Minutes-PC 1983/04/04RBGUI.AR ML'ETINC OF TH~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNINC COMM_IS3TON
RLCULAR MBETING The regular mceting of the Anaheim City Planning Comm~iii4n
was called t~ order by Chairman Fry at 1.0:00 a.m., Ap ,
1983, in the Council Chamber, e quorum being present and
the Commisaion r.eviewed plane of the items on today'4
agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 ~.m.
RF.CONVENEt 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT Chairman Pro Tempore BouaB
Commisslone~8: Bunhore~ }ierbst~ Y.ing, La Claire~
McBurney
C1~airman Fry arrlved ar. 2:30 p.m.
ABSENT
ALSO PRF.SENT
None
Annika Santalahti
Jack White
Jay Titus
Paul Si~nger
Jay Tashiro
Dean Sherer
Pamcla Starnes
Edtth H~rris
Aesistant Director for Zoning
Assiatant City Attorney
Office Engineer
Traffic Engineer
AsAOCfate Planner
Aseociate Planner
Secretary Pro Tempore
Planning Commiesion Secretary
pPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commiseioner McBurney offered a motion~ eFCOnded by
Commiseiener King and MOTIQN CARRIED (Cheirman Fry absent), that the minutee
of the meeting of March 2.L, 1983, be approved as submitted.
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATIr~N AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2410
PUBLIC HEARINC. OWNER: ROBEItT L. ZUCKERMAN, 225 E1 Cc+mino Drive~ Beverly
Nills, CA 90212. AGENT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COM1'ANY, ATTN: C. V. HICKS, 300
W. Clanoaks Boulevard, Clendale, C,A 91202. Property 3eacribed se a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.46 acre
located at the ~outhwest corner of Orange Avenue and Megnolia Avenu~, and
further deecribed as 610 South M~gnolia Avenue (Arco MP6G).
Conkinued from the meeting of March 7, 1983.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat
and ~lthough the etaff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Wallace Davis, Attorney representing Atlantic Richfield ~ompany, ~xplained his
commenes will apply to the firet four items on today's ~genda; that the
requests are to allow the sale of enack iteme in a service station and are not
req~ :sta for convenience mackets; khat Anaheim's ordinance relating to aervice
stations statea that these iteme are mainly to fulfill the purpoae of the
83-175
83- 176
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'fY PLANNING CO1~rlI33I0N~ April 4, 1983
motori~t'~ n~eds and a1~o ~tat~o th~t v~nding machines may ba uoed for
di~pansing of •uch iteme (ice, ~oft drinks~ ~nack• end cigarutteo). H~
referrsd to e lettar •ubmitted which indi.cates tho~e item• to be sold at thia
location snd expleined a condit~onal us~ p~rmit !s required because the itama
will b~ •old directly and not through v~nding mact~inee which aill provida
fraehar item~ and a beCtar selection for tho~e cu~tomers waiting for the
cepair of their vehicle~. Ha prfsented a photograph which ohowed the sctual
area and ind~stated8thiedwill noteattract anynadditional~us~rshtostheksite8
planned, a
THB PUBI.IC HEARINC WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commieaioner McBurney, Mr. Uavie briewouldebeewilling to comply
recommended conditione of approval and etated they
with Conditione 2~ 3 and 4; ho~•~ver, concerni.ng Condit:ton No. 1 requiring that
the existing moot northerly driveway on Megnolia Avenue and the existing moot
eaeterly driveway on O.ange Avenue be removed and replnced with atandard curb,
gutter, aidewalk and landecaping~ he stated this is a request for a minor
change to the uee and is not an expaneion to the eize or reconstruction of the
service etation and they feel the requirement for closure of the drivewava
would be uncalled for. He cxplained a traffic report was prepared and
preeented a copy of the traffic repart to the Commiseion.
In reeponse to Commissioner McBurney, Traffic EnQineer Paul Singer explained
he has not eeen this repoct previously since it was just handed to him koday.
He stated he coneietently recommends the removal of drivewaye that are too
close to an intereection~ no matter what the use is, so when an applicant
comas in to obtain a var.iance or a condltf.onal use permit, he makea this
recommendatiQn due to the potential traffic collisione and misuse of theee
driveways by the generel public. He explained this recommendation le in
conformence with the County of Orange stundards which etates that no HeiB~~ed
be located on any arterial street closer than 110 feet to a corner.
this is not always poesible becauee some aervic~ etstion eites may not be 110
feet wide; however, quite consistently in each application he requeats that
the Planning ~ommission consider that the driveways closest to an intersection
8t 8 S~rvi~ttagrama~atbtheseefour~specific•locationseshowingetheepotential for
collision g
co111sions.
Commisaioner McBurney noted tt-ie pnrticular corner doesn'C have any previoua
hietory of accidente because of the driveways and asked if it 1s just policy
to try and get the driveways located as far away from the interaection as
possible.
Mr, Singer stated collisione are quite light at Che Orange/MaBnolia
~ntersection~ but the report indicgres there was a pedest:ian collieion on
Magnolia due to a vehicle exiting the driveway in 1982, and a 2-car collision
in 1981 on Orangelocationrthatybegsn£argahcollisionion for collisions, but he
believed it is a
C
i:
~
83- 171
MINUTE3~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A ril 4 1983
Commissioner Herbot agr~ud With Mr. Singet' and referrad ko eita• at State
Col.legs/Ls Palma aod Euclid/LxPalma which have had quite a larga number of
accident4 in the past two years. Ne etated the reason for the ordinence waa
to provide public safety and that Arco ehould al~o be concerned about eafety.
He stAted he recognizes they are not a.king ~~r a great deal of change, but
the iemueini~theeservicenetationpandlhe didtnotrthink~thenCommis~lontiahbeinA
peop 8
unreeaonable.
Mr. Davia etated this is the first thev have heard about the number of
accidents and aeked to see a copy of the accident report. He reviewed the
report briefly and etated he agrees they should be concerned about eafety and
steted Arco ie probably more concerned than the City. b«t in this instance
this is nok a new etation and they could uee vending machinea to diapenee the
same iteme and not need a conditional use permit. He referred to ~:~eir
traffic report and explained thase coun[s were taken d~lring peak houre at the
four Arco etations and alao at the Mobtl station at tt~e carner of Harbor and
Katella where this type use was Allowed withoue eny requirement that the
driveways be closed. He stated ~hetstatedgehePPareeonlycasking towbertr~ated
for new facilitiea was adopted. Y
equally.
Mr, Dnvis stated their traffic report ehowed virtually no left hand-turns from
the driveway nearest [he street and there was careful observation of what
actually happena at each location. He sdded the cguae of the accidente in Mr.
Singer's collision report wae nat shown and the accidents could heve been
cauaed by anything. He added he did not feel the coet of cloeing the
driveways ~ust for the privi.lege of selling fresher producte to their
customera is warranted.
Commissioner La Claire etared uhe voted against the eite referred to at Harbor
and Katella because at the time ahe thought there would be a lot moreOBedtkpse
requests and that ie exactly what is happening. She added she ia opp
this request because the use could be expanded very easily; and that she is
also upset because Arco did no[ get approvsl of these sit~s before commencing
the uae and she vas sure they are fumil.tar with zoning requirementa and what
is approved and allowed.
Mr. Davis stated he cauld not give the anawer as t~ why approval was not
requested prior to commencing activity, but in reading the ordinance
carefully, it allows diepenaing of these items and, almoet by inference, it
seema to say you have to have a vending machine; however~ he felt there are
more important things to cotisider and thie is rot an additional use, but is
one already permitted and only the method of diepenaing is different and
thought che use was commenced innocently. .
Commi~sloner La Claire stated she felt in a few months the Commission will be
hearing this same etory when they etart carrying more items, and the aervice
etatlona are competing with markete and even though the few items sold here
prot+ably ~ougllowtthese~itemsngowbehsoldeotherithanethroughevendingemachinesit
is wrong
4/4/83
ril 4 1983 83- 118
MINUT~S, ANAHFtM CITY PLANNING COMMI38I.ON~ AP
She stated allowing these items to be sold at a eervice etation ia no S~~e
different than pereiaeBignedeasaaeaerv~ice etaCi.on loc~,eandnif tha uae•ie going
~tated the site wa 8
to change to alloint~11eeeventfthereeietenore trefficfi.nitely the drivewaye
ehould be cloeed
Commiasioner Buehore etated tredltio~ally service statione offered repair of
vehicles in the reer, bhe ~haveteddp~iethis~secondrbueiness~whichiis~totallyger
aervice the care~ but t yBBOline and they are attempting to attract e total.ly
eeparate from dispensing g
aeparate market. He statew~en themibeinghdiepensednfromia~vendingtmachinedor
not see the difference bet will be
ovsr the counter, betmarketse hepfeltithebdrivewaysiahould bedclosed becauBe
going after separat
it has been shown waee cl eesteto thebintersFectianeandet~e~felt~itpbehooves~the
o~t of those drive y ortunit tie stated tie
City to take care of tt~butTtha[mAr1colhastconaietently come in•And aeked for
knows ehe coat factor,
not only this, bul mucti merBCt^identtetetis[ica~areiavailablebto any netand8 B
not relevnnt and noted th
their traffic consultante~~O~ekinhgrecomnEndationsibesedaoa whatHisegooddfore
City's Traffic Engi~eer i g o~d for Arco.
tl~e citizena of Anahetm and n~t on wiiat le g
Commissioner King etated the Cummiesion has consistently asked that driveways
be cloged in these situations.
