Planni~g Commission is responsible for che safety and welfare of all the citizens of M ahetm. She stated she dtd not tl~ink a fui) environmenta) impact repart is requi~d an this particular project but thought tl~e issue of greding Is important and has to be answered. Commissloner Y.tng statecJ according to the Superlo~ CAUrt~ en environmental (mpact report (s required and Jack Uhtte explalned the court laft that determinetion up to the Planntng Comnission. Commissioner Flerbsc stoted he would support a motio~ to ~equire s~ environmental tinpact report, Gecause he thought addttlonal informatto~ has been s~b mitted to the Planning Comnisston which has denranstrated to htm that there ara ways of developtng the property and saving some of th~e tr~es. Ne suggested that the applicant request a continuance in ~rder to review alternative~ plans. Commissioner Tolar asked Mr. McMtllan if he would ltke a continuance and Mr. McMillan asked if havinc~ an e~vtranmentat Impact report prepa~ed would prove that the grading plan !s right. Commissioner Tolar explained his mation would be ta deny the negative declaration wfitch means the devalope~ has ta go bsck to the beginntng and Mr. McMlllan lndicated he undcrsiood thax and stated th~ question hes bcen raised as to whether o~ rtot the gradtn; plan is a safe concept. Comrntssian~r Nerbst steted the Commission would like to giv~e the devGlofer the ap~ortunity to see if he could come up with a compatible plan because if the negative 9/9/81 ~ ~ 1 MINUTES~ A~~ANEIM C17Y P~ANNING COMNISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 1981 81•561 declaration Is denied~ the develope~ wlll lose a lat of ~round snd he felt a plan satl=factory to the oppoaition~s co~csrns cauld be c~rops~ed wlthl~ a few deys. Commis:lone~ Talar etated he would like to save the develope~ some timn end rtwney which ts the reason he would llke to gtve htm the oppc~rtunity to request a continuanc~. M~. Immet) stated thay woutd need to know whrsther or not a co~ttnuance woulc' be g ranted tn ordar for them to pre para an envtronment~) Impatt repart. Commisslone~ Tolar statad he ts trying to save the developer time and money and if ha requests a continuamce and meets with the opposittan end ~esolves thel~ problems and concerns, tt is possible hc could pr+csent a plan that would be approved. h{r. Immel l stated tlie problem Is e concern that has not bnen addrassod which is the p~oblem of ~ot being able to resoly~ the diffe~ences and not having a satisfactory plan. Cortmtssi~ner Barnes stated stie (s con u~ned about the gredin~ and quastlans have been raised which have not been answerred. She stated she would ask for e focused report on the grading. Mr. Immetl asked if the~e is a posstbilitY for the Canmission to direct them to preparc focused information on certaln ar~eas of the application. Fie asked iF thn ncgative dccla~otion is denicd~ would they have to revise thn whole proJect and have a complete environmental icnp~ct report p~pared. Cortmisstoncr Tator repilad if the developar tarr~ back in today Nith a project that fiad a chance of damage from g~adtng of the slopes~ pipeline~ etc., he wou}d not support the project and rwted he undcrstoad the the petitioner had fndicated there was a 50/SO chance af grading prabinma wtth thts proJect. Mr. Immell rcpiled they had s~-id that there was no chance and that they wouid nnt be taking a chance because ~f „-hat has been p~ovan to thom and if they thougl~t there was a chsnce~ they would not go ahaad wtth the proJect. Commissioner Barnes stated the petittoner is probably right, but the courts requlre the Comnission to protect the health~ safety and welfarc of the citizens and 3he would iike to see the grading report becausa questlons were b rought up taday. Mr. Immeli stated there is no c~uaranCee that if thsy request a continuance in o~der to submit addttiona) infarmation~ that the adQttional infarmation wili be enough. He noted this Commtssic+n apprav~ed thts proJect and asked Fww they could have gotten these grading pe rnits if the plans had not bean examined as thfl roughly the ftrst tink and noted the staff r~commend~d approval subject to the canditions and that the conditicros a~e very ciose to what thay wer~ the first time. tie stated the problem is that they don't kna+ if any amcunt of informatlon is going to be cnough in spite of the fact that this proJect has already been appr~ved by the Plannir~g Ccmmtssion and the City Co~~~cil. 9/9/81 / 1 ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMk3ER g~ 1981 81-562 Commisaloner Hcrbst atatad the oppositlon hss elrmady taken thts matter to court and the court has overruled the Planninq Conmission'a decislon and now the Plsnntng Commission h~a a iot more informatlo~ than they had originally and the oppositton haa shawn itseif to bs ve ry~ttrong about this and hsve brought up some very valid pofnts thet waro not even discussad the ftrst time. Ile stated he could not say how he would voto untt) he sees the ~lsn. Mr. Imme11 ststed they would request a continuance tio address the areas of concern mentloned and asked tf there are any other coneerns. Chetrmen Busho~e stated ha would ~ot suppo~t this proJect now wtthout a full anvfronmentAl impact ~eport. Ne sdd~d h~ Is sorry that someane with the city gave out samc misinformatlon. Commlaaloner Tolar stated ha would like+ for the developar to have a merting with the peo~le in the area and answAr their conce rns and show them a plan thet could be devaloped to thetr satisfaction. Mr. Ir~metl ~oplled they el~eady know what wautd satisfy the opposltton and that ts not to butld a proJect et ali. Commissioner Talar stated he would support e proJect on this particular property and the awner has the right to dcveioh that property~ but he wants It developed according to thc 3tandards for that areo and saving es many amentities es possible. Commi ssio~e~ Nerbst agreed and Commi ss ione~ Fry sugc~csted a fu) 1 envt ronmentel impact report be p~eparod. AC. TION: Ch~(rman Bushore offe ~ed a motion~ seconded by CommisEioner Tolar that the ~egattve declaration be disepproved requiring that a full P~vironmentel impact report be propared on the basis af tha v~erba) testimony and ~ petition contatning over 100 stgnatures presented at tadAy's public hearing. Commissioner Nerbst asked what