Minutes-PC 1985/09/04REGULAR ~E~TING OF THE ~NAHEiM CLTY PLANNLNG COMMISSLON
REGULAR MEETiNG The regular meeting of the Anaheim C~ty ~l,anning
Commiasion was called to ordec by Chairwoman La ClAire
et lO:UU a.m., Septembec 4, 1985, ~n the Cuuncil.
Chamber, a quocum being preaent, and the Commie~ion
reviowed plans of the iteme or+ tod~y's agende.
RECESS:
RECONVENED:
11:30 a.m.
1:30 p.m.
PRESGNT ChaicwomAn:
Commiaeionpre:
ABSENT; Commissionet:
~.a Claire
Bouas, Fry, Nerbet,
Mc Bu[ney, Mesae
Lawicki
ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahti.
hlalcol.rn Slaughter
.ray ~ritus
Paul Singer
Macy McCloskey
Kendra Marcies
Edith tiacris
Aseisi:ant Director for Zoning
Deputy City Attorney
OfEice Engineer
City Tcaf.fic Engineer
Aseoci.af.e P.lanner
Assist~nt Planner
Planning Commiseion SecretAr.y
APPftUVAL OP MINUTE5: Commiseioner McBurney offeced n motian, seconded by
Cummissi.oner Bouas and MOTION CARR~ED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the
minute+~ af the meeting of Auguat ~9, 1985, be approved aa corrected on Page
85-A65 second line, item No. 7 to ehoW Conditional Use Permit No. as 1858
cather than 1815.
ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATtVE PECLARATTON AND CONDTTIONAL USE PERMZT N0. 2314
..~_
SR~ADVERTISEp)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROVI PACIPIC CORPOFcATiUN, 1801 Century ~ark Eaet,
~l.ll., Los Angeles, CA 90067, ATTN: DANTF.t. WEBER. AGENT: F~ARANO & KZViET,
l0U S. Anaheim Blvd., ~340, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: FRANK A. LUWRY, JR.
Properky described aa a cectangularly-ahaped paccel of land consieti.ng of
approximately 3.U acres located at the northeast corner of Sacrano Avenue and
Nohl Ranch Road, 6509, 65.11. and 6513 Serrano Avenue (Town and Country Earl}
Educar,ion Center).
Request for amendmpi~t o~ Conditian No. 2 of Pla~ning Commission Resolution No.
82-68 for approva.l of revised plans (No. l.) for expansion of an existinq
pcivate day care and Klementary educational. facility (ages 2-1/2 yeACS through
third gcade).
Continued from the meetinge of June 24 and July 22, 1.985
i1CTLON: Commieaionec Bouas offered a motion, aeconded by Commiesioner
McBurn~ey and MOTION CARRI~D (Commiss~orer Lawicki absent) that considerat~lon
of. the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting
of September 3U, 1985, in ordec for the applicant to complete the a~und study
and eubmit additional information as requested by etaff bnd th~ Planning
CommieRion.
85-467 9/4/85
i
MINUTES. ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNLNG CUMMISSTON~SBPTEMNGR 4. 19t~5 _ 8~-468
Z~~~p.? Eiit NB~",ATIVE DECLARATZON. WALVE.R OP CODE ltEQUI}tE.MEN, T AND
CONDITIONAL -1SE PEttMiT_N0. 2694
PUBLiC Hk~ARiNG. OWI~E~itS: FR~;DERtCK 7,. RFiTLER AND MAUitiCE Zt4;GGF.R, 9a89 Santa
Monica Boulevacd, L3everly Ni.)1s, CA 90212. AGENT: COLpWELL B,ANK~R, 2l.Op West
Ocanyewood Ave~ue, Siiite 100, Orange, CA 92668, ATTN: JAM~S Kl~ANB. Property
described Aa a rect~ngularly~ehaped parcel of lund conefsting uf approximakel.y
3.1 acrea l.ocated t-t ,:t-e southeaeL ~~cner of Miral.uma A~~enue and Red Gum
Street, 1.280 and 1.29U North Recl Gutn Street and 297U ~aet Micaloma Avenue.
To ~,ecmit an automobil.e hody and detAil. ahop ln an exi~tin~ industrial. compl.ex
with waiver of minimum riumber af ~arking gPa~e$•
Continuad from ~l~e tneetiu+g of Auguet 1.~I, 1995
AC. TtpN: Cnmmiseioner Boue~s nffe~ed a moti~u, 6~conded by CommisgtonPr
tqcDur.ney and MUTION CARRiEO (Commiasioner Lawicki abaent) that coneiaeration
uf ths aEorementioned mc+tl:Er be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting
of 5eptember l.G, 1.985, at the reyu~et af the ~etitioraer in order to eubmi'
r~~vised plans.
85-86-2, WAIVER OF COL~E
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NU. 268, RLCLASSLFICA7'ION NU.
RE'~UTkEMENT ANU CONUITTONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2713
PUBLIC HEARiNG. OWNEkS: ST1,~TE CULLEGE PAR?NERS, c/o DUNN PROPERTIES~5100
Brookhollow Dcfve, Santa Ana ~:A 92702. AGENT: k3ILL SLFJGF.R & ASSOC.,
Birch Street, Newport Beach, GA 92660. Property described ae a
cectangularly-shaped parcel ot land conaieting ot approximatel.y 7.67 acres
lo~ated at the n~rthwest corner of Utangewood Avenue and State Co1.le9e
Boul.evard (State College Plaza).
ML(FP) to CO(FP) or a l.ese intense zone to permit a l.0-stor;~ ancl 12-story
c~mmercial. o~fice c:.mplex with waivere of (a) minimum numbec of parking
spaces, (b) maximum structural height and lc) minimum 'landecaped eetback.
Continued Erom the mePting of August 19, .1985.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppoaition to aubject request
and although the staff repott was not read, it is re£errPd to and made a part
of the minutes.
Floyd FacAno, att~cney, t00 a. A:~aheim Boulevard, An~-heim, California, stated
in readingr analyzing ar~d digeeting tbe Environmental Impact Report, together
with the staff report, the impresaion is created that a m~ore si.gnificant
impact is going to be created by thie pcoject than is actually ~rues that the
EIR cefers ~nly to the cnmulative impacts cather than the epecific impacts
thak this pco~ect wotild have on the trafficr etc. He refeXred to a letter
written by the EIR consultant to Dunn Propectiea giving an ~pinion on the
specific impact on the total. development coneidering all properties in the
neighborhqod, rather than just the five ~ilot projects reflected in the ceport.
Mr. FArano stated he juet received the etaff report on Friday and when they
realized that the repart addresses ~he "aubstantial" ir,-pact on the area, they
9/4/85
,
,
MINUTBS, ANAHE;IM CLTY PUANNING COMMISSION, SE~TEMN~R 4, 1985 85-469
~elt that iasue ehou~d be addceosed to make sure the Commiasion underetando
that the impaate racited in the EiR only pertain to 5 or 6 pilot pro~oct~,
including the gubj~ct proj~~,t. l~e stated when the totel impnct of this
praject ia realized And compared with thN devElopment of All propertisa in ttie
aCudy atea, the actucl impact ie subotantiall,y .1QSe than khat reflecte~ in the
[epoct. He atnte~ they feel the efEeck on t~affic and other. bur~ena would be
at lea~.t one-half oF that recfted in the report. Ne asked that the Letter af
September 3, 1y85, addressed to the petitioner Eram Ul.trasystems be conQidereQ
aa a patt of the E:iN it.H~±lf.
Mr. Faran~ atated the pctitioner ie wiU.ing to com~ly with al.l. the conditiong
in the etatt report, exGept Condition Noe. 24 and 25, and they euggest that
Conclltion No. 2a Ue amended to r~id: •ThAt p[ior to the ieauance of building
per.mits tor the PhASe 2 and Phase .~ office buildinqs, final deeign plAns eha11
be sut~mitted ta the Planniny Department for revlew ~+rtQ a~proval.', deleting
apptoval by the P~.anning Commiesion becauee they do not want to burden the
Plann. Commiesion by coming back for furtheG public hearinga w~th final
design plans unless staff feel.s it ie neceasary, hut wauld like to avoid that
it posaible.
Mr. FarAna continued they woul.d tequest that Condition No. 2; be deleted .in
ite entirety, because all of the zequiremente set forth L•o mitigatp the impact
ot the project are covered in the other c~nditionss that Dunn Prcperties is
willing to pby its fair shace end is will,iny lo provide for the mi.tigation oE
those impacts, but believes the ~5.33 per sq~ate foat fee amounts to a
subetantial sum oE money and is not necessary eince the payment for any
infrasl•ructuce necessnry by future d~velopment in the area would be novered by
the Assesement Uistricl incl.uded in CondiCion No. 16. He added they have
compl.ic.d with Condition No. l.G pursuant to Variance No. 3462 approved l.ast
February and rhey hava signed a covenant with the City of Anaheim saying they
will not contest the focmation of an Aesesament District. He atated they
believe the off-•site improvement;; which ace necessary to mitigate the impact
oE their development ace covered and the $5.33 fee is exce~aive and any
f.ucther charges, other khan those off-site im~rovements, would be determined
and aeaessed against the development at the ti.me the Asgessment District ia
implemented. He stated he woul.d suggeat that the City doesn't know when the
Ast;essment Dietrict is goi.ng to be created, if i't is going to be created, how
much the assessments are going to be, etc. and they be].ieve the $5.33 ie
speculative and constitutes an extreme burden on tf~e property itself.
