Minutes-PC 1980/06/30? t j %
.. .' ,
c ~ cy N~ :~
A~aheln~, Californla
Ju~• 30, 1980
REGULAR MEETING OF T~~E ANIWEIM CITY f'IANNING CQMMISSiON
REGULAR • Th• ~egular meeting of thc Anaheim City Planning Commisslon was call~d
MEETI NG to ord.r by Chal rwansn Ba~nes et t: 3~ p. m• ~ June 30 ~ 1980 in th•
Councii Chsnber~ a quorum being preso~t.
PRESEN~ - Chai rwanant 8~rnes
Commisstonera: 6ushore~ Fry~ I~erbst. Kln4~ Yolar
On~ vacant seat.
ALSO PRESENT -
Ronald Thompson
Jack White
Jeck Judd
Shirley Maredith
AnnikA S+~ntalahtt
6een Sherer
Edl th Harrl i
Planning Dlrecto~
Assistsnt Cfty Atto~n~y
Civii Engineering Associ~te
Traffic Engineertng Assistant
Assist+~nt Di rector far Zoning
Asalstanc Pla~nar
Plonning Commts~lon Sec~etery
PLEQGE OF - The Pledge mf Allegiance to the flag was led by Canmis~loner Tola~.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Commissloner King offered a motion~ secondcd by Commisstone~ Herbst
TIIE MINUTES and MOTION CARRIEO (an~ seat baing vacant)~ th~t thc minutes of the
maeting of June ib~ 1960~ ba app mved at submltted.
Gommissldner Qavid resd the fflllowing lett~r which ha h~d submitted to the M aheim Ctty
Counctl dated June 20~ 1980:
"Deor Mr. Meyor a~d City Councii:
My term as Planntng Commtssloner for the City of A~aheim wiil end
on June 30, 1q80.
In tha faur plus years that I have se~ved nry Clty~ the direction
whtch the Cou~cil and the Gity Plannors have awved towarda i~ the
fleld of laRd use~ law and naderate incane hou:inq. affordAble
housing~ and code/ordinsnce madificatia-s~ has bse~ a directton in
which i flncf a great degree nf satlsfactlon. 1'he Qrogresslve and
i~movatlve housfiig elen~~t to the Genersl Plsn, to whtch 1 was the
Plan~ing Commission reprasentatt~a~ sithough not c.onipiete ss yet~
br'•.~;~; fortfi a unlque and refreshing approach to ~e hou3ing
crisit f~sing all of the County.
1 would llke to acntinu' ~t part of this important wo~k and to
c.ontinue to gtve the inp~~c ot sn Hiapenl~ on the Planning
Commtssion. Nawav~r~ ahould the Wu~cil n~t be disposed to
~sappoint nw~ a~ay ~ sugg~st the appolnta~onL of one of the many
very q wilfiad Hisp~nic ~e~idents of the City."
~0- 358 6/34/80
~~
NINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PUWMING COMMISAION~ JUNE 30~ 1980 80•3S9
H• addMd th~t the rosponse to hl~ letter i~ na+ history in th~t the tity Councll did nat
reappoint hin~ ta anothe~ torm as •n Anahelm City Pl~nning Commtsstoner; th~t he wante0 to
ps no~~11y s~y to ~ech and everyans that he hss faund e great dimanslon ln his Itfe
No~king with the Commisslon and has came to the co~tiuslon that the Anahelm Plenning
Co~amission, et woll as th~ Planning stsff~ Is one of the finesc in Orange tou~ty; that he
knavs thls by •tte~ding many •~minars and exchanging Inforn+~tton with many osher Plsnnin9
Departn+ant~; that h• feats he has gruwn considerably because he hss sarved hia City; tfiat
he h~s servad hts City and terv~d tt watl; and one af hit great~st s~tlsfacttons tx th~t
his chtldren hsve setd~ "Oad~ 1 am p~oud of you"; thet he wantad to pay tribut• ko th•
Commi=ston; that in eech end every instsnce they have deliberated fn good faith, end may
not alway• agrAe and he compttnie~ted them because "group-thit-king" is not a part ~f thts
Connilssion~ und steted they hAVe always, heweve~~ ~esalved thely difference~. He paid
specla) trib ute to the daan of sll Planning Commissyo~ers of Orange Caunty. La+ls Herbst~
and slso Hal Tolor~ wlx~se uniquenes: In aclding humor to a lot of harci work has mede hls
four ys~rs hera e lot of fun. Ho stated~ "! leave you, but I wt11 )oln the a rnry of greet
advocate~ and friends you have. I am delighted to have aerved with you and I bid you all~
"Nasta Luegd'.
Chelrwwnen ~srnes st~ced Commtasioner Oavld hea echoed the Pldnning Camnlsston's
sentln+ents and they are sorry to s~e htm go.
Commfssloher Dav(d left the Council Chartber and hts snat has been dectared veunt by the
Anahetm CI ty Councl 1.
LOIITINUEO ITEMS
ITEM N0. PUBLIC I~EARiNG. OwNCRS: BRAILLE 1NSTtTUTE OF APIERICA~
IR EGA IYE ~ECLARATION INC.~ 741 North Ve rnwnt Avenue~ Loe, Mqelas~ CA 90029.
0._2A~~ AGENT: CNRIS A. MUSEIIA~ 741 No~t~n Vern+o~nt Avenue.
~ """""-""'-""' i.os Angelea~ CA 9~J029. Peti~loner requ~sts
permisslo~ to retain sn exp~nsta~ of sn existtng
private educatiane) institutlon in the aS-A-4;,000 Zone on praperty de~crtbed as a
rectengularty-shaped parcel of land consisting of Mo parcels epproxlmat*.ly 0.3W scre
heving • frontage of spproxlmately 122 f~ei on the south side of Crescant Avanue~ havtnc,~ a
maximum depth of approximataty 12J faet and bein lac~ted approxtn~ately 142 feet west of
thc centerlin~ of Dale Avenue (araille Instituta~. Property presently cisssiftad RS-A-
~3~000 (RESIUENTIAI.lAGRICUITURAI) ZO~aE.
(t waa noted that khe petitloner has requested a bvo-aeek cantinuanc.s in order to
re~dve~tite Co i~clucfe an additlonal parcet.
ACTIONi C~onn+ission~er Herbst offered a mocion, secon~ed by Wn~nisstoner Totar and MSOTION
~"111F~TE'U (one sest being vscant), that the consideretion of the aforeu-entioned tR~en be
continued te the meeting of July 1~+, 1980, at the requast of thc petitionar.
6/3fl/8o
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 30~ 19~ 80•360
CONTINUEO I'fEMS (CONTINUEQ)
ITEM N0. PUBIIC NEARING. CWNERSt BANK OF AMERICA N. T. 6
~'T1I"~'~~E DECLARATION S. A.~ 801 North Matn Street~ Santa Ana. CA 92701.
NT AGEN7; R. N. BINGHAM~ Sa. MrMT. OFFIC~R~ BANK OF
~'$f~~N L,~~,~ N. 208~ AMfRICA~ 801 North Maln Street~ Sant~ A~a~ CA 92701.
Petikioner requests pern-ission TO RETAIN AN AUTOMOBILE
D~TAILING FACILITY WITF~ WAIVER OF MINIMUM LANDSCAPEO SETl3ACK IN THE Ml ZONE on propsrty
c~sscr(bad as e ractangularly-fhaped percel of land conslating ot epproxlmately 0.6 atra
located •t the ncrthweat carner of MlrAloma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard~ having
•ppraxlmate fronteges of 125 feet on the no~th side of Mir~lome Avenua and a frontaga of
150 feet on the west si6e of Kraamer 8auelverd+ end fu~thar described as 3093 East
Mir~loma Avenue (Austam Inter~atlonal). Prope~ty presently clessifted ML (INDUStR1Al,
LIMITEO) ZO~IL.
It rvas natad that it is recammended that subJect petition be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of July 14~ 1~SA~ !n order for revised plens to be submitted.
ACTIQN: Commissio~cr Nerbst offored a motlon, saconded by Commissi~ner Toler and MOTION
~p (one seat belnc~ vacant). thet constdaretlon of the afor~menttoned item ba
co~tinurd te the mecting of July 14~ 19~~ in order far revised plans to be submitted.
ITEM N0. 1 PUaLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PACIFIC NEIJPORT DEVELOPMENT
'~'~~VE DECI.ARA~,T ON I NC. , 430Q Csmpus Or 1 ve ~ Nawport Beech, CA 92660.
'~j q"~,~ ~p~ ~ AGENT: LIWaENCE R. GIIL~ 222 Fashlon lane, ~207~
"""' Tustin, CA ~2G~0. Petitioner requetta WAIVER OF
MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL NEICHT TO CONSTRUCT A 1Q-UNIT
APARTMEN7 COMPLEX on p~operty desc~ibed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land
conaistl~g of approximately 0.35 Acre located at the southw~st corner of Oran~e Avenue and
Habster Avenue~ having approximate front~ges of 90 feet on the south side of O~ange Avenue
and 170 feet on the west stde of Webster Avanue. and further descrlbed as 2468 West O~ange
Avanue. Property presently classified RS-A-~3~O~Q (RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURAI) ZONE.
Subject petitton was cantinued from thc meeting of June 16~ 1980 in order for the
Commisaton to further study the proposed ame~ndment to the RM-120Q a~d RM-24~0 multi-family
residential zanes Rertatning to structural height and dwellt~g unlt slzes.
Ther~ were bvo persans indtcating their presence in oppositlon to subjett request, and
aithough the staff report to the Pla~ning Commission dsted June 30~ 19$0 was not read at
the pubiic heartng~ it is referrcd to and m~de a part of the minutes.
Laurence Gill~ Newport Developmen~, Inc., :53912 via Dlegos~ San Juen Capistreno,
introduced John King, 126~0 Brookhurst Street~ Garden Grove, archltect~ who stated they
feel they have met the spirit of the Ordinance on this project end attempted to iceep It as
iow as posstble aiong the outer sideltnes and placed the two-story pertlon in the center
out of rospect for the surrounding singie-family areas and to make the structure appear as
a nice twa-story home; and that there are no windows on the north adjacent to the ~ingle-
femi ly property.
Clifford Black. 2467 West Orange Avenue, directly ecross the street~ stated he and his
netghbors are glad something wiil be butlt on sub)ect property becsuse tt hea been an eye
sore, but felt the Commisston ahould uphold the two-story Code rostrictic~n within 150 feet
of existing residential property and pointed out his house is spproxim~tely 50 feet away.
He did not think the spirit of the Ordinanca is being upheld. He stated the second lot
wtst is also a~ apertment canplex built according te the Cod~. even though there is a
rataed roof area whtch looY.s like two-stnrles.
6/30/80
,
_. -- - ._.__;,~
~~
!
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 30~ l980 8p•3~1
EIR NEGATIV~ QECLAMTION AND VAR ANCE NO.. 3`154 (CONTINUED)
R~:pondtnq to Commt~slaner Fry~ Mr. 61ack explained he had ~een the pl~n~~ the artlst's
concept a~d ha~ raAd the staff report And still feels the s~me wsy.
John King askad if the Planning Commisston had fu~ther conaldared the propa:ed amendma~t
to the structural helght rsstrictlon and ateted agaln they hava done everythtng posaible
to bulld withtn the llmits of decency~ keep the parking hidden and secure and provide
adaqu~te traffic circ~letion. He explalned they hsve redeslgned tha proJect Mice to maet
all the Clty Codea~ inciudtng Fire Department regulatians. He felt this is the enly type
structure they can buitci on this property to beraly bre~k even ecanamtcalty ~nd then hope
to get the rent I~tgh enough tn the future to realtze ~+ profit. He did not think th•
p roJect w~utd be buttt wtthout the vartance. He stated fn the avant the Commission •dopts
a revised ordinancd relating to the clearance and the clea~ance could be mea~ured tetween
buildings rather th~~n property Iine to prop~rty line, It ts posslble this varience wtli
not be requi red.
Tr1C PU6L1 C I~EARI t~G WnS CI.ASED.
Chalrwoman 8ernes explalned the Comn(sston will be tonstdertng the rcductiun In the
setback af twa-sto ry structu~es adJacent to single•family residencRS later today. She was
co~cerned that the proposed atructure Is approxtmately 26 feet l~igh an~ normally two-story
structures Are app roximateiy 35 feet high a~d esked haw that was acconrp~tshed.
