Minutes-PC 1987/05/27REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAIfEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - MAY 27, 1987
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman McBurney at 10:00 a.m., May 27, 1987, in the Council
Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plane of the
items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman: McBurn~
Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst.,
La Claire, Lawicki
ABSh:NT: Commissioners: Messe
ALSO PRESENT':
Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slaughter
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Debbie Fank
Debbie Vagts
Greg Hastings
Leonard McGhee
Edith Ilar r is
Zoning Administrator
Deputy City Attorney
Office Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Assistant Traffic Engineer
Leasing Supervisor
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
ti~lanning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 8:30 a.m., May 22, 1987, inside the foyer windows and in the display case
located in the lobby of the Council Chamber.
MINU'PES FOR APPROVAL - Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MO'rTO~ CARRIED (CommissionerpMesse absent) that tCOVed
minutes of the meetings of A ril 13, April 20 and A ril 27, 1987, be app
as submitted.
PU•3LIC INPUT - Chairman McBurney explained at the end of the agenda any member
of the public would be allowed to discuss any matter of interest within the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, or any agenda item.
ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'.CION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2912
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HAVADJIA HOLDINGS, INC., 4150 E. La Palma Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.41 acre located at the southwest corner of
La Palma Avenue and Richfield Road, 4150 East La Palma Avenue (Farmer Boy
Restaurant).
To permit a drive-through lane and on-sale beer in an existing restaurant with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
-409-
87-41U
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNTMG CUMMTSSION, May 27, 1987 _ -
Continued from the meeting of May 27, 1987.
There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the sL•afE report was not read, it is refer ~~d to and made a part
of the minutes.
Mr. Havadjia, owrrec, explained they are requesting a drive-through lane and do
not anticipate any increase in business because of this change, and just want
to give Easter service to their customers. He stated tl•iey do not feel they
should be required to install a traffic signal at the corner of La Palma and
Richfield because the traffic is already there. He referred to a 2UU,000-
sq~aare foot office development in the area with 75U park18g000Ginstraff-i.cwould
create more traffic on the stceet which only had to pay $ ,
fees. Eie stated their portion of this proposed traffic signal would cost
;25,000 and their Facility is only 2,000 square feet. He stated they believe
the City of Anaheim has already collected the fees required for ttie traffic
signal from all the developments in the area and they would like to know the
amount of money that has been collected.
Mr. Havadjia added there are other restaurants in the area with approval of a
conditional use permit and they do not cause ~~y traffic problems, although
they are located in busy intersections like thi, He stated they have been in
business for five months and their parking lot is only half. full since many
customers walk to the restaurant instead of driving and they do not see a
pr.,olem with eliminating the four parking spaces to accommodate the
drive-through lane.
Doug Johns, owner of property located across the street, stated traffic on
La Palma is exceptionally busy at this location, and the traffic travels
exceptionally fast, above the speed limit most of time, and a dangerous
condition currently exists and a traffic signal will eventually be needed
whether this request is granted or not. He added traffic is only going to
increase in that area as development increases and there are a lot of new
buildings not yet occupied which will increase the traffic. He stated the
other restaurants in the area may have been given conditional use permits but
they offer more parking than this restaurant.
Mr. Jones referred to the owner's statement that their parking lot is only
half full and stated he is in that area daily and even on the way here today,
their parking lot was totally full and there were a couple of large trucks
illegally parked along Richfield. He stated r_here is a large number of diesel
trucks going in and out of that area daily. Eie stated as a property owner in
the area, he would oppose this request because they already have a packing
problem with this restaurant's customers parking in his tenant's parking lot
and walking to this restaurant when their parking is full since there is no
parking allowed on Richfield or La Palma.
He stated he did not think adding the sale of alcoholic beverages will help
the area at all because the vehicles from this restaurant exit onto Richfield
and then onto La Palma, and it is a very hazardous situation now, and with the
drive-through and reduced parking, he felt there could be trouble, noting
under California law, a person who has had two beers is legally drunk.
5/27/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1987 87-411
Mr. Jones stated there is also a problem with people t .ng there after hours
when the businesses are closed and leaving their. trash from this restaurant,
and beer containers, even though they don't sell beer yet, on the lawn and in
the planters around the area. He added thesra people knew the restrictions
when they applied Eor the original conditional use permit, and noted he did
not oppose the original request and did not see anything wrong with a
hamburger stand in that area, but with these changes as requested, he would
object and thought they ace out of line and it should not be allowed.
He stated as a property owner in the area, he welcomes the hamburger stand and
their business, but thought reducing the parking and adding the drive-through
lane and adding the alcohol beverages is just asking Eor trouble.