~tr. Farano read the letter dated September 3rd fram Don De Mars of
Ultcasystem~ to Dunn Properties indicating the EiR was prepared in accordance
with CE(~A guidelines as interpreted by the Cit,y of Anaheim staff and that
staff had a major inf.luence in the contpnt of the Environmen::al Impact Report.
Mr. Farano stated the aummation of the l.ettec is that it states the Eilt dees
not apecifically deal with the individual impact that t'~is project woul.d have
on the total ar~a, including al.l exieting d~yeloprt~ent, and it onl.y deals with
ite portion and states it will contribute a portion uf the impact, ae well. as
5 other projects that are going to be developed or are being developed at this
time. He etated they want to be sure the Pl.anning Commission is aware oi the
fz~et that the impact of this particular pcoject is not treated in the
Environmental Impact Report as it is against the whole area and Condition No.
9/4/SS
j ..
MINUT~S, ANANEI?1 CITY P1.AN:~ING COMMISStON. :iBPTEMBF.R 4~ 19f~5 85-470
24 i.mp~ses a detrimentel. fce upon the projecl• eince l.he petitioner ie wilting
to cvnetruct Che otf-eite d~vol.opmente that are reyuired by Che Environmental
impact Reporl• and by etaEf, even though someone elae benefits from t.hose
deve lupment4 and t,he i.mposicion of both thp con~truction coets and the fee ia
exc~eslve and shc~ul.d ba held oEf until. the cceetion of the Assesament
bist rlct, as pravided Ear in Condition No. 1.G.
Ma.l.colm Slaughter, Depuky City Attorney, atated the last sentence in Paragraph
25 doeo pr~vide for a credit for moniNe alre~~dy pnid by thP CIPVP~f1PPf and f.or
futu ro monPy the devel.opec miyht have ko p~y for ott.-eit~ improvements which
benefit other projects in the nrea, so it ic not cim~ly ~ matter of $5.33, but
it i s$5.33 ].eas the applicable e:edits. Fle atbted he hhouyht the conditione
are phrasctd in fluch a way to cover ~he circumstancec thAt if this building
goes ahead and tt~e No~eibility exiats Ctiat the District is never going to be
created, And there are a l.uk ot ths.ngs wi~ich the Petitioner can contwar in thc~
formation of the Uistrict, and he did nat seF that the ~onaiciong ace
cumulotive as suggested by Mr. Farano and he would expect that if the L'1,skrict
is formed and implemented, it would inctude a mechraniam in ft to credit. an,y
diff e[Nnces ot munies paid under individual ~eimits.
Mr. Farano stated the Rtaff report does say they wil.l be credited for those
off-eite improvemecits which are going to be installed and which will be ta the
benefit of ott~ers. tt~ st.at~~d thece ifi a subatankial difference of monies
invol.ved; Lhat the tota). pcoject will. bP 593,U00 square feet and that figure
when mul.tipl.ted by ~5.33 per syuare E04t produces a total af $3,1GS,U00, and
khe off-site improvements which they will. instal.l will cost ~500,OU0 c~r less,
so t hete is a Z-]/2 ~oill.ion dol.lar difference which will be £loating Eor some
time in the future until it ie de~erm.ined that the Assessment DistriCts will
be establiehed ot whether the EeE charged will be adopted. Eie stated to put a
2-l./2 rnillion dollar tinld on their property ie burdeneome and it is true this
~5.33 does not have to be paid un~i3. the building permits are taken out, but
it is st.ill a].ot of money being hel.d~"ab~yance until. those things are made
cer t ain .
Mal.cc~lm Slauyhter suggested the Planni~.g ,caEf F•xpl.ain for tng record how the
$5.33 fiyure was derived and stated his ~~ff.ice woul.d continuR~ r,u recommend
that the City adopt an interim fee crdinance to ap~>ly ro alI dtvelopments in
the arPa and in the event thal ordinar.;;e is adopted beEcre this deve]oper
comes ~n fc~r building permits, they will be eubjec:t to that ordinance.
THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ma~y McCloskey, Aesociate Planner, atated the CiCy has receivec3 the Anaheim
Area Study which wae identified and discussed in the Enviranmental. tmpact
Report prepared for this project, and referred to Page 12 of the ELR which
says that the comprel~ensive land use study now underway will. identify
improvement/services necedsary to accammodate intensifted development,
including implementatinn gtr~teqy such as financiny mechaniems and that the
propecty owners will be requi.red to equally participate in praviding for the
improvement/secvices. She etated the fee~ was cal.cul.ated on the tota~ gross
square faotage projected for the 4 alternativea and staff utilized tt~e most
ambitious alternative (No. 4) which resulted in the lowest Eee. She stated
the ovecr~ll projection of growth and the overall coets which were identified,
9/4!85
MtNUTES~ANAl1EiM CITY I~~.ANNING l':OMMi5SI0N~,~~P7'EMBER 4~ 1985 85-471.
wae the minimum it would take to construct the im~ravemente1 that Atternative
1. which is 1eeR ~quace toot~ye was 56.42 per square Eoat and A1.ternative Nu. 4
was $5.33 per sq uAre FooC with Al~ernatives 2 and 3 in the middle. She BtJLBC~
the environmental. impact re~,oct ha~s idenkified that this pcuject will have a
cumulative impac t on the infrastructure in the area and in urder to mitigate
~hat impact, the property owner should be requi.red to financi~lTy parCicipatet
that with the Asaessment Uistrict incl.uded in Condition t~o. 16, the pcoperty
owner did eign a cove~ant for the flourherly p~ction of the pro~erty on1y, and
gtACf would eugg eat the,y eign a cavenant f.or the northerly port.ion= that in
the financing me chaniams eugyested in the study, Assesgr~ent Di~;tricr Eormarion
ie juet one option which the City could be looking ~t~ and rlie City would iike
to hav~ some us surance that they will have c.hat E~arcicipation in the evenk an
Assesemenl Dietrict is not created [or this area. She 4kated again tl~e ~5.33
L•iyure wae calcu.lated on tFie overall projection of growth, ond the overAtl.
pro~ection of the estimate oc what Lhe improv~ments would cost and that is a
minamum COBt wh ich hae been identlfied.
Cpmmissioner ~ry stated he peraonally feels the Assesament pistrict iF the
right and proper way t:o go; howevec, he doubted ik would ever happen and baeed
on that assumption, did not know how thes~ things would be paid fuc. tie
stated he ie ve hemently oppo~ed to the fee ~t this point, but did not know of
any ~reative altecnative. He sLated if even hal£ oE tlie proposed development
actually takes pl.ace in that areA, the City wil] be in krouble.
tlr. Parano ~•'.._•d he agrees and underetands the City's concerns and shares
tfw • c~~n and Et-els the success of the project is related to the abil.ity
of the . function. He ytated there ~hould be more of a ecientific
approach ~. -oblem, and tie knows the City is in the very early stages oF
~.udy anr ar~ n ot really ready to pursue the al.ternatives. He stated the ASA
Study indicaceo fur Alternal-ive 4, ~5~i,9U0,000 to cortiplete the l.nfrastructure
requiremenl•s an d at least one-half of that, or morer is for the straightening
out of the Katella overpass, crFUting a new Pacifico overpass and increase and
improve the Ora ngewaod access; and how much hie cl.ient would benefit from
those three improvements :s a substantiel question in face of the Stadium
itself. He stated they are not reluctant to ~ay theic fair share and perhaps
the technicality would be an agreement between the City and the developer that
when these fee~~ are determined, they would be paid at that time with ful.]
credit given E~c the off-site improvements they have dor.e. He ~tated they
favor the Assessment DistricL~s because it has al.l earts of protections foc the
property ownec and the City Co make sure evecything is done in a certain way
in proportion t o the eize of the property. He atated lhey feel this $5.33 fee
right now is far in excese wi~en coneidering the pcoject in connection with all
properties. He stated when t:hey say t;hat their Fropecty has an effect of 148
of traPfic, th at is only 148 of khe six pcojects inc].ud~d, and considering the
total eq~ace footage that wil.l. be avai].able as a result oE the study their
petcentage ~ould dcop to 28. He suggested an agreement approach so the
developer. could agree to pay their fair share, and stated they wo~l.d like the
abil.ity to participate in the determination of those fees. E~e st~ted they
think the Aasessment Dietrict ie the answer and providee the mechanism for the
City to create the meGhanics where the~~ ~;uuld become a lien agafnst the
pcoperty.