the devaloper would hav~ to do to satisfy the city if the negatirie declaration is dented. Jeck White explatned the developer wouid have to submlt an envtronmental dacument that will sgtisfy the requirements of CEQA and that they wauld have to wc,rk with the Pianning Department envt ronrr~ntal revtew coaenitteo. He explAined the Commission can deny the project now and the dovcloper can take it to the City Councii under appeal right•. He axplalned tf the Comntssion denies aDprovai of the negative declaration. it cannot app rova the proJect but ca~ d~ny it and require an envfronmental impact report before acting on the proJect o~ both ca~ be denied. He explainad the map end the application are stilt on file and ail the denial of the negative decla~atton means is thet no further action will be taken until s draft envirenmental impact repo~t sufficiene to the Flanning Dep~rtment is submitted snd noticed for additfonal hearings before the Plan~in~ Commission. 9/9/81 + ; MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMaER g, 1981 81-563 Mr. Immell asked tf th• city gtves a notic~ for the preparetton of the environmental tnpact roport end It was noled that they do. The vote wes called on the motton ta dls~pprove the negativn declarattan and the MOTIO~ CARRIED. Commissloner Tolar stated ha would lika to offer a motion for denlal of the trect map and Jack White explsined thero must be findings madn for the dental and suqgaated a continuance shoutd be grentQd untll the e~vironment~l irt~act report hes been submitted and that the matter wlll he ~eadvertised. Chalrn~an Bushore offe~ed a motion~ s~cand~d by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CIIRRIED~ that conalderatlon of the aforementioned item be conti~ued indefinttley until an envtronmentel impect report has bee~+ su5mitted. RECESS The ~ was a ftvc-mi~utr. recess at 5:1$ p.m. ._._.-... RECOtlVEP~E The m~eting was reconvened at 5:20 p•m• Commisstoner Tolar left the r~.cet'ing and did not return. ITEM N0. : Ela CATEGORIt~,I'FXEMPTION-CLASS 1 WAIVER OF CdDE REQUIREMEHT At~D .~ .~_ __.__•.~ CONDIT ONAL USE E NtT 140 22~;: PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~R: PULLIAM PROTPERTIES, INC.. 1511 N. Fatrview~ Santa Ana~ CA 92706. AGEtIT: WAYt~E L. PETERSON. P. 0. BOX 1122, Yorba Linda~ CA 92696. Pr~pcrty described as an l~r~gulariy-sheped parcel of land conststtng of approxtmately 2.g acre~, 3l{56 Eest ~~a~ngethorpe Avenue (The Ungambl ing Cas ino) . Property presently classified CL (COMMERGIAL~ LIMIT~D) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE RF.QUEST: TO PERMIT TNE ON-SALE OF BEER AND 411NE IN AN EXISTING SCNOOL FOR GAMOLING INSTRUCTION. There werr four persans tndicating thelr presence tn favor of to sub)ect re~quest. and although the stmff raport wss not read, tt ts referred to and made a part of the minutcs. Susan Strong~ atto rney. 1k~0 No~th Tustin Avenue~ Santa M a~ stated severaltenants from the same bulldl~g ere present and support this request and that their business function during the day and the bulk of the clientele coming to thts establishment will be during the evening and there should not be a parking problem. She stat~d in her opinto~ the area is approprdate for such a license because there ~re no famllies ~earby or any drastic traffic probl~ms. She explained the sale of bee~ and wine would not apply for tha time the dealers are in session at which ttme groups of people would :omc and yo at the same ttme end noted the schoo) for dcalers wi11 be tn session only on Mondays and the gartbltng casino which ts instruction for peoole in an 9/9/81 i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMaER g~ 1a81 81•564 ~ on•going aituatlon wlthout structurod hou~s is from noon unttl 2:00 e.m„ and people wtll come and go as they ploase and that (n the portion of tha estabitsl~ment seek~ng a llccnse she felt the staff ro port is not claar and seems to (rr~ly that both the ~cheol s~d the estAbitshmant are going to be functlontng togethar ea a beer and wine premtsos a~d that is not the caso. She explained there Is a total of 87 seats tn the estsbilshment and not all will ba used at the same time the wine and beer wtll function. She stated the ungemblin~ cesino has rc,quested 23 ma~e snats and they will be tncreasing thei~ space by 1~000 square feet. 5he stated sha does not see any (mpact on the adJolntng neighborhood because It !~ hesically Industrtal and 80$ of this busine~s w111 be in the eNening hours and most cus:amers will arrive tn groups of two and th~ee. Bill Ditchman~ (secretsry could not vertfy ~ama) stated he owna the furntture store at 3452 Eest Or~ngethorpe~ right next door to t1~is estAbltshmnnt and he would ltke to see thts approved because he would like to see more poopie In the are~ because it wil) help his bustness. He stated they do not bother hlm as far es parking because his hours ere from 1A:00 a.m. to ~;00 p.m. ond most of their business is done in the evenings end on wePkends. Robe~t Desert~ awne~~ stated he is In favor of this request because thts is a untque operatton and the crowd is ~ot unruly ~d there hav~e besn no disturbances there of any kind. Joe Crumlege. (sec~et~ry o~uld not verify name) owne~, Greet hne~tcan Sandwich Compeny, 3AG2 East Ore~gcthorpe, statr.d he is in favor af thts request because tt wiil enhance his business and hts business is prim~rily at noo~ and the rtw re people who see thls facllity~ t',e better his business will be. Susan Stron~~ stated she cbes not know of any negative reactlor~ to this proJect from anyonc in Lla~: ~~u1yl,~urlwuu er~u tnere nave ~een na pa~king problems and the crowd attcndtng thls facility havc all signed a p~tttion requcsttng beer and win~ an-,i they are not ~ y~ung rowdy crowd. TtIE PUBLIC t1EARING W~.; CLOSEO. Comnisstoner King referred to the Redevelopment Commisston', reconrnendatlon for denla) and Chairman Bushore stated that ha was aware of thet reeonwnendation; howevEre he felt the railroad t~acks separate this property. He stated~ however~ he has some conce rns because he does not itke to see alcohol In close p roxtmity to the industrial zone because the people could ga there o~ thei~ lunch hour or after wo~k and somettmes go bsck to their Jobs whtch could cause accidents. He stated he does not see a parking problem bncause the center is not ftlled~ but he could see a problem developing late r on when it is fflled. He stated he is atso conce rned because the owner of the property stiputated that the ce~ter would consist of rctail shops o~ly and uses caustng high pbrking intensittes would not be permitted when the reclasstficetton w~s grsnted a~d Ane varisnce hes atready baen approved on May 19, 1g81. Ne sxated this is quite a targe v~riance for 7~ spaus. 