Jack White, ABSiatant City Attorney, stated he did not think there is a
problem of diacrimina~ooerCprinvolvedeandCtt~enCoauniesion~ie lookingnatiwhe[her
unique based on the p P y ~he cloaure of the driveways ie reasonably
or not, from e legal standpoint,
related to and necessary a8 a result of" the change in the methodhoWeverPeifing
of goods from a vend:ng machine to over-the-counter type seles;
that ien't g re88e~mite rovlsions, determineewhethernortnot~thererisha
conditional use p P
condition exiati~evocation ofdtle permi[tandwthrough theipublicfnuisancp
condition or by
proceedings could terminate the use.
Commiesioner Herbst referr~onal use fermitginfthatttheegramtinSiof thet ~°ake
in order to grant a conditi P will not be
conditional use permit under the conditions imeneral welfare of the citizens
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and g
of the City of Anaheim, hedeituation shouldhbe correctedy what he hag been
talking about and that t
ACTION: Commiesioner Herben F=feBbgent)~that~thecAnahei.mYCity~Planning King
and MOTION CA1tRIED (Chairma Y
Commission has reviewed thn arYectangularlyashapedVparceleofpland consistingn
exiating service station o
of approximately U.46 acre located at the southwesC corner of Orange Avenue
and Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 610 South Magnolia Avenue; and
4/4/83
MINUT88. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI3420Ni April 4~ 1983 83- 179
does hereby approve tha Nagativa D~claration from the requirement to prap~r•
an environmental impact r~part on tha ba~i~ that thor• would ba no •ignificont
individual or cumulativ~ adveroa environmantal impact due to the approval of
thie Negative Declaration oince the Anaheim G~eneral Plan dasignat~o the
sub~ect pr.operty for general commarcial land uoeo coamanaurata with the
propoeal; thet no eansitiva environmental tmpacte are involved in the
proposel; that the Initial Study eubmitted by the patitionar indicatea no
eignificant individual or cumulative advaree environmental impacts; and that
the Negative Declaration subotantiating the foregoing findinga ie on file in
tho City of Maheim Planning Department.
Commieeionsx' Herbst offered Resolutian No. PC83-64 and moved for ite paasage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Co*~missiou doee hereby grant
Conditional Uee Permit No. 2410, subject to the petitioner'a atipulation that
the items to be sold at thie facility shall be limited to gum~ packagea of
candy and minte~ packaged nute and seeda, candy bars~ fruit juices (glaes and
cane), soda, and chips (ie. Pritos)~ cookiNS and cakea, and sub,ject to
Interdepartmental Committee Recommendatione.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ HERBST, KING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: LA CLAIRE
ABSENT: FRY
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commiseion's deci~ion within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2411
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ARTHUR R. WILMSEN TRUST BANK OF A1~RICA, P. 0. Box
798~, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN.: Paul Popma, 5enior Trust Officer.
AGENT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY~ ATTN: C.V. Hicks, 30(i W. Glenoaks
Aoulevard, Glendale, CA 91202. Property deacribed as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.50 acre located at the northeast
corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard, and further described
ae 1000 North State College goutevard (Arco MP&G).
Continued from the meeting of March 7~ 1983.
There was no one indicating their preaence in opposition to subject requeet
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutea.
Wallace Davis, attorney~ stated the testimony preaented for Item No. 1 ahould
be incorporated for thia item. He requested that each site be looked at
individually; and that Arco doe~ a 1ot of busineas in South/"Galifornia and
this is America where buainesa is encouraged.
THE PUBLIC HBARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King clarified that the items for sale would be limited to those
listed in the letter of March 1~ 1983 from Mr. Hicks, with Commissioner Herbst
indicating thgt stipulation shou2d be a part of the resolutions.
4/4/83
MINUTES, ANANEIM_CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ Aprl1 4~ 1983 83- 18Q
Mr. Davis otatad the salee area eica would be limited and would not be
expanded end that ha would like each location coneidered individually. He
eteted agein that these ar~e not convenience markets, but a use that is alre~-dy
permit.ted .
ACTION: Commiesioner Herbet offered a motion~ eeconded by CommiBeioner King
a~n ~MOTION CARRIED (Cheirman Fry abeent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commiesion hea revie~+ed the proposal to retain convenience retail eales in an
exiating eervice etatf.on located on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consieting of epproxlmately 0.50 acre locaked at the northeast cornor of La
Yalma Avenue and State College Bouievard, and further described as 1000 North
State Callege Aoulevard;and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon from
the requirement to prepare a~ environmental impact report on the baaie that
there would be no significant individu~l or cumulative adveree environmental
impact due to the approva~ of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim
General Plan designates the subject properCy for general commercial land usee
commensurate with the propoeal; [hat no seneitive environmental impacte are
involved in the propoael; thac the Initial 5tudy submitted by the petitioner
indicatea no eignificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impacta; and that the Negative Qeclaration eubetantiating tlie foregoing
findinga is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depertment.
Commisaioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC83-65 and moved for ite pasasge
and adoPtion that the Anaheim City Planning Coaamiasion doea hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2/ill, subject the petitioner'8 stipulation that the
iteme to be sold wil.l be limited to gum, packaged candy and mints, packaged
nuts and seeds, candy bare, frutt juf.cea (glass and can), soda~ chipe (i.e.,
Fritos), cookies and cakea, and sub,ject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendationa.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutinn Wes passed by the follnwing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, HERBST, KING~ MC AURNEY
NOES: I.A CLAI'RE
ABSENT: FRY
Jack White, Aasistant City Attorney~ presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commiseion's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DEGLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2412.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 300 W. Glenoake
Boulevard, Glendale, CA 91202. Property described as e rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.37 a~re 'ocated ae the southwest
corner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street, and furcher described as 1700
West J~a Palma Avenue. (ARC~ MP&G)
There was no one indicating their preaence in oppoaition to sub~ect request
and although the staff report was rot read, it is ref~erred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Wallace Davis, attorney, was preaeat to anewer any questions and Jack White,
Aseiatant City Attorney. explained the teetimony presented in Item Nos. 1 and
2 would be included as testimony on thia item.
T1[E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEQ. 4/4/83
MINUTB3, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM'MI3SION, April 4~ 1983 83- 18l
ACTION: Com~ais~ioner Herbat offered a motion~ seconded by Commieoioner King
end MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Fry abaRnt) thut the Aneheim City Planning
Commieeion hae r~vieaed the propaenl to retain convenience retail oalee in an
existing eervice station on a rectangularly-eheped parcel of lend consisting
of epproximately 0.37 acre located at the eouthweet corner of La Palma Avenue
and Euclid Street, and further described ae 1700 West La Palma Avenue; end
doea hereby approve the Negative I~clecation from the requirement to prepere
an environmental impact rpport on the basis that the.re would be no eignificent
individual or cumulative advcree environmental impact due to the approval of
thie Negative peclarxtion eince the Anaheim General Plan designatee the
gub~ect property for general commercial land ueee cammeneurate with the
proposal; tr~at no seneitivic environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner. indf,catea no
significant individual or cumulative adveree environmental impacts; and that
the Negative Declaration eubstantiating the foregoing findings ie on file in
the City of Anaheim Planning Dep~rtment.
Co~missioner Hprbst offered Reeolution No. PC83-66 and moved for ita paseage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doea hereby gran[
Conditional Uae Permit No. Z412, subiect to the petitioner's etipulation that
the items to be sold will be limited to gum, p~ckaged candy gnd min[e~
packaged nuts and seeds, candy bf~ra, fruit ~uices (gless and cana), soda,
chips (i.e,, Fritos), cookies and cnkea, and aubject to Interdepartmentel
Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolu[ion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: LA CLAIRE
ABSENT: FRY
Jack White, Assistanc City Attorney, preaented [he written right to eppeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE ~BCLAItATION AND WAIVER OF CODE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2 13.
IREMENT AND
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 300 W. Glenoaks
Boulevard, Glendale, CA 91202. Property deacribed as an irregularly-ehaped
parcel of land c~nsisting of approximately 0." acre located at the norl•hweat
c~rner of Riverdale Avenue and Tuatin Avenue~ and further described as 3901
East Riverdale Avenue (ARCO MPbG).
Continued from the meeting of March 7, 1983.
There wae no one indicating their preaence in opposition t~ subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it ie referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Wallace Davis~ attorney, was present to answer any q~estions and explained the
testimony presented in Items 1, 2 and 3 should be incorporated into thie
hearing.
4/4/83
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION~ April 4~ 1983 83- 182
Responding to Commissioner Horb4t~ Mr. Davis ~xplained the eigna were
diecusaed with etaff and the problem le that the signe can be aeen from the
streete because of the configucation of the property and it i. not a true
violation of the ordinance and they would request that the eigns be allow~d to
remain as they are.
THE PUBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbet noted the eigns werp first found by tlie Gode F.nfarcemenc
Officer while conductinE rautine field inveetigations.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for 7.oaing, atated the aign ordtnance
regulates eigne that are vieible from the etreet and ad~acent properties end
because of that service stations h~~ve been allowed to advertiae and give
information directly related to the sale of khe gasoline at the pump island
and to have eigns which can anly be reod from thQ inside to ctdvertise aoything
they likc, but because of the configuration af this properGy, the pump islanda
face both etreeta ead the lettering is large enough Chet it can be read which
is the reason the violation was noticed.
Commiagioner Herbst atated it appears the problem is the size an.i shape of the
propcr[y.
