Minutes-PC 1986/11/24REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANABEIM CI.TY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of t~e Anaheim City Planning
Commission was called to orde~ by Chairman McBUrney at
10:00 a.m., November 24, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a
quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of
the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECOPNENED: 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman: McBucney
Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Hecbst,
La Claire, Lawicki, Messe
(La Claire arrived at 6:30 p.m.)
ABSENT: Commissioners: none
ALSO PRESENT: Norman Priest
Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slaughter
Joel Fick
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Deborah Vagts
Debbie Fank
Greg Hastings
Leonard McGhee
Edith Hacris
Executive Director of Community
Development/Planning
Assistant Dicector for Zoning
Deputy City Attorney
Assistant Director fot Planning
Office Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Housing Operations Coordinator
Assistant Traffic Engineer
Associate Planne[
Associate Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
IR NEGATIVE
N0. 86-87-1
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 2000 DEVELOPERS, INC., I850 17th Street, #115, Santa
Ana, CA 92701. AGENT5: IRAJ EFTEKHARI, 1850 17th St[eet, #113, Santa Ana, CA
92701. Property described as an izregulazly-shaped parcel of land consisting
af approximately 0.66 acces located at the southwesterly corner of Elm Stteet
and Helcna Street, 402, 415 and 419 South Helena Street.
CO to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waiver of minimum ~uildiny site ate per dwelling unit to construct a 24-unit
apartment complex.
Continued from the meetings of Sep'~ember 29 and October 27, 1986.
It was noted the applicant has re~uested a co~tinuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commis~ioner Lawicki
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner L& ~laire absent) that the Anaheim City
Pianning Commission does hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned
mattec to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 8, 1986, at the
applicant's request in ordec to ceadvet~ise revised plans.
86-~G6 11/24/86
86-769
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVSMBER 24 1986
ITEM N0. 2 EZR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAI9E~ OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. '356
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GEORGE CHRZS REED: HEED FAMILY TRUST~ 7122
Westminster Avenue, Westminster, CA 32683. AGENT: JERRY DEMMING, 1830 S.
Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of ap~roximately 0.47 acres, 1830 south Anaheim Boulevard (Pleasuce
House Boutique).
To permit cetail sales of applicant's pcoduct line in conjunction with
applicant's primary permitted uses with waivers of (a) dedication of
right-of-way, (b) minimum dimensions of vehicle accessways, (c) minin~um numbec
of parkina spaces, (d) permitted accessory uses, (e) minimum stcu~~tucal
setback and yard requirements, (f) required improvement of parki~ig areas.
Continued from the meeting of Octobec 27, 1986.
Theee was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject req~?st
and although the staff report was not read, it is reEecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Robert Sarno, attorney, 433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 900, Severly Hills,
California, stated they continued this matter w~s.~en~imted from a previous
hearing because the applicant was changing the nature of the use; however,
revised plans wece only submitted Feiday of last week so staff did not have a
chance to comment on the changes; that the original site plan showed the g[oss
square footage of approximately 8,000 square feet and based on staff's initial
visit to the site and un their original plans, staff cuncluded that
approxima~ely 1688 square feet ~+`e=s goin9 to be used foc manufactucing and more
than 5500 squace feet would be utilized for retail sales. However, under the
new configuration, the only area in dispute as to whether or not it is ceally
zetail is about 1800 square feet. He stated it is clear that in this
particular zone, manufacturing is permitted and also wholesale sales and a
certain amount of accessory retail sales ace permitted in conjunction with the
pcimary use. He stated there is a display area for items sold by mail order
and wholesale and also accessocy sales can take place and people can come in
and make pu~chases and the area designated for cetail was not exclusively for
retail sales.
Mr. Sarno stated for a number of years this site was used for retail sales of
fucniture without any probl2ms and without any indi~oasen heaassumedSheocould
permitted use and when this applicant acquired the
continue tetail sales. He stated they manufacture more than 10,000 items of
c2othing and a person can order specialized custom-made clothing and they have
a tremendous stock. He stated the majority of business is in the sale of
items manufactured on the premises which is a permitted use in the ML 2one.
He stated, in addition, there are other items they would like to be able to
sell and most of the customers who come into the facility would be coming to
purchase the items they have o[de[ed and the traffic would noc be i.ncreased
significantly.
11/24/86
770
MINUTES_~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBEk 24, 1986
Mr. Sa[no stated they ate really asking for a minor expansion in o[de= fliCant
applicant to be able to sell his entire ptoduct line. He stated the app
has spent over ~4~,000 to upgrade the property in ordec to satisfy the City
tequirements and needs guidance to know the perimeters in which he car~
operate. He added they have deleted th? sale and rental of video tages and
magazines and the only things being sold were apparel with accessory items.
He stated that portion of the business which was designated for "adults only'
has been deleted.
Concerning the request for parking waivet, Mr. Sarno stated the parking has
always been adequate for this location and there ace 18 existing spaces or 22
which could be provided with a few minor changes. He ceferred to the
requested irrevocable offer of dedication foc 50 feet frum arkinenwouldnbe f
Anaheim Boulevard and stated if that dedication is taken. would not be usable
reduced to a'~out 1/2 of what is existing and the building
and there are also other conditions relating to that 50-foot dedicated acea.
He stated the building was built according to Code and has sufficient parking
and has existed there for many years as a commetcial building. Mr. Sarno
stated the applicant is willing to agcee to a condition that all employees
would be required to park off-site to leave the spaces available fec
customers. Concerning the turning cadius, he stated they have a 22-foot.
radius, but cannot provide a 25-foot cadius because it would reduce the
parking even more. He added this use is no more intense than what was
existing there before and in fact, is pcobably less intense.
Mr. Bhatka, owner of the motel at 1836 S. Anaheim Boulevacoblemabefore tnis
owned this motel since 1973 and had nevet had a parking p
business came to this property and nuw he has had their customers ga~king on
his property. He stated that subject prape~ty does not have adequate parking
and he did not see how they could have 22 parking spaces because he could only
count 14. He stated the employees park at the Pier 1 Impoct Lovedlty~ebstated
was concerned about what would happen once this permit is aHe stated they
his majoc eoncern is his property being used foc packing.
manufacture clothing and leather goods, but he would question the other
pornogtaphic material being sold on the premises and he though*_ the majority
of the items being sold are not manufactured there. He stated he was also
concern~d E:hat the business would gtow in the next few yeacs. He stated he
cannot havA adult movies in his motel, but undet this manufact~ring guise, the
petitioner is seZlin9 all pocnographic materials.
Jerry Demming, 2808 Via Je~sica Road, Orange, stated they have temodeled the
stoce; tha~c they did start out selling videos and magazines, but do not have
them anymore. He stated he put a bacrier between his property and the motel
ptoperty with signs posted that nc parking is permitted. He e~plained they
sell punk rock gear, model lingerie and all kinds of clothing; that they can
design any kind of shoe a person wants and it is ae unique stoze and is not an
adult store. He stated they have tried to cooperate with khe.neighbor next
door and would admit that for the last month subject property has been mobbed
with movers and a lot of people working to remodel the building, but stated
all his ertiployees know not to park on the neighboc's propecty and that he
thought tYie parking problem had been resolv?d.