9/9/81 i 1 MI~IUTES, ANAHEfM CITY PL/WNINf+ CANMISSION~ SEPTEMBER g~ 1~1$1 81'S65 '~ Sus+~n Strong noted 1~000 squaro feet w', 11 b• odded to thls faci l tty whtch meens ~, 1~A00 square feet wi ll bA tsken iw+ay from tha rota~1 usas. ; x Dean Sheror expiatned the whole conto~ w~s considcred In parking wlculetions. ~ Chalnn~n 8ushore notad if variances are grantnd twicre~ there is notMing to sey that the trwner will not esk for another one In the future and epproval of these veriances ~ogate ~nything that was agroed to during the ~classi flcatlan app~~val and the Commtsslon hsd felt thst 3$paces ware ml~imei at that ttme~ but that 7~i spaces requBSted here Is not minin+al • Su~an Strong stated sho felt thare ls a sltght misinterpretalton because paragraph 13 of the staff ~eport states the ganbling school alone requires 87 spsces and tt appea n that Is betng added to tha casfno. Chatrman t3ushore stated whon the cente~ filis up end someone elsc wents to re~t a space and asks for a license and the parktng ls recalculaied~ the n~w te~ent wtll be making a similar parking variancc requ~st. tie stated he wants to see peopie prospar but not to the harmf~~l detriment of someone else. Ms. Sirong stated tl~e people who are there a~bnt more GusEness and need more bus{ness end th{s will help the existing tenants and anyone (n the futurc would be c.,mfng tn wtth their eyes open. Mr. Desnrt stated he did not think this licensc would buruC~: the parktng at all becauso It would not be bringtng In morc p~ople and wiil ,~ust tie making an additional rcven:,ee for the managc r. Chainnan Bushorc asked Mr. C~esert lf he ~~as aware of thc canditluns of the ~eclassiflcationK and Mr. Dcsert replled he was not the owne~ when that reclasstftcation w~s granted. Ne explained that property is a long way from any conxnercinl ~+roperty and is basically sitting there by Itself and the east edge ts located in Placentia and the Alta :ista Golf Course Is across the street. Commissloner Herbst stated he would not support the ~aQ~fo~Wthe sitdownebargfort coutd become a beer bar and he did not see the noc.esslty those people there learntnq gambling. Wayne Peterson~ 51S Leguna Canyon~ Brea~ operator of the Ungambling Casino, stated he ~eve~ (ntandad to p:~'' a bar in but was told by tha Planning De~artment staff that a bar would be necessary. He statcd tt was thetr tntention to put the beer and wine in the office and that it would be sald aut of the office. Dean Sherer stated he did nat know haw that information was communicated to the appiicant but that staff dtd not ~equlre hlm to put the bar tn but that there may havn been sar~ confustan as to haw ABC might 1 tcense it betng a~ school. 919/81 ; t j MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEl~ ER 9~ 1981 81-566 Commi=slonar Herbst stated eltmtnattng the bar would reduce the parking va~l~nce end Ms. St~ong ro plled tfisy would be willing to comply with tsking the bar out. Chalrmen Bushora stated he personally hes a problem whan aomnone tells htm something that he is going to ltv~e up to lt~ even if tt wae the prevlous awner who made the stipulation snd he stated he would nat support the ~equest under any clrcumstances. Commtsstoner Herbst stated inssmuch as th~ business is elreedy tharo~ he would have no obJection to the aerving of beer and wins without having the sitdown bar. it was n~tnd the Pla~ning 0lrector a~ hts outhorized ~epresentative has determinnd thet the proposed proJect fails within the cfcfinitlon of Catego~lcel Excmptlons, Class 1, as dcftned in Stata Envlronmentnl Impact Report Gutdclin~s and is~ therefore, catagori cal ly oxempt f rom the regut rer-~nt to prepare an E I R. ACTION: Comm(ssloner Herbst offe red a motion seconcied by ComnissiQner Fry and MOTION CAR ED, (Cammissloner B~share voting no and W mmissioner Tnlar baing absent), that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Comnisslo~ does hereby grant the request for w~ivnr of code requiroment on the basis that subJect proporty ts a lang nArrow ~arcei a~d Is located ad,jacent to tha raf 1 road treck and I s vt rtual ly isolated end there are no residential or industrlal propertles ~itthin close praximity. Cortmissioner lierbst ~o~'fercd Rcsolution PCuI-lII8 and movcd for its passaqe~ and adoption that the llnah~sim City Planning Commission cioes hereby g~ent Canditiona) Use Permit No. 2253 sc~tJect to the petitioner's sttpulatlc.n to ellminate !he i5~seat bar proposed and pursuant to Sections 18.b3•~3~; •~3~: •~32; •~33; .034 a~~d .035, Title 18 of the M aheim Municipal Codc and suhJcct to Interdepartmental Committee r e comrr~e n da t i on s. On rvlt cal1~ the foregoing ~esolution was passcd by the followtr~g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, 80U11S, FRY, lIEaBST~ KING NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: BUS~IORE ASSEN': COMMI SS 1 ~~~ERS : TOLAR ITEM N0. 6: EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI USE PERNIT N0. 225b: .---~-- ----- ------ - - - PUDLIC t1EARING. ONNER: MERVADA INC., 340U4 Vis De Agua~ Ssn Juan Capistrano~ CA g2b75• AGENT: LESTER COWLES, 34000 Via De Agua~ San Ju~n Capistrano~ CA 92675• Proparty descri~ad as a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approximateiy C~.W acre~ 2050 South Euclid Screet. Propercy presentiy classlfied CQ (COMMERCIAI.~ QFFICE) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PE RMIT AN OFFICE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. Th ere was one int~ re sted person indicattng his presence~ and although the staff report w~s not read~ 1t is refe~red to and made a psrt of the minutos. ~isia~ 1 MINUTES~ ANAf~E1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~EPTEM~ER 9~ 1981 81-56~ Herbert Brav~~ Presldenr of Me,rvada Inc.