Commiseioner La Claire stated she is votinE againeC all of these requesta;
however, at this eite there is a convenience market lesa than SO feet from
this statlon and there is a problem with parking in that whole development and
also a problem with ecacking at that atatiun~ and it is very difficult to get
into and out of the eite becauae of croas-traffic and the driveway. She added
she fe1C [his ie the worat locetion of any of the four on the agenda today,
and pointed out it is locateci in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and there is
a more restrictive sign ardinance and this Commiesion has been trying to keep
signa at a minimum. She sta[ed she thought the owner of the Stop and Go
mdrket would oppose this requeat and was aurprised th~y are not present.
Commissioner Herbat pointed out if thig approval is not granted, the
petitiuner can have the same eale of gaoda through vending machines~ but he
felt if they want this service, they must make it safer for their cuatomers.
Commissioner La Clai:e asked if the driveways would need [o be closed at this
site. Paul Singer responded the one on Tuetin closest to the intersection
ehoulcl be closed. He pointed out it is opposite the other driveway and is
used very auccessfully ta shortcut the signal. He added they have virtually
no collisions at that location~ with Chaira~an Pro T~empore Bouas pointing out
there were two collisions in 1981. Mr. Davis noted their trxffic report
indicated there were no turns made there.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbak offered a motion~ seconded by Commisaioner King
and MOTION CAFtRIED (Chairman Fry abaent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commisei.on has reviewed the proposal to retain retail sales in an existing
gasoline service station with waiver of permitted advertiaing on lighter box
signa on an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land coneiating of approximately 0.51
acre located at the northwest corner of Riverdale Avenue and Tustln Avenue~
4/4/83
MINUTES, ANAHLIM CITY P_L_ANNING COMMISSION~ April 4, 1983 $3- 183
and further deacribed ae 3901 East Riverdale Avenua (ARCO MPbC);end does
hereby approve the Negative beclaretion from the requir~ment to prepare an
environmental impact report on the baele thaC thero would be no significanc
individusl or cumulaeive adveree environroental impact due to the approval of
thie Negetive Declaration since the Anahaim Cenerel Plan de~ignates the
sub~ect property for geaeral commercial/medium deneity residentiel land usea
commensurate with Che proposal; that no aeneitive environmental impacts are
involved in the proposal; that the Initiel Study submitCed by the petitioner
indicares no eignificant individual or cumulaCive adverae environmental
impacts; end that the Negative Declaration dubatantiacing che faregoing
findinge is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
Commiesioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Comm.~nioner King and MOTION
CARRIED (Chairmen Fry absent and Commisaioner La Claire voting no) that the
Anaheim City Planning Cammission does hereby grant waiver of code cequirement
of permitted advertieing on lighter box signs on the basis of the size and
shape of eubject property and o~ the basis that dental would deprive subject
property of a privilege being enjoyed by other propertiea in the same zone and
vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered Regolution Nn. PC 83-67 and moved for ite passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby grant
Conditional Uee Permit No. 2k13, subject to Che petitioner's stipular.ion that
the eale of goods ahall be limited ta gum, pack~gea of candy and mints,
packaged nuts and seeds, candy bara~ fruit ~uices (glaas and can)~ soda~ chips
(i.e., Fritox), cookiea and cakes~ and aub~ect to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendationa.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
rOES: LA CLAIRE
ABSENT: FRY
Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commisaion's decision within 22 days to che City Council.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR N0. 247 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIE~), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.
184, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 82-83-27, WA~ IVER ~F CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 24~2.'.,t,(,SUBSEQUENTLY CHANCED TO VARIANCE N0. 3328) AND WAIVER OP
COUNCIL POI.ICX N0. 543.
_.___,_.._~
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PAUL T. SALATA, 2950 AIRWAY, D-3, COSTA MESA~ CA
92626. AGENT: STATE-WIDL~ DEVELOPERS, INC., 5182 KATELLA~ STE. 106, I.~3S
ALAMITOS, CA 90720. Property deacribed ea a rectangularly-ehaped parc:el of
land consisting of approximately 18.6 acres having a frontage of approximately
1320 feet o~ the west side of Knott Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 612 feet and being located approximately 655 feet south <•f the
centerline of Ball Road (ApoJ.lo Junior Righ School).
Continued from the meeting of March 21, 1983.
4/4I~3
MINUTB3, ANAHEIM CITY PLANI~INC COMMISSION~ April 4, 1983 83- 184
There wae no one indicating their pre4ence in opposition to subject request
and althnugh the etaff report wae not read~ it is referred to and made a pact
of the minutee.
Jack Whita~ Asaietant City Attorney~ etated after further review by their
office~ it appeare the appropriate ection wauld be coneideretion of a varience
rather than c~ conditional use permit with wc~ivere; tt~at a waiver is baeically
identical to H variance; And thaC the proposed uee ae condominiume is
~ermitted in the zone to which the property is proposed to be reclaesified.
He suggested the petitioner requeet that the coaditional uee permit petition
be withdrawn and thet the Planning Commission caneider this as a variance.
Alex Bell~ State-Wide Developere, agent, agreed to withdtaw the conditional
ude permit petition. He etnted they went back to the drewing board following
the March 21st meeting and reduced the number of unite from 432 to 388 and
increased tt~e recreational area and reduced the number of tandem parking
spaces, although accotding to the parking ordinance~ tliey could have had 100X
of the covered epeces as tandem~ but are only proposing 21X. He atated the
tondem parking doea allow developers to increase the open epace; tha[ site
coverage has been reduced and no waiver is required; and thet the la~d area
per uniC has been increased. He etated origit~ally they xequeated a deneity
bonue of 61X with 25x being a rule-of-thumb which the City will allow and that
hae been reduced to 44X~ or approxi.~akely 16 to 18X higher than what would
normally be approved.
Mr. Bell stated the purpose of [he bonus, as he under~tood it, ~ls t~ stimulate
affordable hcusing. He etated origlnetly they proposed 100X affordable units,
based on 432 uni[s, and they are prepared at thie time, without c.hanging the
concept of the plan and atill using the Nelper Program~ and fully intend to
provide 100X affordable housing, including rental as well ae for-sale houaing
with thp bonusee, and with the 44X requested bonus increase, would commit to
fully SOX of the project as being •~ffordable. He stated they have submitted
the self-imposed constrainta outlined previously and included in the Helper
brochure [o the Housing Authority, and th~y feel the constrainte can be
imposed in a manner which will be fully restrictive for the 5-year period. He
stated affordab].e houaing programs thraughout Califurnia and the country are
being diemantled, including the inclusionary housing in Orange County which is
at risk and almoet certain to be defeated, and bond isaues are in danger. due
to the Pickle Bill which wil.l prevent FDIC guarantees. He continued that the
Helper Program will not require any ~ubsidies or bond issue moaey, but it will
require the help of a lot of agencies and the developers.
THF. PUBLIC KEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbat stated he atill hae a few problems with this project; that
in some areas increased density creates problema for the people who are
already livtng there such as ;~affic and schools. He stated the General Plan
has taken thoae things into consideration for the growth of Anaheim, and any
developments permitted over those plan~ed denaities means aomeone will have to
pay for it in the future.
Commisaioner Herbat stated the Commisaion approved the Fremout School site,
which was sold at $308,000 per acre, for approximately 18 units to the acre
and that developer aleo had to prov~de a heliport, but now thie developer is
4/4/83
MINUTFS~ ANAHB'[M CITY P1.ANNING CQMMISSION~ April 4, 19$3 83- 185
asking for 20.9 units per ~cre on tha Apollo •ita and it •old at ~163,000 an
ecro~ which gives mor~ input for aifordable houaing than eny oth~r d~vs lo pment
at any achool sira. Ha statad thie iaakes it difficult for him to ~ay that ha
wante to change the ordinance to accommodate condom iniums which would ba r~ly
be meeting the apartmenC ~tsndar.da.
Commisoioa~r Nerbet etated he did nc+t feel ae a Pla nning Commieolonar and land
planner that he cauld agree with tt~la concept; thet if tho developer :~nt s an
apartment pro~ect~ he ehould cell it an apartment a rd if I~e wanCa a
condominium pro~ect~ he ahould call tt a condominiu~ and it ehould be built to
condominium etandarde. He etated if thie project c~me before him today as an
apartment conv~reion to condominiu~no~ he could not vote for it, Na sts ted the
developer has snid thie will be an effordable proje ct, but ho hea only agreed
to rent [ho~e for five ~eare ae affordable houeing, b~t has eaid nothing about
selling them ae affordable ~nite and hae nat guaran teed that it would be ao.ld
ae aFfordable houeing. He etated the Helper Progra m ie a pilot program which
hae never been ueed, but he could not vote for an a pertment and call it a
condominium.
Mr. Bell eteted t~~ere seems to always be a proble~a with communications and
certainly one of them has to do with understanding thie Helper Program, and
another is the source ~f infor~ecion [hat would le a d anyone to believe that
they were able to pick up the property at Apollo for ~163~000 per acre.