9/4/85
MINUTNS. ANAHEIM CiTY ~LANNI~lc;~CQMMISSZUN, SEPTEMBEk 4. ].995 85-472
Mr. Slaught~r etar.ed Commisaionec Fry expreseed A distacte for thia Eee, but
com~~ared to some other altesnativpe being explored, even ~he devet.o~er might
find them prefetuble, including a moratorium on all conetruction in the area
until this is clete nnined.
c:ummiseioner Nerbst. etated .-t appez~~fi the minim~m reyulrements in that area
toc any ~uture development for inF.rastructures is $42,000,000. He etated the
develuper wants to buil.d a new building, but has no pl~~ce to put the sewers
and not r.nougt~ water, etc. Fle 4tated the capacity has been reached in that
areA and L•he only allernative is Lo c~ntinue c~nsideration of this project tor
a lony time until ~he infcastrucl•ur.e i~sue hAS been resolved becauee he did
nut fpel. ti~e burden should be placed ~n c:he tr~xpayers. He statecf this
h~ppened in trvirie and in Los Ange.tes where the inEra~tructure had been
designed for industrial uses and then t.tiose uaes were chnnged to hiqh-C~6E
oFfice buili~inr~a. Hc~ Htated t.he ~42,UUU,UUU does not take into conaidecation
the right-oE-way coats, t~tc. and r_he coet for Alternative No. 1 is e3timated
dt $6.42 p~r sqi~are toot and the $5.33 is the esCi.mate for Alternati.ve No. 4
and it the ~ieve.loper wants ta continue the p[o~ect wit.hout. a Iang delay since
thece is no ordinance in effect, he would want to see a commitment for ttie
$b.A2 as a maximum to be agcced to and when an ordinance becomes Frff2ctive, if
the fee is lower, they woul~d be given a credi't. Fte stated this devel.~per
woul.tl not be required tc~ pay any morF~ than anyone else, but the proiect just
haE~pens to be the firet one ~roposed. Efe elaked the Commission needs some
figures to approve thic today, but in the long run this developer witl be
tr~eated just like everyone el.t~e, and ii the Eigure is too high they wil.l be
given a tefund.
Mr. Earano etated it is difficu)t to disagree with what the Commission has
eaid and that they do n,•F •~ant the Commissi~n to khink they are not wi]_]ing to
pay their fair share; an •_iiey cecognize the difficulties and that the
devel.oper is willing to f~ay for the off-site improvements required for this
prujecC and anything over and above that is hypothetical; thAt they know the
irt:provemenrs are needed and they are will.ing to pay for those improvements
that are neceseary anh to pay their fair share of the Assessment District; and
the City has the poMer to decide wh:ch appcoach to use and when it is going to
be done; that until such time thar an Assessment District is created or
another means of ccl~-••~.ing the fees is determined, they should be ab].e to
proceed based on tp: ~~••iitians as they exist without the $5.33 square foot
fee. He etated al ~, ~nfrastructure will not be needed at one time and they
feel. it is difficult ~o h~ive 2-1/2 mil].ion dol.lars floating around. He stated
they cannot delay their pruject. He stated they are asking `he Commi~eion and
the City to consider an approach where these .. ,rges would be hel.d off until
they are more realietic and art~ something mc~~ than ar~ educated guega.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission is going to ask the City Council. for
a joint work seseion to discusu this issue becauae Cour~cil hae the '~~we[ te
s~end the money and adu~t an ordinance, an~ the Commission can on~, make
recommendatione. He stated maybe this Assessment District will. nevEt take
pl.ace and the Council may have some other ideas and khat is what t•he
Commission need~ to know before votiny on this groject.
Mr. Farano stated he woul.d like for the Commission nat to continu~ chis matter
because their commitment~ are such that they are in problems witt~ delays right
9/4/85
MINU7'ES~ ANANEtM CITY PLANNING COMliLSSiUN, S~PTEMBER 4, 1985 85-,~473
now and they need to flnd ouk whether or not they have a project.
~ommissioner Horbat stated the peCitioner ~an either agree ro a 56,42 pec
equare Eoot fee as a maximum whicY~ wil.l. be held until an Aaseoement pisCrict
is cret+ted oc an o[dinanc:e ie adopCed, ar have a cc~ntinuance. Mr. Farano
etated thex would like to haue d deciaion on thi3 matt~r. Ne stated he woul.d
not want to make a stipulation to that fee t~nd woul.d like ~ deci~rian from the
Commission for eithec ~ppraval. or cieniAl e~ they can f.ind out if they are
goiny to have a~c~lect with the City Council. Ne stated thay cannot afford A
continuance At this time.
Cummissiuner La c:1.r~ire statsd this City ie at a point whece they ht~ve to fltc~rt.
maki.ny a decieion because this is the biggest project th~y have seen in th~t
area Eor a lony time and know that more wil.l be roming in and that nokhing can
be done withoul the infrastructure6. Stie Rtated the F:IR ia supp~se4to addreas
the cumul~ti.ve etter,ts ot the ~~ruject dncl Ghis re~ort dor_c that very we11, and
ehe tel.t it is fairly accurate. She added the petitioner is suggesting ttie
Commiasinn exem~t this developer fcom theae fees, and then evecy develo~er
from this point on will be charged. 5he steted, ho~~eful.l.y, the Commission
will be re~eeting r~ith the City Coun~il and they wi11 be tryinq ta se a fEe to
E~ay for these impcovemen~s. She Eel.t an A~aesement Uistcict is very
unreal.isl:ic and the City will. have to come up with a lok oE ttie money
somewhete down the coad and the developers al.so wil.l have to come up with some
of the money, anci that every other City has been asking foc the same thing.
She added the unly faic way to deal. with this would be to require ttie $G.42
square foot fee rathec than the ~5.33 Lee, anci then, iE indeed the prices of
Ghese im~~rovea~ents go down, the developer w~].1 be cefunded the difference.
She added she thouyt~t ttiere prob~bly would not be any ]e.ft over and the coat
of the development~ would be even hiyher than the $G.42 and the devetopere
maybe able to loak back at ~his and sAy it was a'bargain" at $6.42. She
stated projects h4ve already been Apptoved and there is a cumulative effec~
and there ie a pcoblem now and she dicl not think it is fair to allow this
developer to yu in and then charge the rest of the developera for the
improvements. She stated the Commission is not asking this developec to pay
all Che costs, but Eor everyone to pay their fair st~are. She stat : the other
al.t.ernative is to deny the project and l.et the developer develop under the
cequirements of the ML Zone.
Malcolm Slaughter stated while i.t apPears the Pl.anning Commission may not have
the authority to continue the mattec when the hearing has been ctosed, the
Cade does pr~vide that tt~e Commisaion, within 40 daya Af the hearing, shal.l
produce its determination, so there is nothing to compel the Commission, under
the Code, t~ make a decision today, if it is not their wish to do so.
Chairwomsn La Cl.aire stated the Commissio~ wil.l kn~w more after the meeting
with the City Councils that her greatest concern is for the taxpayers and to
get the best for the City of Anah~im. She stated ehe cannot just grant this
request because ~c would be detrimental. to the development in the area and not
fair t~ the rest of the propecty owners whu develop there.
Floyd Farano stated with all due respect to the Planning ~ommiasion, they
woul.d very much like to have a determination with the Commiseion approvinq or
denyinq their request with the ~5.33 requirement, because they would like to
move farward with their project because the delays in time being involved in
khe A5A study will. 5e fatal to their project.
9/4/85
MINUTES ~ANAHEIM CiTY P~ANNING COMMISSiON~ SEPTEMBER 4~ 1.985 85-474
Chairwn~nan LA Cleice d8k@d 1E the cecl.ase~Eiaation to CL An~ the CUP are
gcanted E~r thi~ particular plan, cauld t.hose devel.opere ~ecide ~ater not ~~
use Chis plAn and construct n commercial oEEice building in conformance with
Code. Malco~m slaughter R.ted if the property io rezoned ta commercial
OF~1C8~ the petit~oner may. under ~reeent ordinancee, appl.y for buil.ding
permits and then have them iseued a~ a ministecial act and buil.d any project
t.hat would conform ta the zone,
Commic~foncc Herbst stated the ~ekitian~r has r~c~uestcd a~proval or den~al And
px~lained he does not like to h~ve tfiat kind oE preseute put on him to make
the decision and iE khe petitioner war,t.a to sign an agreement wi.th the City
f~r the ~6,42 f~e ao a maximum, he wot,l.d go aa.ong with the request, but
without thae agreement, he w~ul.d ofEer a mation far a continuance for 40 days
to wait and see what the c:ity Caunci.l. has to a~y. Mr. Farano stated he could
not mztke ~uch a,tipulati4n. He at~ted he wantpd tn .~~otog~ze ro the
CommiAai~n Ebr askiny the question, but r.he Laet deluy was costly and it would
b~ even moce costly f•or a 40-dr~y del.ay.
Com~issioner Herbst stated he wauld c~ffer a niotion for a cuntinuance for t~ie
4U days,or until atter. the Planning Commission meets with the City Council to
detecmine what they ar.e going to do about creatiny an As~easment District, etc.
Commissionec Messe ~econded Commisr,ioner Herbst's motion for a c~ntinuance.
Mr. Far.ano cespondad ~~ Conrmiseioner Bouae' question whether they woul.d agree
with Canditlon No. ~5~ that Cammissioner Herbat wanted him to gtipulate to
that condition and he coi~ld not do that and it wou19 be their intent to appeal
the matter ditectly to the City Cauncil for a heariny as soon as possible. it
was noted the first phase is under construction and they would be starting
construction or; Phase 2 lm:nediately.
Ma~col.m S~aughter etated in response to Mr. Facano's question about an appeal,
that the PlAnni~ng Commisaion has 40 day~ in which to m~ke a decision and
mAintai~s juris~iiction ot th~ matter until then, and if they don't act on the
matter with~.n the ~U days, the matter is automatically referred to City
Council without action o: reconunendation from further pcocedure.