~ steted this buildtng cdnnot be rented for business o~ residentt~l and It !a a h~zard as it cu~~entiy exists and he would 11ke to be abie to rent it as en office and plans ta eva~tually build a ner~ office bullding. Thortias Hi lts~ 1G80 Tonie Placo, stated he owns tF.e resldential p~operty imnndtatoly to the eest on tfe othe~ side of the 9-foot medtan. tle stated thare have been prablems with this propdrty even when the property was occupted; thet the plan is to pave the property to allow 7 parking spaces and he would like to soe at loast a block wall on the cest side of the p~operty; that ha understands this 9-foot easement causes a problem because it belongs to the convalescent hospita) to the no~th of the preQerty. He steted when he spo~.e to the Planning Commisslon tn 1976 concerning Condittonal Use Permit No. 1630 for a preschoo) which was opproved~ a block wall was ~aqutred; hvwever~ the preschoo) was never establfshod. He stated Condittonal Use Permit No. 1958 wes approvcd after the fact wtth a resident doing ail sa~ts of things on the property cAUSing a problem for ti~a zoning enforcement offiGer who I~ad to Issue citations bacauso the ~esident was welding on the property~ parking heavy hquipment~ operattny machtne ry~ etc. ile stated techn~cally a watl is not required because of the ~-foot medlan, but he fsels a wall should be built becouse af the problems and not~d there is a lot of traffic in the area a~d there is also a transient problem and with parking spaces proposed~ he felt a wall should be requlr~d. Mr. Bro~+n stated he thought there was an 8-foat fenee betwecn Mr. Hilt's property and the 9-foot easement. bullt by the hospital. ~le explained I,c does not intend to have manufacturing qoing on there ancl that the parking spaces are requ(red since there wtll be en offtce located on th~ ~rope~ty. I~e stated he dld not wsnt to spend any more maney na~ tha~ ~ecessary and when t~e decides to develop the property. he wi 11 do whatevcr is necessary. 7NE PUaLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissianer King stated he did not understand the purpose of the well at the rear of the property next to the easement because there is a building whlch extends alm~st f rom the north prope~ty line to tha south property 11ne. Annika Santalahtl~ Assistant Director for tani~g~ expiained this canvalescent hospital wes developed u~ider the County of O~~nge rcquiren+cnts whtch were dtfferent and if it had baen developed under the City of Anahetm codes~ ~ block wali adJacnnt to the residential zoning would have be~n requfred and that the existing fenctng does not corrply with city xtandards and that the Planninq Commtsston has to decicie whether or ~ot to rtqutrn a wall to protect tha restdenttal area. Chat rman Bushore fe 1 L a wel 1 woul d create a proble,n, harever, he agreed the nelghbor needs some prote~ction and Mr. Htits replied that it could not be anv worse than tt is already. t1e pointed out the plar~ shavs parking behlnd the butlding, so that parking would be immediately ad,jacent to the median strip. He thought a block wall would be batter than the b-faot grape stake fence which is existing. He stated hts property 9/9/81 MINUTES~ ANAN~IN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPT'f MBER 9~ IA81 81•568 ls at tho end of a cul•de•sac and the children climb th~ w~ll now bacause It ts a~sie~ to get to Eucltd. Chalrma~ Busho ro statod he was refer~inq to things that ca~ld go on If f~e wsll wes constructed and refer~ed to problems which are goir ~ on now wlth the p~opo~ty t-aing ebandanod~ such as pROp~s using drugs~ atc., end st..ted that would be a good place fo~ ehem ta hide. Mr. Ntits statad that he has pulled up n-arlJu~ne plants himself and he has t~led to see th~t the shed faila down. He stnted the police are eware of the probiem. Chalrman Bushora asked Mr. Hilts if he felt e w~ll wouid still bo ~oce~sa ry tf tha garaya wea eliminated and Mr. Nilt1~ rcplled h~ felt a wall would still be necessa ry becau~c p~rking is p~oposed in that arca. Commtsstone~ Fry suggested a cheln-link fence end Mr. Hilts felt a block wel) would be more pennsnant. tle steted he has conte~cted ths owners of the conv~lescent hcu.~e in Oragon and thoy were not ev~en awaro they owned that ~as~n~nt snd he hsd esked about acquiring it and they saam ameneble to salling it to htm. Chairnwn Bushore statcd tf the shed was ellminated~ the parking could be noved and tandscaping provided and Mr, Nilts added that he Is chinlcing a block we11 would hol~ eliminate some of th~ notse and pointed out agaln a block wall was appro~-ed in 1976. Chalrman Etushare stated he feit Mr. tltits is cntitled to the Nall because If It wasn't for Lht~t ~-foot eesement~ another wall v+auld have been requi~cd. Mr. B~own stated if the block wall is required~ tl~ere will b~ a space B-feet wtde whlch nobody can see into and he fel t tt~at wauld be a p~oblem. Commissir,nar King pointcd out both bulldings Nill have to be brough~ up ta code If thts is approved and Mr. Brown ~eplled he undentood end r+hen Commlssioner Herbst asked if h~ would tear the ghcd dawn~ he replied It would make a good th~ee-car ga ~age . Commissioner King stated he would inctude the requirement for a chaln-Iink fence or a block wall. indicating he preferred a chaln-link fenre. Chairnan Bushore c18~ified the uses wi11 ba limitcd to real esiato, accounting and legal servlccs. ACTIOtJ: Comm~ssioner King ufferod a motipn~ soconded by Commissloner Fry and MOT1~~ G.0 (Commtssioner 7olar being absant)~ that tha Anaheim City Planntng Con~r+ission h as reviawed the proposai to pa rn+it an offtce use af a ~esidentlal structu~e on a rectangularly-aha~ed parce) af land con~istl~g of approximately 0~4 acre, having a fr~o~tmge of approximately 95 feet on the east slde of Eucl id Street (2050 South Euciid Street); and dAes hereby approvt the Negative Declaration frorn the requ'roment to prepare en environmencal Tmpact rtport o~ the basis that there would be rto 9/9/81 ~ r ~ MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANHINti COMMISSION. SEPTEM~ER 9~ 1981 81-569 ~19niflc~nt tndividual or cumul~tiv~e advan• anvironn~,ntal tmpect due to the approval of thla Neg~tive Decl~ratlon aincs th• Anah~tm Ganer~el Plan designates th~ subJ~ct p~cperty for yono~e) con~~ercla) land uses cort~nensu~ete with the proposal; th~t no ~ensitlve environmental tmpacta aro Involved In the proposal; t~at the Inittai Study submtttad by the petitio~er indic~tes