John King explained the secon~t story Is one bedroom a~d a bath 6n the pe~k area only and
that he had tried to keep It as low as possfble. He aaked t~-c size of Mr. 91ack's batk
yard (and Mr. Black noted it is approximatcly 2_ feet wid~). Hr. King askad the wldCh of
Orange Avenue and Deen 5herer, AsslStant Pl~nnef~ state~i O~ange Avonue Is 64 feat wlde
rlght~af-~way to rlyht•of-way and the structural heiyht r,~easurament is teken fran the
propnrty llnes.
Commissloner Tolar stated it is approximntely 8S fcet be2~+e~en Mr. Black'~ dweliing end
the proppsed proJect.
Commisaton~r King was interestPd tn the heigt,t of the ex(sting muitiple•famtly units tn
the area comparec~ with the p roposed project and John King thought those units wouid be 22
feet `-igh and the propased proJett Is 28 fcet high; hawever~ the roofs of the proJact wil)
slope off very radically.
Commissioner King asked Mr. Black why he opposes this pro,Jec[ when he has already pointed
out the property is an eyesore.
Mr. 81ack explatned he felt since the existi~g ck velopment is single-family. the Code
requirement for Mo-story structures tn be 150 faet away should be upheld; that he has
llved there 24 years and felt there is a p~ssibllity the value af hls property will
decrease and that his neighbars foel the same way.
Commissioner Tolar feit the 1~0-foot setback Ordtnanco has served its purpose very we11
and is attll a good ordtnance~ b ut that this particuiar projett has extenu~ting
circunpttances because of the street and the existing house facing Ora~ge Avenue and felt
becaust of the unique deslgn of this proJect~ the two-stories are we~ranted and that tt is
e good proJect and he dtd not feel it wtll have a detrlmental economiGal effect on the
property ecross the street.
6/30/80
~~. ` 1
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'TY PLANNING COKMISSION~ JUNE 30~ 1980 80~3b2
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VAitIANCE N0. 315k (CONTiNUEQ)
.w~........ .._~~ ....,.~.........~._.
ACTtONtCommissione~ Kinfl offered a m~tion~ secondcd by Comnlsslanar Tola~ and MOTION
~0 (on• seat being vacent)~ that the Aneheim Ctty Plan~ing Commtsslon hes raviewAd
the p~oposel to const~uct e 10-unit apartmant complex with wetver oP maximum structural
halght o~ a rectangulerly-~haped pa~cel of iand oonsisttng of approximately 0.35 acre+
located at the s~uthwest corner of Orange Avenus ~nd Webstar Avenue~ having a fronta~le of
approxlrrNt~ly 9~ faet on the south side oP Oranga Avenue ~nd e frontage of 174 feet c-n the~
west side ot Webster Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration trom tha
requlrement to ~ropere sn environmental Impact report on the beats tht~t there would be no
sig~ificanc tndivtciual or cumulative sdverse environmental tmpact due to the approvsl of
this Negattv~ Daclaratian since tho A~ahelm Ganeral Pibn designetes the subJect proptrty
for madlunrdonsity residenttal land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no senxitlve
anvironmantel impects arr, tnvolved tn the propoa~l; that the tnttfrl Study submitted bti~
the peticloner indtcetes no significant tndividual or cumulative edverse ~nvtronmentn)
impoeta; Ancl that the Negativc Daciaration substantiattng the foregoing ftndings 1a an
ftle In the Clty of Anal~eim Planning Departrr~nt.
Commisstoner King offered Resolution No. PCEN1-1~1 and moved for tts passage and edoptlo~
thet the Anahc~im Glty Pienning Comrr-Isaton does hereby gr~nt Petttion for VartAnce N~, 3154
on the besis thc~t th~e Plannfng Corrm(ssion Is currently cons(de~ing a reductton to the 150-
foot setback requlremcnt relottng to two-atory structures abutting single-Pemily
struetu~es and on tha basis of unusuat surroundtngs in the area.
Conunissivner Herbst
that the ordlnance li
must eontinue~ to loo
shawn tnnovatton on
seperates it from th
stated he would support the resolutton. Ne clarifted that he sgrees
as been e goo~! ordlnancc~ but times are than~ing and thc Commisslon
k for ways to cut th~ cost of
thts proJect; that there are
e housc across tf~e street and
Commissionor Bushore stated ht would suppo~t the
excapt the one ragarding the proposed amendr-en[
break dawn the present ordtnance. He indlcated
the unique desiyn af the structure and felt the
alievlste some of the past problems.
of the san+e reasons~
nd did not want to
res~lutlon because of
eve~ything posstble to
Commi~sioner Tolar feit that portion of the resolution regarding the proposed Code
an~ndment should be stricken and Commissioncr King agreed that Et b~s removed fran his
action.
Lhalrwoman 8arnes agreed and poin~ed out there ts a re~i housing c~unch. In this case she
did not feel this proJect will affect the neighbor's property.
On roll cail~ the fo~egoing resolution was ~,assed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSt01~ER;: BARNES,
NOES : COMMISS I ONERS : I~Ot~E
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ONE VACAtIT SEAT
9USFIORE, FRY, HERBST~ KItIG~ TOLAR
Jeck White~ Asslstant City Attorncy~ presented the wrttten right to appeal any portlon of
the requns t to the oppos i t lon.
housing. He fett the architect has
no win~faws on that well and the street
hn felt the rarlAnce is Justified.
6i 30/80 ~
resolutio~ for most
to th~ Zoning Code +~
he wtil support the
architect has done
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ JUNE 3~~ 19~
w~ 363
ITEM ~~0. 2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: E. J.AND RITA CARATTINI~
~1~fT~VE DECLARATIQN 9~+70 T~rrywood Road~ Santee~ CA 92071. AGENt: IUIE G.
C SI C 1 N . -80•42 ARIAS~ 90~ South San Csbrlel Boulevsrd~ ~an Gabriei~
~ ~"'~ CA gty7G. Property descrlbed aa ~n irrepularly-
'TRACT NQ. 1107g shaped parcel of 1and~ havtng a frontage of
approximately 1h finet on the north
side of Ball Road~ having e moximum depth of approximately 5G0 feet and betng located
approxlmately 1120 fe~t west of the centerline of Knatt Street~ and furcher described as
3633 Weat Ba~ll Road. P~operty p~etently classified RS-A-~3~0(-A.
RECLASSIFICATION R[QUEST: RM-3o0A (RESIDENTIAL, MULT~PLE-FAMILY) ZON~.
VARI~NCE REQUEST: (a) MINIMtN1 LOT AREA PER Q~1El.LINr, UNIT~ (b) MINIMUM S7RUCTURAL HEIGHT~
(c) MI N I MUM RECREA71 OIIAL/LE 1 SURE ARf:A.
TENTATIVE MAP REQUEST: TO COt~STRIiCT l1 1-LOT~ 12-UIIIT CONUONIt11l1M SUBOIVISION.
There wea n~ one tndlcating thetr presence in apPosition to subject request~ and although
the ~teff report to the Planning Comm(sslon ciated June 30, 198o w~~s not read at the public
hea~ing~ it is refcrrecf to and made a part of the minutes.
Luis A~ta~~ 900 South Sen Gabriel Bouleva~d~ San Gabrtel~ California~ stated chey Agree to
abtde by the conciitions; however, he wes concerned a~bnu~ the requtrement relating to e
"private screct". pointing out it wes o~ly et the I~terdepartmental Coam~ttee meeting thet
he had found out obout the requlrement for a 2A-foot wide privatc street, plus sidewalks.
I~e askect that they be ~I lowed to develap the prpJect as proposed with e driveway~ unless
they can reduce the sideyard setback. lie stated this was e diffirult site to work with tn
that it borders Buena Park on ~ne side and the rsilroad tracks on thc north a~d they must
maintain a certaln setback becaus~ of the t~acks. Ila felt this wtli be a nTce proJect and
will be a~ asset tG the City.
TNE PUOLIC HEARiNG wA3 CLOSED.
Commiasinner Herbst egreed that thls Is a long narraw lat and it would ~e virtually
impossible to provide a 2a-foot wide p~(vate street and stlll provide any front or side
yard.
ACTlON: Conmissioner Ktng offered a motlon~ seconded by Cortmissl~ner Fry and MOTION
ARRIED (one seat being vaCant) that the Anaheim Cicy Planning Lommission has ~evtewed the
proposal to construct a 1-lot, 12-unit condomimium subdivisio~ with waivers of minimum lot
area per dwelling unit~ ~naximum structural height, an~i mi~imum recreatfonal/leisure area
on an irregulariy-shapea parcel of land consisting of a;~proximately 0.8 acre having a
frontage af approximately 7~+ feet on the north sidc of Ball Road, having a maximum depth
of app roximately 560 feet and betng loceted approximately 1120 feet west of the centerline
oF Knott Street; and does hereby apprpve the ~legative Declaratton fro~ the requlrement to
pr~spare an environmental impact report o~ tha basis that there would be no slgnificant
individual or cumulattve adverse environmental impact due to the approval ofo'hi`~sdie~ative
Oeclaratlon slnce the A~aheim Genera) Plan designates the subJect p~operty
de~sity residcnttal land uses commensurate with the proposal; thet no sensitive
environmontal impacts a~e involved in tf+e proposal; that the Inittal Study submitted by
the petttioner indicates ~o signtficant in~ividual or cumulative adverse environmental
impaces; and that the Negattve Oeclaration substentia~ing the foregotng ftndings is on
file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
~ j
b/30/80
~ ~ ~1 ~~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISa14N~ JUNE 3~ 1980 ~•36~~
Ela NEGATIVE QECLARATION~ RECIASSIFICATION N0. 79•~-k2~
VARfANCE N0. 3156 ANO TFNTATIVE MAp OF TRACT N0. 11079 (CONTINUED)
e racommenae d co~rons~spProve we~e scussed and it waa generally felt that tha
prtvat• ttreet requiremonts could not be met on this parttcular praJect due to the
ove~hang and na~rawness of the property; hawever Canmissloner Herbst indic~tad his concern
~egarding trash truck access.
Jack Whtts~ Assistant City ALtorney, noted the conditton could be modtfled ~equiring a
nerrower prtvate street a~d J,~ck Judd~ Civil Englneertng Assoctetr~ explafned sny private
streat would stlil requlre sidewalks~ street llghting~ etc.
Commisstoner 1lerbst did not think sidewslks are passible~ but felt certain street iights
would ba ~pproprlate.
Mr. Arit+s explolned flood lights are praposed in some of the wmmon ~reas~ but not the
stsndard streot iights because they would shine tnto the neighbor's yerds.
ACTIONs Commisstoner King offer~d Resolutian No. PCSO-102 and moved for (ts passege and
edopt~on that the Anaheim City Planntnc~ Commiasion does hereby grA~t the Petitto~ for
Reclasslftcation No. 79-80-42~ sub]ect to Interdepartmental Commlttee RecortMnendatlons~
daleting Condition No. 7 partalning to priy~te street ~equlrements.
On rotl call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by th~ followl~g vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEKS: BARNES~
NOES z CpMN t SS I O;~ERS : NUNE
ABSEN7: C01'~115S I ONERS ; NONE
ONE VACANT SEAT.
BUSIiORE ~ FRY, H~RDST ~ KI NG, TOLAR
Commissioner King offcred Resotuti~n No. PC80-103 and r+~oved for its passage a~d adoption
that the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion do~s hereby grant the Petftion for Variance No.
31,6 on the basts of the long nerraw shape of subJect property ~nd dental would deprive
property of prtvtleges enJoyed by other property under tdentica) zoning cl~~siftcatlon in
the viclnity; that efficient use and highest and bcst use of the property should be
constdered to provide needed housing and subject to (nterdepertmentel Cortn-ittee
recommendattons.
On roi) call~ the foregaing resolution was pass~d by th~ foltc~wing vote:
AYES; COMMiSSIONERS: BARNES,
NOES : COMM 15S I O~IERS : NONE
A65ENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ONE VACANT SEAT.
BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ TOLAR
Commissioner King offered a motio~~~ seconded by Gommtssioner Fry nnd MOTION CAP.QIED (one
seat being v~cant) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby flnd that the
p~oposed subdivision~ togettier with its design end lmprovement, is consistent wTth the
City of Aneheim General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Seccton fi6473.5. and does,
therefore~ approve Tentative Map nf T~act No. 11079 for a t-lot. 12-unit condominium
subdlvisto~~ subJect ta the folaowtng cunditionss
1. That t~e approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 1107g is granted subJect to the
approval of Reclessificatton No. 79-80-42.
2. That the epp~oval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11079 is granted subJnct to tha
approval of Variance No. 3~56•
6/30/$0
~~ ( ~ 1~:
'Lf., ~,, s
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 30. 1980 ~•3~5
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79'80'42~
YARIANCE N0. 3156 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11079 (CONTINUED)
..-...~._.~~.~..._.._--_.r.--r----
3. that should this subdivision be developed ss mo~e than one subdivision~ esch
subdivtston there~f shall be submitted tn tentative form for ~pqroval.