Chairwoman La Cl.afce stated she wiehed the Commiesion had the answers now
because she did not want to hold any devel.oper ups howevec, she ~ould like to
know what diEEerence it makes if the petitioner etipulates to the agre~rr~ent
because he could appeal that decision later on anyway.
Cammissioner Herbst stated he realizea this project will have a dcaatic impact
on Chat area and the City does not have th~ infrasctructure to handle the whole
project. He stated there will have to be a moratorium out there or the
developer will have to partici~ate to help with the improvements. H~~. stated
it is not up ko the City of Anaheim and the taxpayers to commit to ;'r42,000,000
to take care of private enterprise, but it the developer wante to change the
xone in that area tu allow these high-rise structures and he real.izes that is
what deve].opece want, but someQne hae to pay for the intxastructute besides
the taxpayers. F!e stated if the devel.oper does not want to agree with the
alternatives, he would want to gee what khe City Council wante to do.
9/4/85
MINUTES. AtIAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMiSSION. S~PTEMBER 4, 1965 85-475
Commiesionoc Fry etated the conditio~ ie inc.l.uded and whether ar not khe
petitioner gti~u~ates or aycees t~ it, hae na bearing on the situation end hP
thoughc the developer ie Juc t~n anewer And he woul.d not vflte for a
continuance. ~ommissionec Bauae AgrePd. Chairwomen La Claire suggeated
approving the ~r~j~ct with the conditions imposed of what the Commleaion wantf
and indicated dhe was concerned about the Lact they could go ~+heAd and build
1E the reciasaiticar,ion ia granted. C~mmisaionec Messe atated the Commissio~~
doea not have to w~it the 4Q daye to make a dc~cisi.on and could mrake n decision
aEtc~r meet.ing with the City ~ouncil. Annika Santalahti stated ehe bel.ievey
the City Council wil.l. want to be given 3 or 4 al.tern~tive days fot ~~oint
mee~ing and she thought a meeting could be echedul.ed within ~he nert 2 weeks.
Chairwoman La Claire stated, hopefull.y, the Commiesion will meet with the City
Council and there are eevezal al.ternativee to discues and the determination
will either be for an Assfssment Districk or a fee sch~dul.e or a combin~tion
of acvcral thinge, but eventually the devel.o~er wi]1 have to ~ay his fAir
share.
Commiesioner tlerbsl- aeked about the 22-day appeal period. Mal.colm St.aughter
stated onc~ thE jurisdicti~n of the Fl.anning Commission hae expired because
they have either made a deciei~n or 40 days has pas~ed without a decision, the
developer has a 22-day appeal. period, but ttiey need not weit that long and
coul.d appeal it the fol~owing day. Commiesi~ner Herbst staked the C~~uncil
likes to have input from Che Planning Commisaion. Mr. Slaughter etated once
dn a~peal. is tiled, it takes 2 to 3 weeks for the City Clerk tn Bchedule and
advertise the public heacing.
Commissio-tivr Herbst stated if the Commission coulc] meet with the City Council.
next week in an emecyency sesaion And then get some inp~t from them to see
what they would actuall.y do, the Commission coul.d vote on thie mAtter at the
follo~ing meeting. He asked for a vote on his motion to pastpone the matter
witil the Commission meets with the Cily Co~ncil..
Malcol.m Slaughter suggested a continuar~e to the next meeting and then if the
Commission does not want to make a d~~~~ision at that mQe*_ing, they coul.d
continue it to tf,e fol.lowing meeting; however, they could onl.y contir.~e :t up
to bU days.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst restated his motion, aeconded by Commissioner
Messe and MOTION FAILED TU CARY,Y with a tle vote (Commissioners Bouae, Fry and
Mct~urney voting no, and Corr~miesioners Eler.bat, La Claire an~ Messe voting yes
with Commiesi~ner Lawicki abaent) that consideration of the aEorementioned
matter be continued to the regularly-echeduled meeting of Septem~ier 16, 1985.
MalcoJ.tn Sl.aughter stal-ed it appeara the Pl.anning Cotnmission would still have
40 days in which to act an this matter and if at the encl of the AO days there
was no vote, the mattcr would automatical.ly go to the City Council. He
explained that the tie vate is moot.
Chairwoman La Claire stated when there is a tie vote, usual~y *_he matter is
continued to the next meeti.ng for the tie breaker. Floyd Farano stated this
is not a vote on the merits oE the project, but simply a vote on a continuance.
Malcolm Sl.ae;hter stated if the Commission wiehes to act on the matter today
they can, but ti~ey need not, if they do not wieh to.
9/4/85
MINUT~^ NAHBIM CI'PY PLANNZNG CGMMISSiON. SEPTEM9ER 4, 1985 85-476
ACTIUN: Commissioner Ery offEC~d $ motion, seconded by Commiaeioner McBurney
and MUTLON ~AkRiEA (Cammise~onhr Gawicki absent, Commisalonec Herbst voting no
and Commissione~ La Claire abatAining) that ~he Anatieim Gity Pl.anning
Commiaeion after ~onst.decing Environment.al. impaet Repoct No. 268 for the
proposed comrt~etcial compl.ex located at the northwest corner of atate Col.l.ege
Boulevara and Urangewuod Avenue afte~ reviewing the ~vidence buth written and
ortfl Co supplement the Draft BIR, does hereby find that DraEt EtR No. 268 is
in uom~l.iancc with the Ca).fE~rniA F:nviconmen~al. Qual.ity Act and with Che City
and State CE(~A guidelineaJ and the fol.lowing environmental impacte have bcen
tden~il~ed in aa3uc:iaCion with ~hr. projects: (a) r.hpre will be temporary
inconvenience to sucroundiny proE~erties as a tesult o~ noise, dust and txucka
duriny conctruction, (b) tt~e project wil.l. ca~iKC~ an incremenkal increase in
tca~fi~, air pol.l.ution and nnise level.cs, tc) the proje~~ will. fncrease the
demand f~r t.ow And moderate income housing wh~ch is already in very short
eupply t.hroughout the County and (d) the project wil.l conCcibute to the need
to expand and improve the infrastructure!eArvice capacities in the Anat~eim
Stadium Study; and that the Foll.owing mitigation measures wil.l be employed to
reduce these environmental. impacts: (l.) cumE~liance with City Codes,
canditione, policies and proced~rea, and l2) khe project appllcAnt wil.l be
xequired to equitably participate in the financing of infrastcucture/service
impravements identified in the Anaheim Stadium Area Study; and, thereforee the
Anaheim City Planniny Comm~.sslon certifiea EIR No. 268 androaBPto~tConditional.
following 5tatemei~t c~f Uverridi~g Gonsideraciona: "xhe app
Use Petmit No. 2713 for the p[oposed construction of a commcrcial complea on
the northwest corner of State Col.l.ege Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue could
ceault in the siyni£icant environm~ntal zmp~cts which have been identified
above. However, the project will bring Economic benefits to the City by
providiny employment fuc residents of Anaheim and the surrounding area. in
addi[ion, the project is in conformance with the City's objectivE of
develapiny a majoc commercial center in the vicinity of Anaheim Stadium.'
Conunissioner Herbst etated his negakive vote reflec:ts hia feeling that the
Envir~nmental impact Repart does not take into concideration the necescary
infrastructuce that will be necessary to the area. Chairwoman La Cl.aire
stated there is a question about the BZR regacding the mitigation measures of
~ the cumulative effect on the infcastcucture/service capacities and the only
mitigatiny measure is to fina out how much it is going t~ cosc.
Mr. Farano stated the only thing the applicant had ~o do with the
Envi[onmental Impact Report was to pay for it and the staff told the
consultant the scope of work, and as far as they are concerned they do not
think they should be penalized and they feel the report should have desccibed
the individua.l impact this project would havP on the area more than it did.
They stated they Eeel the Environmental impact Report is the City's wock.
Chairwoman La Claire ~tated ehe could change her vote to a positive vote based
on the statement conta.ined on Page ].2 of th~~ EiR.
Commissioner Fry offerEd a resolution gr~nting approval. of Reclaseification
No. 65-86-2 subject to interdepartmental Com~mittee recommendations.
Commissioner Herbst etated approval of the reclaseiffcation would be to CO
Zoning and thot would create a new zone with specific atipulations of what can
9/9/85
MINUTES~ AN~HEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMiSSiON S~PTF.MBER 4 1.985 85-477
be truilt there and there ie a poseibility oF it being surraunded with another
xone which woul.d change the use to commercial with ii~duettial. loGated around
it, And SU+i of the land aur[~unding that area wil.l etill. be industcial and he
did not be].ieve a praperty vhoul.d k~e 'spot zoned" until eome oF the probl.ema
ace worked out.
Commiasioner
Commiseioner Bouae stated the area ia already "spot zoned".
He:'bet etb`ed thi is the ~r.ea around L•he :tadium ~nd the Commisaion is being
f.occed intv making a decieion tht+t coul.d b~~ wrong and he wo~ld like to del.ay
this action until. the ~ortuni~slon can diacus~~ it with the City C:ouncilt and
that the Council likes to have the Commiasion, ae plannFre, give thei[
recommendations.
Commiseioner Fry stated this cecommendation shou~.d bs forwarded on to the City
Council s~ they can have thP infarmation the.y need eo they can make the proper
conclueions. He atated he ~id not loc,k at this as trup `spoz zoning' since
all of the north eide of Oranyewo~d is being used for everything el.se.