11/24/86
~~i
MINI•.fES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION NOVEMBER 24, 1986
Geoige Heed, owner, stated there have been ptoblems in the past with someone
parking on the neighbor's propetty even though there is plenty of patking in
front of the store; however, he thought thuirinilthe SOWfouttdedicationPw ulds
would resolve tha'~ pcobiem. He stated req 9
cemove approximately 308 of the propecty.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fty stated a 50-foot setback has always been te9uired along
Anaheim Boulevacd and he would not consider waiving that requitement. He
stated the petitioner's atcorney indicated that only abouthadOstatedcthiseis f
the acea is involved in retail sales and that Mr. Demming
not an adult store~ November 21e~1986s fotaahecFleasuce HouseeBOUtiqueCwhich
Register on Fciday, lus another
indicates that there is over 4000 square feet of inerchandise, P
4000 square feet of sophisticet~heaadvertisementhsaysl"Thisoisla s phOsticated
feet. He stated in latge typ
boutique for both men and women' and it would appear to him that this is an
adult store. He stated the use that was there was strictly for office
supplies and fucniture type items and the parking requitements were much less
and that use did contribute to the industrial area, but this contributes
nothing to the industrial atea and he would not vote for it. He stated a
patking prohlem has already been createetfandthe couldasee thishcouldnbethe
operation is not even completely open y
trouble in the future.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Demming Swould have aafewbmoreeR Heand
10 employees and sometimes in the summer, they
stated the store is open until 10:00 p.m. and one person can run the stoce.
He explained the advertisement was a catry-over and the newspaper was toldAlso
take out some of the wording, but they ran it the way it was previously.
responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. De~ming stated they need the display
atea for their wholesale customers who want to come in and see the merchandise
befoce they order it.
Mc. Demming responded to Commissioner Eouas that they no longec sell oc rent
videos oc magazines. Commissianer Messe stated they seem to be on a campaign
to increase the cetail sales, otherwise they would not be advertising. He
asked what percent of the business is retail ~ales at this time.
Mr. Demming replied retail sales is less than lOB. Commissioner Fry indicated
he did not think that is completely true. Commissionet Herbst stated the
petitione[ seems to think the Planning Commission does not know what is going
on in this City.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offe[ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fty
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La C1=otosalstok,ermit retailasalesCofY
Planning Commission has ceviewed the p P P
applicant's ptoduct line in conjunction with appZicant's primary permitted
uses in the ML (Industcial, Limited) Zone with waivers of dedication of.
right-of-way, minimum dimensions oE vehicle accessways, minimum nuib%Z4/86
MINUTES, A1?AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 24, 1986 ~~Z
parking spaces, pe~mitted accessory uses, minimum structural setback and yard
req~xirements and required improvement in parking areas on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.47 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the northeast side of Anaheim
Boulevacd and further described as 1830 S. Anaheim Boulevatd (Pleasure House
Bo~tique); and does nereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that
it has considered the Negative Declaration togethet ~ith any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Tnatial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the application for the conditional use permit is
made pursuant t-o Section 18.61.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and that is
an enLire list of all the uses pe~mitted in the ML Zone and there is no
~pecific subsection undec which this applicant is seeking a conditional use
pesmit; and in ocder to properly grant a conditional use permit, the first
f9~ding must be that the proposed use is one for which the conditional use
permit is authorized by the Code and thought the Planning Co:nmission would
have a hard time making the required fin~ing based on the applicant's
application.
Commissionee Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissione~ La Claire absent) that waivers of Code requirement (a,
n, e ard f) ace hereby denied on the basis that there are no special
circumstances applicable to the pruperty such as size, shape, topography,
location and surroundings which do not apply to other ?dentically zoned
property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code
does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in *_he
identical zone and classifiaation; and further denying waiver (c) on the basis
that the parkiny waivec will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the
immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting
of the parking waivez will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and
general welface of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and denying vaiver (d)
on the basis that the use is not compatible with industrial uses and does not
service the industrial a:ea.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-286 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the AnaheiT City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2856 on the basis the use is not compatible with
the industrial zone and the use is not properly one which could be permitted
under a conditional use permit as authorized by the Zoning Code.
On roll call, the focegoing resolution wes passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FPY~ HERBST~ LAWIChI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to anoeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
11/24/86
MIIJUTES. ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 24, 1986 7~4
Commissioner Herbst stated he felt this would be too many units on a small lot
and that the minimums were not being met and he thought it would just be
oveccrowding and Commissionec Fry agreed.
Commissionet Herbst stated affordable housing does not mean that everybody has
to be jammed so close tagether. Mr. Tabatabee stated these units are larger
than other units which have been approved recently and that changing the CodE
regardi^.~ :bte~ranean packing is really the ptoblem.
Commissioner Fry stated originally b units were cequested and now they are
cequesting 8. Mr. Tabatabee stated he was not part of the original submittal,
but he would be glad to submit revised plans.
Commissioner Hecbst suggested the project conform to the RM-2400 regulations.~
ACTION: Comnissioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absenY.) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued ta the regularly-schPduled meeting of
January 5, 1987, in order for the aoplicant to submit revised plans.
ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT N0. 2655
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHAP.D G. & BARBARA L. SAYLOR, 804 West Br~adway,
Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.32 acte located at the southwest corner of
Broadway Street and Cit~on Street.
To petmit a bed and breakfast inn with waiver ~f maximum acea of freestanding
signs.
Continued from the meeting of November 10, 1986.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject tequest
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Richacd Saylor, owner, stated he has me* with the neighbots and with Mt.
A~exander who was opposed to the project in the past, He stated ~he
neighbocs' main concern is the parking blocking the alley and that he has
provided parking on-site and 'chat the n~ighbors do not want apactments and
retaining this ~~cucture in its natural state is more desirable.
11/24/86
~ ~
MINU'PES. ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 24~ 1986 _ 773
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF COD^z REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2859
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD H. PEBLEY AND FLORENCE M. PEBL£Y, 32100 Auld
Road, Winchester, CA 92396. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92605. Pcoperty is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land con~isting of approximately 0.35 acre locatad at the southeast corner of
Philadelph?a Street and Broadway Stceet.
To permit a 3-story, 24-~~nit congregate care facility in conjunction with
on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant with waivers of minimum
stzuctutal setback.
Continued from tl~e meeting of November 10, 1986.
ACTION: Commissionet Lawicki offered a motion, seconded by Comrissioner -
Hecbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that consideration
of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulatly-scheduled meeting
of December 8, 1986, in order to readvertise additional waivers and submit
revised plans.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOtd RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-E6-35 (READV.)