4. That subJect property ~hell be served by underground utilittos.
5. That dralnage of sub)ect property ~hal) ba dtspcsed of in a manner ~atisfactory to the
City Engineer.
6. Thet the awner of subJect property shall pay to the Glty of Anahelm the approprlatn
park and recreation in-lleu fees as dotermined to be appropriate by the Cicy Council, said
feas to be paid at the tlm~! the building permit ts issued.
7. That the origlnal documents of the covenants, conditlons~ and restrictia~s~ ~nd ~
letker adJressed to develope~'s title company ~uthorixing recordatton thereof, shall be
aubmltted to thc City Attorncy's office and approved by the City Attorney's office and
Engineering Oivision prior to final tract mrp approval. Sald documents~ as approved,
shall be filed and recorded in the Offlce of the Orange County Recorder.
8~ Thet street nnrt~s siial) be approved by the City Planning Departmeret prfor to epproval
of a final tract map.
9. TI-at the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the trafflc signai ~+ssessrtx:nt fee
(Ordinance I~o. 389G) in on emount as dFtermined by the Cicy Councll, for each nav dwelltng
unit prior to thc issuance ~f a building permit.
ITEM N0. 4
E 1 R~ N t'A71 VE DECLARAT 1 QI~
41AIVER OF C09E EQU REMENT
- . 20 8z
OF MAXIMUM FENCE NEIGHT on property
consisting of apprextmately 10.5 ac
Via 8urton Street and State College
the north stde of Via Burton 5treet
Boulevard~ and further descrtbed as
classifted ML (INDUSTRIl1L~ LIMITED)
PUf3L1C HEARINC. 01JNER5: ORANGE COUNTY TKANSIT
DISTRICT, P. 0. Box 3~~5, Gsrden Grove, CA 92642~
AGCNT; MICNAEL G. MACK, MGR. OF ENGINEERING, OCTD~
P. 0. Box 3005~ Gerde~ Grove, CA 92642. Petitlone~
raquests perMission TO PERMtT A BUS
FAC I l I TY I tl T11E ML ZOt~~ 111 Tfl WA I VE R
desc~ibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
res tocated north ~nd west of the northwest corner af
Boulevard, having app~oximate frontages of 475 fect on
and 2Fi4 feet on the west side of State Callege
1717 East V~a Burton Street. P roperty presently
ZOWE.
There were four persons indicat(ng thei~ presence ln opposition to subJect request, and
although the staff report to th~ Planning Commisslon dated June 3Q~ 1980 wes not read at
the public hearin~, tt is refr.rrad to and mad~ a pert of the mtnutes.
Mlchael Mack~ 11222 Acacia Parkway, Garden Crove, stated the proposed pro,Ject is for a
maintenance and operation facillty slmitar to curreni factllties in irvine and Garden
~rove which accomrnodate 2~0 buses; that this proposed factlity wi11 be for maintanance and
dispatching drivers and storage of buscs; that they have revtcwed the staff report bnd
wili con~ply with all the condttions. Ne stated the prapASed proJtct wtil provide better
transportatio~ for ali their patrons in Orange County.
6/30/80
~~~
~ ?
MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 3p~ ~9~ ~0-366
EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2082 (CONTiNUED)
Torn Fteming~ reprasenting Fluidmaster~ Inc.~ 1a00 Via Burkan, direc4ly adJacent ta sub)ect
p roJect~ stated Fluidmaater becama ewsre of this h~artng only thts morning~ although he
realizes the na:lces waro meiled on ths 19th; that he has not had an opportuntty to revlew
the stoff report or Environmontai Imp~ct Report and felt It is approprlate to requm:t e
continuance for two weaks or thirty deys ao they can prepare -heir opposition
presentation. Na statad V1a 9u~ton is a very narra+ cul-de-sec street wlth A number of
light industrlAl uaers tn the area e~d it is very congest~J wtth lic~ht and heavy-duty
trucks~ in additton to ert~loyees commutin~ tn and from thelr Jobs. plus there Is an
adJacent apartment complex wlth residents usiny the street. Ne felt the additional
trafftc creatcd by this proposed use wiit be a significnn! sef~ty h~~zard to pcJestrlans
snd vehiculer traffic.
Mr. Fleminy understood thcre wfli be 2~0 buses stored there during the dey~ with an
additional 25b buses at night which mcans 500 drivors using the facilities~ and an
eddlttona) lyQ emplayees se ti~is would Le a signtficant infiux af peo~lc and buses to the
area and tt will be a loyistica) niyht~.~arc. Ne pointed out the truc~;s currentiy ha~ve
barely onough room to turn arou~d.
Ne noted other uscrs ln the ere~~ are vigorously opposed to this request and some had not
hedrd abouk it; that Flutdmasters contbcted several of their neighbo~s fn the area and
they all volced opposition and several askrd him to voice thelr opposition - Champio~'s
Cholce~ Sabrina Eloctricai~ Beacons Movtng and Storage and Favor(te Foods. He felt this
bus site, which is going to be constructed somewher~, is going to i~volve a considerable
expenditure of pubiic funds and it Is in everyone's best interest th~t alternate sites be
explored and se~(~us consideration given to the tmpect.
He suggested the Commisston drive down Via Burton at 5 o'clock t~~ see the traffic
conditions and consider the tmpact of adding a sudden incrense of tr~ffic from this
proposed use befnre acting on this request. Ne again requested a continuance.
Raymond Ast, Audonttcs St~uctures stated he talked to several netghbors thls morntng and
they are violently oppased because of th additfonai trafftc this use vc~uld croate at the
intersection of Via Burton and State Cotleqe. He stated they hav~ ail canplied with City
Codns for 11ght manufactu~ing uses; that thls ts a nice area and if this use we~e added
combined with the body sNop~ paint shop and other u,es with approximately S00 drivers and
200 buses~ traffic would came to a standstlll. Ne stated four or five years ago the Stste
of Californla w as going to post "Ne Psrk(n9" sfgns along State College 6oulevard~ but
after consideratlon dacided against it because there was already a serious probZem for
trafftc entering the River~ide Freeway west from the State Cvllege entrance. lie stated
traffic naw is at a st~ndstill after 3:3p p.m. He stated he had not had an opportunity to
review the staff re~ort end ~equested a continuance so they cauld prepare a nore t~lfillesd
report.
FredSchmuek, Fluidmaster~ 1800 Via Burton, stated it had been necessa ry to change hts
employees hours so they can leave st ~+:30 p.m. bec~use they were slttin9 in thelr
vehicles until after S:zO p.m. and fie felt additional traffic from this facility will
create absolute pa~demonium. He referred to a previous rttail egg sales facility on
Baxter which had created ~eal traffic problems. Ne thought a continuance would be
raeltstic to provide more tirt~e ta study the situation thn~oughly.
Mr. Mack stated this wi11 be an 80~ federally funded project; that the proJect has boen
under study since 19y6 and alternate sites were studied. He stated they have purchased
all the property th rough condemnaiion proceadings end an in-depth traffic aRalysis wes
done and aaked the consu~ta~t to respond to the traffic concerns.
6/30/80
( ,M i ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNINA COMMISSION~ JUNE ~0~ 19a0 Sp-36~
EIR NEOATIVE pECLARATION, NAIVE1t OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONnITIONAL USE PERM~,T N0. Z08: (CONTINUED)
'ohn Piersan~ wlth Danlel, Monn~ Johnson 6 Mendenhall~ stated thQy recognlzR tha~e are
tr~ffic problems in the erae; thet the traffic si tuation waa atudled +~nd there w111 not be
S00 drive~s end the site it plsnnad for 230 buaes which wil I extt once and return In tha
evening~ e~d the arrtvel end depar~urQ of employees wlll be ateggered; thet the traffic
impaet w111 not b~ as signiflc~nc as thought beeeuse tha ma,jority of traffie to and f~om
thls s(te wl i l not be during the rush houra ~nd between ~ and y p,m. a totai of 1§
vahicies weuld be antering or lenving~ enci betwesn 7 nnd 8 a.m,~ four buses would be c,~oing
out and one comt~g In. Most of the treffic occu~s betwaen 5 to 7 a.m. or 12 to 3 P~m. in
the early afternc~on and from ] to 6 p.rn. The schedules ere arreng~d to not add to the
exi~ting trafftc r.rob)ems.
Mr. Ma~k felt they h~~v~ done an axtensiv~ ennlysts end an environmenta) imp~ct report
whtch have be~n revtewed by etsff and concurred wl th as belny nagi igible and he dld n~t
foe) a r.ontinuante woulci bo anpropriate. Ne felt it is sfmpiy ~ matter of co,»mur~icating
the resu I ts of th~ s t~~di ea~ to the res I dents olong VI a 8urton.
La~ry Sterk~ reprCS~nting tlieAnahe(m Chamhor of Conn~erce, s~atcd thls is the ft~~t th~y
had heard ab t this request and it appcars to him thrt thi:s is a government ager~cy that
has gona ehead and ocqut red the property through eandamnetlon wl thout considering
su~rounding neighbors. f1e falt a continuance should be granted In ordar for th~ neighbors
to prapare thei r oppos I t(c,n,
Mr. Mack stlll did not feel n continuance ts in o~der.
TfIE PUpLIG HEARt-~r. Wq5 CLOSEp,
Commtssioner tlerbst statcd thls property at one time was e dump site end asked vrhat wt 11
be done~ potnting out his conce~n that ther~ cauld be meth~ne g~es.
Mr. M~ck ste~ted they have teken bortngs where bui ldings wf 11 be locateci and they wlll be
removtng any materlAl not suitable far develapment above (t. tle fndicated no methane gss
was found in thei ~ bortngs.
Commissioner Ilerbst as~:ed (f buses wi 11 use Via Burt~n for acc~ss and Mr. Mack r~plled the
buses wlll prtna~f ly use State College and Baxter.
Cammissloner fierbs t asked the number of employees and whether thc 250 space park ing
stru.:ture wi i l be used for employees and drivers.
Mr. Mack repl ied the number of employees, other than drlvers, would be unde~ 50 a~d the
structure wi 11 be for employees parking. He explatned the Baxter Street accass wil- be
used by buses heading north on State Coll~ge Boulevard, by exittng on Baxter, goir,~ down
Via aurton to the signal on Stete Colleye.
Commisstoner Herbst was concerned abaut the entrance to the Rivrrstde Freervey at State
College and Via Burton and askad what recent modift~d signalization was suppose t~
acconp 11 sh because he di d not feel t t had improved the si tuat ton.
Shi~ley Meredith, Traffic Engineering Aasistant, aas not fsmlliar with that pro,ject and
st~ted she would review the situation. She explained the petitlone~s did submtt a t~sffic
~eport and the additional traffic wtil primarily be during off-paak hours.
~/~n~s~n
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMNISSION, JUt~E 30~ 1980
Elit NEGATIVE DECt,ARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 208Z (CONTINUEO)
80- 368
Conwnissioner lierbst ststed he ta goinfl to offer a motlon for a 30•day continuanc~ because
he did not feet the people in the ore~ have had ample oppo~tunity to raview the matcer ~nd
Are antitlnd to ~ canti~uance. N~ folt there wtil be a gre~eter ~~oblem wlth a~y
addttlan~) trafflc which will compound the existing problem. He felt the petltloner
ahould p rovide signeltzatian of the inc~rsection at their expense and that employees do
get unhappy and leava their Jobs. He felt the petitloners heve been remiss ln not
tnforming the nelghbors bacause they have known for at leaat two years that some sort of
bus taellity ta pl+~nned to~ that property.
Shirley Heradith expleinecl tmprovemc~ts to the Rtversid~ Frocway ramps e~e scheduled for
the next fiscal y~ar by Lal Trans.
C~mmtsatoner Nerbst felt it Is ve ry Import~nt to hava all the dt~ta neceas~ry before making
s decisto~; that lu kncws a bua facllity Is naedad~ but must bo workad out so it ts not a
detrlment to the netghbors. Ile suggestad proper signalizatton of the intarsection.
Sh~rley Mercdtth stetQd the situation will h~ave to be reviewed.
Cnmmissioner Ktng Asked if extensfon of 9axte~ is plenned north through FuilerCon and
Annike Sa~talahtl~ Asststant Otrector for Zoning~ responded she wes not aware of any
plans.
M~. Mack incilcated tn ell thetr discusa(ons with the City of Fullortnn, no plans for
extending Baxter Street ware manttoned.