Mr. Havadjia stated the traffic study they submitted to the City indicated the
drive-through lane would be no problem and they do have 3A parking spaces and
he did not think eliminating four would be a problem; and that the beer cans
are not from their restaurant because they don't seJ.l beer and the wrappErs do
not indicate they are from this restaurant. He stated the trucks were there
long before they moved into the area and that is something they and ttie City
will have to live with, but did not think they should have to pay the price
Ear it. He stated the sale of beer will generate more taxes for the City and
if a person wants to get drunk, they can buy beer from the liquor store, and
he did not see anyti~iny wrong with selling beer and iE that is r.he case, all
the liquor stores and restaurants should be closed.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Pry referred to a letter of opposition from Production Ready
Programming, stating exactly what has been said already.
Commissioner Pry stated he could not ~~ote for this because the proposed number
of parking spaces and circulation design will not adequately serve the
proposed drive-through lane addition; and also when the original permit was
granted in June 1986, it was limited to an enclosed sit-down restaurant
including a condition that it shall not in any way be converted to a
drive-through restaurant, unless a conditional use permit is approved by the
Planning Commission or City Council. He added he did not see that the
situation has changed and the problems are the same and they were there long
before this petitioner came into the area and he was aware of that when he
purchased the property and nothing has changed to warrant approval of this
request.
Commissioner Herbst agreed and stated he travels La Palma every day and agrees
that the three lanes going east usually exceed the speed limit and probably
the only way to slow that down is a traffic signal and in addition to the
truck traffic, he thought it might help this particular use to have a signal.
He stated he still thought, even though they meet Code for the back-up space,
just with people slowing down in the outside lane L•o turn into that
drive-through lane, it is dangerous on La Palma. Y.e added also he is opposed
to having liquor or beer in the industcial zone because people could go in
there and have a couple of beers at lunch and then go back to work in an
industrial plant, working arorind or on machinery, and it could be very
hazardous and he did not like to make it that convenient.
5/27/87
MINUTF3, ANAHEIM CI'I'X PLANNING COMMISSION Ma 27 1987
t37-4J.2 _
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner I,awicki
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Cornmisston has reviewed t}ie proposal to permit b drive-through lane and
on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.41 acre located at the southwe:,t: corner of La Palma Avenue and
Richfield Road, and further described as 4150 East La Palma Avenue (Farmer Boy
Restaurant); and does I~ereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
ghat it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process and Further f.ind.ing on the basis of
the Initial Study and any comments received th~7r. there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant e feet on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Merse absent) that the. Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking
waiver will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity
and adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking
waiver will be detrimental to the peace, healttr, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PCH7-113 and moved Eor its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Conditional Use permit No. 2911 on the basis that the use will adversely
affect th~~ adjoining land uses and r.t~e growth and development of ttre area, and
the size of the site is not adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner nut detrimental to the particular area, and the
traffic generated by the proposed use would impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways in the area, and would be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Ana}ieim.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE
NOES: NONE ~ LAWICKI, MC GURNEY
ASSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written rigl~~t to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council,
I'PE~ ~• 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3660
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; KIMCO CORPORATION, 6610 Ruffner Avenue, Van Nuys, CA
91406, A'PTN: MATT COOPER, AGENTS: SIMONOFF/HAWKINS AND ASSOC.
Street, Suite 210, Santa Ana, CA 92707, ATT'N: GREG SIMOPIOFF. ProperOty isran
irregularly-.shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4,2 acres
located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron Street, 648 West
La Palma Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an addition to an
existing shopping center.
There was no one indicating t}reic presence in o
and although the staff report was not read, it isoreferredotouandcmadegaest
of the minutes. part
5/27/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, May 27, 1987 _ 87-413 .
Steve Weber, Kirnco Development Corporation, agent, was present to answer any
question ~.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Fry, Mr. Weber stated they have cross parking
agreements with L•he adjacent owners since several parcels ar.e involved in this
project.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, secand~~d by Commissioner
kierbst and MO'PION CARRIED (Commissioner. Mease absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct an addition L•o an
existing shopping center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an
Irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.2 acres
located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron Street, and
further described as 648 West La Palrna Avenue, and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and Further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and an,y comments
received L•hat there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-114 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3660 on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an
increase in tcaffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, i.f any, will not be detrimental to tt~e peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, subject to
Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES : NOtJE
ABSEN'P: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'1' NO. 2916
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MIRALOMP. AVENUE PARTNERS, 413 S. Gl~issell Street,
Orange, CA 92666. AGENT: JERRY PECK, 2950 E. Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92806. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.29 acre, 2818 East Miraloma Avenue.
To permit automobile repaic within an existing industrial building with waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a Hart
of the minutes.
5/27/87
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma~+ 27~ 1987 87-414
Don Paul, agent, 868 Kaia Vanado, Anaheim, explained this business is
curt qtly located one block to tl~e east of this location and has been there
for five or six years and the business is a small independent specialized
automobile repair shop.
'PHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst asked if this use could be limited to a certain type
automobile because if the property was sold, a regular automobile repair
business could be more intense than just the repair of Mercedes and Porsches.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated he did not think the use could
be limited to a particular model of automobile. Commissioner Herbst added
that is what they presently do and that limited use is the basis on which he
would grant ti~is request:, and if. it was an ordinary automobile repair shop,
the repair of any automobile would he permitted and there cculd be more
parking problems than with this limited use.
Malcolm Slaughter stated this permit could be revoked if there is a problem
which would justify revocation with either this use as a Mercedes/Porsche
repair facility, or if it was a Ford/Chevr~~let repair Facility.
Commissioner Herbs L• added he would not vote for this request if it was for a
Ford/Chevrolet repair facility because of the number of spaces included in the
parking waiver. He added tie recognizes this is a very lirr~itcd uge.
Malcolm Slaughter responded to Chairman McBurney ttrat the waiver would stay
with the land, but if there is a problem, it can be revoked. He added anybody
who buys the property can exercise the rights under the permit, in accordance
with the terms of the permit. He also added he did not know tow to
d~.stinguish between classifications of vehicles based on any measurable
sstandards.
Commissioner Herbst added he has no problem with the use but would like to
restrict it in case this owner ever decided to sell, because a conditional use
permit for general automotive use does not even come close to meeting the
parking standards.
Commissioner La Claire suggested having a restriction on the number of
vehicles on the premises. Mr. Paul stated they would usually only have an
average of about six vehicles on the site at any one time.
Commissioner La Claire asked if any vehicles would be left on ttie premises
overnight. Mr. Paul stated vehicles in for major overhaul would be there
overnight and they would be inside.
Commissioner. La Claire suggested a condition that not only all work be done
inside the premises, but that all storage will be inside the structure, and
that there will be no more than a maximum of 10 vehicles per day.
Malcolm Slaughter suggested rather than the restriction being the number of
vehicles per day, that it relate to the number of vehicles on the premises at
any one time.
5/27/87
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1987 _ __ 87-_415
Commissioner La Claire stated the only problem would be them packing the
vehicles outside and she thought by limiting the :storage to the inside with no
parking outside overnight, there should not be a problem.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire oEf•er.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MO'PION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit automobile repair
within an existing industrial buiiuiny with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.29 acre, having a frontage of approximately 65 feet on the
south side of M,iraloma Avenue, approximately 325 Eeet east of the centerline
of Blue Gum Street, and further described as 2818 East Miraloma Avenue;
Anaheim City Planning Commission; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that i.t has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further Eirrdiny on the basis of the Inikial Study and any comments rec:eivPd
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a si.gniEicanl-
effect: on the environment.
Commissioner La Claice offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the
parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely af.Eect any adjoining land uses and granting
of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to L•he peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the Ciky of Anaheim; and further on the basis that the petitioner.
stipulated at the public heariny to restrict the number of vehicles on the
premises at any one time to a maximum of ten (10 ).
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC 87-115 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit tJo. 2916, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.U3.U30.035 and subject to the restciction
that the number. of vehicles permitted un the premises at any one time shall be
limited to a maximum of ten (10) and further that there shall be no overnight
storage of vehicles or work on vehicles or vehicle parts outside the premises,
and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBS'I', I,T. CLAIRE, LAV7ICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Paul Singer asked that the condition include that there shall be no outdoor
storage or parking.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 13092
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GREEN MOUNTAIN CORP., 5753 "G" E. Santa Ana Canyon
Road, 1)3400, Anaheim, CA 92b07. AGEt.I': JOHN WISMER, 1201 N. Barsten Way,
Anaheim, CA 928^7. Property described as an irregularl,~-shaped parcel of land
5/27/87
MTNU'PES_r_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May_27, 198
-4
consisting of approximately G.97 gross acres, having approximate frontages of
1665 feet on the west sroximatelyn670 feet southaof the0centerlinet'ofeMohlerde
oi• Old Bridge Raad, app
Drive.
To establish a 10-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) Zone subdivision.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
John Wismer, agent, expl~iasdcustomlhome sitesstooindividualtbuildersland they
lots which they will sel
do not intend to build the structures themselves.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding the Chairman McBUrney, Mr. Wismer stated he has read all the
conditions.
Commissianer La Claire stated she tt~ouyht this development will be an asset to
the hill and canyon area.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioneco osal tosestablish ah10A1 teim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the p p sha ed arcel of land
RS-HS-22,000 (SC)roximately16.97o9roasaacresehavingyapproximate frontages of
consisting of app c
1665 feet on the wesa sroximatelyn670 feet southaof the0centerlinehofeMohlerde
of Old Bridge Road, pp
Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that i
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of. the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MUTIO~~ CARRI4e~(herebssfindrthatsthebproposedasubdivision,mtogethecawithgits
Commission d Y
design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General P an,
pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve
Tentative Map of Tract No. 13092, for a 10-lot, RS-HS-22,0000 (SC) zone
subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate major
thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of. Anaheim in an
amount as specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council
Resolution No. 85R-423.
2. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council
5/27/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY L~LANNING COMMISSION, May 27J 1987 87-417
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid l•o the City of Anaheim in an amount
as determined by the City Council.
4. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner of subject property
shall pay the appropriate drainage assessment Eees to the City of Anaheim
in an amount as determined by the City Engineer..
5. That paving shall be removed and/or reconstructed along Country Hill Road
as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer, and shall include extension of the
existing storm drain to the southeasterly portion of the tract,
reconstruction of the existirty desilting basin, and dedication of
necessary easements, all as required by the City Engineer.
7. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be
conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originatiny from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing L-hrough this project.
8. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall he submitted in tentative form for
approval.
9. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement
in a Eorm to be ap;~roved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete ttte
public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final
tract map and is not to be subordinate to a~i recorded encumbrance
against the property.
10. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
11. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined L•o b2 necessary by the
Chief of the Fire Department.
12. That the vehicular access rights to Country Hill Road from Lots 1 through
7 shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
13. That prior to final tracS: map approval, the original documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be
submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City
Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved,
will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
14. That prior to signature approval of the water system improvement plans by
the Water Engineering Manager, the appropriate fees due for primary,
secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the Water Utility Division
by the Developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility
Rates, Rules and Regulations.
G /77 /R7
a7-ale
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PJ_pNNING COMMI:iSIUN Ma 27 1967
15. That prior to signature approval of the water sys~e m improvement plane by
the Water Rnglneering Manager, a special assessment fee in the amount o f
652.00 per acre, f.oe upgrading the tc:mer walnut Canyon Water Systeio,
shall be paid by the developer to the Watcar Engineering Division.
16. Tt-at any specimen tree removal shah. be sub ject to tt~e tree praservatlon
regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municip al c'odc and "5C"
Scenic corridor Overlay zone. In addition, the owner of subject property
shall provide each subsequent properr. ,~wn+~c a copy of Said tree
preservation regulations.
17. That the owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant
obligating the Homeowners Association of subject t andthold thenCityof d
repair the hiking and equestrian trail, indemnify
t~naheim harmless for damages resulting therefrom, and maintain liability
insur.anre Eor said trail naminr, r,he City as an additional insured. 'Ph e
'r Uffice and
form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney
stall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. `The develo;~~r
of the subject tract Shall improve and maintain the hiking and eq~~estr ian
trail as shown or- the tract map, including pr.ovidiny the above specified
insurance, unt i 1 suc~~ time as the Homeowners A3yoc i~.+.~ ion become legs ~ ly
obligated therefor as hereinabove l~rovidnd. The developer shall post a
bond in an amount and Form Satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to
guarantee performance of the developer's obligations herein described .
Evidence of the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Att:orney's Office prior to approval of the final
tract map. Improvement and ultimate location of said trail Ghall be
subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Recreation and c:ommu pity
Services Department.
18. That in accordance with the requirements of section 18.U2.C47 of the
Anaheim Municipal. Cede pertaining to the initial sale of residences i n
the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide eact-
buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plana n d
the existing zoning within 300 feet o£ the boundaries of subject tr~:c t.
ly ~ 7~nat, as specified in Anaheim M`~r.icipal Code Sect ion No. 18.84.041,0 12,
no :oof-mounted equipment, whatsoever, shall be permitted.
20. That prior r.o final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, l 2, 13
and 17, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
21. That prior to final map approval., the requirements set forth in Condition
NoS. 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 and .19, at~ove-mentioned, shall be
set forth on the face of tt-e final map in a form satisfactory to the City
Engineer.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attor;~ey- ?resented ttze written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council,
5/27/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 2%, 1987 __ 87-418
15. Thal• prior to signature approval of the water system improvement plans by
the Watec Engineering Manager, a special assessment f.ee in the nmounr~. of
$652.00 per acre, for upgradiny the former Walnut Canyon Water System,
shall be paid by tt~c developer to the Warer Engineering Division.
16. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to tt;n tree preservati~,n
regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and "SC"
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. In addition, the owner o f subject property
shall provide each subsequent i~roperty owner a copy of said tree
preservation regulations.
17. That tl~e owner of suhyect property shall execute and record a covenant
obligating the Homeowners Association of subject tract to: maintain and
repair the hiking and equestrian trail, indemnify and hold the City of
Anaheim harmless for damages resulting thert:trom, and maintain liability
insurance Eor said trail nami~~g the City as an additional insured. The
form of said covenant shall be approved by the C~ty Att orney's gffice and
shall be recorded concurrently with the Eina! tr.rct map . 'Phe developer
of the subject tract shall improve and maintain t:h:: hik inyand equestrian
trail ras shown on L•he tract map, including providin3 the abuve epeci:ied
insurance, until such time as the Homeowners Asso~~iatio n becomes legally
obligated therefor as hereinabove provide The developer shall post a
bond in an amo~int and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to
guarantee n~rformance of the developer's obligations h e reindescribed.
