Minutes-PC 1983/07/25;~
~~,
a
~
I26GUL1-R MBBTING QP THE 11NJIHSIM CITY PLJINNING COMMISSION
R~GULIIR MBEmING The regulAr meeting of the 1lneheim City Plenning
Cortanisaion wa-s cAlled to ocder by ChaicmAn Fcy dt 10:00
A.m., July 25, 1983, in the Council Chamber, a quorum
heing present end the Cnmmission reviewed plene of the
items on today's ngenda.
RBCESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVBN~: 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT Chaicmdn: Fry
Commiesionera: eouas, Herbst, King, I.a C:aire, McBucney
ABSEN'~ Commieaionera: Bushare
ALSO PRESENT Annika Sentalahti l+sei~atant Director for Zoning
Frank Lowry Sr. Asaiatank City 1~ttorney
Jay Titus Office Bngineer
Shirley Land Traftic Engineering Aaeociate
Dean Sherer A~sociate Pldnnec
Edith Harris Plenning Commission 3ecretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissionec King offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Buahore absent) that the
minutes from the meeting of July 1], 1983, be approved as submitted.
ITE'1 N0. 1. EIR CATBGORICAL _EXEMPTIUN-CLASS 21 ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.
23G6
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERB: ANTdNIO H. RANGEL, ET AL, 318 N. Stardust J~venue,
Placentia, CA 92670. Property deacribed as a r.ectanqularly-shaped parcel of
; land consisting of Uppcoximately 150 fe~et on t1~e east side of Red Gum Street,
and further deacribed as 1450 North Red Gum Street.
; To consider revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 2366.
Continued from the meetinge of Aprfl 4, ~une 1, and July 11, 1983.
There was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to s~bject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Tony Rangel, petitioner, explained the ownec of ~he property west of his is
making an effoct to clean up the pcoperty and there have been ~ome
im~~rovements and that his portion of thf property has been cleared since the
beginning.
THB PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner La Claire stated she understood there were stfll some sl.ats that
needed to be installed ir. the chain link fence. Mr. Rangel cesponded that
there is one 50-foot section of the fence that is dama~ed and needs to be
replaced and he will take care of it.
83-403 7/25/83
r ~t
MINIlTBB. 11Nl1HFIM{ CITY PGANNING COMMIR820N, JULY 25. 198i d3-404
Pean Sheret, 1-esociate Plannec, explained thia i~ a continue~i public heering
to coneider revoct~tion of Conditionel Uae Permit No. 2366. He referred to a
memor.andum from Jack White of the City Attorney'e Office, dated ~7une 28, 1983,
lieting khcee actionF •~hich the P)annin9 Commiaeion may consider teking as
followe: (1) term~.~ate the revoc4tion proceedings thereby pecmitting the
conditionel uee permit to continue ln efEect for the entire parcel, if the
client compliee with all conditions of epprovel, (2) rRVOke the conditional
uae p~rmit in its entirety for failure of the property owners to comply with
the conditions of the permit approval or f3) modify the conditional use permit
to tetminate the permit da ro only that portion ~f the pcoperty which the
Planning Commis~i.on determined eppropriate end emend the conditions to reElect
the modified permllted location of the use.
Dean Sherer continued that staff has ueen working ~~ith Mr. Ranyel and he has
made substantial progress in cleaning hie p~rtion of the p[opecty which is the
eastarn portion.
Commiasioner La Claice staCed since Mr. Rangel has made a diligent eff~~rt to
comply, she did not think the Commiasion ahould penelize him ai.~ ehe ~-ould be
in favor of modiEying th~ existing usp permit to cover only 'iis porti~n of the
properry.
Responding to Chairman Pry, h+c. ltangel atated his pcoperty beyina about 150
feet from the ~enterlin~ of La Jo11a Street and includea about 30 feet of
strcet frontage. tt was noted the City Attorney's memo has a map attaehed and
that the pr~perties are nat two separate legal properties.
Reaponding to C~mmiesioner Bouas, Mr. RangEl stated there are no c~mpec shells
on hia portion of the property.
Dean Sherer explained to Commission~r McBurney that a tentative i,~rcel map was
submitted to the City to aubdivide the property into fouc seperate lots;
however, there was the condition that the property be cleared of all zoning
violations. He stated the conditianel use permit can be modified to cover.
only a portion of the property even though this is o~ly recognized as one
parcel.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by CommissionPr
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Bushore absent), that khe Anaheim City
P1Anning Commission does hereby terminate the proceedings to cons:der
revocation of Conditicnal Use ~ermit No. 2366.
Commiasioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC83-128 and moved far its
passage and edop~ion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
modify Conditianal Use Pecmit No. 2366 termineting the use on the westerly
poction of the property.
Dezn Sherer suggested that Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 6 be deleted and Conditions
8, 9 and 12 be arnended to reflect the modified permitted location.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABS~NT: BUSHORE
7/25/83
MIN~TBS, ANIIHLIM CITY PLIINNING COMMI88ION. JUGY Z5. 1983 _ 83-405
DeAn 8herec explai.ned to th~ bpplicent thet the conditional uae permit temaine
in effect foc hie poction of the propecty only and all conditiona must be met
including the dem+oged fence and the Ttlenning Commisaion haa cevol;ed tha p~cmit
on the weatecly poction of the property whic,. belonga to hie brothec and his
brothet will have to reepply for e new conditionAl use pecmit in order to
contini~e the uee of the property and thdt will be conaidered aeparately.
ITEM N0. 2. ENVIRONMENTI-L IMPACT RLPORT N0. 235 (PRBV. CL'RT.). TENTJITIVE MAP
OF `fRACT NOS. 10967 THROUGE' 10978
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER8: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road,
J~neheim, CA 92807. AGENT: LIND AND HILLERUD, INC., 2065 Huntington Drive,
San Merino, CA 91108. Property ~e;,c:ribed as an icregulerly-sheFed pareel of
land consisting of appcoximately 346 acrea loceted southweatecly of Nohl Rench
Road bPtween the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road with Canyon Rim Road and
Serrano Avenue, having a fcontage of appsoximately 320 feet on the eouth aide
of Nohl RAnch Road, having a maximum depth of appcoximetely 6,097 feet and
being loceted appcoximately 2300 feet southeast of th~ centerline of Canyon
Rim Road.