AND VARIANCE N0. 3565 ~READV.)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RASUL MOHAGHEGH, ET AL, 12652 Huston Street, North
Hollywood, CA 91607. AGENT: HADI TABATABEE, 149?5 Aveni;la San Miguel, La
Mirada, CA 90638. Prope:ty is described as a rect~ngulatly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.22 acre, 314 West Elm Street.
RM-2400 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dw~lling unit, (b) maximum
structucal heigh~ within 150 feet of single-family residences, (c) minimum
landscaped setback (deleted? and (d) ninimum sid2yard setback to construct an
eiqht unit affordable apartment complex.
It was noted the applicant has requested a continuance in ordec to submit
revi:ed plans.
Continued from tne meeting of November 10, 1986.
Theee was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referced to and made a part
of the minutes.
Hadi Ta~~atabee, agent, explained this is a request for an 8-unit, 3-story
affordable apactment coraplex with the gacage at grade level and they will be
providing a playground for the kids and also laundry facilities. He pcesented
photographs of the area to show that the proposed property is vacant and that
the houses next door have been removed. He stated the actual building will be
9 feet from the property line with the first level at 3 feet and no openings
on that wall.
THE PDBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
11/24/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANKING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24, 1986 ~~5
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry stated this is an exceptionally large lot and a grand old
house and he thought this would b~ a good use of the property. Mr. Saylor
stated he would like to have Condition No. 3 waived. Chairman McBUrney stated
the owner could work that out with the Engineering Uepartment. Commissioner
Messe stated he would like the signinq to confotm to Code with 2 square feet.
Mr. Saylor indicated he would like to have at least 3 square feet.
Commissione[ Messe indicated that ~~ould be agreeable to him.
ACTION: Commissioner Fcy offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTIOtd CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a bed and breakfast inn with
waiver of maximum area of freestanding signs on a rectangularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximatel~ 0.32 acres located at the southwest corner
of Broadway Street and Citron Stceet and further described as 804 W. Broadway;
and does hereby app[ove the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received du[ing
the public review process and £urther fi~iding on the basis of the initial
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissionez Bouas and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement, in part, restricting
the size of the sign to a maximum of 3 square feet and on the basis that there
are special cizcumstances applicable to the propecty such as size, shape,
topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically
zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by othec pcoperties in the
identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Fry offeced Resolution No. PC86-287 and moved fo~ its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gtant
Conditional Use Permit tdo. 2855, in patt, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.03.030.030 chrough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUP.S, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: tdONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wcitten right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
11/24/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, hU~1EMBER 24, 1986 776
ITEM N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3618
PUBLIC HF.ARING. OWNERS: INCH ZNVESTMENTS, 65 Capp Street, San Francisco, CA
94103. AGENTS: FARANO AN~ KIEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., tl340, Anaheirti, CA
92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped oarcel of land consisting
of approximately .65 acre located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue
and Harbor Soulevard, 2080 South Harbor Boulevard (Greyhound Bus Lines).
Waivets of. (a) minimum landscaped setback and (b) minimum number of required
parking spaces to per.mit a liquor store in conjunction with an existing bus
station (Greyhound Bus Lines).
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it i~ refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Frank Lowry, Attorney, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, stated this business is being
relocated by the Redevelopment Agency and has been in Anaheim for 35 years.
He stated the property is zoned CL and the bus terminal has extra space and is
willing to lease it provided there is no access between the two businesses.
He stated they have been able to provide 7 parking stalls which should be
adequate and noted it has taken 4-1/2 years to find this location which has
ba~krupted the owner. of the property. He stated r.hey will be providing hot
sandwiches, etc. and proper permits will be processed and the building brought
up to Code.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairman MeBUrney, Mc. Lowry stated he has been wocking with
Greyhound on this lease since about January of last year. He stated
Redevelopment started looking for a site about 4 years ago and has looked at
over 100 ~'kspective sites tecause the facility has to be 1000 feet fcom any
church, 500 feet from schools, etc.
ACTION: Commissioner He:bst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewe~ the proposal to permit a liqucr store in
conjunction with an existing bus terminal with waiver of minimum landscaped
setback, minimum number of parking spaces on a cectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately .65 acre loc~ted at the northeast corner of
Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and fucther described as 2080 S.
Harbor; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Hecbst offered Resolution No. PC86-288 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Com~r~ission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3618 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topograph.y, location and surtoundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned Aroperty in the same vicinity;
11/24/86
_ il
• i
i
777 '
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24 1986 ~
i
and that strict application of the Zoning Code depcives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the ideaiie~l~b)nonathe basis that
classification in the vicinity further granting
the parking waiver will not cause an ir~crease i~t ttaffic congestion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and g[anting
of the parking ~•'aiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim, and subject to interdepattmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written :ight to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO__.~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3620
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DAVID WENDELL AND DONhY SUE 413SGlasselloLOr nge,eCA
Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: KIMM A RICHARDSUN,
92666. Property is describeZ•osacres,thaving~ayfrontage ofcapproximately 237
consisting of approximately toximately 49 feet north of the
feet on the east side of Hancock Stceet, app
centerline of Bryson Stceet.
To establish an eight (8) lot ML Zone subdivision.
There was no one indicating their ptesenc~ in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not tead, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Leonard McGhee noted the Code section from which the waivec was requested was
omitted from the staff ceport and should be included as follows:
Section 18.01.130 - cequited lot fcontac~(all lots must abut a public
stteet or alley; 6 lots not abutting a street or alley proposed.
Kimm kichardson, 416 S. Glassellr Orange, was present to answer any questions.
TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissione[ Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (COmmissionet La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has revie~ed the proposal to establish an 8-lot ML Zoned
subdivision with waiver of required lot frontage on a rectangularly-shaped
paccel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres, having a frontage of
appcoximately 237 feet on the east side of Hancock Street and being located
appcoximately 40 feet nocth of the centerline of Bryson Street; and1~24/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM;M~~'KSSON, NOVEMBER 24, 1986 778
hereby approve the Negative Declara'._;on upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Declaration cogether ^~ith any comments received during the public
review process and futther findin~~ on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a si9nificant effect on the E:nvironment.
Commissionec Fry offered Resoluticm No. PC86-289 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance
No. 3620 on the basis that there are s~ecial circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topog:aphy, location and surtoundings which do
not apply to other identically 'zoned property in the same vicinity; and that
strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing tesolution was passe~ by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, i'RY~ HERBST~ LAWICKI~ I4C BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
PaSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3621
PUBLiC AEARING. OWNERS: KENNEDY AND HAUSE, 2850 "A" East Gretta Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of 0.40 acre, having a frontage of approximately 108 feet on the
south side of Vermont Street, 210 West Vermont Street.
Waivecs of (a) minimum site area per dwelling unit and (b) minimum number of
parking spaces to retain a manager's unit in an existing 15-unit apartment
complex.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest
and altriough the staff report was not read, it is refe[red to and made a part
of the minutes.