Commissioner Bushore Asked if it Is no~mal procedure to have buses Idle thclP engines for
a consi~ferable period of time befo~e rrqvtny~ po~nting out previoua prablems wtth othar bus
facillttes indict+ting tt~ere would be nat oniy e nois~ factor~ but fumes And odors couid be
prob lems.
Mr. Mack replied the motor would not be idted more tl~an three mtnutes. He ststed normal
procndure is for a driver co g~t his route asxignrt~nt~ go aut and start the bus engtne and
watt for the air pressure te builcf before IeAVing. He stated thcy havc a ttght sc~edule
Co meet so woula be off the prem(ses in Iess than three minutes.
Responding ta Commisstoner Bushore, Mr. Mack explalned a lot of route ascsignments are made
through tfia .ystcm end drivers are p(~ked up et various locatlciZ whlch minimlzes the need
for parki~g at the stte.
Commissioner Bushore stated he would support a continuance because this ts a ma,jor
developcnent and he wuld not aupport e condltional use permit withouC the proper
condit(ons because thls use would ha~ve sn im~act on the area. He dtd nat think the
qsiestlons relattng ta soit testing and borings have been properly answrred because with
hervy buses trawellny over the prope~ty~ it could cause problems tn the future. He wsnted
to also make sure adequate psrking far employees vould be provided and did not want to sae
employees parking on Via Burtan or Bixter. He fett posting lndustrial streets for "no
parking" is more harmful than beneficai. He also felt ingress and egress on State College
BoulevArd should be right turns o~ly and felt all these [hi~gs should be reviawed. He
potnted out to thosc present ~n opposition that these are chenging ttmes am d this ts an
industrlal zone and the use is permitted and felt ove~all it wouid be a good use~ if
properly handled; that tfils type faci l tty is needed and he vrould rsther see a bus terminal
~n a~ tndustrlal zone than abutting a r~side~tial zone.
Chairwoman Barnes explained the report indlcates the traffic patterns have not been wo~ked
out yet~end Caaailssioner King noted the Traffic Engtneer reoon+n~~ds rai:ed aiedi~ns on
St+Ate College Boulevard.
...._. _ ttu~~n-
L~`
MI NUTES ~ ANIWE I M CI TY PLANN I NG COMMI SS I ON ~ J U~#E 30 ~ 1980 ~• 369
EIR N~CITIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER OF COOE aEQUI1tEMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE P6RNIT N0. 2082 (CONt11MlEQ)
_ -
Gommisslaner Totar did not s~e •ny purpose far a~•day continuAnce bacause no new
i~formation will be prese~ted; that ic is known th~re Is o traffic problam~ but those
~ecommsndatlo~s cen be mada now and ;+rtmary access wlll be on State College and ha felt
the oppotitlon's position wi11 not chAnge.
Commissfa~er King etatad the purpose of ~ conttnu~nce would he to allvw the opposition
tlme to study the p~oJoct.
Commisstoner ilerbst folt a lot hos yet to be accon~lishect; that State College is not the
ma)or ingress ~+nd egress and he fel t Vts Burton wi i l be used for a great p~rtlon of the
trafftc; that he wauld Iike to knav whet Cal Trans Is golnc~ to do with fre~wey ramps and
what can be donc wtth thc signeltxatton. He statcd he wauld have to vote agsin~t the
pro~~ct. as it stnnds ric~ht nav and did not want ta do that; th~t the oppositlon should
read the enviranrxntal Impact repc-rt; and thet thts ts a permanant Factlity and he would
not know what conditlons to apply at thl~ ttm~.
Comrcissioner Toldr dld not p~rtlcularly likc the Idea of a~overnment aqency buytng land
w(thout the proper zoning and use approval. but this site r.~u1d be develaped purely
induatrlal for which It is zoncci at this timc c+nd have a heavler use wlth mare Ir-dust~la)
traffic and prc,blems then this use would c~eatc because of Its hours Af operatlon.
Commissloner Flerbst stotcd khls ts a valid point and he would likc to have e staff study
on the Impact tf this site Is devetoper; as industrial. He disoqreed. however, wtth the
n.;~~}!,pr of trucks comp~red wtth 250 buses. lie did not feel ?.50 parking spaces for
em;~l~~v~es Is out of 1lnc for this slze propcrty. (It was noted the slte fs app~oxlma~tely
10 acres). He st(11 fett the ncicaht;ors havc_ the rtght to revlev+ the EIR and provlde
input.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motton for a 3~•day continuance. seconded by
omm ssioner King.
Chalrwoma~ Bsrnes stated she would like to see the difference in lmpact betwe~n this use
ancf a ragular industrlai proJect.
Commissioner Bushare stated he would like to see these people meet with the QCTD and state
thei~ con~cerns because they woi~k in the area a~d tt is thelr livelihood and they know the
area bcttcr on a day-to-day basis than thc Planning Conmission or a consultant and ove~all
this wnuld serve the ~ublic wlth better bus service and make better neighbors to tha~e
peo~+le directly affected, Ha feit this is a large proJect and shouid not be consid~sred
1 ightly Just because the pl~ns are there.
The preceedin9 mhtion for a contlnuance to the meeting of Juty 28~ 198(3 Carried
(Corm~isstoner Tular vating no, a~d one seat being vac~nt).
RECESS Thera was a ten-minute r'!CP45 at 2:50 P.m.
......_.
RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 3:00 p.m.
.~._..--
6/30/80
~~;
; i
MINUTES~ IWIWE~M CITY PLANNIN4 COMMISSIpN, JUNE 30~ 1980
8A- 370
ITEM N0. 6 PUDLIC NEARING. 041NERS: STATE MUTUAL INVESTORS~ INt.~
~~~VE DECLARATION 97A1 Wi lshi ra Boul~v~rd~ Sut te 800~ 8eva~ly f~l i ls ~
0. ZQ87 CA g0212. AGENT: DON CAMPBCIL~ ~OS Berk~ley Circle,
Fullerton~ CA g2631. Petitioner req uests permisslon
TO PERMIT 11N EXTERMINIITIN~ SERVICE IN TNE ML
ZON~ on prop~rty describecf as e rectonyularly-shapod parcel of lend comi~ting of
approximately O.S acre hevinfl approximnta fronteges of 128 feet on the soutl~ side of
Noodland D~ive end 130 fe~L on the west sicia of Woc~cilanA Ortve, and being tacated
approximat~ly 1pn0 foec east of tho centeri ine uf Hsgnol la Avenue, and Further described
•s 2~2~- Wcxidland Driva (!~n Cempb~ll Pest Control). Property presentiy classlflad ML
(INDUStRIAL~ L1141Tf.p) XONE.
Th~re was no ane indicating their presenre tn oppositlan to subJect r~quest~ and although
the ataff repo~t to the P 1 anniny Cormilss lon dated Junc 3~~ 19~A w~s not read at the pub11G
hearing~ it is referred to and made n part of thc minutes.
Aon Campbci l~ peti t(onar~ was prescnt to answer any quost (ons.
TIIE PUE3LIC HEllRlllf, NAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Conmissioncr Tolar offcrcd a motlon~ seconcbc! by Commissionar King and MOTIOt~
~D (one seat bcing vae~ant). that the Anaheim Gity Plann(nn Commisslon has revtewed
the proposa~ to ~ermit en ~xtarminating service in thQ ML ( Industrlal ~ Llrnl ta~) 2one on a
ractanguldriy-st~ap~~ parcel af land consistin~,~ ~f i~pproximately f1.5 ecre havtng a front~ge
~f approximately 1~B Feet o~ the south slde of woo~flend Drive and a fr~ntage of 130 feet
an the west stJc of Woodland Drive~ and bcing lacer.ed epp~oxtmotely 100A feet e~st of the
centeri lne of M~agnol ia Avenuc; and doc5 hcreby approve the Negative Declaratio~ from thn
requlrement to prepere an ~nv(ronmantal Impnct r~pc~rt on the basfs that there would be no
significr~nt (ndivtdual or eumulative adverse ~nv(ronmenta) impect due to the approva) of
this Negattve Decl~ratlon since thQ Anaheim General Plan designates tha subJect praperty
for gen~ral Industrta) land uses commensurate with thc pro~wsel; that no sensltive
envl ro~rr~ntal impacts are t nvotved i n the proposal ; thac the Ini tis) Study submt tted by
the petltianer tndlcates no signlficant ind(vidual or cumulative adverse envi~onmental
tmpacts; and tF+at the Plegative Dcclaratlon substanti~ting thc foregoing findings is on
file tn the City af Ilnahein Planning pepartmcnt.
Commtssioner Tolar offered Resolution No~ PCB~•104 and moved for (ts passage and adoption
that tho Maheim City Ptanning Commisston does hereby grant the Petitlon for Conditlonal
Use Permit No. 2081~ subject to Interdepartmentat Commlttee r~c~mmendatlons.
On roll w11, the fcr~c,~ofng resolutlon wes pASS~d by the following vote:
AYES: COMHISSIONER5: BAR~ICS. BUSHORE~ FRY~ NERDST, KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONER5; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOt~~RS; NflNE
VACAtIT Ot1E SEAT
6l30/80
~~
1
MINUT~S~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 30, 1980 80•371
ITLM N0. PU9LIC NEARINf. OWNERS: JERRY AND ROSALIE WONG,
~ t~.~RICAL EXEMPTIOf~-CLASS 1 17661 Millor D~ive~ Tustin, CA 4268A. AGENT:
1 ANCELO NIOUREAS~ 32912 8~rque Way~ Dene Potnt.
. 2~18a CA 92f~2g. Pettt~oner ~eu~ests permission TQ PERMIT
TIIC OH-SALE OF AI.C~NOL 1 G aEVERAGES I N AN EXI ST 1 NG
RCSTAUR4NT IN Tllf. CL 20~IE WITII
WAIVER OF MIt~IMUM NUMaER OF PARY.ING SPACES on p~opr.rty descrtbod as ~r- i rregularly•shap~d
pa~cel o f le~d conststing of approximately 1.6,5 ncre tocated south end east of the
southeos t corner of Romneya Drive end East Street~ hnving ~p~ roximate frontaqes af 50 feet
on tho s outh side af Romneya Orivic end 3t0 feet on the east side ~f Eest Street, and
further descr!bed as 114?. North East Street. Property presently ctasstfted CL
(C~MM~RC 1/IL ~ L I ~11TED) ZOIZE.
There w ss one pe~son indtcating her presence in oppositlon to subjact request~ and
al though the s taf f report to the P 1 aiin 1 ng Comr~l ss i on datecf June 3~. tq8o was not read et
the publ i c he~~ring~ i t is rcfc,rrcd to anJ made a part of th~ minutes.
Angelo Niou~eas~ agent. was present to answor any questlons.
Mrs. Nerman Ludisure~ atateJ sh~ resiclcs on East Romneya Ortve no[ far from subJect
property ; that she feel: this Is quite a ntce residential area ond dtd not feei Ilq uor
sales should be al lowod tnto the area; that they dc~ have be~r and wlne at the present time
and thcere (s another restaurant on East Street (fonnerly the Carousel) whlch has beer and
wlne~ S h e referred to the roqucst for waiver of mtnimum number of parking spaces snd was
concnrnad custart~ers wi 11 park around the corne~ near her property. She stated the
resteurant w(11 only be op~n until 9:00 p.m. and felt wtth a liquor ltcense~ i~ is
possible the restaur~nt w(ll stay opcsn past 9:00 p.m. and will destroy residentlal area.
Mr. Nlou reas stated cu~rer.tly thc rest~ur~nt ts open from 6:0~ a.m, to 3:00 p.m.~ b ut
latar he may wtal~ to stay apcn unti 1~:00 p.m. ~ and wi i l probably be clased on Saturdays
and Sundays. He a~cplained Ilquor will oniy be served wtth foad and this will not be a
bar.
Jerry Wong, awner~ stated chcre are 13~ parking spaces and did not u~derstand the
r~fcren ee to (:2 spaces existing as stated in the staff report. He stated there has benn
no change slnce the center was originally develop~d.
TIIE PUBL 1 C NEARIl~G WAS CLOSED.
Cha) rwo~nan Barnes asked i f thcre have beei~ parking problems and i f the 1 iquo~ wt 1 i only be
served with food end Mr. 4long rcplicd there have been no parkiny problems snd thls use
will no i serve cocktatls wlthout faod.
Conmtss ioner K) ng reported he was at the s i te et 1:25 p.m. on Saturday and the~e were k3
vacant s talls and ayain at 9:3d 8.m. Sunday and only four stalls were being used.
The ho u rs of operati~n were clarified as 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. a~d tt was clartfied there
(s no ch ange proposed ta thG existing use and s(mila~ types of food wi11 be served.