Petitioner propoaes to re-establish one open epace '~S(SC)) tract anci eleven
residential trects with 207 RM-2400(SC) units, 327 RM-3000(SC) unita dnd 25
RS-HS-22,OQ0(SC) units.
It was noted the petitioner has reyueeted a cantinuance.
ACTION: Commieaioner Bouas offered a motian, seconded by Commiaeion~r King
and MOTION CARRIED (Commiesioner Bushore absent), that consideration of the
afo[ementioned matter be continued to the cegular:y scheduled meeting of
August 22, 1983, at the request of the petitione:.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE UE~'ARRTION, WAIVER OF COD~ REQUTREMENT_AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2455
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~R: H~NRY MANN, 3982 Nann Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA
19006. AGENTS: GEWIS, D'AI+IATO, BRISBOIS 6 BTSGJU\RD, JITTENTiON: WILLZJIM F.
GREENHALGH, 261 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, C1~ 90012.
Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiEting of
approximately 0.28 acre and further deacribed as 2535 West Woodland Drive.
To permit r~etail salea and offices in the ML Zone with aaiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
Continued from the meetinga of June 13, and July 11, 1983.
It was noted that the petitioner has withdrawn snbject petiti.on on the basis
that he has found an industcial tenant.
7/25/83
MINtI'fEB. 11N11NBIM CITY PL/-NNING COMMISSIUN, JULY ZS- 1983 83-406
ITEM N0. 4. SIR NBGIITIVE DLCLI-R1ITION 1-ND VJIRIANC~ N0. 33~1
PUBLIC HEARtNG. OWNERS: CONRAD J. b J03BPHINE M. LETTBR, 3102 Vallejo D[ive,
Anaheim, CA 92804. 1-CENT: W1-4TER K. BOWMAN, 7436 Cerritoa Avenue, Stanton,
C11 90680. Property deacribed aa e~n irregularly-ehaped pArcel of lend
conaieting of approximately 0.47 acre, having a frontage of approximately 80
feet on the aouth si~e of I.a Pelma l~venue, heving e maximum depth of
appcoximetrly 280 feet end being luc.eted apptoximately 800 feet eaet of r.he
cenkecline of East Street and further desrribed ad 1260 Eaet La Pa1mA 1lvenue.
To conetcuct an 8-unit aEEordable condominium complex with waivers of minimum
lot aree pEr dwe111ng unit, minimum landeceped setback, minimum
recreational-leisure r,cea and minfmum number of parking epacea.
Thete was no one indicating their preaence in oppoaition to aubject request
and although the ataff report was not rPad, it i~ referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Conrad [,etter, owner, referred to the pceviously approved afEordable
condominium projects chart in the ,staff report and peseed out a copy of the
chart deleting the onPS approved by City Council and rPfer[ed to onl.y Plann:ng
Commiseion dpproved projecl•s. He compared this propoaed project to those
approved, nuting he !s asking for an 188 density bonus which is lower than all
the approved projeccat and the square footagQ ot the units ia closer to the
3,000 square feet required in four of the five npprov~d projects= thp lot
coverage of 408 is claser to the reyuirement than al: the ~pproved projecta~
and che parking would be closer to the r~q~irem~nt than three of the five
E~:ojects. Ne expl~ined the betbacks are necesaery to provide adequate
turn-around area and it was approved for the previous 6-unit project.
Concerninq the recreational and leisure area, he explained nokhing was
proposed because they want ta ]eave that decision up to the people who buy the
units and he will put 512,000 into an association and they will decide if they
want a pool or other amenities and if tf~~y don't want any amenities, they
could reduce their monthly payments for 3 or 4 yeats.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cor.imissioner Herbat stated it has been the policy of the Planning Commission
to consider each project an its own merits and in his opinion, this project is
overbuilding the prope:ty, particularly because parking will be difficult. He
stated thia property has been before the Commiseion many times in the past and
it has been denied several times and that the City C~uncil finally approved 7
units and he thought that is where it should atand~ He stated he could not
find hardshipe foc juatificat.ion for approval of the vari~nces.
Mr. Lekter stated this has been before thr Commission aeveral times because of
the econo~y end efter the apartments were appcuved, t here was no money
available for construction of apartments and thereis no market for 5130,000
condominium units.
Chairman Fry explained the Planning Commission cannot coneider the economics
of the project ir. their decision. He edded he aleo did not think allowing the
purchasers to decide what amenit:es they want would work because he did not
think 8;~eople could agree or what they want.
7/25/~3
8 3-407
MINI)TES I-NJ-HBZM CITY PLJ-NNING COMMI8820N JUI.Y 25 1983
Commie~ionet Bouae stated the projecta approved with lacger perking varisnces
were a~tuelly apactments convect~d to condominiume and not new unite b~ing
conatructed~
Mr. LeL•ter atated if perking is a big isaue, other apdce could be provided,
but it wuuld reduce the recceati~ne~l-leisu=e aree by 540 eguace feet. He
noted they will etill t-e provi~]inq 843 square feet per unit o£
recreationml-leisure apACe ~nd he did not know if that would be ~rovedered a
good trAde-off. He stated thia compacea f av~rably with ather app
afford~ble ~nits.