Evidence of the required insurance and bond shall be s u hmitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's OfEi.ce prior to approval of the final
tract map. Improvement and ultimata location of said trailshall be
subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Recre ationa~d Community
Services Department.
18. That i;; accordance with the requirement;; ~. f erection 18 .02,047 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in
the City of Anaheim Planning Area "8", the seller shal 1 provide each
buyer with written information concerning ti.~~ Anaheim General Plan and
the existing zoning withi;~ 300 feet of L•he boundaries of subject tract.
19. That, as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Section N o. 16,84,041.012,
no roof-mounted equipme;at, whatsoever, :shall ne permitted,
'?.0. That prior to final tract map approval, Co~~dition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13
and 1'l, above-mentioned, shall be complied wi.kh.
21. That prior to final map approva,, the requirements se t fort•I; in Condition
Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19, above- mentioned, shall be
yet forth on the face of the final map in a form satisfactory to the City
Bny~neer.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within. 10 days to the City Council.
5/27/87
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1987 87-419
ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDI'PI
PERMIT N0. 277~ 0 (READY.)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BAY CORPORATE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LTD., 19600
Fairchild Avenue, 1)200, Irvine, CA 92715, AT`I`N: BARREL D. MAGNUSSON. AGENT:
E'ARANO & KIEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim 31vd., Anaheim, CA 9'1805. Property described
as an irregularly-shaped parcel of .land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres
located between Santa Cruz Street and Anaheim Boulevard, 20bU South Anaheim
Boulevard (National University-Anaheim Learning Center).
Request for modification of Condition Nos. 1 and 9 (pertaining to sidewalk
installation) and deletion of Condition No. 8 (Pertaining to payment of
interim development fee for the Anaheim Stadium Area) ~~f Resolution No.
PC86-66 to retain a private university.
It was noted the applicant has requested that subject request be continued to
the June 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting in order to submit a parking
demand/traffic study to substantiate l-he requested deletion of the interim
development fee for the Anaheim Stadium Area.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a m~~tion, seconded icy Commissioner Lawicki
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of. June 22, 1987, at the
request of ttre applicant.
COMMISSIONER I.A CLAIRE LEE'T 'THE MEETING ANll DIll I~OT RE'T'URN.
ITEM N0. F EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (PRF.V. CERTIFIED) ANU CONDITIONF,L USE
PERMIT N0. 1808 _(READV . )
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN TOWNSENU, 8310 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, r.A
90680. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 0.3 acre located at the southeast corner of Hall Raad and
Western Avenue, 3174 west. Ball Road.
Request for a two-year extension of time (retroactive to March 27, 1980) to
retain an ~~utomotive repair facility.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
John Townsend, applicant, explained this permit was origi.~ally granted in 1976
and tie would like an extension of time for an automotive repair facility at
the corner of Ball Road and Western Avenrae; that in 1976 he leased the
building and it has been an automotive repair facility ever since; and that
recently the tenant moved out and it was determined that the conditional use
permit had expired eight years ago urknow~i to him.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
5/27/87
a7-a2o
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ma 27 1987
Chairman Mcgurney stated when he viewed the site he noticed tMrreTownsendhed
at the rear. of the property, and asked what it is used for.
stated that is a storage shed about the size of the trash enclosure, with no
windows and it has a corrugated roof and is about 5 feet high. tte stated no
one has permission to live there and he was not aware that that situation was
occurring. He added l're slid not think his tenan t had subleased the shed.
Commissioner Herbst stated it should not have taken staff th'.s long to find
out this permit had expired and these matters should to followed more closely.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated he would like to have Condition No. 1
modified to read Ball Road rather than La Palma A~~enue.
AC :'ION: Commissioner Herbs:. offered Resolution No. PC87-116 rnd moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission goes hereby
grant a retroactive active extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No.
1808, to expire on September 14, 1987, allowing the applicant 9U days to
comply with the following conditions of approval:
1. That curbs, gutters, paving and driveways shall be removed and/or
reconstructed and repaired along !~a Palma Aven~~^ as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard clans and
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
2. That the driveways shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (lU)
foot radius curb reL•urns as required by the City Traffic Gnyinee
Commissioner Bouas clarified that the applicant intends to comply with the
conditions and to clean the property.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, ERY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, I~AWICKI, MC BURNF.Y, MESS'
NOES: NON F.
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 7 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDA~ S:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2843 - Request f.COm Demetrios Georgantopoulos
for a retroactive extension of time, to permit a drive-through restaurant
with waiver of minimum number of p;~rking spaces, property located at the
southeast corner of Ho~~;ell Avenue seed State College Boulevard.