C. M. Thompson, 625 W. Katella, Orange, explained the recreation room has be2n
converted to the manager's unit and the project is now 15 units, rathec than
14 as originally approved. He explained the owner decided to convert the
recreation~ room to a unit after the tenants had desccoyed it thsee diffetenC
times and it had to be repaired.
Concerning conditions, Mr. Thompson stated the driveways were constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the ociginal appcoval and they would like
to be able to leave the driveways as thev ate existing.
Regarding the water fees, he stated the owner has the cancelled check and
maintains the fees have all been paid. Chairman McBUrney stated that is a
standard condition and if the fees have been paid, they will not be required
again.
11/24/86
779
MINUTES, ANAHESM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON NWEMBER 24 1986
Mr. Thom~son stated this was appcoved as a 14-unit project with a lot of open
acea, etc. and aftez the tenants caused considerable damage to this coom and
it cost a conszderable amount to be repaired, the manager started sleeping
there and the owner does not want it converted back into a recreation room
now. He stated they are not changing the b~ilding and even with cemoving the
rec~eation room, they still meet the open space requirements.
Mc. Thompson explained Code cequires 2-1/2 parking spaces pec unit and there
are only 20 cars parking there. He stated there are more parking spaces than
have ever been used and that theee ace enough spaces even with the 15 units.
THE PUBLIC HEiuZING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairman McBurney, Mr. Thompson stated they were not in
violation when the recreation room was closed, but when the manager was
allowed to sleep thece at night, it became a violation.
Commissioner Fty stated when a vatiance is granted for parking in an apartment
complex, it is always regretted because thece ate parking problems.
Commissionec t4esse stated there are parking problems in some of the apartment
complexes even with Code required parking pcovided at 2-1/2 spaces per unit.
Commissioner He:bst stated the tenants will~iaunituests and that is pa~t of
the reason for requiring the 2-1/2 spaces p
Paul Singec stated he would recommend that pa[king be provided to Code because
obviously, Code has been quite lenient and the City has never provided any
waivers from Code except for one project on Harbor Boulevard, which the City
Council finally appcoved. He stated he would cecommend that no waivers be
granted.
ACTIOtd: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissionez F'ry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec La Claire absent) that the Anahei.m City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a manager's unit in an existing
15-unit apattment complex with waiver of minimum site area per dwelling unit
and minimum number of parking spaces on a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 108 feet on the south side of =ove~the Negative
further desccibed as 210 West Vermont; and does hereby app
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declacation
together with any comments received during the public ceview process and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC86-290 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Variance No. 3621 on the basis that thece are no special circumst~nces
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, lo%•ation and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive
the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by othet properties in the identical zone
and classification in the vicinity and denying waiver (b) on the basis that
the parking waiver will ca~se an increase in traffic congestion inll/24/86
MINUTE5, ANASEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 24, 1966 780
immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining ]?~nd uses and ~ranting
of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if ~iny, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welface of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HER9ST~ LAWICKI~ MESSE
NOES: MC BURNEY
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Chairman McBUrney explained he voted no because he felt it is unfair to ask
the owner to remove part of the bu:lding to provide three parking spaces when
other variances have been granted for more spaces. It was Fointed out the
unit does not have to be removed, just reconverted to the cecreation coom.
Commissioner H~~rbst stated in 1965, a 14-unit apartment complex was approved.
Following the vote on the next item, Chairman McBUrney stated he had
misunderstoud and would have voted "yes" on this matter.
Malcolm Slaughter stated if the recreation room is not reconverted and a
variance is not granted by the City Council, the applicant will be in
violation of the terms of the originally approved variance which requiced that
the ~roject be developed in accordance with specii•ic plans which were approved
with the recreation room.
Commissioner Fry left the meeting at 2:35 p.m.
ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE_ REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2862
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES W. STRYKER, EL TORITO RESTAURANTS~ INC.~ 2450
White Road, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENTS: FRANK LOWRY, FARANO AND KIEVIET, 100
S. Anaheim Boulevacd, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres located at the northwest
corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue, 1801 E~st Katella Avenue.
To permit on-sale alcohol in an outdoor patio acea in conjunction with an
existing restaurant with waivers of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum
structural setback, (c) permitted encroachments in setback areas and (d)
minimum number of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Frank Lowry, Attorney, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, explained this is a request
to retain an existing outdoor fenced area for special events such as weddings,
11/24/86
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOJEMBER 24, 1986 781
events at the stadium, etc. He stated a conditional use permit is required 4y
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board because the testaurant is zoned for food
and alcoholic beverages inside only. He stated there are waivers because the
fence is 5 inches highec than allowed and it encroachs into the 50-foot
setback off State College.
Concerning the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, he explained the
City Attorney's Office has requested they file a covenant with the City for
joint use of the parking lot with Charlie Brown's cestaurant next door. He
explained these two restaurants were originally approved with one conditional
use permit with joint parking and covenants have been filed by the owner and
he has turned over a copy of those recorded covenants and testrictions to the
City Attornev.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Paul Singer stated the parking as shown in the staff report appears to be
enormous, but in reality is not really that big because of the joint parking
agreement. He stated, however, there should be a condition added requiring
traffic signal assessment fees for the patio area tc be paid within 60 days.
Mr. Lowry stated they would accept that condition.
Commissioner Herbst stated the plans show the fence coming to a triangle and
he thought it could be changed to meet Code requirements. He added
petitioners look at past actions of the Commission and would want the same
approval for an encroachment and would not realize that this encroachment was
just for a fence.
Mr. Lowry stated he thought the fence was in that location because of the
pond. Commissionez Herbst stated the pond is not shown on the Flans. Mr.
Lowry stated if thece was a way to remove the corner, they would be happy to
comply.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the waiver would be necessary if there is a joint
parking agreement with Charlie Browns. Paul Singer stated he thought the
waiver is around 10 or 118 with the agreement and that is not a problem. Mr.
Lowry stated he is pursuing a separate parking agreement with the office
building next door and hoped to have that to the City Attorney's Office ~ithin
the next few weeks.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioners Fry and La Claire absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to pecmit on-sale alcohol
in an outdoor patio area in conjunction with an existing restaurant with
waiver of (a) maximum fence hei9ht, (b) minimum structural setback, (c)
oermitted encroachments in setback ateas and (d) minimum number of packing
spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 2
acres located at the northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Katella
Avenue and further described as 1801 E. Katella Avenue; and does hereby
approve the Negatzve Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
11/24/86
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NONEMBER 24~ 1986 _ ___ 782
Concerning the waivers, Annika Santalahti explained the original request came
in without any information available pertaining to the joint parkin9 agreement
and based on the information available, a waiver would still be required, but
the numbers would not be the same.
~.hairma~ Mc3urney suggested the wording be changed to read: "That the parking
waiver would be nu more than 108'. Annika Santalahti stated the waivers
should be included and then if the plans are changed, and the waiver reduced,
the wording could be modified.