Commisslonec Nerbst stated the C~mmisc~ion is not ta].king abaut coming in with
a General Pl.an Amendment, but is talking about specific pl.ans and what can be
developed in that area. He stated if the zone ic changed, ~ specific plan can
be changed tomorrow.
Malcolm Sl.aughter stated the conditionF of the staff re~ort d~ not tie the u~e
of the property undec the CO Zoning to thefie specific plans andbU~etheis some
lega7, question as to whether or not that coul.d be done AnywAY-
conditional. ~se pecmit ie tied to specific plans, but there i.s nothiroved
compel the developer, or anyone else, to exercise the ciyhts, as ~pp
unde[ the cnnditional uae permit.
Commiesionec Fcy aaked if this is approved and the pl.ans are changed, if they
woul.d still have to comply With what is approved here pettaining to parking
spaces, landscaped setback, st~uctuts height, ~tc. Mal.colm Sl.aughter stated
iE they pLOCeed under the terms ~f CO zoning~ they wou?d have to comply with
the cequiremente of that zone.
Commissioner Bouas aeked if they woul.d still. have to agree to the Assessment
vietrict, and ir was nated that they could take out building permits, if the
reclaseification is granted, and they would not have to appear before the
Planniny Commission again unless there was a var.iance tequireu, but that they
woul.d be relieved of any financial. obligati~ns in the area.
Chairwoman La Cl.aice stated ehe does not want to hold anyone up, bn~ felt this
could be postponed for just a coupl.e of weeks in order foc Commissicn to talk
to City Council to find ouk what procedures chey are discussing and she did
not underetand wh,y it has to he pushed through when it must have been going on
for quite a long period of time nnyway, and she did not think it should make
any dif£erence and she would vote againet the reclassification.
Commiseioner Fry stated he would withdraw his resolution for approval of the
rec~assification based on what the City At~`.orney has said and what could
happen and obviously the EIR will stand cerLified, but no other cesolutione
wauld be made.
9/4/8S
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CLTY PLANNING CUMMISSION. SEPTEMB~R 4. 1985 _ 85-478
Malca~m S~a~i~ht~r 8tdt@~ it hAS been recommPnded to staff that an interlm fee
ordinance ehould be adopted ae soon ae poseib~e in order to eatab].ieh an
interim fee which wou~d app~y to a11 pro3pcte ae a c~ndition of buil.ding
permitsj so that the scenario diecuesed aboae coul.d not happen, whereby, they
could exetcise thelr rights under tt~e 2oning ordinances.
Chairwoman ~a ~laire affered a motion for a two-week continuance to the
meekiny of September 16, 1985, in oCdec Eo[ the Planning Commission to meet
with Citr Councit in an emergenr.y work seesion to diecuse the issue.
Commiseion~:~c Messe seconded the motion and MUTiON CARRIEU (Commiseionec
Ldwick.i abEent.) for c~neideration of the aforementioned matter to be continued
to t'~e regularly-achedul.ed meeting oE Septemher 1.6, 1985.
Fit;CE~3E;D: 2:55 p.m.
T+t.r.ONVt:NGI~: 3: ].U p.m.
ITk~M NU. 4 ELF2 N0. 259 s,PREVIUUSLY CERTiFiBD) AND RECLASS:FICATION NU. 85-86-3
PUE~LiC HEARING. OWNERSt D& D DEVELOPMENT, l.]008 Nocwalk Boulevard, Santa Fe
Spcinge, CA 90670, ATTN: CAMZLLE COURTNk:Y. Property desccibed afi an
icregularly-shaped parcel of .land consieting o[ approximatel.y 7.5 acres,
having a fcontage of appcoximatel.y 513 feet on the south eide of Lincoln
Avenue, approximatel.y 1,340 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vieta Street.
R5-A-43,000 to RM-3UUU or a less intense zo~e t~ construck a 99-unit
condominium subdivisione
Continued from the meeting af August ly, 1985.
Kendra Morries, Assistant Planner, noted the p~titioner has cequested a
continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Mc6urney o~fered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La,~icki absent) that consideratic~n of
the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularl.y-scheduled meeting of
~ September 1.6, 7.985, at the request of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 5~IR NEGATiVE DECLARATION_AND CONDiTi_ANAL USE PERMix N0. 2708
PUE3LIC Hk;ARING. OWNERS: SCE~NIC CORRIDOR INDUSTRiAL PARK, 2900 "A' Briskol.
Street, f20?, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. AGENT: GEORGE NANC;E, 5612 E. La Pa].ma
A•:enue, Anaheim, CA 9Z8U7. Yroperty described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consistiny of approximately 8.8 acrES, 5612 and 5620 Eaet La
Palm~ Avenue.
To retain an autom~bile cestoratxon and repaic facility and an automobile and
jet boat cepair facilitv.
Thece was no or-e indicati~g their presence in opposition to subject cequest
and although the etaff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Kevin Sadakane and George lvance, a9ents, wete pr~sent to answet any questions.
9!4/85
r
r
MINUTBS ANAH~IM CI'PY PLANNING CUMMISSiON 5EPTEHSER 4 1985 85-479
TH~ ~UBLIC Hk~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Kendra ptorries, AssiRtsnt Planner, stated neither of th~ae buain~sses has been
cited by Code ~nEorceme~nt for violntione attd the okher huainegaee in thie
].ocation which do not hAVe buaineoe ].icenaea or conditipnal use permlte will
be contact~d individual.ly for f.ollow-up.
Chairwoman L~- Claire clarified that all. work an~3 all storage will be done
insidP fhe fAcil.ity. Mr. Nance atated he has a fenced-in acea where the
vehicl.ee wi].•t bE kept for protection and he keepa all hig cuatotner~3'vehicl.ea
inaide and that his flammable mateci~le ace stored in a ehed outside.
Mr. Sadakane stated all wock will be done inaide his facil.itiee and no
vehicles will be stored outside.
Responding t~ Commissioner Messe, KendrA Morries etated if onr_ oL Chese
businesses wa8 sold, the conditiunal use p~rmit woul.~3 remain in effect and the
new business owner woul.d be expected t:o comP~-Y with the conditionR ur seek a
new conditional use pecmit. She staCed this ie the lask time etaf.f wil~. be
procesaing more than one busineas on thE eame conditional use permit.
ACTION: Commiaeioner Herbst uffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIEO (Cummissionec Lawicki absent) that the Anc+heim
City Planning Cammi~sior. ?~as reviewed tt-e proposal to cetain ars automobile
re~storation and repair facility and an automobile and jet boat repair facility
located on a reclangularly-shaped parcel o~ land consistinq of. approximately
8.8 acres having a frontage of. approximately 515 feet on the south side of La
Palma Avenue and f.utther described as 561.2 and 5620 EasL• La Palma Avenue; and
does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon findinq ~hat it has
coneidered the Neyative peclaration together with any cammente Keceived during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial
Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will h~ve a 3ignificant effect on the environment.
Commissionec Herbst offered Resol.ution N~. PC85-201 and moved :or its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City ?lanning Commigsion does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2708 pursuant to Anaheim Municipa.l Code Sections
18.03.U30.030 through 18.03.U30.035 and subject to tnterdepartmental Committee
cecommendatior.s.
Un roll call, the foregoing resolution wae passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEYr MESSE
NOES: NONE
A6SENT: LAWICKI
Commissioner Herbst explained this ib a conditional use permit and violation~
of the conditian~ could result in a heatinq to revoke the permit.
Mal.colm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, presented the wrftten right to appeal
the Planning Commiss:on's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
9/4/85
MLNUTES ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION SEPTEMBER 4 1985 85-480
ITEM _NU_.__6_ Ei~ N~GATIVE DECLARATIOt1 AND CONDITiUNAG USE PBRMIT N0~27]•4
PUBI~IC f~EARtNG. OWN£RS: PRiSCILO PANGANiBAN ANll PILAR C. PANGAIJiBAN~ 604 N.
Magnnlia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801.. ACBNT: DAI,TON JAM~S, 5279 Cherry Avenue,
I.ong Eieach, CA 90bU5. Pcopet~y dc~9cribed ao a cectAngu].arly-at~aped parcel. of
land coneistiny of app~~ximate.ly G,OOA square feet~ 004 North Magnol.ia Avenue.
To expa~d a board and caca f~^ility tor ~ mexiuwm oC 12 devclopmental.).y
dieabl.ed pe~eons and construct r aecond story addition to e aingle-family
,~wel.ling.
There were three pecsons indicating their preeence in opp~~sition to subject
cequest and al.thuugh the cta~f report wae not read, it is refer:ed to and made
a part at the minutes.
Dalton Jamea, ayent, exp~.ained the existing hnuse is 1300 square feet nnd
there are 10 board and cace c.liente at the present time, and the addition is
Eo[ 895 squace feet and the owner will be residing in the uF~tairo poction of
the house with two ~~dditional cl.ients moving into the owner's present quacters
downetaice.