Greg Hastings, senior Planner, stated the applicant is requesting a with the
retroactive extension of time to August 3, 1987, in order to comply
condition requiring the assessment district covenant. He added there are
other conditions which mu.=t be complied with within one year and this is
currently within that one year period.
Demetrios Georgantopoulos, applicant, was present.
5/27/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CON,MISSIUN, May 27, 1987 87-421
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Lawicki and MOTION c:ARRIE;D (Commissioners La Claire and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a retroactive extension
of time (retroactive to December 29, 1986) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2843
to expire on August 3, 1Q87.
l3. ORANGE. COUtJ~i'Y FLUOU CON'PROL DISTRIC'T' - Request Erorn J. W. Williams,
Manager, EMA/Design Divi~~i.on, to determine conformance with the General
Plan. Location: Santa Ana River Channel Erom 500 ft. north of Katella
Avenue to lUOU ft. south aE Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim City limits).
Greg Has*inge, Senior Plan er, explained the Orange County Flood Control
Distric~_ is asking for the Planning Commission's concurrence that their
project to construct flood control improvements i.n the Santa Ana River Channel
consistiny of raised levees with cock revetment and reconytr.uction of the
existing bike tcai.l, and which will provide a 100-year level of E,rotection la
facilities westerly of the river, is in conformance with Anaheim's General
Plan.
ACTION: Commissioner Eierbst offered Resolution No. PC87-1.17 and moved for its
passage and adoption that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find that the Orange County Flood Control projeck is in conformance with the
General Plan.
On roll call, the furegaing reso ,lion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: E30UAS, FRY., HERE3ST, LAWI~M,I, MC GURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE, MESSE
I'PEM C - KA'PELLA REUEVELOi'MF.NT PLAN, WAS DISCUSSED FOLLOWING I`IEM D AND THE
RE~_ESS. COt4MISSIONER FRY HAD LEFT THE MEETING FOLLOWING ITEM D.
RECESS: 2:15 p.m.
RECONVENE: 2:30 p.m.
C. KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Request from Anaheim Community Redevelopment
Commission/Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to determine conformance of the
Katella Redevelopment Plan with the Anaheim General Plan.
Lisa Stipkovich, Assistant Executive Director, Community Development,
explained staff is recommending that the Planning ^ommi.ssion approve a
'esoluti~~~n that the proposed plan, as proposed by the Project Area Committee
(PAC) to be amended, does conform to the General Plan, and r.hat the Planning
Commission approve the adoption of the proposed Katella Plan in either the
form submitted by the Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission or the form
as proposed to be amended ~v PAC. She explained PAC met after the Commission
and made recommendations wn.ch are submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval. s~~e Mated also the Planning Commission should authorize the
transmittal of the actions to the Community Redevelopment Commission and City
Counci]. pur3uanr to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law.
Ms. Stipkovich stated on September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission did
select the Katella Redevelopment Project Area anti approve the boundaries as
shown on this map and the Preliminary plan was also received and approved by
5/27/87
q
MINU'PES, ANAHh~IM CITY PLANNTNC~~JMMISSIUN, May 27, 19N7 __ 87-422
the Redevelopment Commission on September 'l4, 19ft6, and the preparation of tt~e
Plan and the preliminary Report and the Redevelopment Plan and Environmental
Impact Report were initiated. She ex,~l3ined all those documents have been
circulated and the Commission has received cap'_es.
She explained there are several areas that are markad "Alternative land u4es"
and they are proposing those alternatives to give the Redevelopment Plan
~~rtain fl~~xibilities and where that Plan differs in any way from the General
elan, and if the use waa chang~~rl to that alternative, whivh she believed in
all case:3 would be from residential t•o cor~~mercial, then ttie General Plan would
have to be amendr_d. She staked as proposed today, that is only an
alternative to give t•.he Plan flexibility and that the Plan i.s suppo:;ed to last
Eor 35 years.
June McIntyre, 917 W. Sycamore, Anaheim, stated r_heir business is Don McIntyre
Photography, Melmac Center, 515 S. Harbor Boulevard, wtrich is within this
project area. She stated she was surprised when this: information about the
Redevelolmx~nt Plan came our in the newspaper iaecause she had not heard very
rnu~~h abou~ it and it seems she does not hear at>uut things like this until the
last minute, and th~r. she was at the Council rneetiny when the EIR was brought
up and the newspaper indicated there was no one present and she did not speak
then because she was not prepared. Shy- stated the Mayor asked if there was
anyone who wanted to speak, and she did not say anything because she did not
know what was happening and was not prepared to sneak, but she was there even
though ttre paper said there was no one ttrt~re,
Ms. McIntyre stated she went last week to the Kakella Rede~~elopment Cornmi.ssion
meeting at Sunkist and was most impressed try tt~e caliber of people on the
Committee and there were a lot of facts and figures and details and they were
all dealt with beautifully. She sta*.ed she learned ~~ lot and will go back,
and at that time she obtained a detailed map and found that something does not
seem to ~ontorm to the General Plan.