Malco2m Slaughter stated if the waivers are granted, there would be no need
for the petitioners to do anything. Mr. Lowry stated he really did not
understand the reason for the fence being in the setback. He asked that the
mattez be trailed until later in the meeting in ordec for him to contact his
client. This matter was trailed to later in the meeting.
Following the actions on Item Nos. 10 and 11, t•lr. Lowry stated he had
discussed the fence with his client and he had indicated if the fence is 12 ~`~
into the setback, it would be removed whether there ace obstacles or not and
he would recommend that waiver (b) be der.ied; and they will stipulate to hold
the parking variance below lOB.
Commissioner Messe offezed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and b10TI0N
CARkIED (COmmissioners Fry and La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby deny waivers (a), (b) and (c) on the basis
that the petiti~ner stipulated at the public hearing to delete the
eneroachment of the fence into the setback; and further granting waiver (d) in
part, with the parking variance being limited to no more than lOB of code
requirement, on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase
in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any
adjoining land uses and granting of the packing waiver under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detcimental to the peace, health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC86-291 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2862, in part, pursuant to Anaheim [4unicipal Code
Section 18.03.030.030 through 16.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations including a condition that the traffic signal
assessment fee be paid for the pat:o acea and that joint parking agreements
with the office building next docr be provided.
11/24/86
783
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI,AAi~vING COMMISSION ~ NO'VEMBER "l4 ,~, ,,: __.,_ ,
On roll call, the forE3oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY~ LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written cight to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AN
_ ""_ '~".~... .~n 'fOG1
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH & JULIE CASALE, 630 N. Clementine, Anaheim,
CA 92605. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approxima~ely 0.17 acces located at the southeast corner of Wilhelmina Street
and Clementine Street, 630 North Clementine Street.
To construct a granny unit with waivers of (a) minimum rear yard setback and
(b) maximum cear yard coverage.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
an' although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of che minutes.
C. M. Thompson, 625 W. Katella, Orange, stated they are applying for a granny
unit; that they have a garage zn the cear which abuts an alley and when the
unit is constructed they need one more packing space and they intend to make
the garage larger for three cars and the garage orientation changes. He
stated they want to retain as much yard between the house and garage as they
can.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst asked the purpose of the granny unit and if the appiicant
undetstands the tenant must be of a cettain age, in case the family member is
no longec living and decides to rent the unit to someone else. Mr. Thompson
stated it is being constructed for one of their parents and they do understand
the restriction.
Leonard McGhee stated that restriction including the age limit should be
included in the approval. Malcolm Slaughtet stated a covenant should be
recorded to that affect, so that future owners would know about the age
restriction.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Fty and La Claire absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a granny unit
with waiver of minimum rear yatd setback and maximum rear yard covetage on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.17 acres
located at the southeast corner of Wilhelmina Street and Clementine Street and
futther described as 630 Clementine Stceet; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
pcocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
11/24/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NCNEMBER 24, 1986 784
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and
MOTION CARRIEII (Commissioners Fry and La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby grant waivers of Code requirement on the basis
that there are special citcumstances applicable to the property such as size,
shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that s*_rict application
af the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-292 and moved for its passage
and adoptiun that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gzant
Conditional Use Fe~mit No. 2863 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee
recommendations including a condition requiring recorded covenants testricting
t~e age limit of occupants of the granny unit.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES : NOtdE
ABSFNT: FRY, LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, D2puty City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's ~ecision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. P1 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONAITTONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2647 - Request from Bill Snow (Contract
Engineering Corp.) for a 1-year retroactive extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2647, property located at 140 W. Ball Road.
ACTION: Commissioner Hectst offered a motion, seconded by Commissi.oner
Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionecs Fry and La Claire absent) i.hat
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a retroactive
extension of time to expice on January 7, 1987.
B. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81-92-4 AND ~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2249 -
Request from A. W. Garrison (Synod of So. Califocnia) for terminations
for Reclassification No. B1-82-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2249,
property located at 2642 W. Lincoln Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-293 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does terminate Reclassification No. 61-82-4 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 22A9.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: SOUAS, HERBST, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY~ LA CLAIRE
Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to request a joint work session
to review apartment standards because he felt there is a need to evaluate
definitions of height restrictions, tandem parking, etc. and also to
discuss the lack of recreational areas and open space. He stated
Commission needs to know how City Council feels about these high density
oroiects on small lots.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N WEMBER 24~ 1586 785
Annika Santalahti stated when the developers look at the zone, they
divide the acreage and multiply by the number of units and that is the
numUer they want to work with.
Commissioner Herbst stated Commission should make the determinations and
then make recommendati~ns to the City Council. He stated the developers
are buyzng up one or two lots in the older areas of town and impacting
the neighbor~ood with these high density projects and he felt sumeday a
lot of these will become slum areas. Annika Santalahti stated at the
next Commission meeting, staff could probably come up with the number of
units which are being developed in confotmance with the Code and are
being processed through the Building Department for permits.
Commissioner Herbst stated he agrees that allowing some tandem parking is
acceptable, but disagrees with the Traffic Engineer as to the percentage
of parking that should be allowed because that is how these developers
are being able to develop these high density projects.
Chairman McBUrney stated Commission has discussed having staff review the
parking codes also because of the high variances being given to motels
and that should probably be included at the same time. Annika Santalahti
pointed out when tandem parking was allowed, the number was increased
fcom 1-1/2 to 2-i/2 spaces per unit.
Commissioner Herbst stated the recreational area should be spelled out as
usable recreational area. Commissioner Messe stated t.hat over the last
ten meetings, there has probably been two to three requests per meeting
for parking waivers foc these high density developments which cover the
lots and go high and they are not the best types of development.
~~'i'~
Commissioner stated he felt the General Plan should also be reviewed
because the[e are areas where the General P1an calls foc RM-1200, but the
zoning is RM-2400 and it is confusing to the developers; and also other
things should be discussed such as can the streets handle the traffic
from these high density pcojects.
Commissioner Bouas stated the Commission can require recreational areas
and then the tenants destcoy them and the owner turns the area into a
unit such as one on the agenda today, so probably open-space recreational
area sh~uld be required rathe~ than recreation rooms.
Commissionee Herbst stated he has been involved in the Vision 2000
Project and part of the discussion is the need to leok at the land uses
in the City and determine where we want to go by the year 2000 and the
Planning Commission does have a lot to do with the decisions.
RECESSED: 's:05 p.m.
RECONVENED: 6:35 p.m.
11/24/86
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 24, 1986 786
ITEM N0. 12
(READV.). R1
221
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FAIRMONT LZMITED, 13532 Hazel Avenue, Garden Grove,
CA 92644 AND ELBERT F. 6 MARIE CHRISTENSEN, 200 S. Fairmont, Anaheim, CA
92807. AGENT: DEFT DESIGN, INC., 1850 E. 17th, #113, Santa P.na, CA 92701.
Property is described as an irre9ularly-shaped parcel of lar.d consisting of
approximately 6.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 843 feet on the
east side of Fairmont Boulevard, approximately 1080 feet south of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
GPA - To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
redesignating from hillside estate residential designation to either a
hillside medium density residential, hillside low-medium density residential
or hillside low-density residential designation.