Helen Lucian, 828 N. Magnolia, Anaheim, atated she has l.ived at this addrese
fo[ approximately 3U years and has appeared before the Planning Commission in
the past to preve~t a gae etation ac:r~ss thF etreet and a real estate office
next doorJ and that seve[al neighboro have put several. thousand ~loll.ara into
impcoving their property and ehe intends ta impcove hec property, and if this
is ap~toved it would eet a precedent for this type business in the area, and
there could be all. types of busine~e ccming into the area and this woul.d no
longer be a nice neighborhood. she stated she does not believe thic property
is large enough for th~at mariy people.
Mr. James stated t:~ere will. be na increase in traffic a~d stated that the
state of Califurnia war.ts these Lype Eacilities to be in sing].e-family
residential communitiec. He atated this wi.].1 be an 8-bedroom ho~se with a
baths und this will incr~ase the value in Lhe neighborhood.
THE PUBLIC HEAitING WA5 CLOSED.
Res~onding to Commissioner F;erbst, Mr. James etated they have been in thiR
business since 1978. Kendra Morries expl.ained Condational Use Permit No. 1506
was appcoved in 1974 for 4 te~ants and 1 mariaqer and anothec permit for ]0
cliente wae appcoved in 198U. She responded to Commiesioner Herbst that there
have been no complainte fi.led wit.h Code Enfoccemant.
Chairwoman La Cl.aire pointed out apparently the neighbors did r.ot even know
this board and care home was there with the 10 cl.ient~, and fel.t there would
be no probleme.
C~mmissioner Bouas scated ehe did not think the concerne that thie will a£fect
the neighborhood are valid bec:.;~•be the neighbors have been improving their
properties and there have been !:s probl.ems Lrom the exiating business.
9/4/85
~ ,
MINUT~5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N. SEPTF.MBER_4,_1985 05-481
kespvnding to Mv. LuciAn, ~'hai.rwom~n La Claire explbined there heve bo~n 10
peupl.e in Ghek homa since :~80. Ke:ndro Mocriea explained in 1980 when thP
approv-- t was granted to increeac~ the numbec to ].U, there were two persons
indico~.ny concern a.t the heacing, buC aftec ceviQwiny the plane, indicated
they hAd no oppoeitian.
THE PUBGIC HEARiNG WAS RR(1PENEU.
Roaa Eeccari, 716 N. Magnolifl, ktated she has tiv~d th~re for 26 years, 4
doore fcom ~ubj~ct property, and explained the ceque~t doee not bother her,
t~ut she was concerned there would be moce confueion on Magn~l.ia. Sl~e r~tated
the existing bueiness hae not been c- pcoblen.
THE PUI3LLC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
keaponding to Commiesioner Hecbst, Mr. James explained this expansion wi:l.
coet apYcoximately ~65,000.
ACTION: Commi~~i~ner McBurnry offered motion, aeconded by Conmiestoner
~3ouas and MOT.iOh CARRII:U (Cor~miseiuner. Lawicki absent) that the AnAheim City
Planning Commisaion hae reviewed the propoeal. to expand a baacd and care
facility for A maximum of 12 developm~nt~l.ly disdbled persons and to cor,Rtruct
a second-story addition in the RS-7200 (Singl.e-Family) Zone on a
rectangularly-~haped pArcel of lan.~ coneietiny of appcoximately 6,004 square
feet, having a frontage af appcoximately 60 feet on the Aast ei.de oE Maynolia
Avenue and f.ucther deseribed as 8U4 tr'orth Magnolia Avpr,uej and daeo heceby
~pprove the Negative Declacation upun find. g that iC has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any commente received ducing the public
review process and further finding on the baeis of the initial Study and any
comments ceceived that there is no eubatantial. evidence that the praject wil.t
have a signiticant effect on the enviconment.
Commissioner McBurney offered F~e~olution No. ~C85-202 and moved for its
pasRage and adoption that the An~heim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Gonditional Use Pecmit No. 27~4 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 L•hrough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental.
Committee secommenclations.
Ur. roll call., the foregoing r~.solution was passed by ~he following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBoT, LA CLAIRE~ MC SURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWiCKI
Chairwoman La Claire explained by State law, they are all~wed to have 5
persons without a conditional use ~ermit.
Mal.colm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commigeion'R decision within 22 days to the City Council.
9/4/85
MiNUTES. ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNZNG COMMIS5LON, 5EPTEMBER 4,__19~5 _ 85-462
tTEM NG. 7 EI_R_NEGATIVE QECLARATION AND CONQtTIONAL USE PBRMt~ N0. 2715
PUBLTC H~ARZN~. UWNERS: ANAHEIM NILLS D~VELUPMENT CORP., 70 South L~ke
Avenue, t75U, P~eadena, ~A 91101. AGF.NT: CLIFFURU A FUKK~RT, 2231.1
Brookhurat 5treet, "i", Hu~tington ~each, CA 92646. Propcrty described as ~n
irreyularly~8lldpRd pACCeJ. OE land consieCing af approximately 1.1.6 acres, 7295
East Col.umbue nrive.
To permi an unm~~nned puhtic ~itility remu.e awitching atatlon for Yacific ~et.l.
There wAO one peroon indicating hie presence in oppoeition to subject request
and ~lthouyh the BtAEE r.epoct wae noL cead, it .is referred to and made a pArt
oE the minut~s.
~
Ken Ryan, Phillipa, brundt, Reddi~lq, conaultant, ex~l~ined the slructure wil.l.
appeAr as a single-fatnily r~eidence compArable to the other homes on Col.umbus
Urive ~nd wil.l be constructed of [ire resisrant matecial. and there will. be
landscaping to blend in with tt~e neighparhood. fie atated the barrier at khe
end of Columbu~ Drive wil.l. be remov~d and the cul-de-sac wil.l be completed.
Eric Vermeecen, 7291 Coluinbus Urive, Anaheim, atated his propert,y is Ior.ated
next• door and he wae given th~s informati~n pertaining to the project by
Pacific Del]. and hie concerns would be with the 6-foot higl~ mascnry block wall.
to be .located on 5er~ano because all. thp other Eences in th~ ~rea are wrought
iron and he wou3.d like this fence to comply with theZr CC6Rs to be coneistent
with ~he existing tences.
Commissioner McBurney stated thia wil.l be an unmanned switching etation and
that this ia whece the children wait for the school ~usee and a lot of rocks
and debrie ace thece now and if Che fence is there, the chiluren cannot go
into the area.
Mr. Vermeeren skated they should also have some sort af aecurity eystem to
all~viate the pcoblem. He responded to Chairwoman La Claire that the wal.l
would also interfere with his view. He explalned t.here is a bl.ock wall
bekween the properties on the side, but he haa wrought iron on top of the
block w~l.l in his back yard. He cef~~rred to Condition No. 11 and stated he
would ~ike to see a street ~ight at the end of the cul-d~-sac, and it was
nated one is shown on the plan and would be required.
Mr. Vermeeren stated they are having problems with 9-wheel drive vehicleo in
the area and he would cecommend that a b~ock wal]. he instal.led a~ the end of
the cul-de-sac to prevent the 4-wheel drive vehicles from coming throu~h.
Mr. Ryan stated a compromise could be worked out and that Pacific Be11 would
be happy to provide a block wall with wrought iron on top.
THE ' ~sLIC HtiARING WAS CLOSED.
Kesponding to Commissioner Mesge, Mr. Ryan et~ted they will have ~n internal.
aecurity syetPm. Mr. Vermeecen stated his house hae been burglaci2ed end they
entered thro~gh the empty lot and stated becanse thie wi.il be an unmanned
facility, he would suggest a s~cucity syetem that wou~d detect body heat
outeid~.
9/4/85
~.
~~`~
MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CL'PY PLANNtNG COMMISSION, SCPTEMBBR 4. 1985 95-4 83,
Chairwomr~n La Claire etakod it seeme if kh ere is en alArm system a~d the
pcoperCy is fenced, ttiere would be no pcob tem. She stated the type secucity
system that, ie heat reslstAnt would not kn ow the differenca hetweon e rabbit
and a pereon and ahe fe'lt the internal. aecurity syetem wouici -,e adequate.
1(endra Morri~s atated Condition No. 4 cau 1 d be modified to read: "That a
6-foot high Lenc~ or wall. conAieting of 3 feet of aolid bl.ock wsl.l topped with
3 feet oi: wrought icon or eome other deco r ative-type fencing ehal.l be
constructed and meintr~inpd along the west erly property l.ine adjacent to
Secrano Avenuej and thRt a bond ii~ an amo u nt and form aeti.efactory to the City
of Anal~eim shal.l be poeled prior to i$sua n ce of bu~tdin~ permits to gu~ranCee
the inetal.lt~tior. of eaid wall. or fencQ•.
Commissioner Herbst etated he would rathe r see the wrought iron poet.e go
etraight into khe ground eo the kide cou.ld not cli.mb over them be~auae wil•h a
3-fUOt block wall at the bottom, tt~ey wou ld have a place to put their foot to
cl.imb over the top. He stated 1t ie not unu~ut~l to have wrought iron fences
in this area and furthec explai.ned it wil.l. be similar to what ia used around
awimminy pools.
Chairwoman I.a Cl.aire stated putting in a wrougt~t iron Eence would ~ake care oE
the ~ei.ghboc's oppasition to the loss of view, r~nd also the lfght wfl.l be
installed at the end of th~ cul-de-sac; h owever, the internal. aecurity syskem
wi~l not be chanyed bea~~~s.~~ it ie i7ot feasibl.e to instal]. the heat resistanl
systein.