She added Ms. 5tipkovich mentioned something about some interweaving with ;:he
Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan and she hoped the General Plar. will be
amended to commercial acrd not residential. She referred to an area from San*_a
Ana Street to roughly i~eyond South Street and possibly Vermont to the south of
their property, and stated the rnap shows that as a residential area with a
commercial al.ter.nat~•; and that that area was on the General Plan for
professional office :ses when they built their building. She stated they
l»ailt a very high caliber building, with that- intent and were told that area
would develop in that direction and now they hear some people say they will
just put fronts on the residences and convert them to offices. She ,t•ated
they put the utilities underground at their expense and now find that the
people to the south and across the street can put up smaller downgraded
buildings, or just .tilize what is existing. She asked for clarification
regarding that area.
tds. McIntyre stated she does not understand why the barrio area across Santa
Ana Streec was not included because that area desperately nezds some
redevelopment.
She added when the median was added on harbor Boulevard and landscaped, they
thought that meant wonderful things and that tl'.e whole street would be
upgraded. She stated ttrat street does lead right into Disneyland a5~27~87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'I'X P[,AlJN1NG COMMISSION, May 27, 1987 87-423
Convention Center and is a corridor and thuuyht Harbor. and Katella should be
made into showpieces, and not just a mixture of structures. She stated the
property owners nerd to know because she would not want to pur. anymore money
inl•o their t~ropecty if it is not going to increase in value. She stated they
have Irad an offer to purchase their. property and the person already knows
about this Plan and she thouyht some people are counting on them ~Se.lling
because of. this Redevelopment Plan and that is not their intention. She
stated they plan r;o ,~; forward and make the property lcok more beautiful. Stre
stated they probably wall sell their building, but do not intend for ttre
building to be leased +o anybody who will. let it yo down.
Ms. McIntyr~r stated sl, ..h ought the City is going in the right direction, but
<<at she would like Borne explanations and she is not here to oppose this
request.
Lisa Stipkovich pointed out the commercial and residential areas as ir, Lcated
on the Redevelopment Plan displayed. She explained the proposal is for
commercial along the frontage on !!arbor. 'Phe west side of Harbor would be
commercial and that it does include Ms. Mclntyre's property. She pointed out
the tiny strip currently designated re,sidr~ntial on the General Plan. Chairman
McBurney clarified it is tt~e west side of Harbor, south of Sang Ana almost to
Verrnont.
Greg Hastings explained Hari~or has a commerci.a.l professional designation and
the aroma immediately behind the commercial office would be low density
resid~_utial and since it is the General. Plan, ir. does not really show the
depth of that area, with just the frontage on Harbor to be <:ommercial space.
Commissioner. Herbst stated the General Plan is general in nature and the
boundary lines are not specific and the boundaries can be moved whichever way
the owners in th~~ area want to move them.
Ms. McIntyre stated she understands that. Ms. Stipkovich asked if she wants
t.o see that area desiynated commercial. Ms. McIntyre stated she wants to see
it upgraded commercial because cornmercial could be just a li tle dress shop or
almost anything like that anal that isn't good for that area.
Ms. Stipkovich stated each proposal would have to be judged separately. She
asked if Ms. McIntyre wanted to see that small strip behind her property to be
designated commercial rather than resi~aential. Ms. McIntyre stated there is a
school on that property currently. Ms. Stipkovich stated Redevelopment staff
also feels there is a very good possibility of that area all going commercial
and that is way it is listed as an alternative lard use and it has to be
consistent with the General Plan. She stated they have identified it as
currently being designated for residential uses on the General Plan; however,
they would like to see an a1L•ernative use for cornmercial and in that case the
General Plan would have to be amended.
Ms. McIntyre atat~d *h~'+t ar.ea is on the east side and the west side is
developed with a school from street to street.
Grey Hastings responded both sides of Harbor have a commercial/office
designation with residential behind it. Ms. Stipkovich stated a school is
permitted in residential areas.
5/27/87
87-a2a
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON,_May 27~ .19E3.7 i„_
Ms. Mc: Intyre stated a conversation such as this can be Ic~el in the future and
iE the Generat Plan indicates residential with a possibility of com-nercial, .~.
very well could prohibit someone from using the pcopcr`y for something else
and added it doesn't seem clear. She stated her property was residential when
they purchased it.
Chairman McBUrney stated there will be public hearings before this Plan is
adopted. He asked that the area north of Santa Ana Street be discussed.
Ms. Stipkovich stat.•ed that is a strip between Santa Ana Street and Broadway
which would be kwa blacks between Project Alplia and r.he Katella b`roject, and
that it was discussed as being potentially included and it was decided that
that area seems to be going to a different land use through its own market
efforts, and a lot of activity has occurred there and being between two
redevelopment projects, it was felt there was enough market incentive to turn
that area around, so it was left out.