RS-HS-22,000(SC) to Rt4-3000(SC) or a less intense zone
Continued from the meetings of September 29 and Octobec 27, 1986
There were approximately thirty-eight neople indicating their pcesence in
opposition and seven people indicating their desire to speak in opposition to
subject request and although the staff ceport was not read, it is ceferred to
and made a part of the minutes.
Iraj Eftekhari, 1850 E. 17th Street, Santa Ana, stated most of the neighbors
were not happy with the original project and he has redesigned it. He stated
these are two parcels of property which have been designed for a total of 7.4
acres and they have reduced the number of units from 72 to 46 and the concept
of the design is changed to cluster homes. He stated t5ey have tried to
contact the neighbors and meet with them, but unfoctunately they could not qet
in touch with all of them and basically, they see no impact on the neighbocs
because the property is isolated.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated the plans for the 46 unit project
have not teen reviewed by staff and that no floor plans or elevations have
been submitted.
}'-
Barbara Sullivan, 412 5. Country Hills{, stated she just bought there 3 weeks
ago and came from an area which has some high-density living places and even
though they are very expensive, they do change the environment; that she is
not looking to inccease the value of her home, but for a place to raise her
children and she is not intendin9 to sell. She stated she was looking for the
birds, animals, trees and hozses and that any development does change that and
this is not just a matter of density with 72 units versus 46, but is a matter
of building on property that does noi right now have any d~velopment on it.
She stated she ~ought a decent house on a nice piece of land which has owls
and animals and she would like to keep every tumbleweed and wants no street
lights or sidewalks and would like to keep every rodent and does not want a
city, but wants a country.
11/24/86
~a~
MINUTEG ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NCNEMBER 24 1986
Pam Fraser, 485 Country Hills Road, stated she represents he[ husband who was
past president of SACPOA and as a homeowner and cegiste~ed voter, was
concerned with some of the undercurcents about this issue. She stated she
received a call from Mr. Matheson about 3:00 this afternoon indicating this
meeting was not going to be held tonight and she callez him at 5:00 p.m. and
was told this meeting was not going to occur. She stated this was the third
time they were inconvenienced and hopefully, this will be the last time to
have to come out and repcesent their viewpoints. She stated she felt this
will be defeated tonight so did not take their adviAe to stay home. She
stated he called last Tuesday at 3:00 in the afternoon saying they had reduced
the 72 unit plan to 46 ~nits in an effort to please the homeownets and asked
them to please get together for a meeting in the next day or so and he had no
meeting place or time arranged, but she was to contact all the homeowners in
1-1/2 houts and have a meeting. She read a petition in opposition as follows:
"W° the undersigned registered voters and Santa Ana Canyon propecty
owners do hereby petition Anaheim City Planning Commission to [eject
General Plan Amendment No. 221 which calls foc a reclassification of
app~oximately 6.2 acres of land on the east side of Fairmont Boulevatd.
We vehemently ptotest any down zoning of the above-mentioned ptoperty
ftom the pcesent hillside, estate, residential designation for the
following reasons:
1. The ptesent investors in the aforementioned pcoperty knew at
the time of their investmenc that the property would be costly
to developed since it was zoned hillside, estate density; that
it backed up to a power substation and there are other higher
density progerties available for investment and development in
the City of Anaheim.
2. The existing homeowners of property adjacent to the
afocementioned 6,2 acres as well as othec homeowners in the
Santa Ana Canyon/Faizmont/Mohler atea have carefully chosen
this rural parcel of land within the City of Anaheim because it
has in the past, been protected from medium or high density
development by careful Planning Commission in attempcs to keep
this area a planned rural community withirt the City limits.
This is indeed a rate and highly desirable area in which to
live. We aim to protect not only our investment, but out homes.
3. The best use for th2 aforementioned land is not to down zone to
RM-3000 a maximum of 6 units to the acre thereby squeezing 36
more homes where there should be 6 to 12 and are potentially 72
or more cars to cross an existing horse trail topping off an
alteady hazatdous Fairmont Boulevard. Widening the street will
only double the speed and possibly the number of accidents."
Subject petition is available in the Planning Department files and was si9ned
by approximately 94 people.
Carol Geronsin, 321 Old Bridge Road, stated she lives in the tract adjacent to
the propezty in question and is here representing the rest of the homeowners.
She state8 thete ate cepcesentatives here not only the adjoining tcact, but
all the way through Anaheim Hills, including Sunset Ridge, Huntecs Pointe,
Anaheim Ridge Estates, etc. She stated this propecty is zoned a ~11/24/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 24, 1986 788
classification and they ace willing to play the game as lon9 as they know the
rules prioc to playing the game and don't want the rules chanqed in the
middle. She stated all of them purchased knowing what the zoning was and want
to reside in the area as they purchased it and just because a"special
interest" gcoup comes in and decides they would like to fatten theic
pocketbooks, that they not be alJ.owed to do it at the expense of hundceds of
individuals who live in the surrounding area and want to protect their
property and their lifestyle.
She stated she is familiar with this property and the pucchaser was planning
ta put his own private residence along with three others on the propecty when
he purchased it and the development was to be gated, and explained she was
referring to the 2.3-acre parcel which is one of the two being referced to,
but because of financizl reasons or whatevet, chose to pursue this project.
She stated the Commissioners indicated they had known this propecty was on the
market for quite awhile and there has not been any ability to sell it and
there may be some thought in the Commissioners' minds that the reason was
because of the zonin9, but that is not thE case. She noted in 1983, accocding
to the title company report, the property was purchased for $150,000 and noted
again that is the 2.3 acre parces and it was on the market being sold fo~
custom homes in the ~500,000 !.~,:= individually and they could not sell it so
decided to sell the entire p~opeccy and according to the owner, the 2.3 acres
were sold for ~525,000.
Ms. Geronsin stated the developecs called the homeownecs association on Fciday
and asked them to set up a meeting Friday night and, of course, she was unable
to do so, so they tried to do it again on Sunday and it has been just one
thing after another and they would question the integrity of the developecs.
She stated she hoped the Commission would keep in mind this is a small
representation of a lot of the people who think a lot about whete they live
and they chose it carefully and it is not just a matter of value, but a matter
of lifestyle and noted there ace large Eucalyptus trees, animals, stars to be
gazed at in the evening, etc. and they do not want condominiums, townhomes o[
a saturation of dwellings. .