no sl9nificant Individuai or cumulstive adverse env) ronmontal impscts; end that the Negativ~e Oeclar~+tlon substentiating the fo~egoing findings Is on f11e ln tho Ctty of A~shelm Planning Oepsrtment. Commtssio~er King offered Resolution Na. PC81-1~4 ar.d moved for Ita passege and adoption that the Anahsim Ctty Ptanning Commission ~foes hareby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 22y4~ subJoct to tha petitioner's stipulatton to provtde for either a chain-1 ink f~nce or a block wel l along the east propercy l ino a~.d subJect to the atipulatton to the useR of subJect property sha11 be iimtted to real estate~ eccountinq And lega) services pursuont to Sections 18.03.03~; .031; .032; .033; ~03W and .035, Ti tle 18 of the AnaMdim Municipa) Codo and sub)ect to Intcrdepa~tmental Cortmlttce roconnicndatlons. On n~ll tell, the foregotng ~esoluttan wes passed by the foliawt~g vote: AYES: COMHiSSI0NER5: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMIS510NER5: ITEM N0. 1: BARt~ES, BOUAS ~ aUS11CaE ~ FRY ~ II~ROST, KI tlf; NONE TOLAR TIOtI. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81•$2-5 AND COt~DIT10~lA1. PUBLIC HEARIHG. OWNER: AMERICMI tiATIONAL PROPERTIES, ING.. P. 0. Bax 10077, Santa Ana, CA 92711. P~oparty deac~i bed as en I rregularly-shaped parcol of tand consistl~g of approxtmately 5.90 acres. loceted north and west of the northwest oorner of Oranc~ewood l4venue and Manchester Avenue ~ 2111 South MancheRter Avenue. RECIASSiFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43~000 TO Ca. CQNDITIOMAL USE REQUEST: TO PEMIIT A 5-STORY OFFICE BUILDING. It was notsd the petitione~ hes requested that this ttem be contir~ued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Septe+nber 21. 1~81. ACTION: Commtssioner King offe-ed a motton, seu~nded by Commissfoner Nerbat ~d MO~T'ION CARRIEO~ th~t the Maheim City Planning Comm~sston does hereby grant a continuanca of the abuve-montio~ad item to the ~gula~ly-scheduled meeting of September 21~ 1981, as requested by the petitia~er. ITEM N0. 8: EiR CATEGORICAL EXEtIPT10N-C1A55 1 AND CONUITiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2155: _._..~... PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER; CHONG SUN PAEK~ P. 0. dox 1051~ Downcy. CA g024b. AGENT; JUNkO BRILEY~ 9250 Orchtd D~iv~e, Westninster, CA 92683. Pr~perty desc~ibed as a 9/9 /81 ~ ! MINUTES, ANI4IEIM CITY PIIWNING COMMISSION, SEPTEI~ER 9~ lq$1 81-570 ~ectangularly-shap~d p~rcel ot lend conststtn af aFproximately 0.6 acre, 2778 West Ball Road. Property proaently ci~ssifled CL ~COMMERCIA~., LIMITED) iONE. ~ret'V-~..~.". ~ R• /~ 1 ~/~/ ~ CONnIT10NAL USE liEQUEST: TO PERMIT " a`~IJ•..~~t l~ ~'~ 1• ~„ n` r~vD W ~-.~E~ i"~ A /~tiv~'~!,~n ~"! ,:-.~„,t~.,., Thero was no one Indicating their prasonca In ~ppc~sitlon ta subJact ~eque~t~ and although the scaff rcport was not ~ad~ it is referred to And made e part of the minutes. Tom Yamamcto~ n~ent~ wes ~reaont to answor nny questiona a~d explained this wii) be a Japanesc Fand Rasta~irant. THE PUt3LIC HEARI~~G WAS ClOSED. I t wes noted tha P 1 enning pt rectar or hi s authori zed representati vc I~as determi~ed th~t the proposnci pro.J~et falls wtthin the definition of Catagorical Exernptlons, Class 1~ as defined In Stete Environmental impact Ra~rt Culdelines a~d ls, theroforo ~ cete~oricel ly exenpt f rom the requl rement to p~epare en E 1 P,. Commissto~or King offereci Resolution No. PC81~1~0 and moved for its passage a~d adoptton that the Anshelm City Planning ~mmtasion does hereby grant Canditlonal Use Ptrmlt No. 2255 pu~suant Co Seetions 18.03.0;0; .031; .032; ~033; .03~~ and .035~ Title 1~ of the Anaheim Muntcipal Code and ~ubJect to Inte~depa~tmentAl Conmittee recommendatl ons. On roll c~ll, the foregoing resolution was passed hy the following vr~~:~ AYES: COMMISSIOtlERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: AsSEN7: COMMISSI MERS; ITEM N0. 9: EIR NEGATI RATlON RECLASSIFICATI `~'M~f'~'.-'F~b : ' N0. 91-82-6 . WA1 VE R OF C PUOLIC NEA(tfNG. QNNER: KEtTH E. RESCO I11~ 845 North Harbar 8oulevard. Anaheim, CA 92805• AGENT: WILLIAM A. WOODYAaD. 300 South flarb~r Boulevard~ ~~i04 A. Anahcim~ CA 9Z~5• Property described as a rectangularly-shaped perce! of land consisting of aaproximatoly 5450 sc~uarc feet, 805 North Ftarbor E3oulcverd. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RM-2400 TO CL. CONDITIOFJAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PERMIT A C~MMERCIAL USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVERS OF MININUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK AN[1 REQUIRED 51TE SCREENING. HARNES ~ BOUAS ~ E1USti0RE. FRY ~ HERBST ~ Kl NG NONE TOLAtc 9/9/81 ; MINUTES~ ANAf1E1M CITV PLIWNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9, 1981 81•571 Thero w~s no ane indicattng thst r presence in oppost tion ta subJect roquest~ bnd although tha staff report was not read~ it is ~eferred to and made a part of the minutes. William A. Woodyard~ sgent, explainad aubJect property fs batween two residentlelly xoned properttea whfch have ~e!-~ used for comnerclal uses for 15 years and that the requlred wsiv~rs rrG really intendod to protect the Integri~ty of the residentla) area~ He atated the proJQCt v+ould n~t be feas i b te i f they are requi red to nwet the setback raqulrements beCAUS~ that would infringe~ on their prrking. Ne stated s-nce they really do not aGut sny rosidn~ttally used property~ they can landscape end meko tho property mucl~ more attrecttve far commerctel uses. TIIE PU~LIC NEARING WAS CLOSEp. Commissi~ner Nerbst ~sked why CL Zontng was raquested rather than CO and Dean Shorar~ hssistant Planner, ex~tAined the uses will be 1 imitecf as indicated tn paragraph ~ of the s taf f report. Commissicx~er Herhst felt this would be pur~ly "spot ;ton(ng" wlth CL between two CO ~~rnperties when they are re2vned in thr~ futur~ and ha felt that area along Harbor Boulevard shouiJ be CO becausa thsrc is no parking. Iie stated if the petttioner decldes to sel l the property there arc e lot of other uses th~t would t-e permitted 1 f khe property Is rozoned to CL~ Dean Sherer expl~ined It is often up to staff to make the determination which zoning would be appropriote when a residentlal structc~~e ts gotng ta bo usod fa~ cam~ercial uses and in thts instance the pruperty across the