Dea~ Sh~rer, Assistant Planner~ revtawed the origin~l shopping centar plans s~~^~~'!ed by
Nr. Wong ~nd noted xhere is no change; that the entlra shopping center requi
parking spa~es and th~re ere 82 spaces actually on sit'; haweve~ there ar~ 2 io~al
apacea off-site on prope~ty arned by the same owner.
6/30/80
~~ f ' r
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 30. 1980 ~'37~
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1~ WAIVER OF CODE itEQUtaEM~NT
ANG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2q88 (CONTINUED)
~..~_.. ..
1! was ~oted the Planni~g ~Irector or his authorized rapre~entative has delermined thaL
the p roposed ~ ro)act fells within the dafinition of Categortcat Exemptlons~ Cl~ss 1~ as
d~fined in p~rAgra~ph 2 of the City oF A~ehelm ~nvir~nmental tmpact Report Guideltnes snd
It~ thorefore, cat~gorically exempt from the requlreme-~t to prepere an EIR.
Commissioner Ki~g oFforcd e motion~ sccondeci by Commtssioner F ry and MOTION CARRiED (one
seat being vacant)~ that the Anaheim City Pl~+nning Conxnission does heraby grant the
rec~uest for watva~ of minfmum nunber of perktng spaces on thc basis th~t the use is
existing and additional parking spaces ar~ AV6IIAhIP off-sitc.
Commissionar King offered Resolution No. PCaO-1~~ and maved for Ita passage and adoptton
that the Anahcim Clty Planntng Commission docs hQreby grant the Petition for Conditio~~l
Use Permtt No. 20aa~ 4ub]CCt to the petitioncr's stlpulation that the hours of operetton
ahall be G:00 a.m. t~ 8;00 p.m. and subJect to Intercf~partmental Comnittee
recommendatlons.
0~ roll call~ the foregoing resnlution was passed by the foliawing vote:
AYES : C014hlI55 I ONERS : DARNES ~~USH4RE, FRY ~ HERBST ~ KING, TOUttI r
NOES ; COMM11 SS I Ot~CRS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOt1E
VACi1117 Ot~E SE.AT
lTEM N0. ~ PUEiLIC NEARING. OWNERS; I~ARRY AND LILLIAN SNAM~
Ia 'fECORICAL EXCMPT101j-CLASS 1 132Q Ridc~evlew Terrace~ Fullerton, CA 92631. AGENT:
110 0 A _ ERM M0. 20~2 TERRE~ICE TONES, ~00 South Eucltd Avenue~ Anaheim,
- CA ~2402. Petttioner requests permission TO PERMIT
OW-SALE OF BEER AfaD WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT
IN TNE CL ZOt1E on property described as a rectangularly-shaped pi+rcei of lend conststing
of app roximately 0.7 acre having a frontaqa of a~proxlmately 100 feet on the east slde of
Euclid Street~ having a maximum depth of ~pproxtmateiy 295 feet and betng located
approximetely 350 fect south of the centeritnc of 6roadway and~ further dest~ibed as 400
South Euclid Street (Sir Georc~e's Smorgasbord). Property prQSently classified CL
(COMMERCIAI.~ IIMITED) ZOIIC.
There ~+as one person fndicating his presence in opposftion to subJec~. reyuest, and
although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 3~~ 19II0 was not resd at
the public hearing~ It is r~fcrred to and mede ~ part of the mtnutes.
Terry Tones~ stated they h~ve had many requests from thetr customers for beer and wine so
have applied for a 1lcense. fie staced they also have banquets, wedding receptions or
rehearsal qarties and those people always ask far beer and wine.
R. D. Lopez~ statec~ his business Is just dciwn the street next daor and on weekends they
have a few problems wieh cars parking in the back parking lot. He polnted out De) Taco is
on one side of their business and he was concerned that if this restaurant gets a beer and
wtne license, the probiems wiil be compounded. He stated la~t~ly there has been a lot of
vandalism.
Mr. Tones explained subJect property has adequate parking and does confo ~n to Code dnd has
~ever had a perking problem.
7HE PUBIIC HEARtNG WAS CLOSED.
y
~;
f
6/30/80
~'
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 3Q~ 1~80 80•373
CIR CATEGORIGAL EXEt~T10N•CLASS 1 AHO CONOtfIQNAI USE PERMIT N0. 20~Z (CONTINUED)
._....,.~....~.._~_.....r_...._-.
Cortanisslo~er durhore aakeJ if the benquats couid be contributtng to the proble+n •nd Mr.
Tones anbwerad that tha b~~uets sre smal l. The banquot fACt 1 I ty wi I 1 acccxm~odate 75
people~ but the majority of the banque~ts are between 20 and b0 people.
Commissione~ Bushara eskeJ Mr. Lopez If he h~s had to ~Ick ~!p baer end wine cans or
bottles from tfie receptlons a~d Mr. Lo{~ez replted that hr_ hos not had to pick up beer
bottles~ but cioes havc to pick up othcr debris anci It was clArified th~t this debris ts
probebly from Udl Taco and Mr. Lopez was concerned that If this request is approved~ he
wnul d have prob 1 er~s f ror~ both s i drs .
Cortiml~sioner bu5hure did not chi~k it wauld bc felr tn p~nalize this petitlonar if ;he
problem Is really baing caused by Oel Taco.
Cammissloner Tolar agreed thnc the existing prableih Is being cau~ed by ~el Taco and dld
not thlnk any problcm will be causcd by tl~e res[aurant ber,ause the beer anci wine wtl) be
sorved on s(tr_ and not carried out.
(t wa= nuted tl~e Plennin~ Director or his autho~ized repres~ntative has determined thet
the proposed pro,J~ect falls withln tl,c definiclon of C~tegarlcal Exemp~lons~ Class 1~ as
deftnad In paragrapt~ 2 af tho Clty of Anatieim EnvironmentAl Impace Repc~rt Gutdelines end
(s~ thcrefore, catcgorlcally exPmpt from thc requlrement to prcpare an EIR.
Commiasloner Tolar offcred aesolucian Mo. PC80-106 and maved for its pesaage and adoption
that the Anahalm City Planniny Commisslon does hcreby 9rant the Petlcion for Condltlonal
Use Permit Ilo. 2092, subJer,t to Interdcpartmental Co~ittee recommendatlons.
On roll cell, thc forer~oiny resolutian was passeJ by the followtng vota:
AYES : COMM ISS IOt1ER5 : BAaNES ~
NOES : COMN( SS I 0~lERS : NOtIE
ABSENT: COMf115510UkR5: NONE
VACNIY OI~E SEA7
DUSNORE~ FP,Y~ NERBST. KINQ~ TOLAR
I EM N0. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NELSON AND tiAalA T. CASANOVA,
Ift NEGATIVE DECLARATIAN ~11 South Sylvan Street~ Maheim, ca 9aso4. AG~NT:
ER ODE EQUla MENT aOBERT SANCHEZ~ 911 South Sylvan Streat~ Ilnaheim~
~~G~' PERHIT ~. 10~3 CA 92BUb. Petittoner requests permission TO RETAIN
41A~VFR OF MINlMUM SETBACK POR A BIRD COOP on
P~operty ae~crtbed es a rectangularly-shsped
pa~cel of land consisting of approxtmatcly 72Q0 square Pect having a frontage of
approxln~ately 60 feet on the wes[ side of Sylv~n SCreet, having a maximum depth of
approximately 120 feet and b~ing lacoted approxinaately 90 feet north of the centerline of
OneidA Avenue and~ furthe~ described as 911 South Sylvan Stre~t. Property presently
ciassifled RS-7200 (RESIDEt~TiAl. SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE~
There was one intarested parson indtcaCing his presence et the public heering~ and
although the staff raport tc the Planning Cammtssion dated June 3~~ 1g80 was not read at
the p~blic hearing~ it is referred to a~d made a part ot the minutes.
Robert Sa~chez~ 911 South Sylven~ statcd tha petitioner keeps the avisry for a msximum of
300 birds aa a hobby and does not sell the birds and does not intend to ever sdl) the
birds. He explatned the avia~ry has a wetering system a~d there have been no ooMplaints
about the birds; that th~ origlnai complaint waa the notse from MA small goats the
pietitloner was taking caro of fo~ a friend and wh~n tt~e Zoni~q Enfo~can~ent 0lfice~ c~ne to
investigate tha campiai~t, the avlery wa: dtscovered. He :tated they s~a wtiltng !o meRt
a~y stand~rds and kr. C~aanov~ wili build a new avta ry- if ~ecessery~ snd wtll ~~mtt.tha
mmbsr of birds a~ raqutred to meat rsgul~tiona.
b/30J8Q
~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION JUNE 3~~ ~9~
EIR t1E(~1TIVE OECIARATiON~ WAIVER OF COD~ ~tEQUIREMENT ANO
C_ ONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2093 (CONTINUED)
~~ ~~~
William Hepp~ ~1; Sylvan~ st~ted th~ petitloner hai Ilved there for sev~n years and Is e
vory yood netgl~bor ~end kee~rs the pr~perty b~autiful; that the petitl~ne~ has had troubie
w I th sane ne i gt~bors whose ch i 1 dren have o~en~d the b I rd r..~c~QS to f rae the b i rds ~ etc. 11e
explstned the tag~s are portable and can be easily movnd and Mr. Cessnova loves the birds
•nd take~s good care of them ~nd this is hl~ hobby. Ile stet~d his house ia wlthin cwelve
feet of subJett prop~rty and hr hes no cc~mplatnts abnut ihe blyds.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offered a rnotian~ seconded by Commtssioner Fry and MOTION
CARaICO (ane seat being vacant), that the Anahe(m Ctty Plonning Commiss(on has revtewed
the proposa) to rccaln an avtary in tl~e RS-7Z~0 Zane witl~ a walve~ of requtrad setback fo~
a btrd caop on a rectangutArly-sl~aped parce) of land consisting of approximatRly 7?.00
syuare feRt, having a frontage of oppr~ximately fi~ feet on the we:~t sicfe -+f Sylvon Street~
hevl~~ ~ maximum depth of aprroximatcly 12A fcet And being locaterl apprc-xlmately g0 feet
north of thc centorltne of Onclcie Avenue; ~~nd does hereby epprove thP -~egativt DeclAratlon
from the requirement to prepare an enviranr~entnl 1nmACt report en th~ basis that thern
would be no signif{cant indlvidual or cumulative adverse enviro~mental impect due to the
approval of tl~is Negative Dectaration sincc the Anahelm Ganeral Plen destgnetes the
subJect property for law-density land uses cor.Knensurate with the nr~posdl; that no
sensitive environmental impacts arc tnvolvcJ in the p~o~osc~l; Chat the InItIA1 Study
submitteJ by th~ petitioner tndicates no signlf{cant indlvidurl or cumulattve adverse
environmenta) impac~s; en~f that tl~e Negntivc Declar~tlon substantiating the foreg~ing
ftndings is on fllc in the City of Analieim Planniny pe~artn~ nt.
Commissioner Tolar offered a rnotlon~ sec~nded by Com~issioncr Fry and M0710N CARRIED (one
seat beinc,~ vacant). that the Anaheim City Pianning Canmtssion does hereby grAnt requcst
for walver of Code requlrement ~n thc besis that the b(rd cc9ops are portable and can be
movc d.
Commtsstoner Dushore as~ced if the original canplaint pertaincd to the goats or btrds and
Uean Sherer~ Asslstant Planner~ repiled the complaint was the goats which led to discovnry
of the avlary.
Commissioner Bushore suggested a two-year tlme limit with a maximum of 3~0 birds in order
to revlew the use to determine tf there havc been any problems.
tommissloner Totar offered Resolutlan ~~o. PC80-107 and moved for its ~assage and adoption
that the A~ahe(m City Pianning Cortmission does hereby grant the Petitton for Conditlo~al
Use ~'ermit No. 2093, for a maxim~n of 300 bi rds, for a period of Mo yfars~ subject to
r~vtew for ~osslble cxtensions of tin~ to dctermine If there has been any problems and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recomnendatians.
On roll call, the foreyoin~,~ rasolutton was passcc+ by the follawtng vote:
AYES : COMMI SS I OIIERS : DARNES ~
Ko~s a co-wi ss ~a-~~RS : ua~
AssENTs tONM13s1q11ERS: I~INIE
V~4C~A11T ONE f ~1AT
BUSFIORE . FRY, HEROST ~ KI NC ~ TOLAR
~1A~. t f I~EAR~ MII. OY'NERi t l~ 111l~ L~A ~E EI! ~
I~~~CAi. ExEMrTt 8j7 '3o~uth ~ dw~sv~N, ArNhri~~ CA 928tIM.