Ms. McIntyre stated sores of that development doesn't look very good. She
stated she was asked by some members of that barrio to ask that question
because they were concerned and did riot understand why they were excluded.
Ms. Stipkovich stated that area was included in the Block Grant area and they
are eligible for certain pur,lic improvements, and Redevelopment has worked
with that nei;hbo~hood and teas done certain public improvements, including
park improvements.
Floyd Farano, Atr.orne•{, lU0 5. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, President of the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, stated he is appearing for tt~e Chamber in support
of the Katella Redeve'^nmenL- Project Area. He stated, it is a sad commentary
that probably one of the ,°ost important a^.tions to be taken in the City of
Anaheim in a number of yeac.• is practically Being unnoticed. He stated the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce foes notice and thinks the time is coming when
Anaheim has reached the br~r..l of its career in its present Eorm and if we are
going to progress into bigger and better things, with better developments and
more impro~dements, something gas to happen. He stated it is recognized that
the improvements that are required to make all this happen need some
assistance and cannot be done by themselves and it is only with the help oc
Redevelopment and the concept ~f Redevelopment that the infrastructure and
other improvements that have to u; made can be accomplished; and that they
think this is ~pitimized by the Vision 2000 Project which really says to
Anaheim to let the public officials where they think the City should go in the
future and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce has gone on record and wants to go
on record again as very strongly supporting the Katella Redevelopment Pre- ^t.
Mr. Farano stated the Chamber of Commerce is offering to assist with any
public education, lectures, or seminars to assist tt~e City of Anaheim
Redevelopment Commission, the Agency, and Redevelopment Department in
accomplishing its purpose to bring education to the public; and that they
realize one of the biggest problems Redevelopment experiences is the lack of
knowledge on the part of the public and property vwtiers to realize the
benefits that can accrue.
A.:TION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 87-118 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Katet.la Redevelopment Project Area is
5/27/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May ?7, 1987 87-425
in conformance with the Anaheim G~+neral Plan and that the proposed Plan by the
Project Area Committee to be amended is in conformance with the General Plan
and recommends approval and adoption of the proposed Katel].a Redevelopment
plan as proposed by the Project Area Committee and authorizes transmittal of
the Planning Commission's action to the Community Redevelopment. Commission and
City Council pucsr~ ;rt to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment I.,aw.
On roll call, ~e Foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BO' ,S, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOE5: N .JE
ABSENT: `RY, LA CLAIRE, MF.SSE
D. HIuLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE - Request for waiver of the Flillside Grading
Ordinance as it relates to manufactured slopes adjacEht to residential
lots in Tract 10981.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, explained the City's previous grading ordinance
required property lines to be set back certain distances from the toe of the
manufactured slopes and if there are no property lines, the structures must be
set back certain distances and stat:f is recommending approval. tie stated ttre
structures are set back appropriate distances from tt;e +.~e of the slopes.
Commissioner Herbst asked if ttre approval woul~] appi.y only to those lots shown
in the shaded portion of the map. Mr. Titus sated the request pertains to
those five lots.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (C~~mmissioners Fry, La Claire, and Messe absent)
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City
Council approve the request for waiver of the Flillside Grading Ordinance as it
relates to the location of manufactured slopes adjacent to residential lots in
Tract 10981.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Magdy Hanna, 4000 Mac Arthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, stated he had a plan
approved at the last Planning Commission for an apartment project on Placentia
Avenue at State College with a requirement to reverse the units .in relation to
the mobilehome park, and his architect was not present at that hearing;
however, after the meeting he learned it was not possible to hange the plans,
but that the plans :submitted do not have any openings on the mobilehome park
side. He added h~ ~dould like Commission to advise the staff to work with him
regarding the plan.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Planning Commission could
not take an action of this maL•ter and that the appeal period has not expired
and this matter should be appealed to the City Council since any opposition
present at the Commission meeting would have left the meeting thinking the
project was approved in a certain tranner. He stated, otherwise, a new public
hearing should be held to look at the revised plan.
5/2"1/87
MINU'PES. ANAHEIM _CI~Y PLANNING COMMISSIONI MaY 27, _~87 87-426
The Commission reviewed the Flans and Commissioner Herbst stated since there
is no visual in'rusion into the mobilehome park, he would not have a problem
with the approval of this plan. Chairman McBurney stated the intent was not
t.o have visibility intn the mobilehome park. Commissioner Bouaz stated the
approval included that the plans be approved by the staff.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the rea~lution included that
the windows be screened to preveni. visual intrusion and suggested Mr. Hanna
review the resolution of the Planning Commission and then -nake the decisio,i
whether or not to appeal it to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
ACTIOt7: Commissioner Lawicki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bow s
and MOTION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned.
The meer.ing was adjourned at. 3:00 p.m.
Respect.:.~lly subml:ted,
Edith L. Harris, Seccetary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
~I0257m
5/27/87