(Commiesioner Herbst stated the 5chool District sald the pr.operty for ~163,000
per acre). Mr. Bell coi~tinued chat they paid s5.7 5 Os000 for the 8-1/2 a crea~
which ie probably lese than most property being sa ld in the City of Anaheim~
and it was a very reasonable price, but Lt will no t aork with a deneity u:
14,5 units per gcre. Ne at~ted he would dieagree that thie is the same ae an
apartment pruject because the ma~oricy c'' [he unit s are 2-bedroom units and
all 2-bedroom unite are in exc~egs of apai ment req uiremente of 825 dq. f t. and
At least 1/3 of these units ere 900 ey. ft., and us ually two-bedroom
apartmente do not have two full bathroo~s, but th~se units will have twro full
baths. He stated the project ia condominium quality and the Cenernl Pla n
would permit 36 unite per acre as apartment comple x, and they could be
submitttng plans for that many unite today, but that would certalnly upset the
neighbors. He stated they did meet with the ad~ac ent propPrty owners a nd the
•~a,~ority of thoee attending were oppoaed to apartin~nte~ but thpy had no
opposition to these plane.
Mr. Bell stated their purpoae ie to create afforda ble housing ~n a netionwiae
basis and it ian't to make money because if they wsnted t~ make mon.:y, they
would have come in with 36 unite to the acre and would probably make mo re
money with a lot lesa effort. Ne stated this Helper Program has the sup port
of lenders and Congreeaman Patterson and Jesee Unrvh, and many others, and
they also have su~port from ather communitiea such as I.ong Beach, Cypres s~
Fullerton, Pomona~ etc. He stated this program must have this city's su oport
in order to work and if the merits of the proAracn to help provide affordabl.e
housing are not good, then he would like to know wl~y tt~ey are not good .
Mr. Bell stated in the Helpe: Program they do guarsntee affordable prices to
every tenant that is qualified and has lived in the unit for ona year and that
g~arantee is in their leaee agreement; that the property will be appraised by
an independent appraiser who could actually be hi red by the tenant
aseociation~ and if the tenant has lived there for ane year, they will receive
4/4/83
MINUTE8, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNINC COI~II53ION, April 4, 1983 83- 186
a 7-1/2 X reduction off the appraisad price and if thay h~va lived th@re for 3
yearo, G hey will receive a lOX reduction. He etateci a one-bedrooa- unit built
thraQ y~ are ago which would normally sell for $69~000~ would aell for s62~500
under t his program, and a s89~000 unit would aell for ~80~000.
Mr. Bel 1 eta~ed they met with th~ Nouuing Authority to try and put aome teeth
into th ie program to mAke eure that develaperg are requ9.red to eubmit to the
reducti on in the price of theee units and they have b~en aesured that it can
be dune . He stated they welcome eny type of reetrictions which would
guarent ee the rent and for-sale price for affordeble housing.
Chairma n Fry ar.civeu at 2:30 p.m. and aseumed the chair.
Commias ioner Bouae asked for clarification regarding the den. Mr. 'tell
explain~d that would be a foyer type area which could be uePd for a amall deek
and wou ~d provide e little e;bnw roo~,
Commiss ioner Herbet etated thc appreised vr~l~~~ nf the property ~n 3 to S year.s
could be at an infleted ratP and the unite w~~ul~ no longer be affordable. Ne
wae alb o concerned about the depreciated value afi-er 3 Co 5 years with the
unita needing carpeta~ drapee~ etc. He stated !he developer ie requeating a
41X den sity bonus which would caean millions of dollare in th~ir pocket~~ and
he did not a~ree with the developer's s[atement that they are not doing thi~
to make money because all developers wan to mr~ke money. He etated rhis
pro~ect does not meet Anat~eim standards ~~~d he ie not convinced that it ehould
be apprc~ved.
Mr. Be 2 1 atated no developer or bueineasman could guarantee prices for five
yeare i n the future; that the developers of this program el:eady have a very
aignifi cent expoeure and there could be a deflation, pointing cst there are e
lot of erese where home values are decreasing. He sCated if tl~ere is an
inflati on~ hopefully, there will also bE an inflation in wagea.
Chairman Fry etated the Commiaeion ahould diecues land plann~i,,,n,~, a~d not
econom i ce; end thet the developer is aeking for 41X density~nd from what he
can se~ ,[he Commission ie not going tn approve it. He added he felt the
develo per Is ~ust asking for too much.
Com~is sioner La Claire aeked why the units are not going to be aold now racher
than in 3 to 5 years~ considering the questionable market.
M.r. Be 11 etate~thece are membere in their ~ompany who would prefer building
the 18 unita~an ee~ling the pro~ect. He stated they could just forget the
afforda ble and build the uniCa and sell them, but they are trying to help, and
stated he hae never had so much difficulty trying to help a eituation. He
stated if the Commiaeion doean't aant to approve this~ program, then they have
the alternative uf goiag to the City Council ~ and ~~ould hope that •-o~ ld not be
nECessary, and would like to believe thet all the Cammi..sion~r.s had a part in
the e nactment of thia 25X bonus program and what it stands for aad stated they
nre ,just trying to expand on that basic idea.
4/4/83
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY_PJ.ANNING COMMIS3ION, Apxil 4~ 1983 8 3- 187
Commi~eionar Buphora dteted he was glad Mc. Bell corrected the figure~ tl~e
Commiesi.o~ waa given r~garding the price paid for the property; that he
underetends the economice of wanting the 20.9 unite per acre; that ~ knove
thie company has been vary innov~tive~ but this Commiseion has gone .hro ugh a
lot of these hearinge and hae been given a mandete from the City Council
regarding tli~ maximum density ellowed; and thet this Helper Progrem woul d
probably have been approved 2-1/2 to 3 yeare ago~ but now after seeing what
has happened~ the Cosmniesion will not go over the 25X. He eteted he wou ld
like to vote far the project, but cannot go over the 25X and is not ask i rg the
developer l•o reduce the number of units, but another alternative would be to
go back to the property owner and tell him that the City will not approve thie
deneity. He etated the City reduced the condomin~um requiremente from 4,OUO
sq. ft. to 3,000 eq. ft. and has taken other 9tepe, but they have not wo rked.
He etated this developer ia ~ust asking for too much more than the City ie
willing to give. He stated he has nothing ngainst Che pro~ect itself~ e xc.ept
that: it exceede the 25X. He added he has known other developere pexsonally
who have made requeste and he has voted againet them becau~e he does st ick to
hia principles. He stated I~e did not ob~ect to the General Plan Amend~pnt or
Reclaesification, and felt the recreatiunAl-leisure area ie reasonable, but
the problem is deneity.
Commiseioner La Claire ecated another problem ie that this project ie 1 OOX
affordable as rental units, but not ae for-sal.e unite, and that ia for five
yeara only; that et~e thinke tlie Commiseion understande juat ahat this means,
but all the Commiesionera are conc~rned about wr~et it will mean to the people
iu the long run. She stated maybe the developer should juat go ahead a nd ask
for 25X density bonus, build the pro,ject and then sell the units. She steted
develr,perR hav~ aeked for effordable units, and then haven't been able to find
anyone who could quelify to buy the unita. She stated ahe realizes aff ordable
houeing is needed, but was nfraid because this is actually apartment u n ita
that will be converted and they will be lUOX affordable as rentel units , but
not 100X effordable for the tenants who buy tF~e units. She stated ehe ie
still concerned about the density and did not know how it will help the people
who live there~ except a reduction in the purchase price and chat woul d occur
with any apartment complex that is converted to condominiuma.
Mr. B~~11 stated i.t is very difficult for him to undersr.and certain aspecta of
these meetings, and he was under the imFreseion that e reasonable compr omise
would be coneidered and as it has turned out, anything above 25X will n ot be
coneidered. He stated he doe~ understand that the Commiasion has been given a
mandate and doea take that mandate aeriously and that ahould be an important
factor to the Commisaion, and for that reaeon since the mandate cam~ f rom the
City Council, that is Che obvi~oua place to g~. He as'~ed for a brief r ecess to
confer with his aseociates.
RECESS 2:50 p.m.
RECONVENE 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Bell requested that the Planning Commiasion take whatever action i s
required in order that this matter may be considered by the City Counc il.
4 ; 4/83
~
MINU TE3~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 4, 1983 83- 188
It waa notad Environmcntal Impact Report No. 247 was previouoly certifiad by
the City Council on December 8, 1981~ in con~unction with General Plan
Amendment No. 166. The EIR conoiderad the maximum permiasible denrity under
the medium deneity residential land uee deeignation (36 d.u./ac.) esteblished
by [he GPA.
Concerning the General Ylan Alaendment, Commidsioner Buehore etated he felt the
ent ire praperty ehould have bepn deeignated reeidential in the begt:..iing~ but
the owner wanted commercial on one 6-acre parcel, and that he would offer a
res olution for apptoval for RM-3000 zoning.
Dea n Sherer, Associate Planner, explained the Ceneral Alan ~hould bo amended
to permit medium deneity residential land usea whici~ ould permit epartmenta
as well ae cnndominiume. Commissioner Bushore replied he had not intended to
restrict the deneity.
ACT ION: Commisaioner Buah~re ~ffered Reaolution No. PC83-b$ and maved for its
pas sage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion doae hereby
rec ommend that the Cl.ty Council adopt General Alan A~qendment No. 184, Exhibit
A, for medium denaity reeidential land uses.
On roll call, ttie foregoing resolutior. was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSNURE, F'RY, HER°ST, KING~ LA CLATRE~ MC aURNEY
N0~ S : NONE
ABSENT: NONF.
Commissioner Bushore offered Reeolution No. PC83-69 and moved for it~ passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion does hereby grant
Reclaesification No. 82-83-27, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Rec ommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution wae passed by the fallowing vote:
AYE S: BOUAS, BUSHOkE~ FRY, FIERBST, KINC, LA CLAIRB, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Comminsioner Bushore offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herb~t and
MOTION CARRIBD that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commission does hereby approve
the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2427 at the request of the
pe titioner on the baeis that the waive•s of code requirement and conditional
use permit ehould be considered as a variance of [he zoning code.