.~,;,,-
Sharon Ach, 3950 Old Btidge Road, president of the O1d~E1-Georgio Homeowners
Association stated staff has indicated 6500 vehicles cross Fairmont Boulevard
on a deily basis and this project would only compound that number and Fairmont
is not a wide street and is a very steep road and has been the cause of many
accidents and she was concerned about the dar.gers with this development with
increased vehicles. .
i ~.).. ~~`-5`-"
Bill Fink stated he lives in the Old L'~ Georgio subdivision and is a member of
the homeowners association and they do live in an area designated hillside,
residential, half-acre lots and t~hat the roads and facilities in this area
were built basically to handle that type of density and they have an extreme
spillover of tcaffic on Old Bcidge Road and Fairmont serving the schools in
the area. He stated they have been told by the Engineering Aepartment,
through their association, that the traffic problem is really no~ any greater
~here than in any other areas of Anaheim; but that the problem goes a little
deeper with the development in East Hills and that not only is Fairmont very
busy and they do see extremes speeds there, but there is literally a grid-lock
on Santa Ana Canyon Road on Friday nights and it backs all the way fcom
Lakeview to East Hills and he would suggest the Traffic Department take a look
11/24/86
MIt1UTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 24, 1986 7a9
at that. He stated he has tead the application and staff's comments and did
not understan~ how staff could grant a negative declaration. He stated if the
Planning Commission allows a project of this density along Fairmont, there is
nothing to prevent a former applicant fcom reapplying fot the church and if
the church doesn't go throuyh, some other high density df.velopment along
Fairmont Boulevard could be requested. He stated they have seen the developer
reduce his density from 72 to 46 units in a period of just a few week~ and he
really did not see a commitment to the developmer.t and and did not see a
commitment to the community.
Robert Jones, 6650 Canyon Hills Road, president of the homeowners association,
stated he is representing 40 homeowners who are ~iot in favor of this
development. He stated he received a call at 3:00 p.m. Friday and attempted
to set- up a meeting to yo over the plans for this development and received a
call at approximately 4:00 p.m. today telling him that they were going to ask
for 3 continuance and he did nat need to come to the mee*_ing if he did not
want to. He stated he felt any multiple-development will pose traffic hazards
and add to the al[eady heavy traffic on Fairmont and that is a vety severe
problem. He star.ed by redesignatiny this area, the Commission would betray
the trust of existing homeowners sucrounding the proposed si~e; and that they
specifically chose their location with hillside, estate density in mind. He
stated rezoniny this prope~ty would be a drastic precedent setting change in
the Canyon Area General Plan and that if the Commission allows such isolated
changes, the o~derly planned growth for the Canyon area cannot be realized.
He stated if this project were to go forward, he would expect to see
condominiums all the way up and doNn Faicnont Boulevard.
Dirck Bedford, 251 Country Hills Road, president of the Santa Ana Canyon Hills
Property Cwnecs Association, stated he had worked with the Planning Commission
and many of the other people in this City.for many years when this area was
annexed to the City to get the one-half•~~ esidential zoning approved and it was
a long battle, but it is escablished now and he thought it had been done and
was finished and he hoped the Planning Commission would support that program
and those decisions which were made many yeacs ago.
Mr. Eftekhaci stated basically, he wanted to postpone this hearing because the
infocmation given to the neighbocs was not correct. He stated they do not
want to have any impact on the neighbors and believe they ace trying to do
what is right and what would be advantageous to the neighbors.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Hecbst stat.ed he made a recommendation that *_he density be
reduced in an attempt ta come up with a compromise between th2 developer and
the neighbors, recognizing that land uses do change, and he also asked the
developer to meet with t.he neighbors arid it has been two months and that has
not been done. He state:d this matter has been continued for two months and
they have had ample time~ to get together with staff and t•he neighbors to
present something f~c Ccimmission's ceview. Ee stated he reco9nizes the
property has some c~nstr.aints, but it makes it very difficult when the
developec does not complly wi.th what they are requested to do and he is in
favor of denying the prc>jec~, and did not think these nei9hbors should be
bothered any more.
11/24/86
1 ' ..
790
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24 1986
Commissioner Herbst continued that as long as there is vacant ground in the
Canyon area, thece are going to~iequests fot changes and he will suppoct the
public's right oc the property owner's cight to ask for anything they want on
their property, and that doesn't mean they will get it, but he will protect
their cight to ask.
Mc. Eftekhari stated he was not prepaced to attend the meeting tonight and
wrote a letter requesting a continuance, but it was too late since che notices
had already been mailed out. Commissioner La Claire stated in a way it was
unfair to ask the developer to revise the plans because she is against any
General Plan Amendment in that area because in the past, the Commission has
tried hacd to protect what the Genecal Plan designated in the Canyon Area and
particulacly along Fairmont Boulevaed; and L-hat it is not that thece is such a
high count of traffic on Fairmont, but it is the fact that Fairmont has a
steep grade and is very dangerous. She stated when the church came in across
the street, the Cummission protected the community and she did not see any
reasons why the pr.opetty could not be developed at RS-7200 as planned for that
acea.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Fcy
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
ptoposal to amend the General Plan designation fcom the current hillside,
estate residential to hillside, medium residential density and to reclassify
the propecty from RHS-22,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC) to permit a 72-unit apartment
complex on approximately 6.3 acres located on the east side of Fa~rmont
Boulevacd, approximately 1000 feet south of Santa Ana Canyon Road; and does
heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Declatation together with any comments ceceived d~ering the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-294 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
deny General Plan Amendment No. 221.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES• BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-295 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the A:~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby
deny Reclassification No. 86-87-10.
On toll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughtez, Deputy City Attocney, ptesented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECESSED: 7:10 p.m.
RECONVENED: 7:20 p.m.
791
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24 1986
ITEM NO. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 216
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING
COMMISSION, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805.
To consider an amendment t.o the Land Use Element of tre General Plan proposing
a redesignation from medium density residential to designations includin9 but
not limzted to low-medium density rasidential, low-density residential and/or
general commercial for an acea of approximately 21 actes bounded by La Palma
Avenue, Lemon Street, Wilhelmina 5treet and the public alley westeKly of
Anaheim Boulevard.
There were approximately eighty people indicating their presence in supgort of
subject reguest and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to
and made a pact of the minutes.
Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, pcesented the staff ceport and explained
this area is 22 gross acres with 102 lots and appcoximately 48$ of all the
parcels ate zoned RM-1200, 34$ a~e zoned RM-2400 with some commercial and
overall the land use is predominately single-family and the cutrent Gene:al
Piar designation for the entire study area is medium density residential which
wouid oermit up to 511 dwelling units based on the net acreage.
William Koon, 821 N. Lemon Street, thanked the Commission foe listening t~
their concerns and for giving them the opportunity to survey the neighbors to
find out how t+iey feel about the zoning of their atea. He presented
photogcaphs of the existing homes in the area and described theic parks,
stores, etc. and other amenities in the neighborhood; and ~tated they live
within two blocks of North Anaheim Boulevard which is a blightea aanaer now
stated they have a parking problem in the area, but see a bigg 9
with loopholes and mista.kes in the Genetal Plan; that rhis is an old-fashioned
neighborhood and an old neighborhood and most of the houses were constructed
about sixty years ago and they have 652 single-family dwellings with a few
multiple-family dwellings consisting of duplexes, triplexes and fou~plexes.