~ Petttioner requests VA~VER OP MAXIMl1M FfNCE HE16HT
TO RETAIN AN lLLE6Al FENCE on property described as
~ rectangul~rly-shaped parcol of tand wnsisting of approxtmataly 0.7g acre having s
f ro~ tsge of app roxi~baty /'~ fM~ a1 th~ ~st s t~ 4f gesch Bou 1 eva rd ~ hav 1 ng a max t mun
depth ot approxi~~i~- ~ h~t aad i~l1~ I~a1~bd ~+1'~Mcir~t~:~ ~~1et north of the
cent~rl{~e of ~ii ~~ aai f~r~f ~!'#~t~t a4 ~ t~1~dt ~wti~ev~rd. Property
, ~,,.,
presentiY classifi~ ~~ ~. ; ~• 6/30/S~
;:,,, ~~,~, ~~~, n~t,~*r.~~": . ..x
_: . ,:-.
.,_ . . ., , ; :
~.. - , .~ ~. ~.~ - _.~.,... .~,. :
~
\ ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITV PIANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 30, 1980
EIR CATEGORICA4 EXEMPt10N•CLASS 3~_VARIANCE M0. 31S5 (CONTINUED)
_~......~_...~... ..
~ ~
80- 375
Thers was no ane indtcating thelr t+resence in oppoaltion to subJect request, end althou9h
the staff repprt to the Planning Gommla'inn dt+ted June 34~ 1^80 was not read at the public
hearing~ lt Is r~forred to and mede a part of the minutes.
A~tho~y Gouveta~ owner, explAtneci the eight•foot htgh fence is need~d bec.~+usA of
harbssn~ent; th~t th~ prop~rty is betwec~ two makels and chey have a lot of foot t~affic
end perking in thc front yard with penpie pitching tents~ doing body anJ fe~der work~ etc.
He stated the fnnce Is temporary because he will elther sell the property ar devetop it
wtthin 2-1/2 ycars.
TI1~ PUDLIC t1EAR1NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner I~erbst referred to the Traffic Engineer's recar+vnend~tton thet the existing
gates adJecent ta 9each Boulavard controlling access to subJect property be removed
because af concern that somebody would back out onto Beach Boulevard.
Mr. Gouvcla explained the gate provides access co the back yerd and is kept lockGd; and
that that portlon of the back yerd is not used a~d th~ gate ts only used when he tskes
something to thc back yard.
Commissioner Bushore referreJ to che conditlons rnquiring sidewalks ond street trees and
Mr. Gouveta dld not fecl requiring sidewalks And trees ts approprinte.
Annika Santalahtt~ AsYistant Directo~ for Zoning, st~ted a stx-foot fence would be allawed
without these requirements and suggested th~~e cAnditl~ns be d~leted~ polnting out the
conditlonx wouid be met whcn the pro~erty is ultimatcly improvcd.
Commissioner Herbst sug~stcci grenting the vsriance tor e two-ycar period and Jack ~lh~te~
Asslstant Cicy Attorney~ stated o varia~ce c++nnat be gr~nted for a tima period because It
stays witt~ the property and there could be a change in vwnership.
Commissioner Bushare auggestc~d denlal with trvo yebrs to abate th~ prnblem.
Jack White felt a~y change of ownershtp could create a problem and a new owne~ could
insist that he was not awere the fence is not permittrd.
It was note~ the Planniny Olrector or hls authortzed represen2ative has determined that
the proposed proJect falis within the definttton of Ca~egorical Exemptio~s~ Class 3~ as
d~ftncd in paragraph 2 of thc City oP Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidellnes and
is~ therefore~ catcgorically exempC fro~n the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTIOf~: Commfssioner Herbst offered Rcsolution No. PC80•106 and moved for its passsge and
:~~o~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Petition for Variance
~40. 3155 for tw~ years~ on the bssis that although the prop~erty is currsntly devetoped as
a single-fomtly residence the petitlnner stl~ulated to renuve the fence when the proPerty
is ultirt~t+tely developed conmercially in act~ordance wlth the designation ot th~ General
Plsn~ subject to I~terdcpartmentel Committee recam~endatlons~ Conditio~ Nos. 3 and 5
nwdlfied, delettng Condittons t~ 2 and 4.
On roll catl~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the following vote:
AYES s COMMISS I Of1ERS : BARt~ES, BUSHORE s FRY ~ NERBST ~ KI NC ~ TQLAR
HOES : Ct~MM15~ ION~RS : NONE
ABSEN7: COMHISSIQNERSs NONE
YACANT ONE SEAT
~~:nt~
4
~'_
1
i
i
~:; ~ ~~ ' ,;
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 30~ 19~
80- ~ 76
ITEM N0. Ii PETITtONER: N. N. RANIII~ RA~IILL REALTY~ 808 N. Tustin
R VE OCCLARATION Avenue~ Orange~ CA 92667. Petitioner ~aquests
1 . 10a Ar~ AMENDNEflT TO AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 1Q8~ EXHIgIT
D~ TO DEIETC A PORTIAFI OF LA MESA AVENUE WEST OF
WNITE STAR AVEt1UE ANp NORTN OF TNE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY
on property described os en irregulr~rly-shaped parG~l of l~nc1 consistinc~ of app~oxtm~tely
~Q ecres boun~d on thc north by La Pelma Avenuc, on the e~st by Kraemer Boulevard~ and an
the south and west by tl~e Rtverstde Freeway.
Thore were five pergons Indlcoting cheir presence In oppostelon to subJect requast~ and
although the staff re~ort to the Planniny Commissian datec! June 30~ 19~0 was not ~ead at
th~ p~lic hesring~ it is refarred ta and made a pArt of th~ ~Inutes.
,lack White~ Assistent CitY Attornry~ explained thc Conmissinn Is revlcwing the proposed
deletton of the street from the Arae Dcvelopment Plen and not a speciftc development
propc~sAl; that thc Are~ Devolopr~nt Plan calls for the strect to be locate~t as shown on
Exl~ibit D and the questton Is whether or not to revise the street c(rculatton as shown on
Exhlblt E.
Carrie Coykendell~ 15332 East Le Pelm~, asked if La Mesa Str~et would be p~rmanently
deletnd and asked if stie wtll t~e asked to Jedicate land ta make La Mesa a through street
when shc~ ck velops her property. Shc esked if she would hevc a guarentee that she will not
be askad for a dedicacion in che futurc. She palnted out Canal Street was abendoned, but
she has never received Any documents on It and the origina) easement wrs on her p~operty
1 n 1916.
JaGk White, Assistant Ctty Attorney~ expleined th~ proposAl tociay is ta sinply deleta La
Mesa Street as a th~rnughfare. Ne stated future Planning Comntssion or City Councils
could change pians but it ls proposed to {~ermi+nently delete La Masa ~s a through street
and cul-de-sac it as shaw+n on the cxhibit.
Mrs. Coykend~ll inditatad her concern because che plan sha~vs parking a~long what was
originally Canal Street and the 25-foat easement is f~r 12-1/2 teet on her property. She
was toncerned because she hes never ~eceived any docwnents relatin9 to the abandonment of
Cenal Street.
Anntka Sentalehti, Assistant Director for Zoning~ scated Canal Screet has bee~ t+bandoned~
but she dtd not know who yot the street. The propased plsn included in the staff report
was not f~tended to show develQpme~t on Mrs. Coykendail's property. She explalned whan
building permits are applled f~r, it would have to be vertfted then that thr. land ts fully
developabie as shown.
Ronald Thc~mpso~~ Planning Director, suggested the Planntng Comnissian co~sider the fact
that the City Counctl has dlrocted the C1ty Attorney's office and Planni~g Staff to
preparQ a re~o~t on the "commercia) isiand" conce~t end this particular area might be one
of those "isla~ds"~ and sugclested that Comnisaion action at this time might be
premature unti) Cour~cii makes thet determination. The reeson for this street to be put in
this location i~itially wes to provide streei circulation for sc~+ne fs~rly tnCense
industrla) uses rnd if the area Is chsnged to comrnercial, a more intenae use of the land
may become more of a conce rn In the future. He statod he saw several thinqs of cancer~ on
the developmont plan submitted by the petitioners. Onc concern wouid be buildtn9s backed
onto the freawey becsuse that was not the intent of developin~ a frontage roa~d; thst the
lntent was ~ot only ta provlde ci~culetlon, but ta os~ild r++~~e or less an "image"
induatrla) area alon9 the froeway with meny of the butidings fronting the fre~+ray. He
feit staff Wauld be toncerned about patktng o~ the northern boundry with the ctrculaLton
b/30/SO
~~:
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 30~ 1980 8p-3~~
EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AtID AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN ti0. 108 (CONTINUEO)
-•- ----~---
alley or drtveway and probsbly a bettor plan would be to provide parking adJacent ta the
butldings to seperate the vehicular •nd pedastrlan traffic. Ne felt etaff would prefer
that It n~t be detormtned at this time, but if tt is ever determtned to be feaslble, that
tho bulldtnga be re-orlented toward the n~rthern property line and pedostrtan and
vehicular trafftc be seperated with same landscaptng to retein the image being strived for
in tha Canyon Industrial Area.
Mrs. Coykondai) staxcd she would likc to havc someth(ny defintte about the abandonment.
Jack 4lhite~ Assistant Ctty Attorncy. stated abandonment Is typtcally done by ~ rasolutlon
of the City Councll and not by a deed anci the resolutlon Is then recorded~ but the tltle
would b~ free and clear and e title report will answer Mrs. Coykendall's questlons.
Annfka Sant~lahti expleined this abandonment would have bcen handled through the County of
Orange end suggested Mrs. Coykenclall contact their office regarJtne~ the abrndo~m~nt of
Canal Strcet.
David Carson~ af C~rson Enterprlses, polnte~f out prc~perty purchasecf by his company from
the State of Caltfornia, Department of f~ighways in 19hq conslst(ng nf 2~,000 feet
bordering the north stde of Cana) St~ect~ wtth about 600 or 70c1 feet of freeway front~ge.
llbout a year ago they requested building permits not -:nawing it wAS proposed as a street.
He steted they would )Ike the abandonment Qf La Hesa extended 4n through east of Whlta
Star brcausc they want to im{~rove their propcrty dnd pe rn~its were refueed and they have
bcen peyfng t~xcs on It for elcven ycars. He stated they bought tt as e butldable site.
Ron Thompson did not belleve the Statc had notiftcd t~~e City that thts was going to be
surplus property; otherwise. the City would h.~ve had ~+r~ optian to atqutre It.
Lowel) Duklcth, 12(,81 Shclly Lane~ Santa Ana, statcd hc is owner of a portion of the long
triangular niece of propertv whicl~ Mr. Ranill is going to buy; that the prop~e~ty is not
ve ry wide and is sbout 9~ fect from the fre~way right-of-way and to put La Mesa through at
a 5k-foot width would require most of the praparty and also create the same problem for
the other property o~.iners and there would bc no lend left to build on. He explained he is
a Civtl Enginecr and has researched the rccords dnci the praperty is rww in prlvate
ownenhtp. He statec! t~e would 11ke co see t,a Pksa terminated as shown to permit the two
properties to be combined and d~v~loped. He did not thtnk putttng the parking ta+ard the
f reaway i s a~rea 1 p rc>b 1~m.
Ed Gundy~ represcnting IPS, owner Af La Palma Business Park to thr east of idhtte Star~
stated Conditionai Use Permit No. 1851 was granted in 197~ for the La Palme Business Park
davnlopment whlch was predicated on the dedication of La Mesa through Kraemer to the west.
He ststed ciedicatlon was made on the souther!y extreme portion of the La Psima Business
Park for ths widentng of La Mes,, and parcel No. ] south of Arrrbnda St~eet at~ the Qast side
of Whtte Star was developed fur quasi-c~nne~ctal type uses ~nd those tenants are paying a
higher premtum for freaway frontage. If this development ts approved, it would be a
tremendous hardshfp because they would lose that freeway frontaqe. Aiso~ they fel; if th~
abendo~ment of La Mesa is approv~d, buildings facing th~ freeway In th~e north side of
wedge-sf~ap~d propcrty would be more appropriate.
Dick Sightsinge~~ Carson Entcrprises, asked why these othc~ pcoperty own~rs are talktng
about freeway frontages which they do not own; that he end athers avn thc frontsge and
w~nt to kna~r why they cannot build on property they awn. He explei~ed Chey purchased th~
p roperty In 1~69 snd had no knawledge thet thts Area Development Ptan had occurrad untii
they appliaci for buiiding permits end waa informed tt was a dedicated street ~ight•af wsy.