Commissioner Buahore offered a resolution anc' moved for its paesage and
ad option thr~t the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion doea hereby grant Variance
No. 3328 01 the basis that other cities are allowing units of this eize and
al so on the basie of the marketplace since this is whgt people are inrereated
in purchaeing, and there are adequate amenitiea included to service the needs
of the residents, a->~' on the basis that denial would deprive sub~ect property
of privilege en~eyeu by other properties in the same zone end vicinity and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommend~tione.
4/4/83
83- 189
MINUTB3. ANAEiEIM CITY PLANNING CO'~MI89IDN~„A~t ,~,1 4, 1983 _______,_
Chairraan Fry ard Commissioner Herbet aaked for clarification of the r~solution
offered granting the var.iance. Aean Sherer asked if Commie~lonernBuehore
grant all three waivora, or ~usC a portion of thero.
stated he would like to grant the resolution in part, but felt it ahould
probably be dani~d bacauee of the deneity iseue.
Commiesioner Buehore offered Resolucion No. 1'CA3-70 ~nd moved for its paesage
end adoptian that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion doea hereby deny
Variance No. 3328 on the basis that the epplicant did not want to comply with
the 25X deneity bonus requirement and on the basi~gthat ~r surroundingarof
demonstrated pertatning to the ei.~e, ehape, topoA p y~
eub~ect propcrty, and aleo on the baeie that tt~eae would be affordablc rental
unite, ot affordable fpr•sale unite,
On xoll call, the foregoing reeolution was passed by the f'ollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, KINC, LA CLAIRF.~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABS~NT: NON~
Cammissioner Aushore offered a motion, seconded by Commtssioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIEDuncil thatAtheerequest fornWaiger~of~CouncilGPolicy No.r543mbend
to the City Co
denied.
C~mmissioner Buahore offered a yotion~ aeconded by Commie~loner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doea hereby request
that the City Council review these actiona of the Planning Go~-~~Sin
pertainin$ to Reclasaificaclon No. 82-83-21 and Variance No.
conjunction with their hearing on Rnneral Plan Amendment No. 184.
Jack WhitP explained the City Council would autumatically hear the General
Plan Amendmgled and thisnwillYallowathetma[t~rshtoRbelsetiforapublicrhearingce
unleas apPe
concurrently.
Commiasioner Bushore stated the Commisaion ~B olicn~foreae aximum825xedensity
the density request and becauae of Council's p Y
bonus.
Jack White pointed out Interdepartmental Committee Recommendatic+n No. 19
pertains to ths wereedeniedinandeConditionnNocc22drequireahthetnConditional
and those plan
Use Permit No. 2427 be approved.
Commiesioner Bushore offered a motion, seconded by Comm'.asioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED that Condition Nos. 19, 22, and 23 shall be deleted from the
resolution epproving ~claseification No. 82`83'27~
Jack Whlte pointed out notices of the City Council's hearing will be mailed by
the City Clerk's Office in the same manner as the notices for the Planning
Commisbion hearings.
4/4/83
__.W..~
MINUTE3, ANAHEIM CITY P1.ANNING COMMI33ION, April 4~ 1983 83- 190
ITFM N0. 6 BIR NLGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLA33YFTCATION NO_. 82-83-28
PUBI~IC HFARING. REQUESTED BY rHF CiTY QF ANAHEIM~ 200 3. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim~ CA. 92805. Properties describad aa (A) Lasy Living Mobile 3345 W.
Lincoln Ave.; (B) La Belle Fountaine Mobila Betacea, 200 N. Grand Avenue; (C)
Pacific ~unoet Mobile Home Estates~, 211. S. Beach Boulavard; (D) Cherokee
Mobile Gardens, 235 5. Beach Boulevard; (8) Cceen Acrae Mobile Home Park, 3050
W. Ball Road; (F) Malody Trailer Lodge, ~00 S. Beach Boulevard; (G) Tratls End
Trailer Lodge, 1224 S. Beach Boulevard; (H) Western Skiee Mobile Home Estates,
2770 W. Lincaln Avenue; (I) Cesa H~rmosa Mobile Home Park, 525 W. Gilbort
Street; (J) Rio Viata Mobile Eatatre, 320 N. Park Vista Street.
To eatabliah the Mobilehome Park Overlay (t~1P) Znne.
There were appraximately 15 intereeted pereone indicating their presence at
tt~e public hearing und although the etaff report wes not read, it ie referred
to and ~ade a pa.rt of the minutes.
.leck White~ Assietant City Attorney, exE~tained the Mobilehome Park Overlay
Zo«e Ordinance and pointed out the purpose is to provide an additional
pr~:ection far all tenente in mobilehome parke~ and the City is rexoning all
the mobilehome parks in the city to this new zone and none of the parke will
be permitted to any use other than a mobilehome park unlees the zone ie
changed, and if the nwners want to convert the park to any other use, t~~ere
would first have to be a public hearing and all tne tenanrs would be notified;
and also one of the provisione of the ordinancn provides for the payment of
relocation benefi.te if a park ip diecontinued.
Aororhy La Morte etated she owne propert~ ad~acent to one of theae mobilehome
parka and asked if there are ~,ny plans for chenges in the future. Chairman
Fry explaf.ned the Gcmmission would not know abaut any changee until the plans
are actually submitted and then adjacent property ownere would be notified.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commieaioner La Claire off~red a motion, seconded by Commissioner
[Cing and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion hae revieu~ed
the proposal to reclasei.fy Parcel (A) Lazy Living Mobile~ from RS-A-43~000 and
CL to RSA-43,000 (I~iP) ;Residential~ Agricultural - Mobilehome Park Overlay)
and CL IMHP) (Commercial~ Limited - Mobilehome Park Gverlay) Zoned, property
d~escribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel consisting of approximately 3.0
acres located on the north aide of Lincoln Avenue, approxia~ately 1078 feet
east of the centerline of Knott Avenue, and further described as 3345 W.
Lincoln Avenue; Parcel (B) La Belle Fountaine Mobile Estatea, from RSA-43,000
and CH to RS-A-43~000 (t~iP) (Residential~ Agricultura] - Mobilehome Park
Overlay) and CH (MHP) (Commercial, Heavy - Mobilehome Park Overlay) Zones~
property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land coneisting of
approximately 10 acres having a frontage of approximately 526 feet on the east
aide of Grand Avenue, approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach
Bouleverd, end further described ae 200 N. Grand Avenue; Parcel (C), pacific
Sunset Mobile flome Estates, from RS-A-k3~000 to RS-A-43,000 (MkIP)
(Reeidential, Agri.cultural - M~bilehome Park Overlay) Zone, groperty described
ae an irregularly-shaped parcel conaiating of approximately 13 acres having a
frontage of approximately 795 feet oa the weet aide of Beach Boulevard,
approximatelq 325 feet south of the centerliae of Lincoln Avenue, and further
~ ~4/83
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY P1.ANNING CoMMISSior'~ April 4 L 1983 _ 83- 191
described as 211 S. Beacn Bouleverd; Parcel (D), Cherokee Mobile Cardene, from
RS-A-43,000 to RS-A-43~OGU (MHP) (Reaidential, AKricultural - Mobilehomo PArk
Overlay) ?.one~ property de8cribed as en i-Magularly-ehaped paccel con~isting
of approximately 11.4 ecres having e fr~ntage ~f approximat~ly 335 feet on the
weet side of Beach Bouleverd~ appr~ximately 1~328 feet south of the centerline
of Lincoln Avenue~ and Further described ae 2~5 S. Beach Boulevard; Paccel
~, Green Acres Mobile Home Park~ from RS-A-43,000 to RS-A-y3,000 (MNP)
(Residential, Agricultural - Mobilehome Perk Overlay) Zone~ property described
as e rectangulari;-ehaped parcel consisting of approximately 14.2 acres having
a frontage of approximately 660 feet on the soutli aide of Ball Road~
approxi.mately 6G0 feet west of tlie centerl.ine of Eeuch Boul.everd, and further
descrihed as 3050 l.' Aall Road; Parcel (F), Melod; Trailer Lodge, from [he
RS-A-~~,000 to th~~ RS-A-43,OQ0 (Mt~i') (Residen[ial, Agricultural - Mobilehome
Pxrk Overlay) Zonc, pruperty deacribed a rectangulnrly-atiaped percel
consisting of npproximaeely 2 acres having a froncage of approxim ~ely 335
feet on the eas[ eide of Beach Boulevard, approximately G56 feet uth of tt,e
centerl.tne of Li-icoln Avenue, ~-nd furthec desrribed as 300 S. Bea~i~ Boulevard;
Parcel G). Trails ~nd Trailer Lodge~ from Cl. to CL (MHP) (Cort-mercial, Limited
- M~bilehome Park Overlay) 7.one, proper•ty deacribeci as a rectnngularly-ehaped
parcel conaisting of approximately 1.7 ecrea having a fr~ntage of
approxtmately 135 feet on the east side of Reach Boulevard, approximately 33U
feet south vf the centerline of Ball Roed, and further deb~:ribed as 1.224 S.