Mc. Vermeeren sugyested a security syste m that would incl.ude pressure Fads un
the yround. Chairwoman L~a C.Laire stated she thouyhr protectio~ woul.d be
provided with the lighting system and fe n cing, the ~ame as khe neighboca'
property would be ae the other side if t h e nPiyhbors were gone. Commiseioner
Mesae stated witti the structure Lhe neig h bor would have more protection, and
it would certainly be sn improvement ove c what ia existing now.
Mr. Vecmeecen stated hE felt khis provid es an nvenue of escape for a burglar
and a place for them to watch and make p 1 ans. Commissianer Bouas stated Mr.
Vermeeren could put in a security system with presaure ~~ade themselves oc
whatever tvpe of alarm system he wants ora his sidF of the fence. Mr.
Vermeeren stated he al.[~ady yas l.andecap i nq un hi.s side, and it was ncted the
new etcucture will also have landscaping _
Cart:missioner Fr.y 3tated he did not think the p~essure pads are a practical
request.
ACTION: Commissianer McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Cort~missioner
eouas and MUTIDN CARP.IEA (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that ~hP Anaheim City
Planning Commission haa reviewed th~ proposal to permit an unmanned public
utility remote swi*_ching station for Pac ific Bell on an irregul,arly-shuped
parcel of land consisting of approximate7.y 1.16 acres, having a frontage of
appcoximatel.y 60 feet on the nortti aide of the northerly terminus of Columbu~
Drive and futther described as 7295 Eas t Columbue Arive; and does hereby
apprave the Negative Decl.aration upon f i nding that it has consldered the
Negative Decl.ACation toyether with any c omments ceceived duting the publ.ic
review process ant~ further finding on the basis of the Inil:ial Study and ar~y
9/4/85
MINUT651 ANAHE~M C I TY PLAKNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER A, 1985 85-484
commQnts received ~t~aG thece ia no subetantlAl evi~~encP that the pro~ect wil.).
h~ve a~ignificant aEkect on the environment:.
Commiseionec McBurne~y offe[c~d Ftesal.ution 1~~. PC~5-203 and moved for ite
paseaqe and adoption ttiet tt~e Anaheim City Pl.enninq Commission doea herebX
grant Conditional t3se PermiG No. 271.5 puceuant to Anahei~m Municipnl. Code
Seotione 1b.03.U3U .03U und 16.U3.030.u35 and subject to inl•erdepartmental
Conuniktee recommen dations wi.~h A modification to Condition No. 4 to Nrcmll.
wr~ught ir4n Eencing.
On rol.l, call, the foreyoing reaulution wae pAesed by t.he £oll.owing vote;
AXES: BOUAS, FR Y~ HERCiST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NUN~:
ABSF.NT: LAWICKL
Comrnissioner E'ry campl.imented Pacific He] ] foc their unique pl.ans for a
stcucture that wil 1 blend in with the neighbnrt~ood.
Malcol.m S1AUgl~tex, pepuCy ~ity Attorney, presented the wrikten right l•o eppeal.
khe Planning Comrni asiun's dE~cision within 22 d~ys to the City Council.
iTEM NU. 8 EIR N EGATiVE DGCLARATiON ANU CUNDI~'iONAL U5E PERMiT N0. 2717
PUEiLiC HEARING. UWNERS: ROBERT K. WALKER, JFi., FT AL, c/o GREAT WESTERN (2GAI,
ESTA'i'E, 19U1 East Fourth Stceet, P.U. F~ox 15139, Santa Ana, CA 92705. ACENT:
CARLSON DESIGN & C:ONS'fRUCT1~N CO., P.U. Box 819, Anaheim, CA ~2805, ATTN:
PREU SHAUER. Pco perty described ae a rectangularly-shaped parcel. of land
consiating of app roXimate.ly 0.76 acre, 100 South Magnolia Avenue.
To permit a drive -through restaucant.
There were four p~reons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, lt is ceferred to ~nd made
a part of the minc~tes.
Hob Merriam, Carl son Desiqns, was present to answer any queations.
James Wilson, 13 4 S• Magnolia, expl.ained he lives in a eenior citizen complex
1/4 of a block aw ay frorn subject property, and that there are G4 units in
~heir complex; arid that the exik is immediately south of the veterinarian
hospital and the pl.ans show the dtiveway for the pr.oposed cestaurant wil.l
compl.etely block their exit onto Magnolia. He stated they have a difficult
time yetting out now and thought the Traffic Fngineer should study that
eituation. He ad ded theic complex with 64 units was not mentioned in the
etaff repdrt. He read a report from the meeting of the Pines Homeowners
Association held yestecday, regarding thP devel.opment of the area and the lack
of notice mailed to their homeownere ahout those developments. He etated they
feel they do not need another eating establiehment in this area. He etated
they would reque st that khis proposal be denied on the basis of increased
tcaffic and the 3ack of the n~eed for another restaurant, pointing out the:e is
already another fast-food chicken reataurant in the neighborhood.
9/4/85
MINUT~S L ANANEIM CiTY PI.ANNING CUMMISSIUN, SB~TEMBER 4, 1985_ 85-485
Uecac Grebnec, 13~ S. Magnolia, etated ho ia an unofficial repcoaenCative ~f
the homeowners aeaociar.ion of the Pines condominium~ An~ they had their annual.
meeCing and all resolved to opp~se this tequest, so there are 64 homeownera
oppased lo the rEquQ~t. fie aeked why they wQte not acknowledged in the staff
report and atated they did feel slighted by the omission. tie stated their
entrance and exit wi?1 be greutl.y affeeted by the increaaed trafEic. Ne
Rtnr.Pd they tQe.l this use will advecsely efPect the adjoining land uaea and
the growth and development in the area, and ~lso affect the peace, health,
eufeCy and ganecaJ. wplf~re ot the a[P.A. Fie etated thece are 6 eating pl.acee
t,n khe immediake area and they do not feel another one is needed. He ad~ed
they are aleo conc:ernPd about the propoaed operating houre f.rom ]]:00 a.m. to
1.1:UU ~~.m. and the noiae it wlll cause at cloaing time. Ete stated there are
two large apbrtment complexes going in right now with approximatel.y 2qU
additiona.l peo~lc reaidin9 in ~his vicinlty.
Kendra Mocries etated the etAfE repoct refere Lo eucrounding land uses of the
properties immediatel.y adjacent to or adjotning subject property. She Also
explained 56 notices of thie hearing were mai.led to property owners in the
Pinea condominiurn project.
Commissicnec Fry etated for the benefit o[ the occupants in the Ptne
condominium g~roject that the Commiesion has a location plan in their stafE
report which doea ahow theic condominium project, so the Commission is aware
they are thece.
Mr. Merriam stated the oppoaition referred to the reataurant as a drive-in
where people wil.l conyregate, but khie wi11 be a drive-through restaurant and
it ie exactly l.ike the one at Beach and Bal.l buil.t about 2 years ago. Ele
stated currently there are 4 curb cuta at thie corner and 2 ace right on the
corner, and they p~an onl.y 2 curb cute as tar ~way fr~m the cornec as possibl.e
because it made rt~ore sense for theic develupment, and also because the Traffic
Engineer wants it that way. !ie stated tney will average about 400 trip-ins
Ner day and thought that was a lot lese than what was exfsting on the property
witr~ the gas station.
THE: pUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. WiJ.son responded to Commissioner Fry that the driveway on Magnolia is
ttieir onl.y exit onto Magno~ia.
Commissioner k'ry asiced Paul Singer if ther~ is a right turn lane for north
bound Magnolia ~ith Chairwoman La Claire stating it is two-way tcaffic
currentl.y. Paul Singer stated there is probably enough room to provide a
right• turn ].ane by cemoving parking. Mr• Singer stated he did not anticipate
traffic causing a problem wit.h the exit driveway for the Pines condominium
project because the drive-through a.ane pcovides for stacking o~ 8 vehicles.
Mr. Merriam stated the gas station ie closed.
~ommiseioner Herbst etated this is the CL Zone snd this pcoposed restaurant is
probably one of the lighteat uses that can go into tha*. propertX and it wil.l.
be control.le~ through the conditione of the condxtional use permit. He stated
there are mariy other type uses which could go on by right and not have to come
9/4/85
MINUT~S ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNiNG CUMMISSION~ S__Epm~MBER 4 1985 05-486
betore the Planning Commission with l.onger working houre nnd more treEfic,
etc. HQ etated tha Commisuion hns the power to cevoke thR conditionAl use
pvrmit if the conditione are not compligd wi~h or i.f the use ie a nuisance to
the neighborhood.
Chairwoman La Claire stated il this
requested euch as gas etAtion~ with
wine and with 24-hour operatinn.
is not appcoved, other us~e cou7.d be
m~ni-market~ with the sale oE bee[ and
A~TIpN; Commieaioner Herbet ~ffe~~d a motion, yec~~n~1Hd by CommieRioner Bouas
And MU'PtON CARRLED (Cammissi.onet Law~.cki absPnt) that the Anaheim City
Planniny Commisafon has reviewed the propoaal. to permit a drive~Chrough
cestaurant on a rectanqul.~cly-ehaped parcel ~f land coneisting of
approximately 0.76 acces located at the 90llth@ABt cocner o£ Lincoln Avenue nnd
Magnolfa Avenue and furthec described ae l.0(l S. Magnol.ia Avenuej and does
hereby apProve khe Negative Declaration upon finding that it hAe considered
the Negative Declaration tugether with any commente received ducing the public
review p[ocess a~~thattthereiisino aubstantialAevidPncetth~tathetpaoject will.
comments receive
have a Bignif~cant effect on th~ environment.