ACTION; Commisaioner Herbat offered a motion, eeconded by Commiesionec King
and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Buahore abse~ti, that the Aneheim Cfty
Flanning Commiseion has reviewed the proposal to conatruct an 8-unit
affotdable condominium complex with waive rs of minimum lot acea per dwell ing
unit, minimum landscaped setbeck, minimum cecreotional-l~isure area and
minimum number of parking spacee on ~n irzegularly-ahaped paccel of land
consfeting of approxlmately 0.47 acre, ha ving e fcon tage of approximately 80
feet on the south side of Ga Pt-lmti Avenue and Eurther deacribed ae 1260 E. Ga
Palma Avenuet and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from Che
requicement to pcepare an environmental isnpect report on the ba91s that there
would be no significant individual oc cumulative adverae environmentnl impact
due to the approval of this Negative Declaration aince the Andheim General
Plan deaignates the aubject property for medium density residential lend uc+~~s
commenaurate with the prop~sali that no sensitive environmental impacte are
involved in the proposalt that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner
indicates no significant individual or cumulative adve~es environmental
fmpdin~s isdonhfilehinNthetCityDof1Anaheim PlanningiDepartment£oregoing
fin g
Commiasioner Herbat offeced Reaolution No~ PC83-129 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Plann ing Commiss ioncloes heceby deny
Varience No. 3341 on the basis that the propecty is being overbuiltlocationtor
no unique circumat~nces pertaining to the size, sha pe, topographyr
sucroundings of subject pcoperty were demonstrateci which would depcive the
property of privileges en~oyed by other p~operties in the same 2onc and
vicinity.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution Mras pasaed by the followirtg votE :
AYES: BOUAS~ FRX, HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC SURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BUSHORE
Frank Lowry, Asaistant City Attorn~y, p=esented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commiar~ion's decision with in 22 days to the City Council.
7 /25/83
MINtITES. 1~NAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88IONLJULY 25~,,,1983 _,~ 83-408
PUBLIC HEAkING. OWNLRB: R1~ISER POUripATtON HOSPITI-LS, 333 South Grand 1-venue,
~3400, Loe Angelea, CA 90071. Pcoperty deacctbed aa en icregularl~~-ahaped
percel consisting of epproxi~nately 9.6 acces located at the northwest corner
of Riverdale J-venue and Lakeview 1-verwe, having a frontege of app~oximately
628 feet on the north aide of Riverdale Avenue and a frontage of appcoximetely
670 feet on the weat eide af L~keview Avenue end further described ~s 411
North Lekeview Avenue (Ka.ieer Pounda-tion Hoapital).
To permit an expa~naion of en exiating hAepitel with wniver of minimum number
uf patking apacea.
Continued from June 27, 1983.
It w~s noted the petitioner has req u estec' a two-week continuance.
ACTION: Commiseioner Bouas offersd a motion, aeconded by Commisaionpr xing
and MOTION CARRIED (Commi.saloneK Bu s hore abaent), that consideration of the
aforementioned metter to the regula rly-scheduled meeting of August 8, 1 983, at
the requeat of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLI-RJ-TION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2465
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEFtS: NATHAN OG INTS, ET AL, 3481 La Somb[a Drive, Los
Angelea, CA 90068. AGENT: BANK OF ANAHEIM N.A., GERALD BUSHORE, DIREC TOR,
702 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property deacribed as an
irregult~rly-ehaped parcel of land consiating oE approximately f`.64 acr~
located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Anahpim Boulevard, ha ving
approximate frontagea of 129 feet on the eouth aide of 8~11 Road and 162 Eeet
on the west side of Anaheim Bouleva rd.
To permit a temporary tcailer for a bank.
Continued from July 11, 1983.
Ttiere was no one indicating their p resence in opposition to sub~ect request
a.~d althouqh the staff report wes not read, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Davis Taylor, agent, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEJIRING WAS CL056D.
Commissioner King pointed out th~ Traffic Bngineer.'s recommendation th at the
pcopoaed dciveway location be subject to review r~nd approval of the City
TrAfEic Engineer, with Mr. Taylor. responding that th~y plan to remove two of
the driveways.
7/25/83
af '
MINUTES. J1N11HLIM CITY PLANNINfi CCNIM28SION. JULY 25~1983 83-409
ACT~ON: Commie~ioner King offered a motion, aecc-nded by Commiesioner eouas
an ION CARRISD (Commiasioner Bushore ~beent), thet the /-naheim Clty
Planning Commieaion hae ceviewad the proposel tio permit a temporery trailec
For e bank on en ircegularly-eheped percel oE lan~j conaisting of eppcoximately
0.64 acre located at tha southw~st corner of aall Road And 1-naheim Bouleverd~
end does hereby approve the Neqative Declaretion fcom khe requirement to
prepare ~n environme~tal impdct report on the bA8~4 that there would be na
eignificant individual or cumulative adveree envir~mmentel impact due to the
approval of this Negntive Declaration since the Ana~he im General Plan
deaignatea the subject pcoperty [oc qenecal commercie 1 lend uaea commensuratq
with the proposa 2t Chat no seneitive environmentel impects are involved in the
propoaalr thAt the Initiel Study submitted by the p~~titioner indicates no
eignificanL• individual or cumulative advecse envirortmenta~l impactat and that
the Negetive Dec laration subatantiaking the foregoir~g findinga ia on file in
the City of Anaheim Planning DepaKtment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC83-130 and moved f~r ita paseage
and adoption tha~t the Anaheim City Planning Commisaic>n does hereby grant
Condition~l Uae Permit No. 2465 e~ubject to Interdepartmental Cc-mmittee
cecommendations.
On roll call, the focegoing resolution was pASSed by +:he followir~g vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNE:Y
:JOES: NONE
ABSENT : BUSHORE
2TEM N~. ~. E?R NEGA:IUL DGCLARATION, WJ~IVER OP CODE :3BQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONI-L USE P2RMYT NO. 2467
r'Ut~LIC HEARING. O~WN~RS: LUTHERAN BIBLE INSTITUT~ IN C'ALIFORNIA, 641 S.
Western Avenue, Aneheim, CA 92804. AGENT: CLIFTON M. PEDERSON/RICHAI2D URIE,
641 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, Cl~ 92804. Property described as a
cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting oE Appcoximately 4.8 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 337 feet on the west side of western Avenue
and f urther des cribed ae 641 South Westecn Avenue (Lutheran Bible Institute).
To permit temporary etudent housing
priva te junior college with waiver
~mobilehomea) in conjunction with a
of minimum structural setback.