Beach Boulevard; Parcel (H), Weatern Skies Mobile Home Es~ates, from
RS-A-43,OG0 and CL to RS-A-G3,000 (MNp) (Residential, Agrlcultural -
Mobilehome Park Overlay) and CL (M}iP) (~:ommercial, I.imited - Mobilehome Park
~•~~~rlay) Zonee, property described as a~ irregularly-shaped parcel conaiating
of approxima[ely 4.4 acres located soutl~ and east of the southeaet corner of
Dale Avenue, and further described as 2770 W. Lin~oln Avenue; ParcEl (1)~ Casa
Hermosn Mobile Home Park~ from RS-A-43,000 to RS-A-43,000 (MFIP) (Residential,
Agricultural - Mubilehome Perk Overlay) 2one, property deacribed as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel coneisting of approximately 17.5 acres located at
the southwest corner of Crescent A~enue and Gilbert Stree[~ and further
descz:bed a; 525 W. ciin~rc Street; Parcel (J), Rio Vis[a Mobile Estates~ from
RS-A-43,000 to RS-A-G3,000 (MHP) (Residential, Agricultural - Mobllehome Park
Overlay) Zone, property described as an irregularly-ahaped percel consiating
of approxima[ely 24.4 actes located at the eoutheast cc-ner of Jackson Avenue
and Park Vista Street~ and further described as 320 N. Park Vista Street; and
does hereby approve thr Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare
an environmental impact report on the basis [hat there would bp no significant
individual or cumulative adverae environmental impact due to the approval of
thie Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designatea Parcels A,
B, F, ; and H for general commercial, Farcel C for general commercial and
medium denaity reaidential, Parcel D for general comme.rcial and medium and law
density residential, Parcels E and J for low medium density residential and
Parcel I for medium density residential land usea commensurat.e with the
proposal; that no aensitive environmental impaccs gre inv~lved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study aubmitted by the petitioner indicates no
aignificant indlvidual ar cumulative adverse environmental impac's; and that
the Negative Declaration aubetantiating the foregoing findings is on file in
the City of Anaheim Planning Dep~~rtment.
4/4/83
MINUTES. ANAFI6IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Aaril 4. 1983 83- 192
Comtnissioner La Claire offered Rssoluti~n No. N~ 83-71 ans movad f~r ite
paseage and a~option that the Anaheim City Planning Commission du~~ hereby
grant Reclassification No. 82-83-28~ uncondit:onally.
On roll call~ the foregoing re~olution wae paeaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BU3HOR6, FRY, HBRBST~ KING~ I~A CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack White, Aeaietxnt City Attorney, presented the written right Co appeal the
Planning Commiaeion'e decialon wi[hin 22 days to ~.~e City Council.
ITEM N0. 7. EIR CATEGORICAL BXEMPTION - CI.ASS 21 ANU CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT
NQ. 2 6.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: ANTONIO N. RANG~I~, ~T A1.~ 318 N. Stardust Avenue,
Placentia, CA 92670. AGENT: STEPHEN W. BRADFORD b A3SOCIATES, P. 0. Box
148, Placentia, CA 92670. Property deecribed as a rectangularly-ahaped
parcel of land caneisting of appraximately 1.5 ucres, hRVing a frontage of
approximntely 150 feet on the eset side o[ Red Gum Street~ approximately G50
feet nortt~ of the centerllne flf La Jolla St:eet, and further deac.ribed as 1450
North Red Cum Stree[.
To coneider revocat.ton of Conditionel Use !'ermit N0. 2366.
It was noted the petitiuner tias requested a con[inuance until June l, 1983.
ACTION: Comm~~,..+oner La Claire uffered a motlon, secondea by Commisaioner King
and MOTION CARRi?~ that conaideration of the aforementioned mat~er be
continued to the re~,ularly-echeduled meeting of June 1, 1983, at the request
of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 8. F.IR NEGATIVG DECI.ARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIi' N0. 2+2 .(SUBSEQUENTLY CHANCED TO VARIANCE N0. 3329)
PURLIC NEARING. OWNEbS: HUGO A. VA7QUEZ, ET AL, 619 S. Live Oak Drive,
Anaheim, CA 9'2805. Yi-~erty described as a rectangularly-ehaped parcel
conatstiag of approximately '~.36 acre having a frontage of epproximately 100
feet on the west eide of Olive Street, appro:cimetely 350 feet south of the
ceneerline of Old Lincoln Avenue and further described ae 129 South Olive
Street.
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 14-UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH WAIVERS OF
(A)MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (B) NAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT, (C)
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, (D) MINIMUM FkQNT YARD SETBACK, AI~ID (E) MINIMUM
SIDEYARD SL~TBACK.
There was one person indicating hie preaen;;e in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report ~aas not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutea.
4/4/83
MINUTE3. ANAHEIM ~ITY PL_ANNING COMMI3SION~ April 4~ 1983 __ 83- 193
Commiesiorer Bushore daclared a conflict of int~r~~t a~ d~finad by Mahei~
City Planning Cammis~ion Reoolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Confiict of
Interast Code for tha Planning Commission aed Govarnm~nt Code 3~ction 3625~ et
seq.~ in that he le the contractual real eatake acqui~ition aga~t in the
Project Alphe for the Redevelopment Agency dnd xhis project ie within those
baundaries and purauent Co the provisions of the abAVe Codes~ declared to tha
Chairman tha+ he wae withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Item No.
8~ and wo~~~3 not takc part in ~ither the diecuesion or the voting thereon and
had not d'scussen thia matter with any member of the Planning Commirtion.
Thereup~<< Commiesioner Buehore left the Council Chamber.
Jack '•hite~ Aesistant City Attorney~ explained after reviewing this
app`ication for a conditional use permit with watvers of Code raquiremente, it
wa~~ deter~ined that the appropriate action would be for a variance rather than
a conditional use permit and suggeated the petitioner withdraw the petition
for a conditional uee permit and that the Planning Co~miasion coneider thle as
a p~tition for a verian~n. It was noted this would be Variance No. 332J.
Hugo Vazquez, ownez~ explained he would Iike to build 14 affordable units et
129 South Olive and that the propetty is 100'x1S5'; that the unite will be
2-bedroom~ 2-baths and the unita will be approximately 980 eq. ft.~ and there
will be a 12'x80' porch area. He statod these unite are deeigned to enhance
the aren and the unite are quite lerge with loft areae, cathedral ceilinga and
skylights. He stated they are not asking for any waivers of parking
requiremente.
Steven F. Gallagher etated he owns prop~rty at 202 South Philadelphia and
stated he felt if this ia approved, it will aet the tone for future
development of the area. He ateted the parking is below the living area of
these unita and if thia ie approved, he was concerned that it will prevent all
the other owners from getting together to design a uciiform~ presentable and
reaeonable pro~ect. He ~tated he bought his property in 1930 intending to
bui1J a law office in the front.
Mr. VazqueZ stated it ia his opinion that people would prefer this type of
parkina under their unit; thar it la coveied parking and meets the Citv of
Anaheim requirements. He stated he !s working With the City Traffic Engineer
on providing security with a gate and card syatem. He stated he hae built
similar pro~ects i.n Tuatin and the people who rented the units really liked
thia atyle of parking because it is covered and close to the units.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner La Claire~ Mr. Vazquez exp]•ined his original plan
did not have adequate parking; however~ Mr. Singer helped redeaign the plana
so that adequate parking is pr~vided.
Commieeioner La Claire 9tated she i8 aoncerned about the number of units
because of the setbacks. Mr. Vazquez explained the setbacka are neceasary
becauae of the balconq and ic is provided because people really en~oy aitting
out on the porch area. He stated they could set the porch back S feet which
will meet requirementa, but falt architecturally this would be nicer.
~man Fry etated the projectioa is really the problem with the setback.
4/4/83
MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ April ti, 1983 83- 194
Commioet~;aer Herbet etated he was concerned abouk the number of waivers,
recognizing a 17X deneity bonua is requ~sCed and the minimum is 25X and aeked
if the pet'tioner would deaignate four unita as affordablc rather than two.
Jack White stated the etxte law Which appliee to deneity bonuses end which is
normally ue~d mandates the city tu allow a density bon~s of at luast 25X
dennity increaae where the developer providea no lees than 25X of the unita ae
affordable, and this ie lees than the 25X eo that provleion of the atate law
would not come inco play which meane the city ie n~t then mandnCed to ~rant
tho deneity bonus nnd the Commiesion would have to review thie requesc under
the normal provieione for granting variances and muat ~ind that the prc,perty
is somewhat unique in etzN~ shape, topography, etc.
Commisaioner Herbst stated he likea the pro~ect~ but unleas the 25X affordable
is reached, the Commission will have ro abide by City Codes. He etated
according to codes, the deve~~per is overbuilding the property and the
property has no hardshipe.
Mr. Vazquez atated City staff h~s indicated all thrnugti [hie procesa that two
unita must be deeignated as affordable. !ie Rtated, however~ he would be
willing to commit to three units ae affordable for five years.
Comroiseioner Herbst atated the percentage cannot be leas the~n 25X and the
peCitioner would need t~ designate four unita in order to meet the 25X
minimum; however, he would have to redeeign the projECt; and pointed out an
apartment complex could be constructed oa that property w:chou[ any waivPrs.
Chairman Fry asked !f Mr. Vazquez wo~~ld like a two-veek con*.inuance in order
to revlae the plans and explained under the State of California mandate, in
order for the Commisaion to grant the denaity bonus, the petitioner ~us:
stipulate that 25X of the units will qualify as affordable.