street ts zoned Cl~ but that It is the Planning Commission'4 prerogattve to adopt a resc~luttan for CO rather than CL. if thfly so dest re. He explained the property across th@ street was zoned CO in 1973. ACTION: Cortmissioner King offered a motion~ secanded by Commissloner Fry and MOTION ARRIED (Commissioner Tolar baing absent), that the Maheim City Pianning Conmission has revtewed the proposal to reclasslfy subject property from RM-2400 (Resldential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the CO (Commerc.tal, Office) 2one to permit a coeM+~erclal use of a ~esi denti a) structure wl th waivers of mt n i mum landscaped setbeck and requt red site screening on a rectangularly-sheped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5~~~~0 square feet, heving a frontage of approximately 50 feet an thr. west stde of fiarbor Boulevard (805 No~tfi Ilarbo~ Boulavard); and does hereby ~aprove the Negative Declaration from the ~equirement to prepare an anvi ronmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significent indlviduai o~ cu~nulative adverse env(rvnmental impact due to the appmval of this Negattve Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject prc•pe~ty for low medium-density land uses commensurate wtth the proposa) ; that no sensi t i ve envi ronmental impacts are involved in th~ prop~sal; that the Inttial Scudy submixted by the petitioner indicates no significant indtvidual or cumulativ~ sdverse es~vironmental impacts; and that the Nagative t~claratEon substantiating th~e foregoing findings is on fl ie in the City of Anaheim Planning Dnpartment. 919/81 ~..'~ MINUTES~ ANAf1E1M CITY PLlWNIN4 CAMMISSION~ SEPTEt~ER 9, 1~81 i 81-5~2 Comml~sloner Ktng offered Resalution No. PC81-191 and mcved for 1'.s passago and ~ doptlon thst the Anaheim City Planning Commis~lon does hereby grant Reclassificatlon No. 81-82•6~ In psrt~ to CO (Comrnerclel ~ Offlce) Zane rother than CL~ as requnsted~ and aubJect to Interdepartmenta) Commi ttee recommendattons. On rol l cal l~ tha foragoing resolution was passed by tho fol lowing vote: AYES: CAMMISSIOIIERS: BARNES. BOUAS~ BUSNORE. FRY~ NERBST~ KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI SS I OIIERS : TOLAR Commissioner King offercd a motion~ seconded by Commisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED~ thot the Mahetm City Planning Commisslan does hereby grant raquest for walver of code requtromant on the basis thet denla) would deny subjeGt prope~ty of privileges en,joyed by other properttes tn the seme zone and vi cini ty. Conmi ss toner KI ng offQred Resol ution Ib. PC~ 1-192 a~d n-ovcd for I ts passage and adcaption that ~he Mehrim Clty Planning Commisston does hereby grant Conditlonal Use Permtt No. 225U on the basis that the uses will be llmited to accountants, insurance agents~ real estate brokers and professlonal offices (non-medical) and pursuant to ~ncttons 18.03.030; .031t .~32; •~33~ .~34 and .035. Title 13 af the Anaheim Municlpal Code and subJect to Interdepartmenta) CommitCee recommendattons. On rol l cal l~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the fol lowing vote: AYES: COMN15510~IERS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSIiORE~ FRY~ ~IERBST, KING NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : N~NE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR ITEM N0. 10: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 41AIVER OF CODE RE UIREMENT AN~ CONOITIONAL l~'~'~t:0. : PUI3LIC HEARING. OWN~R: CHARlES R. AND PNYLLIS M. TALMAGE, P. 0. Dox 6426~ Orange, CA g2G67. AGENT: EMKAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY~ INC.. ATTENTION: 5. A. DeNAMUR, P. 0. Box 23g0, Newport Beach~ CA 92660. Propcrty descri bed as an i rregularly-shaped parca) of land consisti~g of approximately 2.4 acres~ 2300 East Katella Avenue. P~operty presently classlfied ML (INOUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING IN THE ML ZONE WITN MIAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKlIJG SPACES. There was one person indlcattng his presence In oppasition to subJect request~ and a 1 though t~e staff report wss not read, i t is referred t~ and made a part of the minutes. Susan pe Namur~ agent. Emkay Development Company~ was present to answer any questions. 9/9/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMDER 9. 1981 81-573 Commissioner Ilerbst clarlfled th~t the petitfano~ Is agr~eabla to the driveway propo~al es recommended by the Traffic Engineer and Chatrman Busho~e clarifled thsL thc petittoner is willl~g to cc-n~ly with the usna as ltsted under pa~~graph ~ of thA steff report and Ms. De Namur replied they hed helped compose thst list and aro willing to con~ly. ACTION: Commisslona~ Ba~nes offe ~od a motlon~ seconded by Commisaioner Ktng and MA O~J CARRIED (Cort~nissioner Tolar being absent) ~ th~t the Maheim f,ity Planntng Commisston hea roviewed the propoaal to permtt a commercial offtce bullding tn the ML (Indust~lal~ Limited) 7.ono wtth waiver of minimum number of parking spac~s on an i~rogula~ly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximatcly 2.8 acres~ havtng a frontage of e~roximetely 578 feet on the soutl~oast side of Kate118 Avenue (2300 East Katel) Avenue~; and cbes horeby approve the Negative Declaration from the requlrement to p ropare an environmental (mpact repart on thn besis that there would ba no stgntftcant tndlvidual or cumulattve advers~ environmental Impact due to the approvet of this Ne gativu Declaration slnce the Anahetm General Plan designetes the subJect property for commerctal. recr~atlon/genor+al Industrlal land uses coim~nsurete wtth thc p roposal; thst no scnsitive environn~entol ImF~acts are Inv~lved in the p~oposal; that the Inttial Study submttted by the petitionerr IndiGates no signiftcant tndivldual or cumul8ttve odverse envlrcx~mental in~ects; end that the NagatlvQ Declaratton substanttating the foregoing flndings, is on file tn the City of Anaheim Planning Depa~tmgnt. Cortmtsstoner 8arnes offered Resolution t~o. Pti;t-1~33 and movcd for Its pessage and adoptlon that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does f~ereby grant Conditiona) Use Permi t tlo. 2257, I n part ~ on the bds i s that the necd for wal ver of code requt rcment was deleted on the revised plans and pursuant t~ Scctions 1f~.d3.034; .031; .