Continued from July 11, 1983.
it was noted th e petitionec has requested a continuance until Septe~nber 19,
1983.
ACTION: Commissioner Bauas offered a motion, seconded t~y ComonisaloneL King
and t90TI0N CARRTED (Commisaionec Buac~~ce gbaent), that c~onsideration of the
aforementioned matkec be continued to the regularly -acheduled meeting of
Septembec 19, 1983~ at the request of the petitione r.
7/25/83
MINUTES.~IM CITY PLIINNINd COMMI$SION. J~LY 25. 19~3 83-410
PUHLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD H. SHARKFY, ET AL, 1530 W~ Gincoln Avenue,
3ufte 201, Anaheim, CA 92801. ~GBNT: GBORGE BILIOS & CARL M~ACH~S, 1739 W.
Lai Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property deacribed as a
cectengularly-eheped peccel of lend coneisting of epproximeteZ y 0.6 ecre anA
!•urther deacribed ea 1739 W. ~e PalmA ~venue (Deliai's Sandwic h Shop).
Requeat for deletion of Condition No. 1 of Plenning Commission Reaolution No.
PC83-8S~ pertaining to atreet lighting feea.
Thia item wns heard following item No. 11 aince the petitionec wae not pcesent.
There wae no one indicating thelr preaence in oppoeitiun to s u bject request
and although the staEf repoct was not cead, it is ceferced to and made e part
of the minutes.
George 8111os, agent, explained thie conditionnl use permit was granted nn May
2, 1983, by the Plenning Commission ~o permit on-sale beer en d wine in an
existing restaurant aubject to certain conditions and thie on e pertaining to
the etreet lighting feea ahould be the resp~naibility of the property owner.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commiaeioner Kinq offered Resolution Na. PC-131 and moved for ite
passage and adnption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesio~ does hereby
amend Res~lution No. PC83-69 defe~cing atreet lighting feps a s recommended by
the Electrical Engineering Divfsion.
On roll call, the foreguing resolution was passed by tl~e foll owing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC HUANEX
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BUSHORE
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RATION AND CONDITIONAL USB P~RlMIT NU. 2472
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: R. S. HOYT, JR. & BAR9ARA C. NOYT, 146 E.
Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGBNT: BRUCE BARTE L, 227 Orangefair
Mall, Fullerton, CA 92632. Prepecty described as a rectangu 1 arly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of apprnximately 4.36 acres and fu r ther described as
1622 North Miasile Way.
To permit a retail book storp in the ML Zone.
There was no ~ne indicating their presence in oppo~ition ta subject request
and ~lthough the staff repact was not read, ik is referred t o and made a part
of the minutes.
Bruce Bartel, agent, explained he needs to relocatp frnm the Orangefair mall
which is being renovated and this will be a retail book etoc e.
7/25/83
83-411
MINUTEB. ~N~NEIM CITY PLANNING CaMIMI88I0N. JULY 25. 1983
THB PUBLiC H~~RINa WA8 CLOSED.
~CTiON; Gommieeioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commieaioner Bouae
and MOTION CARRIBD (Commiesioner B~ashore absant), thet the ~naheim City
Pldnning Commiseion hea ceviewed tha proposal t~ pecmit a reteil bookstore in
the ML (Industci~l, Limited) Zane on a r,ectangulerly-sheped paccel of lend
consieting of dpproximdtRly 4.36 acces, h~ving a frantage oE approximetely 240
feet on the south side of Oreng~thorpe Avenue end e frontdge of 240 Eeet on
thP necth eide of Durst Stteet, end fucther deaccibed as 162Z Nocth Misaile
Wayt and does hereby approve the Negative Declacation from the requirement to
prepare en ~nvironmental impact report on the basis that thece would be no
aignificant individual ot cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the
~pproval of thie Negativ~ pec2aretion since the Aneheim General Plan
designa~es the aubject pconecty for general induatrial land uaea commenaurate
with the proposal= that no senaitive envi~onmental impacta ace involved in the
propoaelt thet the Initiel Study eubmitted by the petitioner indicates no
aignificent individual or cumulative adverse envlronmental impactat and that
the Negative DeclatAtion auhstantieting the foregoing Eindinga ia on file in
the City of Anaheim Pl~nning De~artment.
Commiasioner King offeced R~solution No. PC83-132 and moved for ita paosage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning CommisRion doea hereby grant
Conditional Use Pe~mit No. 2472 aubject to Interdepactmental Committee
recommend~tions.
On rall call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BUSHORE
IfEM N0. 10. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OP CODE RE UIREMENT ~ND
CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT N0. 2473
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WN+MED hBDICAL PARTNERSHIP, 3033 W. Ocange Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801. EN ASSOCIATES INC., 3916 Sepulveda Boulevacd, Culver City,
CA 90230, ATTN: EDWARD ENDO. Property is described as an irregularly-ahaped
parce] of land conaisting of approximately 9.2 acrea located et the northweat
corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard and furthec described as 3033 West
Orange Avenue (We~t ~naheim Community Hospitel)•
To expand an existing hospital facility with waiver of minimum number of
parking ap~ces.
It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued
to the meeting of August 8, 1983.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a mation, seconded by Commissioner King
and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Bushore abaent), that conaideration of the
aforementioned mattec be continued to Ghe [egularly-echeduled meeting of
August 8, 1983, at thp r~quest of the petitioner.
7/25/83
MINUTBS~ ~N~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 25. 19e3___ 83-412
ITEMI N0. 11. BIR NBGATIV~ DECL7IR~TIUN AND CONDLTIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 2474
PU9LIC NEARING. OWNERS: ORANGE COpNTY W~TER DI3TRICT, P.O. Bax 8300,
~ountAin Velley, CA 92708. AGENT; BL~IR PAVING, INC., 4071 E. La Palma
Avenue, Suite 9~ Anaheim, CA 92807. Pcoperty deecribed ea en
irregularly-ahaped pa[cel of land coneieting of ~pproximately 4.3 acrea, and
fucther described aa 1101 Richfield Road.