6/30/80
~_::
~'
~
~.~~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ JUNE ~, 19~4 80~378
E1R NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 108 (CONTINUED)
Narold Coykendal) stoted their main co~cern Is that when they get rnedy to devetop their
property~ tf La Mesa is permanently eliminetod~ the entire dedtcetton of another street
may be on thelr aite; thet theso gentlen-en b~~~yht e landlock~d piece of property from the
Stete and tha othe~ prope~ty owners shouid nat ~bsorb thelr hordship.
TIIE PU9L1 C NEARI NG WAS CLOSEO.
Commisslonar Tolor fclt Area Development Plan 10~~ La 11esa and thts ctrculation plan had a
lot of thought put into it bnd whether this arcA is sn industrial ar~a or a poaatble
future conxnerclal (slend~ it neecls this frontage road and h~ would not support la Mesa
befng ebendc~ned. Ne felt invorse candemn~tion proceedings is on economic factor 9nd has
to be resofved by the Clty Counctl and Cal Trans rnd nat by the Plenntng Commisston~ He
felt, however~ Cal Trans and thc C(ty of lln~hetm hnd a respensib(lity tn notify these
property owners of their plans.
Ron Thompson explained ln resp~nse to Chatn~+omnn Bernes' questlon that IPS pnld fo~ the
portlan of Whitc Star that is dcveloped and Annika~ SantAlahtl expialncd adJacent property
ow~ers would devolop Whlte Star at thc t(me they subr~it plr~ns~
Commisslo~er Tnl~r felt Cal Trans lcft this strip of pr~p~rty for the City of Anaheim to
rectify the problems end (t was purchdse~~l with full knawledne thot it was an isolbted
parcei and {f (t w~s purchased ofter the ADF wAS ~ane~ hr did not have much empathy
beceuse lt was e remnant and the purch~sers re~lizecf the r's~.
Commisslone~ Busl~ore askcd if th~ prc,pcrty is prescntly landlocked and Laweli Dukleth
~eplied they havc frontoc~• on White Star.
Annike Santalahtl did not think there ere eny landlocked parcels; that in 1g71 when this
Area Ueveloprtxnt Plan was considered by the Pianning Conxnis:.ton and City Counctl~ l~etters
n-aktng strong points about the area circulatlon were sent to elght )mmediately affectad
p ropc~ty owners~ inciu~ing Hrs. Coykendall~ and ane was sent to the Stete of Califarn(a~
so lt would aqpear at that timc that the othcr propcrty wes stilt li~ted (n thc Tax
Assessor's bc~oks as bcing ownccf by the State and these eight-own~rs were Invtted to meat
wfth Staff and discuss circulatlon anci severai ~ther Issues.
Jack J~dd, Cfvil Eng(neering Associatc~ steted ~ihlte Star is presentiy a dedicated street
with ultimate right-of-way and on thr aast side down to the R+anill p~operty end the cu~-
de-aec it has not becn tmproved as yet.
Mr. Carson stateci curbs and gutters have been constructed i~ the Orange County sectton and
it appcers to b~ con-~let~d to Gounty standards.
Mr. Sightainger statad ihey purct~ased tha prop~rty in 1~68 from the State and were t~ssured
it was a legal 23,n~0~square fovt bui ldablc site; that thoy were told about the Can.~l
Street rtc~ht-of-wey and tt is tn thair deed and it has stnce becn abandoncd and they were
told since Canal Street was abancioned~ they will get thai 600~ or 70D0 squa~e feet becsuse
(t was nrtgin~+lly teken from thcir propcrty. lie stated they purcl~ased the property 1~
tg6$ and w~re nev~er notified of the plen~ by the City of Anaheim~
Commisslonar Herbst stateJ he was on the Commisston when this Area Devalopment Plan wes
studied and that study indtceted some prlme industrial propercy fac(ng thc freeway to
provide the Cfty the opao~tunity to get the type of businessea they wanted. Ne did nut
agree wtth the plan submitted with this requesS with buildings backing up to the frea+ay
because it wouid block the viav of the maJor property ewnerx; th~t t~is ADP has been 1~
extstence for 9 or 10 years er~d other property ovrnars h~ve construct~d tfit road on both
6/3~/80
~~ } ~
MINUTES~ Ai~AHEiM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JUNE 30~ 1980 80-379
EIR MEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 108 (CONTINUEp)
ends ~nd he feit tt wauld ba an in,juatice to them to change in tha middle of the stream as
far os land planners a~e concernad: Ile stated the~e have b~een pr~blems wtth freeway
remnants in the pt~st ~nd felt a strong letter should be wrltten to the State reqa~ding
thts sort of situatlon. f1e dtd ~ot feel the plan should be emended and other issues
sheuld be resotved et the Councll tevel.
Jack Whlte~ Assistant Ctty Attorney~ @xplained the action should bo e resolution since the
Cad~ provtdcs th~t Area Development Pl~ns and emendmants dre to be processed In the same
manncr os Reo~assificatlons and~f the Commissian does not wish to ~mend the plan at this
tirs~, the proper action would be a resolution r~commending to the City Counctl dtsapproval
of Exhibit E anJ recommendtng no ~mc~ndme~t to Area OevGlnpment P~+~~ ~~• ~~8•
Cl~atn~roman Bernes was concerned about the aprroprlat~ actlon renarding the negative
deciaration ancl A~nika Santalahtl expl~tned disa~provA) of the n~gative declaration weuld
roqulro an Envlranmenta) Impact Report.
Jack Wtilte, Assistant City Attorney. statPd approval of negative declarat(~n would Imply
the proposal for deletlon would not have A significant envtronmental effect~ although the
subsequent aCtion moy be to dfsapprove that p~oposal.
ACTION: Commissioner iierhst affered a motfan~ seconcled by Canm~sstoner King and MOTION
~D (onc seat bcing vacanr)~ th~t thc Anahelr, City Planning Commtssian has revlewed
the proposa) to delete a portion of Le MQSa Avenue~ west of ~Ihitc Star Avenue end north of
the Riversidc Frc,cway In order to rieveiop prope~ty with an industrfal camplex on an
ir~egularly-shaped parcel uf land conslsting of approxir~~t~ly 80.~ acrr~s bounded on the
north by La Palma llvcnuc~ on the c.~st by Kraemer Boulevard~ and on the s~uth and west by
tf~e R1 ve rs t de Freea~ray ; and dacs hereby approve the tlega t i ve Dec 1 ara t i on f rom the
requireme~t to prepare an environmental 3c+pnct ~~fx~rt on the basts that there would 'ee no
signtficant Indivldual or cumulor,iv~ adversc environmental imprct due to the Approval af
this Neyetlve Decia~a~lon; that no sensitlv~ environ~enta) tmpects are involved in Che
proposal; that the initial Study submitted !~y the petition~r in~sicates no signtficant
indivfdur~) vr c~nuletive adyrrse environ~ental ir+pacts; and that tf~e Negativc DGCl~ration
substantintin~,~ th~ forcyainy flndinas (s cm fite in thc CItV ~F Anaheim Planning
Departn~nt.
~ommissionr.r Ncrbst offered Resulution No. PC8(1-1~'1 and rmved for its passage and adoptton
that the Anahein City Pianning Com,~ission does hereby recommenC to the City Council
denial of Exhibit "E" for Amcndment to Itrea Development Pion No. 108 to delete a
partfon of La Mesa Avenue, west of White Star Ave~u+e and nerth of thc Rlycrside Freer+ay~
on the besis that subJect Ar~a Development Plan has becn approved slncc 1971 and other
p roperty ewners have dcveloped their properties (n accordance with said plan, and
reconxnanding that no chanye bc m~de to Arca Development Plan Na. i0~ it the prescnt t1me.
On roll call, the fore~oiny resolutlon wes passed by the fflila+{n~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQ`IERS: BARNES.
NO~S : COl1hl1 SS I Of~E RS : N01li
ABSENT: C4NNISSIONERS: NOIIE
VACAtlT ONE SEAT
$UStiORE ~ FRY ~ FIERaS7 ~ !c1 fiG ~ TOLAR
Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney, presented the petitionar with the written rtght to
appaal tfi e Pianntng Commission's d~ciston witt~in 22 days to the Clty Councit.
Chetrwoman 6a~nes explaine4 the Planning Commisata, reviewed this cequest from a la~d
pienntng standpotnt only ~~d the City Council wiil have to rosoive any ~ther issues.
6/30/80
~.
MINUYES ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 30~ 19~
ITEM N0. 12
~Tt~~ R~COMMENDATIONS
~• 3&1
A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TI1E RM-1200 and RM-2kA~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESI~ENTIAL ZO
Dean Sherer~ Assistant Plen~ar~ prescntccf the atsff repnrt to th~ Planning
Comrnlsslon dated J4ne 30, 1~II0. On June 16th thc Commisslon revie:wed two Codo
amendments and directed staff tu revtse the pro{~wsed r~+~endment to the structural
hcight stanJerd by sttpulatiny building hcight ln feet as well As number of
stories. The ettached ordinances rropos~ to amend Code standards requlattng
multiple-femily structural I~eiyhts a~jnccnt to single-f~mily tones es well as
reducc the minfmum size of cfwelling unlta In thc RM-120~ and RM-2b00 zo~es only
and now incl~,des a maximum structural hcight of G stories or 7~ feet; and one
story or 25 feet at 200~ 15~~ and 100 feet~ rc+spectively~ from a single-famity
zunc boundary.
i~e contlnucd that an addendum hes beon adcied to the steff r~port thAt It is the
recortxn~ndatlona of the Planning DRp~rtmcnt tf~at the Planning Camnlss(on consider
an alternativc to thc pending height ~~nd unit ti~e amendment to the zoning
ordtnance by dirccting staff to prepare a zoning a~nenclm~nt that ceuld provide the
optlon of up to a 25~ tncrcase In denslty for any "affordable sales or renta)
dcvelopment of ftve or more units" ln any residtntial zo~Q where the developer
will anter into an agreement to ~rovide "affordeble" housing. It was further
recommended that the CO~^n1IS5.on pr~cess ~+ppl tcatlons for "affordable housing
pro,jects" In any reslJential zone through the tonditlonal use p~rmlt process with
thc requlrement af approva) of ~ prectsc plan.
Mr. Sherer contirued~in th~ ooinion of thc planning staff~ the proposed amendments
to the RM-1200 and Rh--2~a0~ Multlple-Famity Residential T.ones pertatning to only
the structurat height ~nd ciwellf~g unil slze would not acca!~plish the intended
purpasc of thc C(ty Council or Pl~nninq CorRnlsslon which would be to increase the
amount of both "affordable sales and re~tal housing units" tn tl~e City cf
Anahcim.
41hi lc the proposal to ~rnen~ just the height and ~rel l ing unit size in RM-1200 and
RH-2G00 Multiple-Family Residential Zones mic~ht allar for e smalt inc~ease in
density (posslbly 1n the ranye of 6 to t~$ density incrcase) tt would also negate
mony uf the adapted commur.ity goals, nbJectives an~ standards that have been well
thougt~t out and considered at numerous public meetings with the City policy
makers, citizens and develaPe~s cver the last two decades.
Any piecemeal modifications to the zoning ordinances that would increase density
without tying such a"bonus" to any fCqulrCmCnt for "affo~dable housing" would
only escalate the value of the l~nd and prevlde a lcss citsi~able liv(ng
envi mnment rather than achieving eny rcal goal of increasing the ~mount of
afforclable rontal ~~d aales housing,
Mr. Sherer stated it is the opinion of tfie Planntng StaPf that any "density
banus" ahould be tied to m rcquire~~ent for constructing cither "effordabie rental
or sales housin~". The plrnntng staff wfti wark with the developer for Yhe
purpose o~ echieving a precise plan that wouid modify the most sppropriate site
development stsndards to permit a 25~ density bonus ~rhils At the same tlme
designtng a development to fit into individual netghborhood sltuations to provide
the best possib~e living nnvironment fp~ the effordabte development'a otcupants
6/3o/8G _ .:~i
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COyMISSION, JUNE ;0~ lg8d
REPOitTS AND RECOMMENOATIONS (CONTINUED)
80- ~81
~. w~ll as the aurroundtng ~esidential areaa. For tnst~nce the plen~tn~ staff
and davelops~ could destyn e development that would modify thase bulldtng
tetb~cks~ structur~l hetyht~ p~~king ,tanderds~ unit alze. etc. besad on the
charazteristics of not only partlcular natghbarhood where ft is Intended to be
loceted but characteristtcs of OCCUpAf1~S of the affordeble h~using proJect at
wQll.
Cvmmissioncr Tolar stated the Commission has spent a let ~f tir~ reviewing thts
150•foot structure) hetght s~tback orcilnencc nnd after revicwing all the
dlfferent methods to encourago hlgher devel~pments~ felt [he 15~-foot setback
o~dinance wlth the conctitional use pc~r~it prncess h~s been a good ordlnance and
he wou1J likc to sce it ~~moln in effect, with possibly several amendments.