Commiasioner La Claire atsted ehe woulu rather a~e 14 ~nits with only three
designated as affocdaule than the 16 unite With four affordable.
Commissioner Herbst stated the code permits 12 units, but with 16 units, there
will be more automobilea, more parking~ etc. and he did not think the parking
requirements could be met with 16 ~~..its. He also pointed out a lot of the
propoaed parking is tandem parking. Mr. Singer pointed out the code does not
limit tandem parking. Commiasioner Herbet etsted through ~he old parking
code~ Che petitioner could not have gotten this caany units and nuted tandem
parkin~ has only been allowed fc-r about two months.
Paul Singer stated he has juet received i rma~ion from the Redevelopment
Agency that a conaultant ie currently dotnb a study which could resul~ in
Olive Street having to be widen•~vhich would require add'_~ional dedication. He
stated further infnrmation regarding thia matter will be available in about
CWO IAORCI~A .
Jack White etated if the applicant wants to eripulate to four afforddble
unl.ta, he would be entitled to build 16 units a:~d if he is villing p^ovide
thrse ~iffordable units with the 14 unitsf the Commiesion should proceed un~er
the normal varlance procedures whic.h wuuld require hardehip findings
pertainir-g to the property itself.
4/4/83
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC CAMMISSIUN~ April p~ 1983__ 83- 195
Commissioner Herbet eteted in reviewing the floar plene, he did not think
there ia room to provide additional parking. Mr. Vazquez replied they would
b~ ehort of parking with lE unite. Commieai~ner Nerbet etated he would not bR
willing to vnte for a parkinR waiver in thet erea,
The Commiesion bri~fly d~ocuesed the requeeted waiv@re~ and Dean Sher~r etated
that particuler neighbort~ood hae bQQn developed with pre-existing aubatandard
lota and also the majority of the surraunding atructures in the area are built
with leas than required setbacke and ~ome of the atructurea could be
considered three sEnries,
ACTION: Ccmmiesioner Ln Claire offered a motion~ sPCOn~ied by Commieeioner
King and MOTION CARRIED that L•he Anaheim City Planni~~g Commiasion h.:s rc:iewed
thw proposal to conetruct a 14-unit affocdable apartment complex with waivera
of minimum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height~ maxfmum site
coverage~ minimum front yard aetback and minimum eideyard setb:.ck on a
rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consieting of ~pproximaCely 0.36 acte~
l~aving a frontage of aprroximately 100 feet on the weat side uf 011vs Street,
r,pproximately 350 feec south of the centerline of Old Lin~oln Avenue~ and
further descri.bed as I29 South Olive Street; and dor.a hrLeby apprrve the
Nega[ive Oeclaration Erom the requiremcnt to preper.~~ an environmec,~al impact
:epurt on the basin that there would be ,:n atgnif:cant individual or
cuc~ulative r~dverse e~vironmental impact due tu the approval of thie Nege~tive
Declaration since tt~e Anahelm General Plen deaignatea the sub~ect property for
medium-density land uses commensurate wich ttie proposal; thet no ~en3lCive
environmental impacta are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Scudy
~ubmieted by the petitioner indicatea no eignificank individua; or cumulative
adverae environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration
aubatantiating the foregoing findinge is on file ir thc Ci-.y of Anaheim
Planr.ing Pepartment.
Commiasioner La Claire offered a~notton, seconded by Commisf+ir,ner King and
MOTION CARRIED that the petitioii for G~nditi~nat Use Permit No. 2429 be
withdrawn at the request of the petitioner on the baeis that subsequent to the
advertisement of the requeRt, and after further atudy of the City Attorney's
Office, it was determined that thia r.=aueat should be coneidered under the
variance proceedings,
Commiesioner I,a C~aize of:ered Reaolutio~ No. PC83-72 ~nd moved for ita
passage and adoption that thr Anaheim cicy Planning Commisaiun doea hereby
granC Variance No. :~329 ~n the basis that thie is a very good pro~ect and will
benefit t`~e ar~a; a,id tl;at the frontyard s,~tbxck waiver is required because of
the overhang of r.. ~ balcony and granting wa~vera (a), (b), (c), (d)~ and (e)
on the basis th: denial would deprive :.ubject of privilegea being en~oyed by
other propertie~ in the same zone and vi.ci~ity 3nd sub~ect to
Intexdepartmental Committee Recommendatious.
Prior to voting, Dean Sherpr pointed out that most site coverage waivera
previously granted had to do wi:.h single-family development.
Commisaioner Herbst atatp~ this is putting more unita on thie property than
any other property of thia size because of the way the parking ie designed and
h~ was concerned that it will aet a preceden[.
4/4/83
MINUTES. ANAHEIM C1TY YI.ANNING COMMI33ION~ April k. 1983 83- 196
Mr. Vatquas alarified th~t th• structure is 33 feet high which io withio the
height limitations.
Commieefoner Herbet continued that he is concerned about the oideyard eetback
and it i• difficult to eay that othar lota heva thi~ eao-e privllege oince they
are not ea wide ae thia property. He added th1• aill aleo be adding more
traffic to this area and mort of theae unita have tandem parking and the
developer could not get thie many units without the tandem parking. He stated
he ie concerned about the denelty and ~uet could not juetify the hardehip for
the veriance.
Commissioner La Claire clwrlfied ~he parkin~ epacea will be aseigc+ed.
On roll call, the foregoing reeolukion wae passed by the following voke:
AY.ES: BOUAS~ FKY, KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BU1lNEY
NOES: HERBST
ABSENT: BUSHORE
Jack White~ Aesietant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commiseion's decieion within 22 days to the City Council.
COI~Q~lISSIONER BUSHORE RETllRNED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER.
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NBGATIVE DECI.ARATION, WAIVER OF COOE
IREMENT AND
PUBLIC HEARING. 0~'VERS: ChLIFORNIA YEARLY MEBTING OF FRIENDS CHURCH, 1501 W.
Katella Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92802. Property deacribed ae an
irreguiarly-ahaped parcel consi.sting of approximately 0.9Q acre located at the
northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Ntnth Street, an~ further deecribed as
1501 West Katella Avenue (Anaheim Friends Church).
Requsst to permit a private pre-school with a cnaxiaum enrollment of 62
atudents in an exi~ting church fac~.lity with waiver of minimum number of
parking epaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppoaition to aub~ect request
and although the staff report was not read~ !.t is referred to and made a part
of the minutea.
Pastor Gordon St. Georg~, 1771 S. Ninth Street, Anaheim, atated they propose
to use part of their preoent facilitiea, with no new building, as e pie-school
to help fill e need in the area by providing chi~d care from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairman Fry~ Pastor St. GNOrge atated there is not an existing
pre-echool at thie facility, and reeponding to Commiesioner La Claire, he
explained thp number of emploqees would depend upon the size of the school as
it grows and the maximum number of seudents would be 62, with eix employees,
and that no church aervice will overlap with the preschool houra.
a~a/a3
MINUTLS, APiA}{EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aaril 4~ 198? 83- 197
- - - .-------._._._
Reaponding to Commieaioner Herbet~ F'aetor St. C~orge expleined the perents
wi11 bring the children into the p,~rking area end they witl not be unloaded or
loaded on Katella or N~inth Street.
Pagtor St. George explained the pre-echool will be inapected by the etate and
county inapectora and they wtll heve to conform to their requiremente.
ACTION: Commiseioner La Claire offered a motion seconded by Commisaioner King
an~MOTION CARRIED thaC the Anaheim City Planning ^,ommiseion lias reviewed the
propoeal to permiC a private pre-echool witli a maximum enrollmsnc of 62
atudente in an exieting church fecility with weiver of minimum number of
p~rking apaces on an irregularly-ehaped percel of land conaisting of
approxi:nately 0.99 acrP located ot the northweat corner of Kctella Avenue end
Ninth Street~ and further described as 1501 West Katella :1ve~ue (Anaheim
Friende Church); and docs hereby a}~prove the Negative Decleretion :rom the
requirement to prepare a~ environmental impact report on the baeie that there
would be no significent indlvldual or cumulative adverae environmental impact
due tn the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Cec-eral
Plan designates the subject property for low-denaity reaidential and
commercial profesaional land uses commensurate with Che ~,roposal; that no
seneitive environmental impacta ar~ involved in the oroposal; that the Initial
Study submitCed by the petitioner indicatea no significant individual or
cumulative adverae environmental impac~e; and that the Neg..tive Declaration
subatantiating the .foregoing findinga 1s on file in the City of Anaheim
Planning Department.
Commiesioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commiseinner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Pl~,nning Commisaion does hereby grant
waiver of code requirement on that hasis that the uae as a pre-school will not
generate the need for parking apa~es as required by code, and on the basie
that the petitioner atipulated that the maximum enrollment will be 62 studente
with six e;nployees.
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC83-73 and moved for ita
paesage. and ad~ption [hat the Anaheim City Planning Commiaeion does hereby
g:ant Canditional Use Permit No. 2430 aub~ect to the petit~oner's atipulation
that the maximum number of students shall be 62 with a mexioum of six
employeea, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendatione.
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution wab paesed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack White, Aesietant City Attorpey, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commiseion's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council.
4/4/83
MIP'IJTEy' ANAHBIN CI'PY PLANNING COI~MI3SION~ Aoril 4~ 1983 83- 198
.~, ----
I;"t NO . 10 - REPORTS AND RECOMIr1~NDATIONS :
A CONDITIONAL U8~ PERMIT N0. 2084 - Requeot fxom Jim 3anders and Joa
. Fargo, ageats or t a property own~r, for extension of tim^ for
propRCty located at 91$ Eaet Vermont Avenue.