To permit e portable asphalt concrete plent in the RS-A-43,000(SC)(FP) Zone.
There were five peroons indicating their pceeence in oppoeition to aubject
request rnd although the ataff report wds not read, it is referced to and made
a pert of the minutes.
Benjemin Day, representing Blair Paving, Inc. exp~~ined they are propoaing to
operAte a poctable aephalt and aephalt recyc'ling plantt that the proceas
involves trucking-in of rock and send which ia then fed into the plank where
it ie heated end mixed with aephalt. oilr that the hot-mix material ie then
automatically loaded onto trucks, weighed and then heuled t~ varlaua job sites
in the Orange County areat that the plnnt also hae the capability to recycle
small amounta of ~round-up asphalt into new asphalt which can be achieved by
adding ground~up asphalt into the center of the mixing proceas where a heat
transfer process removes the oil from thh old asphalt which a~lows them to use
lese oil and atill provide a new equal finished pcoduct at a lower cost; that
they will be using asphalt fcom atreet jobs And that will reduce the amount ~f
materials dumped into City and County landfilla lengthening their uaeful liEe;
that the proposed opecation is very similar in character to Che surro~nding
property uses with a facility which receives broken asphalt adjacent lo theic
property which then recyclea the materiel tnto a road-base material and a
trur.k and equipment ~torage fecility adjacent to that facility and the Santa
Ana River and Anaheim Fishing Lakes being their other neighborsr that the
closeat reaidential area oc light industrial acea is ~t leASt 1/3 mile awayt
that the moat difficult permit for them to obt~in was from the South Coast ~ic
Quality Management Diatrict (SCApMD) and they have submitted a copy oF that
permit to the City. He stated in obtaining this permit they had to provide
specialfzed "etate of the act• equipment to control polluti~n; th~t they have
spent an additional $400,000 to provide pollution control equipment which
represents approximately 35i of their total inveatment and they have aleo
oversized their air pollution equipment in order to exceed the alteady
stringent requirements which the AQMD puts on themj that in order to protect
tlie envfronment and not cause any significant impacts to the surcounding
propecties, they have wocked closely with the SCAQMD in order to provide an
asphalt pl~nt that opesates cleanec than the older moce-polluting type modelst
that they believe the environment will hAVe a positive impact when the asphalt
ta produced at their new •state of the act' plant. Mc. Day presented picturea
of the plant as it is right now an aubject property.
Lee einz, resident of Aurora, Illinoia, employed by the Barber Green Company,
skated he has a degcee in mechanical engineering and ia a licensed
prafesaional engineer and has been working for t~e last 7 years in pollution
control for asphalt plants ~peciffcallyt that the SCAQMD has the toughest
standards in the country for control of pollution and this equipment meets or
exceeds their standacds in each of the categories. He explained Federal
7/25/83
MINUTESr ~N~HBIM CiTY,PL NNING COMMISSION JULY 25 1983 83-413
stendacde tor dugt aee .04 greina per dcy etendard cubic Eoot and SCAQMD
restrictione are ha1C that much et .02 and thie equipment will meot the .02
graina per dry stendard cubic foott thst another reetriction ie 150 pounde per
day and this plent will be significantly below that at 10 ~ounde per dnyt thet
the reason for this ie thet rhe febric ~ilter on thia pient ie extcemely
efficient with 999.9t of Che dust being captured and only ane p~c~icle in a
thouaand gekting looset that carban monoxide and oxidee af nitcogen will be
controlled by a burner that burna fuel efficiently end wtll not produce
pollutentat thet t.he aulphur dloxide will be very low si.nce the ~ue! used ia
propane and there is almoat no sulphur in propanei that the plant will meet.
orgenic aubetanc~s and lead reetcictions with no contr~~l neceesaryt that ~leic
Paving has had to prove to SCAQMD that this plant rmplays tne beat avAilable
control t~chnoloqy in each of these aceas in o~dec to get the permit to ecect
the plar~ts lhat they have ~ectainly proven themaelve~ to the SCAQMD and the
SCAQMD does not requir-~ ~ camplete environmental imp,~ct atatement and neither
daea the Federal EPA ~ince this is an extremely ~mAll eource and tt~e Clean Air
Act of 1977 deaignat~s all sourcea smallec than a given level as not beiny
subjecc to the environmental atatement.
Bill Arciero, 950 N. Tustin, atated he owna the p-:operty located et Tuatin
Avenue and the 1QV~road which r.he8e people want to use as their in9resa and
egreas and that there is already a problem with l•raffic at the 91 Fceeway and
Tuatin Avenue and with tF~e trucking that is goircg on, he thought it. would
reAlly ~:ause aome hardahips.
Duane Flint, 380 Lakedale, stated their property ie located right off [.akeview
whece exce$eive truck traffic will be going a~~d that is their biggest
complaint. He pre:~ented a pekition of 280 hameowners on the south eide of the
river adjacent to aub~ect propPrty who are o;~posed. He atated most of the
reaidents did not even knaw what the noise a~as and that this use had been
gAing or~. He stated the[e is heavy foot tr:~.ff:c with childcen going to sch~ol
and Lakeview is a heavi.ly traveled street c~~;~d ahGUld not heve this additional
burden.
Scott Schoeffel, attorney rppcesenting 'Pura Strand, a pri~~ate reaident of
~naheim living at 6685 Canyon Hilla Raad, atated the petitioner is currently
operating under Conditional Use Permit t~~~. 2207 which wai; considered by the
Commission aomewhat earlier thia yeer and tbe application at that time was to
renew an existir,g conditional uae permit originally grented for operation of a
concrete bakch plant wh.ich ia signific~intly different th~n this uset that the
noticea of that hearing did not indica.te that this was going to be an
operation of an ~sghalt plant and did not indicate the greater amount of truck
tcaffic wtiich was contemplated. He etated due to impcoper notice, there was
no opposition preaent at that time and the application has been renoticed.