~32; .033; .~31~ and .035~ Tltle 18 of the Anahnim Munlcipal Co:ie and subJect to I nterdepartmentdl Commi ttee recomrnendat ions . 0~ roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by the following v~ote: AYES; CONMI SS I OtiEItS : BARNES ~ aouns. BUSNOkE ~ FRY ~ I~ERBST, KI NG NOES: COMMISSIOtJERS: NONE ADSEN7: COMNISSIONER.S; TOLAR 17EM N0. 11: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PE RMIT N0. 2258: PUBLIC HEARING. 01dNER: BENJAHIN B. DAY~ E7 AL~ 17300 Marda Street, Yorba Linda~ CA 92686. AGEt~T: MICNAEL FRAZIE R~ 3160°D East la Palma Avenue,, Anaheim~ CA 93806. Property descrlbed as a rectanguiarly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ of approximetely 0.27 acre. locatad at the northwest corner of i.a Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. Property presently classified RS-A•43~OOOfSC) (RESIOE~JTIAL/AGRICULTURAL SCENIC CQRRIQOR OVERLAY) ZdNE. CO~~DITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PE RMIT A COMMERCIAL OFFICE aUIL~ING IN THE ML(SC) ZONE. 9/9/81 ~ " ' 3 i MINUTES~ AI~AFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMDER g~ 19$1 81-574 Thero was no onn indlcating their preaenca in oppositton to subJect request~ and althougl~ the stAff ro port was not read~ it ts referred to snd made a part of the minute~. Jenet Frazler~ egant~ was preaent to ansa~er any q uestions. T~1E PUBLIC IIEARINC WAS CLOSED. Comnissioner Nerbst clarified that one of the condlttons is that the develope~ aha)) ralocate the existing treffic signal ~s approved by the Trefftc En~ineor ~nd Ms. Frezier st~+ted since they are rc:qulrcd to givc up approximately 25$ of the tand due to setbacks~ the owne~ wanted to knaw if there is any w~y to mitigate the costs and Comnisslon~r flerbst potnted out tfiat at the tln+e thc traffic signal was Installed~ the property awner was asked to glvc a rlght-of-way and he refused~ so the city had to put the signalwhcr~ it ls presently locatcd and ~ow it wlll be up to the property owner to put it back wher~e the city wantad it originolly. ACTIO~d: Chatrman Eiusho~e offered a motlon~secondeclby Commissloner Bouas and MQTION ~ilk0 (Commissinner Tolar betng at~sent). thac the llnahoim Clty Planning Comnission hes revir.wed the proposal to pern,it a comr~rclal office bullding In the ML(SC) (Industrial~ Limited Scenic Corridor Overlay) 2one on a rectangularly-~h~ped percel of land consisttng ~f approximataly .27 acre~ iocated at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue ond Lakovtew Avenue and and does hercby approvc the Negattve Declaration from :he requirement to prepare an environmentel Impact report on the besis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative advcrse environmental tmpact due to the approval of this Negative Declaretion since the M ehcim General plan designates the subJect property for ~encral tndustrlal lr~nd uses conxr~nsurate with the proposal; that no sensltive environmental tmnacts nre involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submittad hy thc petition~r indicates no signiflcant individual or cumulative adverse envtronrt~ental tmpacts; and that the Negative Declaratlon substanttettng the foregoing findings fs o~ flle in th~e City of A~aheim Planning Dcpartment. Cheirman Bushore offerQd Resolution No. PC$1-1~4 and moved for its passage and adoptian that the Anaheim Ctty Plenning Commisslon does hereby grant Condlttonal Use Pe~mtt No. 225$ subject to the uses bning limlted to engtneering and architectura) firtns~ advE:rtising and graphic arts~ tnsurance agencies~ CPA's and accpu~tants, consultants~ atiornGy~ autstde sales and rr~rketing and subJect to the petitioner's stipulation to relocate the troffic signat~ subJect to approval of the Traffic Engtneer pursuant to 58ctions tE.03.030; .031; .fl32; .033; .034 end .035, Tltle 18 of the Anaheim Muntcipal CodG and subJ~ct to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatlons. On rol) c<ill, th~ forego(ng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: aAR~~ES~ BOUAS~ ~USNORE~ FRY, HERBST~ KING NOES: COMMISSIOh~ERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER; TOLAR 9/9/81 ~ ~ ~4 i,' ~ MINUTES~ ANAtiEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEM9ER 9, 1981 GATIVE UECIAMTIQN. WAIV_ER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 81•S75 DITI PUaLIC HEARING. ONNER: IMPERIAL PROPERTIES~ P. 0. Box 72y~, Nawport Deach~ CA 926G3. AGENT; OENNIS KU, 11ryZ North Tustin llvenue~~ OraRge, CA g26G7. Prope~ty describ od es an (r~egulerly-shaped parcel oF land consisttng of approxtmataly 11.0 acres~ ;7G1•N~ Senta Ana Canyon Ra~d. Property presently classifled CL(SC) (COMMERCtIII, LIMITED SCENIC CORRIQdR OVERLAY) 7.ANE. GONpITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT WITII WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMUER OF f'ARKING SPACES. There was no one tndicating their ~res~nce in opposttton to subJect request~ and although the staff report was not ~esc', (t (s ~eferred to a~d mi+de a pert of the minutQS. Petrlcla Damkin. ~ presenting David Rcdkin Compa~y~ was present to answe~ any questtons. TIIE PUBL I C IIEARI NG WAS CLOSE D. AC,_TI, ON: Commiss(oner 1lerbst offcred a motlon~ seumded by Commissloner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Tolar being ahsent), that thn_ Anah~im City Planning Cammissiai has revieti~red the pronosal to pe~rmit on-sale beer and wtnc in a proposed restaurant with walver of minimum number of rarking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parc~l af land consisting of approximately 11 acres havtng a frontaqe of approxtmetely 870 feet on the north stdr. of the S~nta :na C~nyon Road (5761-H Santa Ana Canyon Road); and cbes hereby approve the ~~egative D~~claratlon from the requiremcnt to prepare an cnvironmental impact report on tFie basis that the~e wauld be no signlficant individual or cumulative adverse environmental tmp~ct due tn the approval of thls Negetive Der.faration ,Ince the Anaheim Cenera) Pi~n designat~s the s~bJect property for yeneral commercia) land uses corm~nsurate wtth the proposal; that no sensitive envlronmcntal impacts are involved i~ thc proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the pettt(oner tndicates no stgniftcant individ~eal or cumulative adverse environmental lnpacts; and that the N~gative Declaration subst~ntlating the foregotng findings ts on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissianer Nerbst offe red Resolutian No. PCa1-195 and movedfor its ~assage and adaptton that the Anaheim City PiaRning Commisson does her~by yrant Conditional Use Permtt No. 2261 pursua~nt to Sections 18.03.