Commiasioner Herbet offeced Ftecolution No. PC85-204 and m~ved for it~An~8ga9e
~nd udoption that the Anaheirn City Planning Commission does hereby g
Conditional Uoe Poumhr~g°03?(~30.0~58andteubjecthto tnterdepartmentaleCommittee
18.03.U30.030 tht g
tecommendation~.
Un toll call, the foregoing ~esnlution wae pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRB, MC RURNEY, MBuSE
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWtCKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented th~ writte~Councilto appeal
the Plannir~g Commission'8 decieion within 22 days to the City
t~r. Merriam state~ this is a lar9eP~uate~etackingal~nerand ].andscaping andlity
project with plenty of ~arking, ad.q
tha~ they hope it wi~l be an asReL to the community.
Y~gJ9 EtR NBGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDLTIONAL USE
pERMIT N0, 1858 READVERTtSED)
PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSION OF TI~E. P~ONeC~y described a~TaMAN, 1401 N.
Jetferson Streetr Anaheim, CA 928U p roximately 5.Q acres,
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land r.onsisting of app
14U1 North Jefferson Street.
~-.~„ Requeet for appr~~val of a 5-year (2-year cetcoactive extension of time o=
deletion af Condition Netain afcat~kpnnelnand•maintenanceeandistorage yatdifor
extensions af time to r
heavy equipment.
9/4/85
__. _. , .
..._.,,..r..<.~-.._., _ .. . _ . _ ~
~{ ~ . ;
. ~
MiNUTBS, ANAHEiM CiTY P1~ANNING COMMiSSIUN, SEPTEMBER 1, 19A5 85-487
_ --...._._._
Continucd from ttie meetings of July 22, and Ai~gust 19, 1985
There waa nn one indicating theic presence in opposition tn eubject roqueet
and alkhough tt~a stdff ceport was not read, it ie referred to and mAde a~art
oC th~ minutes.
~~rr. i~ Pittmfln, 14(11 N. Jefferson Str.ect, Annhcim, w~a3 precent t~ anawer ~~~y
questione.
THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Responding to Commissioner Herbet as to why the conditi.ons of the previous
approval hae not been met, Kendra Florriee stated Condition No. .L required
engineering requirements to be met including curb, gutkere, si~e~al.ke, etc.
and hc~o not been complied with, and Chat lraeh skoc~ge areas h~ve not been
provided, and fire hydrante have not been instat.l.~d, and the only condition
complied w1.th was No. 4.
Annika Sentalahti, Aseistant Uirector for 2oning, stated a number of the
conditione were tied to issuance of buil.ding permite for new construction;
howev~r, Condikion No. ]. required A bon~ to guarantee street improvetnen~s and
ihpt hae never been posted.
Mr. Pittman stated these were temporary facilities and it ia a com~lex probl.em
because there are cwo oil wells on the pcoperty and the true use oE the
pro~erty has not yet been determined, but he felt the time is coming when it-
will be determined. tle stated he will post the bond.
Kendra Mor.ries stated the drainage fee could be paid at ttis time and reviewed
some oF th~ other conditions concerning the structurea meEting Building Code
requirements, etc., noting inopectione have cevealed il.legal. impr~vemente.
Commisci.oner Herbet suggested an extension for 90 days allowing the petitioner
to meet with staff to resolve rhese isaues and to determine which conditione
can be met now and which ones can be de2eted. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City
Attorney, stated technical.ly, the hearing should be continued for 90 days.
Mr. ~ittman stated ma.ny of the conditions could not te met and one ia
Condition No. 2,ypoanm,~out they have traeh pick-up five days a week.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-ectaeduled meeting of
December 9, 1985, in order for the petitioner to work with st~ff pertaining to
cnnditione.
ITEM NO. 10 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1~. AltENA ZONING CODE - Amendi.ng Various Subaections and Sections of Title 78
of the Anaheim Hunicipal Code Relating to Zoning.
9/4/85
~
MINUTES. ANAHEiM CiTY PLANNING COMMiSStON~ SEPTFMBBR 4, 1985 85-487
Continued from Ch~e meetings of July 22, and August ].9, 1985
ThAre was no one indicating their presenc~ in opposition to subject cequeat
and al.tt~ough Che staff report wae not read, it ig r.eferred to and mAde a pArt
of the minutes.
Uttis P~ttmanr 1401 N. Jefferson StteeC, Anahein-, was preeent ta ar~swer any
gue~tiona.
THE PUBLtC HEARiN~ WAS CLUSED.
Responding Co Commisaionec Necbst ae to why the conditions oE the p[evious
approval hae not been rnet, Kendra Morries steted Condition No. 1 required
Rngineering reyuiremente to be met incl.uding curb, gutters, sidewal.ks, etc.
and hse not been complied with, and that trash etorage c+reas have not been
provided, and fire hydrant~ have not been inet~l.].ed, and the onl.y condition
complied with wa~ No. 4.
Annika Santalahti, Aasistant Dir.ector Lor 2oning, ~tated a number of the
conditions were tied to iesuance of building permits L•or new conHtruction;
however, Condition No. 1 required a b~nd to guarante~ atceet improvements and
that has never been posted.
Mr. Pittman ~tateu these were temporary facl1ittes and it is ~ compl.ex probl.em
because there ~re two oil we11.s on the property and the true use of the
pcoperty hae nat yet been deLecmir.rd, but he felt the time is coming when it
will be detecmined. He stated 'ne will pest the bond.
Kendca Morries stated tt;e drainage fee eould be paid at thie tfine and reviewed
some of the other conditions c~ncernin9 the structures meeting Buit.ding Code
cequiremente, etc,, nnCing inspections have revealed i.llegal improvements.
Commissioner Eferbet auggested an extensior~ for 90 days allowing the petitionPr
to meet with staff to resolve these issues and to determine which c~nditions
can be met now and which ones can be deleted. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City
Attorney, stated techni.call.y, the heariny shou~d be continued for 90 days.
Mc. Pittman stated many of the conditions could not be met and one ie
Condition No. 2, polnt out they have tra~h pick-up fivp days a week.
ACTION: Co-nmisaianer Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner F3ouae
and MOTiON CARRIEU (Commiesioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned makter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
December ~, 1985, in order For the petitioner to work with etaff pertaining to
conditions.
ITEM N0. i0 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. AMEND ~ONING CODE - Amending Various Subsections and Sec*ione of Titl.e ~8
af tne Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to Zoning.
9!4/85
MINUTES, ANANEIM_CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION. SEPTEMBF,R 4, 1985 85-488
Commieeioner McBurney stated ~eea ~re generall.y computed on the total
eceas, incl.uding pcivate etceeta, and asked it this change wi1.1 detraet
from thoae fees. Anni.ka Santalahti, Asei~tant Director for Zoning,
eteted the only areue not counted in computing feea Ace the public
rights-of-way.
AC_ 2_ ~'[ON; Commissioner Bouae offered a motion, seconded by Commiaeioner
Herbst and MOTLON CARRIED (Commiesioner Lawicki absent) tha~ the Anaheim
City Planning Commieai~n does hereby recommend to the City Council
adoption of the attached ocdinance, udding terminology to the "minimutn
lot areRS' in some aections of the RS-A-43,000, RS-10,000, RS-HS-l.0,000,
F2S-72UU and RS-50UU Zoneo.
OTHER UISCUSSION:
(A) it was noted the C:ommiasian would like to meet with City Council to
discuas the Stadi.um Are~3 5t~ady. Annika ~antal.ahti, AssistAnt Director
for 7.oning, expl_ained the City Council likes to have 3 date~ to chose
fcom and the Commission felt they would like to meet with Council. as sonn
as posei.b~e, hopeEull.y, before tt~e next Pl.anning Com,~niesion meetiny.
Malcalm slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained this meeting ahould be
ad~ourned to the next Council meeting date on the lUth and then the
secretary can adjourn that meeting to the date set by thp Cit.y Council.
fnc the joint work session.
(B) Commission discuased the inf~rmation presented to tt~em pertaining to the
sale of beer and wine in conjur,ction with gasoline salee at mini-mackets;
and stated Uavid Larsen`s comments about the mattec of the sale of beer
and wine in mini-markets wae that it is juat too convenient and makes it
too easy for the driver to buy tiie can, open fr and then drive away.
ADJOURNMENT: Commiseioner Fry offered a motion, seconded bf Commisei~ner
Bouas and MOTIAN CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the
meeting be adjnucned to SeNtember 10, 1985, to a possible joint
~ork seasion wi~h the Anaheim City Council., pertaining to the
Stadium Area Study.
Ttie meeting was adjou~ned at 4:25 p.m.
NOTE: At their meeting of September 1.Q, 1985~ the City Council set the
date for the joint work session with the Planning Commission to be
held at 4:00 p.m., September 24, 1985.
Respectf.ully submitted,
~~~ ~ ~~~
Sdith L. Harri.s, Seccetary
Anaheim CitX Planning Cor;imission
ELH : J.m
0140m
9/4/85