Mr. SchoeEfel etate6 his first obje~tion is that when the last hearing was
held, the truck traffic condition was amended to reflect S trucks at 6 loads
per day ~nd the applicant's petition on file for this permit requests 50 loads
in and 50 loads out with a meximum ~f 70 loads in and 70 loads out and that is
significantly more. He stated the Initial Study pcepared does not adequately
consider the effects of the air pollution and increaaed traffic and that this
whole pcocesa h~s been somewhat less tF~an fully disclosed and a somewhat
deviate means of befng allowed to uae this property and the truck traffic wae
7/'l5/83
MINUTE$ ~NAH82M CITY PI.J-NNING COMMISSION~ JULY 25. 1983 _ 93-,14
not ever fully diecloA~d. He •tated a tendom etudy of the truck treffic in
end out of el~ir Paving on three ditFerent dAya following epproval of
Condition~l Uee Permit No. 2207 indiceted thbt on all three days, Che truck
traffic excFeded thst allo~ed in th~t permit wl~fch wea epproved in March. Ne
atated one of Blair Paving's mnin ttuck I~auleca hea applied with the Public
Utilitiea Commieaion Eor d hauling rate d~via~ion based on the fect there will
be considerable night heuling end thr epp]ication Eor tl~e per.mit indicetes
there will only be occaaione: night hauling end thie wi:l cceate traffic
congestion ptobleme and disturb people et night- even though they e~e not
lmmediately adj~cent. He urged that the negortVitaanddthat~the~Conaitaon~ia
de thece ere not aufficient findings to eup~
Uae Permit 2474 be denied and the operation of glair Pavinq p1Ant pursu~nt to
ConditionAl Use Permit No. 2207 be declere~ invdlid end ahould cease as soon
as posaible.
Responding to Chairman Fry, Mr. SchoeEfel pxplained he is reprpaenting Tom
Strand wt~o is a private ~naheim reai~ent which is in the reaidential eree juRt
south of the riv~er. He responded that their ficm represenled another
manufecturer ~~t aephalt prodvcta in a sepecate lawe~iit. Fcank Lowry asked if
the attocney -~fd a copy of the app]icetion preaEntly before the Planning
Commiaeion ~~ Mr. SchoeEfel respanding that he does not presently have one
in hia pc>+-~s~.L~n, t~ut one could be obteined. Mr. Sch~effel responded to
Commiasi~r~ '+~cnst that 'he man he is repr~senting for pu[posea of r.his
heac ing p: i'f~~e homeowner af fected by the u~e of thAt property and
further ~~:~-~~ae~! '~kt. Str.and ia not the awner of the ad jacent asphalt plant.
Greg''++~~-~^~ 1~•.1 Coalban '~aad, La Habra Heights, stat.ed he i~ in the buEineea
o~ ~c,,,,~=s,~1=ur ~-g pollutio~ contcol equipment fnr the hot-mix asphalt induetry
and ie '^+~!p+c~r of the NAPA Environmental Commitkees that the gentlemin Erom
Chice~: wr~. 5poke referced to the Aic Quality Control nietcict permita and
e~pla~,'~!~ ~ pe[mit was to conat[uct a plank and not to operate, and after
that ~e+r~:-+~!` is ceceived, the petitioner must demonatrate that they can operate
with:-~°•~n~ perimeters ~nd requirementa of the distrfcl•. He stated he has been
askP~ *~-~c --~~_scuea effects o: a hot-mix dsphalt plant veraue the redi-mix
concL-~r+t~~ ~atch t}pe plant; and that the pollutant problema involved with the
Qperat~~x- of those plants are completely different, pven th~ugh the stringent
requi~rranemts of the Air Quality DisCcict are simi3ar. He atated the air
voluaaes uxtilized in hat-mix asphalt are considerably larger ancl regardless of
tare ~-f~•+~ciency, a larger increase of pollutants is dfatributed. He stated
some ~rnnts c pollution are controllable in many ways, but ace a degradation
t~o A}s~rticu ar environment because khey are burning fuel. He stated
regscc32ess ,f the type uf fuel being used and regardless how well the plant is
desi4~ed, the t~u[ning of the fuel depends upon the operation of the ~~9uipment
~y ~ndividuals and any piece of equipment, if pushed, will put out a lot more
poll~~tants than if it is run at a lowec level and there is no 'zero' level
regardless of what ie done. He stated trucks ace also a point of pollution
and there ia 'blue smoke• which is emitted at ~he drop point and when oil
comes in contact with an elevated temper~ture, there can be flashing depending
on the substances and the chemicals. Mr. McRae stated, in ahort, to compare
the emisaion problems of hot-mix asphalt with cement is totally ~~rroneous
because they are totally different substancest khat even though there ia very
little aulphuc, there is NOX. He atdted EP1~ has ffled a stat~mertt that NOX is
not readily removahle on an economical basis. E!e stated any hot-mix plant
will add considerably more
7/25/83
INUTB$. ~N~H62M CITY PL~NNING COMMIBSION. Jt~LY 2S. _1q63__ _______ 83-~15
pollut~nts ta the environmant than e cement ~lant, in addition to the eound
And noiae becauee the burn~r• burn from 400 to 600 gellonn of fuel per houc
end there will be combustion eounda •ven wiCh ailencera. He st~ted he is not
peroonally objecting to chis uee, but Wae asked to meke commente by Nuntmix
with regerd to the difterences in the tw~ Applicatione.
Mr. Day ateted Tom Strand is en employee of Univera~l Aophalt which buys the
lergeat percentege of thaic mix from Huntmix and hi~ residence ia loceted ~t
leaek 3 miles awey from the proposed eite.
Concerning truck treffic, Mr. Uey pointed out their normal i.ngress and egceas
o~ the exhibit which will be on Richfie7d Road and the most common egreae
would be out tt~e ceec gate and down the levyGroad, under the freewey, making a
right turn on Tuetin Avenue where they could either make a quick left onto the
freeway going eeat or a left turn weatbound. He stated at eome po.lnt they may
use Lakeview, but moet access would be on the lev~proad or Richfie:ld and they
are limiting the use of Tustint however, the other routea wauld be used.