~3a; .031; .032; .033; .0~4 and .035~ Title 1~ of the M aheim Municipal Code and sub~ect to Interdapartmentai Commtttee recorsx~ nda t i on s. On roll call. the foregotng resolution was passad by the following votc: AYES; COMMiSS1~~ERS: BARNES~ BOUqS~ nUSHORE~ FRY~ NERBST, Y.ING ~~OES: COMMISSIOt1ERS: t~ONE ABSENT: CaMMIS510NERS: TOLAP, ~ ~ ~ `. ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING CONMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 1g81 81-576 I TEM N0~. 1~ ~' ANO RECOMMENOATIONS Tha follcwing Reports and Recom,~ndetlons steff reports were pres~nted but not read: A. VARIAN~E N0. 4 1- Requeet for terminaclo~ from 9edruddtn A. Dams~i for propcrty c~cate at 12Q0 41cst Cerritoa Avonus. ACTION: Commissi~ner King offerc~d Reaolut~on No. FC81-196 and rrbved for ita passage and edoptlon that the Anahelm City Planning Commisston does hereby tennineta Verlance No. 4h1. On roll cell~ .f~e foregat~g ~esolution was pessed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; aARNES~ E30UAS. 6USIIORE~ FRY. HERBST~ KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENTt CQMMI~SIONERS: TOLAR B. CONpITIANAI USE PERMIT N0. 888 - Rcqueac for termtn~t~on Fran Carl Lugaro or prope~ty ocated at 52 North M~gnolla Avenue. ACTION: Commlssioner King off~red Reaolutlan N~. PC~31-197 and moved for its passage rnd adoptton that the M aheim City °lanning Commission does hereby terminatc Condttlanal Use Permit No. 88G. On rotl call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: CQMMiSSiONERS: EiARNES~ B~UAS. aUSHORE. FRY~ HER85T~ KINC NOES: COMMI SS I ONERS : NOl~IE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOIAR C. C6NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 12 - Req~~est for termination from Shyh Huang Lee or property ocated at 1~00 East Lincaln AvGnue (Lincoln Palms Apartment Motal) . ACT_ION.~. Commtssioner King offer~d Resolutton No. PC81-19a and n~ved for i ts passsge and adoption that the Anaheim Clty Plann(ng Cnmmlssion does hereby terminate Conditional Use Permit ~~o. 123q. an roil call, the foregoing resolution was pass~ed by the following wte: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS. BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING NOES: COMN(SSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: TOLAR 9/9l8t t ~ MINU'fES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 1981 PC81-577 0. ABANpONMENT N0. 81•2A - Requeat from Susen S. Ghandehsr) to r~bandon a fo~mar out arn a orn a dison Compeny public utility easement acquired by the City of Anaheim~ as successor~ located wost of Hancock Str~et, south of Indust~lal Wey. ACTIQN: Commlssioner King offared a motlon~ s~conded by Commlssloner F ry an~ ~ OTI Ot~ CARRI E0~ tt~at the A~ehelm Ci ty P 1 ann 1 ng Commi ss lon does hereby recommend to the City Councii that Abandonment No. 81-2A be ap~ roved as ~ecarm~ended by the Clty Eng{neer. E. ABANDOt~hEIJT N0. ~1-4A - Request fmm Cherlean Eaves to abandon a former out ern b orn a dlaon Company public uttltcy easemenc ~+cqutred by the City of Anahelm, as successor, loceted on the aouth stde of La Palmn Avenue, esst of Lalcevi ew. ACTION: ~omnissioner King offered a motlon~ seconded by Commiasioner Fry an~ d TIQt~ CARaIED~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission cloea h~reby racommond to tl~e City Co u~cii that Abandonment No. 81-GA be approved as recommended by the Clty Engineer. F. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 00-f31•F+ • Rcquest for extenston of tlme from Danie) K. .~ang ~ang eve oproent roup for propertY loceted at 2755 West Bsl) Road. ACTION: Conn+issioner King offerc~d a motion, secancfed by fortmissioner Fry an MOTIOt~ CARRIED, tl~at the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commlssion does hereby grant a retroactive one-year extenslon of time for Reclessificatton No. 80- 81-8 to expi re on Septerrt~er 8~ 1982. G. VARIAIICE N0. 2 4- Nunc pro tunc resolution to correct typog~ephtcal errors in~Reso~ut o~ ~lo. PC~s1-173 Pertaining to numbcr of motel units at 20y0 South Narbor Bouleverd. AC110t1: Comnissioner King offered Resolutinn No. PC81-199 and moved for tts pa ass~ge nnd adoptlon that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a nunc ~~ro tunc resolution to correct typog~aphical errors tn Resolution No. PC81-173 Pertaining to the number of motel u~its. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng v~ote: AYES: COMNISSIOt~ERS: DARwES, BOUAS~ BUStiORE, FRY~ t1ERD57, K1NG NQES: COMMISS~ONERS: NONE AI35ENT: CqMMiSStOWEaS: TOIAa 9/9/61 r ~ ~. :~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNINC COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 1981 81-5~8 H. COMMUNITYWIDE COMNUNITY OEVEl.OPMEtIT OLOCK GRANT CITI2EN PARTICIPATION - equest rom ommun ty va opment m n strat on o~ aP~rtient of Planntng Commissioner to serve on commltteo for 1~II2-83. ACT14N: Con~~lsaloner Darnes offered ~ motlon~ t~econckd by Connmissione~ Har st and MOTION CARRIEO UNANIMAUSLY thet Commlsstonar Fry ba and hareby i~ elected reprosentattve ol` the Plen~in~ Commission to serve on the Communttywtde Communlty Developnxnt alock Grant Cttizon Perticipatlon Conmlttce. t. REC.` LASSIFIGATION N0. ~8-79~5 - Requeat from Martha Schnieders~ for ~ one- yea~ axtens on o t me or p~operty having a frontege af approximately 593 fent on the south sfde of Wtllewtck Ortve~ appraximately 8b5 feet south of the centerllne of Nohl Ranch Raed. ACTION; Commtssioner King offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commlsaloner Pry an MO ION CARRIED~ that the Anahoim City Planning Commisston does hereby grant a retroective ono-yaar extensian of ttn~ to expire on August 2Ei, 1g82. ADJOURt~MENT Thar~ being no further business~ Commissinner 1lerbst offered a n~tion, setondod by Commisstoner Bouas and MOTIOtI CARRIEb~ that the meettng be ad}ourned. Th e mceting was adJourned at G:30 p.m. Respectfully submttted~ ~~`~. ~ /~ aJ~/1~.~ ~~ ~J + E~1tth L. Har~is, Secretary ~"" Anahelm City Pfan~ing Commisston ELli:lm 9/9/81