Chalrwamnn tiarnES cnntlnueJ the Commissinn would ltke to s~e en Amendment to the
ordlnencc to Include when there ie c+ street be Meen thc sinqle-family zone: and
the proposed structures~ the wldth of the street could be Added~ or na less than
7~ feet, or when thc dove{op~nent (s adjac~nt t~ ~~n RS-A-b3~0~~ zone where thQre
ls ~~ resolutian of Ir~tent to mul tt-fan-i ly or shc~ws an thc General Plrn ns
.~+nythiny other than single-family~ th~n the nropascd structures woulci bc exempt
fr~m thc 15~-fa~t sr.tback restriccton. The Commiss1on fQCls this w~~uld glvr them
more Fiexibiltty and aliminatc thc nr.ed for a varlance~ noting most o` the
variances which liave been ~ranteJ in [he p~~st would fall tnto thls categary. She
statecf It is tho Cormts5lon's westrc to encoura9e deveiopcrs wtth the "density
bonus" to devclnp mo~e "af fordab le" hous i nc~.
Cammissioncr Tola~ addcd it is also ~ommission's deslre that a recommended
Plann(ng Commission policy be writtcn far distribution to devetopers relettng to
creatin~~ nx thods of density bonuses t~,rouqh smailer unit sizes~ less green space~
e tc.
J~c{: Wh(te~ Assfstant City Ntt~~ney~ expia(ned the Commission policy would be a
separate actiun. He stated he has no problem as lony bs the actlon relates to
the provisinns of tltic State statue provtdinn thc 25$ bonus and is not an "across-
the-board" credlt and the p~licy must be ticd to the low and moderate i~con±e
houstng t~lked ebout in that State iaw
Commisslaner TolAr clarified he wants the policy to Inu~rpo~ate and be ve~y clear
that this doea not neccssarily apply only to fcderally finance~i proJects.
Jsck White stated the propose~ amenJmants to thc Ordinance sh~uld be referred
back to staff for further mo.llfications ancl anather draft presented to the
Commission,
ACTION: Com~issioner Tolar offered a motion~ secanded by Commissioner Fry and
MOT 0 CAaaIEU (one seat beiny vacant}~ that the Maheim City Plnnning Gc~mmission
dpes h~reby dlrect Steff to prepare a draft en~ ndment to the nrdinante intluding
exomptions of the 1S0-font structural height setbeck in RroJects where a atreet
Is betwee~ the singi~-fomity zone and _he proposed mu!Lt-famlly structure, or no
less tha~ 75 faQt; an~~ whan a p~aposed multi-family proJrct is ed,jac:ent to RS-A-
43~OQ0 zone which has a resolutton of intent for multt-famity or is de~signated o~
the G~neral Plan for any zone otl~er than single-famlly.
Conrntsslo~er Tolar offered a matt~n~ seconded by Commisstone~ Fry and MOTION
CARRIED (one seat bcing vacant). thc• s..e A~a~e~m City Planntng Carxnisslon does
hereby dtrect Staff to prepare a d~Aft flanning Co+nnissinn policy relating to
6/3~180
~
'
MINU'I'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ JUNE 3A~ 1~80
REPORI'S ANO RECAMMENDAT_ IONS (CONTINU~D)
80•382
Incentlve methods of dansity bonuse• through smaller u~tt sizas~ less open ~pace~
atc.~ ta create more "affordabia" living units.
Commissioner Tolir expl~~ned to interested pertons present that the Commission
has decided nat to ch~nge the existiny structural height rest~ictton and that It
would rwt hsve ectomplished snything on their proposed proJsct.
~. RECOMMENDED Ct1UC AMCNpMG~IT • Re~ealinc~ Section 1n.ny.~43 Includtng Subsections
• ~ . . . :.~ ~ . 1~ .~22 and .~3~ and edding n~w Sectton 18.(15.oa3
pertalning ta stgns apprnved tn conJunctlon wlth oondttional use permits.
The staff report to tt~e Pl~nning Commtsstan ciated June 30~ 1980 was presented~
but not rced which notQS thc Code ar.~endrr~nt is intended to sl^~~sl ( f~ ~nd clartfy
Lhe present zoning requlremcnts regardlnr~ sl~ns approved (n co~Juncttan wlth tha
grAnting oF conditional use permlts in that a~~rovrl of any condittonal uso
permit shol) be dQemed to constitute .iprraval of ~ny on-premise slgns whlch ere
uthe nvtse permitted in the xone (n which such premlaes are tocrted unless. as
part of the action approvtng the use~ mor~ restrlctive sign requirements are
impos nd.
ACTION: Cor.missioncr Klny offered a motion~ seCanded by Commlsstoner Tolar a~d
~~ CARP.IEp (one seat being vacant), that the AnaheiM Ctty Pianning Cortimisslon
does hercby recc~mncnd to the Clty Counci) that the draft ordinance be sdopted
repsaling Code Section 18.65.043, Subsactions .010~ .011~ .~12, .020, .021~ .022
and .030 and adding a new section il~.Z5.~W3.
C. CONDITIOflAI USE ~'ERMIT N0. 1 9G • Request for termination frcxn Robert p. Selleck~
~1=~~~ev on~tea~ty~nc. ~ or property at 1500 South Anahaim Boulcvard~ a
condition of approval of Variante No. 31tia granted May 19, 1984 to permit waiver
of maximum fence height.
Co,:missioner King offer~d Resolution No. PCB~-110 and moved fo~ its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim C(ty Pl~nninq Cor-~r~isston does hereby grant terminatlon
of Conditional Use Permit No. 1396.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ QUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KItiG~ T4t,AR
NOES: COMMISSIONEpS: NOl~E
AUSENT: COt9MiSSIONERS: NOt1E
VACAtJT ONE SEAT
6/30/80
~ ~ ~
1
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE ~Q~ 1980 $p.383
REPORTS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
D. a~VIS~D CONDITtO~~AL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPIICATI~~~ FQRMS
The staff report to th~ Plenning Comml~caian det~d June 3~~ 19t30 w~s prese~ted
~nd noted attached fo~ th~ Commisslan'a revlew and appraval are pro~osed
Cunditlonal Use Permtt and Verlance Petitlon forms end supplemenc to the
Petttlon. Se~;l~n Ifi.03•O~p,~iQ ~f the Municlpat Code speciftea that the
Plannln,y Comm(sston s1~a11 pre!scribo the form tn which applic~tlons are made for
Reclassificetl~ns~ Varionccs~ or Canditional Use Permtt~-. Ssid forms have been
reduced in size and cantont~ as wcli ax updated and clarlfted. The iast format
revislnns occurreci in ig6~. The alteched "SubmtttAl Requirerrbnts" for
Cc~ndltionat Use Permit and Variance ~~q~atre no action as they are for
trfornu~tlon,~) purroses anly,
ACTIOtI: Commisslc~n~r Kinc~ offcre~i ~ rnocto,,, seconded by Commisslaner Tolar and
~~ CARRIED (one seot belna vacant)~ that tl~e Aneh~tm Ctty Planning Commission
dods hereby e~~rov~ rcvlted Conditlc~na) Usc Perrnits and Vari~nce pncittons and
Supplements to th~ Petitton os presenteJ by Staff,
E. ABANDONMENT_N0. 7~-2~A - Rcquest from thc Baldwin Lom~any~ to abandon dedlcatad
p c streets toyct~fcr with all cxtsttnn ~ublic utility easements in Traet Nos.
9212 end 9~1; known as Looknut Lan~~ C~nyon Vlew Drive~ Fteldbury Lane~ Ridgevtew
RaeJ~ Sadcileback I.anc and Oakv(ew Lane~ located (n thc Anahcim Hills erea
epproximately south of Noh) Renct~ Road~ east of Canyon ~fm Road.
Thr. stoff report to the Ptanning Commission dated June 30~ 1~l80 noted subject
abandanment was requasted by the ~aldwin Cnmpany;and that an envlronmenta) review
of subJect request indicatas it to be categartca!ly exempt. Class 5~ as defined
tn Paragranh 2 of C(ty of Anaheirts Environrr~nta) Impact Report Guldelirees.
ACT10N: Cor.mi,sfoner K~ng offcred a nation. scconded by Cammtssioner Tolar and
MO CARRIEO (one seat belny vacant)~ that the Ant~hci~ City Plenning Commisslpn
does here~by recommc~nd ta the Ct ty Counci 1 th~t Abandonmcnt No. 79-20A be
rpprovcd.
On roll call, tF~e foregoin,q resolutl~n was passed by the followinc~ vote:
AYES: COMHISSIONEP,S: BARMES~ gUSIIORE~ FRY~ NER85T~ KING~ T~LAR
NUES: COMMISSIONERS; NOtIE
ADSEttT: COMMI S5 IOtiERS : r~o~iE
ONC SEAT VACANT
F. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~3II~i - Request for approval of ~ev(scd plans, 1212
ort gno a venue.
The staff ~epc,rt to thc Planning Conmisslan dated June 3~~ 1~1(~A was not read et
the publ(c hearing~ but it ts refe~~red t~ ~n' made e part of Lhe minutes.
Danald M. Loynd, Laderbel~ Inc.~ w~s present to answer any questions.
The Commissi~n reviewed the ravised plans for two office buiidtngs on the
northeast and soutfieast cor~er of 4bodlan~ Drive and Kagnaita Avenue.
AC„ TION: Cheirwaman Ba~nes offered a motion~ s~concied by Commisstoner King and
M0710N CA~RIED (one seat betng vacant), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
daaa hereby grant approval of Lhe ~eviaed plans fn cron~ecLtcn with Candtttonat
Use Permi: ~o. 1$8$.
~:
~
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 30~ 198A 80•384
OTIIER ITEMS DISCUSSCO
Chsltwan~n darne• noted a lette~ w~• ~ecelved by the Pienning Ccx+,mtsslon from Mr~. Casti le
rep~rding convarsion of clo~ed school~ for ~anior citi~en hou:inc~. She rrented to tee thts
matt~~ ~oferred to the Housing Commisslan ~nd sho wantad to see th~ Noustng Commisslon's
respons• to thts letter.
Cammisslaner Bushore felt since tl~r letter fs ~dcirASSed to the Planning Comml~tlon~ s
raspanse from the Comml~slon would be c~urt~ous to let he~ knaw the metter hes been
refarred to the Nausln~~ Lanmission ancl th~ school district.
Comml=sloner Herb~t stAtod there are qulte a fr.w vacnnt schonls in thls Clty and he
underatancis the school board hes htred consult~nts to advise whet should be done with
thcm. He sugges tec! ~, s tudy be danc on each of those a i tcs I n order tu 1 ay d~wn tha g round
rulea and pubiic hcarings shr~uld be held for ~Itizen Input to detarmine the approprlate
usa because they w(11 eventually come before t~~e Planntnc~ Commtssion.
Commissiane~ Toldr was Intcrasted in dcccrmtnfnc~ ahich school stt~s Are avalleble for
sale~ or wlilchones wl II bc ava) lable In ti~e future.
Conrnfssloner Hcrbst thou~ht Frcmont Schc~ol Is thr onty onc whlch has attually bcen paid
for; thet ther~ ere a lot of Issur-s Involvc~; tt~at t,e fcit tt Is up to thr Plenning
Commlasion to dctermine what thcse aitrs should be used for and, thr.reforn~ n study wtil
be nccessa ry on each onc.
Commisaioner Tolar (ndicnted some~ne h~d inciicat~d interest in daveloping a moblle home
Rark on a schcx~l site at 5unl:ist ancJ tlall and asked F~ow onc coulci makc those
determinatlons and fin~f out ~bout thesc sltes.
Chalrwome~ 6arncs pointed nut that inf~rmetlun would ba avoileble through the achool
distrlct and sugc~est~d tliey be cr~ntactad. Shc did not think a stuc)y could be und~rtokd~~
untll it is knawn which sites are available and when they will be available,
Chai rwomen Barnes suygested staff respond to Mrs. Gasti le's lattar ansi also t~ contact the
school board.
A0,l~URNMEt1T There bciny no fu~t~er busfness, Commissloncr Ktng nffercd motlon~
seconded by Commissioner tlerbst and MOTION CARRIED (one s e at being vacant).
that the mceting be adJaurned.
The meetiny was adjourncd at 4:3~ p.m•
Respcctfully subnitted,
,~,~,~ ~.° ~(~~-
Edtth L. Narris~ Secretary
Anahelm City Planning Commission
ELN:Im
6/3b/80