Keith Walden, attocney, atated most of the opposition ~ppears to b~ from
Huntmix which ia a competitor oE dlair ~aving and Huntmix operates an old type
aaphalt plant which puts far moce pollutants into the air then this one and
this will be khe fineat equipment that money can buy and he did not think that
is a real isaue. Concerning trafEic, he ateted the lev~~road is not e road
used Eor normal traffic and the ~rea where the trucks wi]1 be on public
atreets in either direction will be vecy minim+l, probably leas than orte
guarter mile. He stated it seems the competito: is very interested in not
heving a new :~sphalt plant in Anaheim becauae they wi~nt to monopolize the
bueinesa in this acea.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiaeioner La Claire asked why the Commission should believe what the
petitioner is s~ying becauae at the previous hearing it was indicated they
wnuld not be using Richfield Road for accesa 3nd tl~ere would be only 8 trucks
with 6 loads pec day and now it turns out there are 25 to 50 tcucks.
Mr. Day atated he had submitted a letter to the Planning Department on June
9Ch stating he had underestimated the number of trucks and that was before any
of this contro~~ecsy developed and he had requested to come back before the
Commission to ask for additional truck tripa. Ne atated he thought he had
been above-board on that particular issue. He ~tated he thouyht there wes
some confuaion regarding the use of Richfiel~ Road for acceas and he did not
think there was a spec~ific condition i~ his original conditional use permit
and he was never eure that he would be allowed to use the levy coad or not be
able to use Richfield Road. He stated he had indicated they had anly wanted
to use Richfiel~ Road for ingress or right turns only because it is unsafe at
the cornec of Richfield and La Palma foc left turns. He stated he did not
think he had misled enyone.
Commissioner La Claire stat~d ahe remembers the diacussian regarding Richfield
Road and thought it was the underetanding of everyone that they would not be
usinq Richfield and wo~-ld be using the accese roads because the Commiasion Mae
very concerned about Richfield. She stated ahe h~s some very grave doubts
7/25/83
! ~ ~ "I
, .
MINUTEB. 11N11HBIM CITY PLANN2NG COMlII38ION, JIILY 25. 1983 83-416
a~baat thie use qnd thece have heen aome qu~aiiona raieed about an
~nviconmental impect ceport~ that ahe believee Mc. Binz thAt there probably
would not be an excesaive emount of pollution, but ahe did not know whAt other
problems are involved, auch as treffic cn Ua Palme. She ateted there have
been complainte about tr~ffic and duat pollution from the trucks. 3he edded
she does not know about naise pollution and how it will affect the people
acrnae the river. She ceferced to the peti~ion and sr.et~d ah:s doubted that
all those people ere involved with Huntmix and it ia evident that aomeone doea
ha~ve ~ problem with the u~~. She eteted ahe does not want to close the
operetion, but wante to make sure it ie done properly. She atated when thie
Lseue wae origtnelly befoce the Planninq Commission, the Commission had
thought it would be a small operation, but it has turned out to be a lerge
operation and ahe w~a not convinced that r~ll the probleme ha~ve been reviewed.
Mr. Day stated he could guarantee that the noise from the plant can not be
henrd acroas the river and that it can barely be heard from the lev~tcroad and
the sound dissipatea very repidly. He responded to Commisaioner Herbat that
he had not taken a decibel reading.
Commiaeioner Herbet stated Erom the petitlon submitted, it appeara there is a
noiae problem and this City does have a noise ordinance and he would suggeat a
sound study be made by a sound engineer.
Mr. Day sl•ated he would be willing to provide a sound atudy. He stated the
hours af operation are 6;00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and they are dropping kheir
cequest for th~ deviated haul rate to use trucks at night and have no
intention of doing any night hauling except on occaeion when the only time
they can wock on the freeways ie at night and they would J.ike to be able to
operate the plant on those occaeions.
Commiss•loner Herbst atated running a lmrge truck at night in an area whece
there is practically no noise, can dis:ucb the people's sleep and that the
noise level must not be 5~ above ambient of the present sound. He steted he
does live in Anahpim Hills and ~an h~~ar the rumble of the railroad krr~cks
which are about 4 miles away.
Mr. Day stated he can respect that issue and will be more than williny to do a
sound atudy prior to approval of night work.
CommiasioRer La Claire stated she would not agree to any night work because
she knows how ~ound travels across the river at night and the freeway can be
heard 2 miles away and the truck traffic at that hour of the night would be
disturbing. She etated the operation aeems to be growing and that bothers her
and in addition to a sound study, she would like to see a traffic atudy as to
exactly how many trucks are goinq in and out ~er day and what routes they
take. She stated she either wants a complete traf.fic study or a full
environmental impact report.
1~esponding to Commieaioner Herbst, Mr. Day stated the maximum operation of the
plant pec day ~rculd be 70 loads of caw materials in and 70 finished product
loade going ouk for a total of 140 trips per day. Commisaioner Herbst atated
that is a lot moxe than 48 tripa originally r.equeated. Mr. Day stated he had
underestima.ted that figure at that time but still on an average baeis, they
will not exceed that amount, but he ia trying to be conservative in his
eatimate.
7/25/83
MINUTSB. ~NAHQIM CITY PW1tiNING COMMISSION. JULY 25. 1983 83-417
Commissioner Herbat atsced one of the majcr complainta hda come from people on
Ri~hField Road regerding duet end truck tcaffic. Mr. Dny ateted that
complaint hed come fcom the Shankle Conetruction Company end he had mr.t with
them and agreed to pave ki~hfield Roed to eliminate the duat problem. He
eteted it will be their intention to peve a pcivete roed end he hed telked to
the weter dietrict and they heve egreed to coope~ate.