ACTION: Commiesioner King offered a motton, seconded by Commiseioner
Herbet and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Coaimisolon
does hereby grent e retroactive one-year extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2084 to expire on ,June 16~ 1984.
B CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2156 - Request frum Raymond C. Salmi/A$ent
. for t e AneheiID Cammunity Church for an extenaiun ~f time for
property located on the eoutheast eide of 5anta Ana Canyon Road,
approximetely S00 feet east of the centerllne of EucalypCue Road.
ACTION: Commiesioner Kinq offered a moCion~ eeconded by Commissioner
HecbsC and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion
does hereby grent a retroactive one-year extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2156 to oxpire on December 15, 1983.
C. CONDI'~IONAL USE PERMtT N0. 2257 - Requeat from Susan A. De Namur,
Bmkay Development Company, for an extension of time on property
located at 2300 Eaet Katella Avenue.
ACTION: Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Herbat and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planaing Commiesion
does hereby grant a retroactive one-year extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2257 to expi.re on 5eptember 9, 1983.
A ~~..
92 -
,i ~~ D. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81 3K-13 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2?.
f
,~
<;~ or an
Request from Susan M. Bemis, State Wide DevPtopera, Iac.,
`~
C
E~ extension of time for property located on the bouth side of Crescent
~
~` Avenue, approximAtely 330 feet west of the ce~terllne of Brookhurst
Street.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Conunissioner
Her rb and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner Bushore abstaining) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doea hereby grant a retroactive
one-year extension of time for Reclassification No. 81-82-13 and
Gonditional Use Permit Nu. 2292 to expire March 8, 1984.
E RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81-82-1 - Request from Mr. and Mr. Don
. Heydendahl for an extension of time for property located at 205-211
North Weatern Avenue.
ACTION: Commisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner
Herbst and MOTION CAP.RIED that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommission
does hereby grant a retroactive one-year extension of time for
Reclaesification No. 81-82-1 to expire an November 2, 1983.
4/4/83
MINUTE3~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMI33~QN~ April 4. 1983 83- 199
F. TENTATIVB MAP OF TRACT N0. 11464 - Requeot from Dougles Snyder,
NunsA er 6 Associate~~ for an exceneion af time for property locatad
on the south oid~ of Coronet Avenu~~ approximstely 674 fRet north of
the centerline of Falmouth Avenue.
ACTION: Cummiesioner King offered a motion. seconded by Commi~eloner
He^ r~sC and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion
does hereby grant a retr.oactive one-year extenexon of time for
Tentetive Mnp of Tract No. 11G64 to expire on March 23, 1984,
G. ABANDONM~NT N0. 82-10A - Request from M. J. Brock b Sone~ Inc. to
abandon a portion uf a eix-foat public utility eaeement wichin Tract
No. 9684, north of Falmouth Avenue, west of Romneyo Drive.
It wae no[ed the Planning Uirector or his authorize~i represencative
ha~ determined [hat the proposed pro~e^t falls within the definition
of Categorical Exemptions~ Claee ~~ as defined in the StaCe
Environmen~al Impact Report CuidelinNe and io~ therefore,
categortcally exempt from 'he requiremenc to prepare an ~IR.
ACTIUN: Commiseianer King offered e motion, seconded by Commisaioner
Herbat and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion
doea hereby recommend to t.~e City Counci.t that Aaandonment No. 82-10A
be approved as recommended by the Ci:y Fngineer.
H. ABANDONMENT N0. 82-14A - Request from City Engineer co abandon a
portton of road and public utilir.y easement on the west aide c.f
Maheim Boulevard at Sunta Ana Street. The right-of-way wae acq~sired
for Ct~e Maheim Boulevard street widening project. It has been
determ~ned that the City does not need all of the right-of-way it had
acquired.
It wae noted tlie Alanning Director or his authorized repreaentxtive
has determined th~l the proposed project falls within the definition
of Categorical Exemptiona~ Class 5~ as defined in the State
Envirunmen.al Impact Repore Guidelinea and ie~ therefore~
categorically ~xempt from the requiremen[ to prepare an EIR.
r1C'TION: Commi~aioner King offered a motian, seconded by Commisaioner
Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Maheim City Planning Commisaion
does hereby recommend to the C1ty Council that Abandonment No. 82-14A
be arproved ae recommended by the City Engineer.
OTHER DISCUSSION:
Responding to Commiesioner Bushore, Ar.nika Santalahti, Assistant Director for
Zoning, explained thet a report is going to tt~e City Cauncil tomorrow
recom~ending that Abandonmente not be submitted to the Planning Commiesion for
recommendation since the City Council must hold a public hearing anyway~ and
there have been very few inetances where Planning Commiaei4n had any problem
with abandonmente in the past.
COI~iISSIONER BUSNORE LEF'T THE I~ETING PRIGR TO THE DISCUSSION OF REPORTS AND
4/4/83
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~.ANNING COMMISSION, Aprtl 4, 1983 83- Z00
RECOtYQrIF.NDATIONS, IT~M I~ AND DIO NOT RETURN.
I. COUNTY OF ORANC~ TAFT-S6RRAN0/CRAWFORD CANYpN ROAD MA3TLR PLAN OF
ARTERIAL NICHFIAY MPAH AMENDMt?NT S'I'UDY
.1aj Taehiro~ Aasoci<<te Planner~ st•ated in che paet the Planni~g
Comtnieaion hae ahown some intereet in the propoeed deletion of
Serrar:o Avenue from the ltaeter Plsn of Artertal Highways; that the
County hae prepared a etudy with four alternatives and two of thaAe
alternetlvt•~ preclude Serrano AvenuQ; howev~r~ Alternative 1B is the
actual deeignation ahown on tt~R City'8 C:rculation Element; t:~at the
Planning Dep~riment steff ia recommendink that the Planning
Commiesion by motion recomm~nd to the City Council that Alteruative
1B of the County of Orenge Taft-Serrano/Crawford Canya~ Road Maeter
Plan of Arterial Highwnys (t~iAP) Amendment Study be reco~mended for
adoption by the Gounty of Orange, FIe atAted City Council will be
coneidering this matter on Tuesday. April S~ 1983 (tomorrow),
Commieaioner tlerbat ecated he was at a meeting ~f the Orange C~unty
Plannere tn Irvine a couple of weeke ago and tt~ie plan wae diecussPd
and Anaheim is no[ the only city that ia concerned; th~C Laguna,
Brea, Orange, etc. ace also concerned about some of the roada that
are being propoaed for deletion And it will be diacusaed in detAil at
the next eession; and, hopefully~ the neceaeity of keeping the rnnds
on the plan can be brought to rhe City Cou~cila and the Board of
Supervieors' attention; that Anaheim has been developing ar~~and theae
roade, particularly Serreno~ and now they are proposing deletion
which will draetically affect other roads in the area which would
heve to be widen~ etc. He stated he felt the Planning Coromisaion
should make a strong recommendation to the City Council that they
meet with the BoArd of Supervisors, primarily Nestande because he
lives in Ville Park and ie pushing for some of these deletions.
Commissioner McBurney etated following the last fir~ in the Anaheim
Hills erea~ Commission was [old by the Fire Chief that if Serrano
Avenue had been ~pen, those homes could have been saved, but they had
to go all the way around and come back in to protect the homes end
they were burned to the ground. tie stated he definitely would want
to keep the Serrano alignment on the plan ae it is right now,
Commiaeioner La Claire atoted she agreed and the P:anning Commiesion
should do everything in its power to r~ee that Alternative lA is
adhered to and thought it would be ahort-aighted of the County at
thie atage to even attempt to alter the roads.
Commisaioner Herbst atated if Orange County is going to grow,
circulation must be adequate; and that the cities of Orange and
Anaheim have been on the recard f~r a long time in their planning
with the idee that those roads ~ire going to go though.
4/4/83
as- zo~
MINUTEg ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COI~IMI88I0N A til 4 1983
ACTIONt Coamis~ioner HlrbopN f~iL~De(Co~u~~~lon~rn8whore absent)
Commi~rion~r Bauao and MOTI
that tha Anaheim City Plannin~ Commi~sion doa~ hacaby strongly ~
recocmnend to tha City CounchlihaaQxanga Coun~ypBoardgof~ Supervisore '
effort pos~ibl~ to m~~t wit
to recomu~and that A~tarnativ 1B of the County of Orange
Taft-Serrano/Crawford Canyon Rosd Maeter Plan of Arteria 1 Highvayo
(MppH) Nnandment Study be adopted on the basie that current and
future planning tn the Anaheim Nillo area is coritingentana~8l.oeon `
Circulation Elemant ae propoaed for s numbor of yeare: _
the baeis that following the fire in the Anaheim Nills a taa in Auguet ~
of 1982~ Che Aneheim Fire Ghi=o osedadChooe homearwhichwWmreeburned s
bean continued as curtently p P ~
could probably have been eaved. !
pDJOURNMENT: There being no furtheommissioner Ki g1andQMOTIONr CARRIEDB that8
motion, •econded by C
the meeting 6e adjourned.
The meecing was adjourned at 4:OOp~m.
Respectfully submitted~
~ ~ ~ ~4'w"i~~
~V ~
Edith L. Harri~, Secretgry
Anaheim City Planning Comm i seion
p0559I
4/4/83