Commiasioner Herbat a[ated one property owner has aeid they don't want all the
treffic on the levre.roed and they have put in a nice fdcility and paid for the
traffic eignal end he would not want to see this company uae the lev~~roed
enticely tor eccesa. tle r.tdted khey have been contAining the duat on the levy
coad with a water truck ~nd the water district hae offered to ahars the
expenaeA in paving the lev~erond and they are willing to da that.
Commiesioner Herbet ateted theae thinga could mek~ e big difference in hie
vot~ rnd he would want to see the roads paved to eliminate duet ~nd also he
would want to aee a sound study end the petitioner to stipulate not to run the
truck~ at night. He staked he wdnta to know the maximum number of trucks and
pointed out the govecnment has now raised taxes to improve roade which meens
this kind of operakion wi,ll be doing more buslnesa and thia plent could
expand.
Mr. Day stated he is wi111ny to pave any and all roads and that if he can
provide a sound study thet ia favorable, he wuuld like to be able to hdve
permiasion to operate at night on occasion with apecial written permisaion.
He responded to Commiaeionec Bouas that a typical job may last 6 or 7
consecutive eveninga and they would be willing tc get prior epproval from
staff, if the noise levels ere in line.
Commiasione. King pointed out if this company is not permitted to deliver to
the roads a: night, it means aomeone else wil'. be doing it. Commissioner La
Claire atated from her obaervation, a lot of repaira are being done on roads
during the day. Commissioner Herbst atated he would n~t make a decieion on
this untll he has :s~en the sound reports.
Gommiseioner La Claire stated shp wants to see a aound study and a traffic
study and ahe would like to see a gropoeal on how they pr~pose to eliminate
Commission's concerna. She stated she ia very wary about how much this
operation will grow and she would want to know the maximum production of this
facility as it stands right now.
Gommiasioner Herbst etated he wanta to see the tra£fic at~dy include all three
routes because usiny ~11 three would bceak up the traffic.
Mc. Day asked if the Commisaion hae any obj~ction of eliminating the kichffeld
Road acceas, with Commissioner Herbat respondiny he wanta to aee all three
accesaea atudied.
Cheirman ~cy asked if the petitioner would like a continuance with Mr. Day
responding he would liY.e a vote rather than a continuance. Commiseione~
Herbst stated he would not vote on this without the studies unless the
petitioner w~nts a denial. Commissinner La Claire clarified she would nct
vote for the EIR n~gative declaration because she has serious doubts whether
7/25/83
~~ ~
MINUTBB. AN~HEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMI88ION. JULY 25,_1983 __ 83-418
or not e full enviconm~ntal impact report ahould be required end pointed out
the Cammisaion ie trying to allow d couple aE etudies to anawer their
concerna, rather thAn r~quiring s full. envlronmental impact report ahich is
very expensive. 9he suggeatea the pekitioner request e continuar~ce.
Mc. Wel~en euggeeted appcoval be given with Gertain atandarde impoaed and that
the conditione muet be met. within a certain time limit~ pointing out Mr. Day
hda indicated he would be willing to pave the coads and that condition could
be included with a time llmit.
CommiaRioner La Claire etated the Commisaion doea not h~ve enough informetion
to vote on the project and Commiaeioner Herbat steted there ia a peCition
aigned by a lot of peoplc aeying there is a problem and he would vote for
deniel at thie time. He etated the Commiseion would need more facts before
voting for approval dnd poinked out any pr~blema which are exleting would have
to be corcected before approval is gcanted.
Mr. Day requeated a four-week continuance.
ACTION: Commisaioner Herbst offered a motion, e~econded by Commisaioner
McBurney end MOTION CARRIE[ ICommissioner Busho~e absent), that coneideratfon
of ttie aforementioned matte[ be continued to the regularly-echeduled meeting
of August 22, 1983, a~ the requAet of the petiti~~ner in order that trAffic and
sound etudies can be submitted•
ITEM N0. 12
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81-82-6, AND CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 2256 -
Request from Judith Johnson far extensions of time for property located
at 805 N. Hacbor Boulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Contmisgioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRiED (Commissioner Bush~re ab~ent), that the ~nahefm
City Planning Commiesion does hereby grant cetroactive one-yeac
extensions of time for Reclassification No. 81-82-6 and Gunditional Use
Permit No. 2256 to expite on September 9, 1984.
8. CO:~DITIONAL USE PEFtMIT N0. 2002 - Requeat from Solomon 6 Harriet Weinbert
far an extenaion nf time foc property ak 273] E. Jackson Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner King ofiered a motion, secor.~ed by Commissioner
Bouns and MO'TION CARRIED (Commissioner Bushore absent)• that the Anaheim
City Planning Cummiasion does hereby grant a two-year exteneion of time
for Conditional Use Permit N~. 2002 to expire on July 30, 1985.
7/25/83
~ ,i
~iNI1TB8. 11N11HB1M CITY PLIINNING COMMI88ION. J~LY ~5, 1983 83 419
C. CON_D__ITIONl~L ~Sa P6RMiT N0. ?458 - R~que~t tor Nunc Pco Tunc c~aolution
am~nding Reaolution No. PC83-119 for property locst~d at 450 South
Oilbert 8tr~et.
~-_,CTION: Commi~eioner Kinq o!lered Reaolution No. PC83-133 and moved ~uc
ita pa~eAge and edop~ion thet tl~e ~-neheim City Planni~g Commisaion doea
heceby grant th~ nunc pro tuac r~aolution amendinq Flanninq Commisaion
Reeolution No. PC83-I19 in conjunctian with Canditional Uae Permit Na.
2458.
On roll cell, the focegoing ee~+olution was paased by the following vote:
AYBB: BpU11S, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLIIIRG, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSLNT: BUSHORE
ADJOURNMBNT: Commiseioner McBucney offered e motion, aeconded by
Commissionec Ring and MOTION C1-RRIBD (commieeionec Buehoce
ebsent), that the meeting be Adjoucned.
The meeting wAS adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
Reapectfully submitted,
~~ ~ ~~~~
~dith L. Harrie, Secretary
1-naheim City Planning Commiesion
;
~
=
ELH;lm
0627H
7/ZS/83
^