He p~esented slides showing existing homes in the area and stated there are
some houses which have some histotical value and he wo~ks with the State of
Califotnia and is frequently asked to ceview documznts about equal opportunity
and this neighborhood represents American equal opportunity almost on a
textbook level with pcope~ty owners from all backgrounds and there is also a
wide variety of ages. He staLed he did not notice the RM-1200 designation
when he purchased his property because the area was so settled and the last
new construction in the neighborhood was 1951, and the people did not see the
large apattment complex as a problem because it did not exist 35 years ago.
He stated thece are residents who have lived thece in the same house for some
up to 60 yeats, and they al: egcee that they do not want the neighborhood
disassembled and wan~ to stay in one place and want to keep the property
values stable. He stated they ace asking that the designation be changed to
RM-2400 which reflects what is actually in the neighborhood and they wi.sh to
maintain what is existing. He stated this will allow people to impcove their
property while maintaining the value and they feel the neighborhood and its
citizens are too valuable to disassemble and discard what has been done. He
stated they undecstand when Anaheim Boulevard is widened, Lemon is going to be
kno~ewithfthe newPtaxalaws,cthelrentals willrprobablyrbe~soldeto~newt and they
homeowners.
11/24/86 _...
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNZNG COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 24, 1986 79Z
Phyllis Boydstun, 728 Janss, stated she owns the building on the corner of
Anaheim Boulevard and Wilhelmina, but her concecn is that if the zoning is
changed, there ace some pcoperties which back up to Anaheim Boulevard which
are zoned PD-C and asked if that would be changed. She stated, hopefully,
with the widening of Anaheim Boulevard, they are going to lose some of the
bars and some of the other junky businesses, but if the PD-C property is
rezoned, there will be nothi.ng available for parking. She stated sometimes
they have people parking on their property and that is where they want their
customers to park.
Keith Pepper, 817 N. Lemon Street, stated they ace reque~ting the
redesignation of the General Plan in order to remove all the c~nfusion which
exists; that initially, they considered requestin9 RS-7200, but chose the
RM-2400 Zone because it most accurately follows the scheme of the neighbochood
and in addition, the designation will allow some in-fill development. He
stated it has not been easy to sucvey the owners, but they were able to
receive authorization from 15 off-site owners bringiny the total of
authorizations to 66 rep~esenting 71 parcels in the area. He added they have
not had opposition fcom anyone, and did encourage all comments either for or
against.
Mr. Pepper stated they presented the plan to the Central City Committee on
October 29th and there was a motion unanimously approved that the Central City
Committee supports the plan and they also took it to the North Anaheim
Boulevard owners Association on November 6th and received unanimous support.
He stated they did get a petition of support f~om surraunding areas such as
the 800 and 900 binck of Nocth Zeyn and explained they did not originally
survey that area bec~ause those properties a=e currently designated RM-2400 and
out of 32 parcels in that area, received i8 signatuce~ and 91 on the pekition
itself.
Mc. Pepper stated Mr. Yazguez has submitted plans for a four-plex at 818 and
822 North Lemon which demonstrates there is coom for profit on a smaller
scale. He added as long as the structure is in architectural conformance with
the character of the neighborhood, they have no opposition to that ptoject.
He stated they would ask the Commission to implement the General Plan
Amendment to the RM-2400 designation and to rezone the properties as well. He
stated the are attempting to pceserve the architectural significance of theic
neighborhood and would ask far the postponement of the approval of any project
within that acea until the Genetal Plan Amendment and reclassifications are
completed.
11/24/86
793
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NCNEMBER 24 1986
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry stated never in his history on this Planning Commission has
he been privileged to see such a response, such a well-planned, well-organized
request; that the property owners have done their homework and done it well
and he is glad to heat what they Save to say and evidently, it is unanimous.
CommissionEt Herbst stated he likes what has happened hece and reviewed that
area sevetal times this past week and felt the RM-2400 Zone does fit, but even
in that zone, this city does not have acchitectural contcol and Mith the way
bemconcecnedeandlthoughttthereawouldYstillhbeasomesworketoebe donecin tho~seuld
aceas.
Commissioner La Clair~ stated she would like to propose that this area be
limited to 2 stories which would eliminate the underg[ound pa[king p-oblem and
the developer could not develop undecgtound parking without a permit. She
stated the new ordinance identifies underground packing as a stocy, so
limiting consttuction to 2 stories would take cace of that problem. Annika
Santalahti stated without a variance they could not provide undetgcound
parking.
ACTZON: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, secondedCommissionshaser
Lawicki and l40TION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning
reviewed the proposal to amend the General Plan designation ftom the cu~rent
medium density residential designation to low-m=oximately~2l.legrosstacresnd
general commeccial on an area consisting of app
located soukh of La Palma Avenue, east of Lemon Stteet, north of Wilhelmina
and west of the public alley westerly of Anahe~haaoitehasaconsidered theeby
approve the NEgative Declaration upon finding
Negative Declacation togcther with any comments received ducin9 the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offeced Resolution NP1annBngZCommissioned esrhereby
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City
adopt General Plan Amendment No. 216, Exhibit A.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutiun was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Ptiot to voting, Commissioner La Claire asked about the PD-C designation.
Greg Hastings explained that block is designated for medium density and is
develop with single-family residential only and the intent of the PD-C 2one is
to allow either a commeccial parking lot ot RM-1200 development and that
nothing has occurred there. Commissioner La Claire asked if that is the area
on the east side of Zeyn and Mt. Hastings responded it is. She asked what the
plans are fur the widening Anaheim Boulevard. Jay Titus stated the City is
currently in the process of acquiring rights-of-way on Anaheim Boulevard and
that would be an equal take on both sides and constcuction would probably be
in about three years.
11/24/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIt9 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEi48ER 24, 1986 __ 794
Commissioner La Claire stated she is concerned atout the parking on Zeyn
Street and how that area would be developed. She stated she would like to see
it stay single-family or RM-2400. Greg Hastings stated the property owners
have all agreed in a petition that that atea should be RM-2400 as well and if
the Commission intends to keep that area residential, the intent would be to
rezone that area as well as redesignating on the General Plan. Commissioner
La Claire stated she i.s concerned about all of that side of 2eyn Street
becoming a publi.c or commercial parking lot and did not think that would be
acceptable for the neighbors. Greg Hastings stated the General Plan Amendment
does nothing to the PD-C Zorie and one recommendation made by staff is that if
the Planning Commission wishes to adopt either Exhibit B or C, they should
initiate a rezoning of tt~i~ whole area including the west side of Lemon Street
to conform to the General Plan.
Commissionec La Claire asked about the reclassification. Annika Santalahti
stated the Commission should make a motion to dicect staff to initiate the
appropriate zoning action. Commissioner Bouas asked what would happen if the
area is needed for parking for properties on Anaheim Bouievard and Annika
Santalahti explained they would have to rezone the property. Commissioner La
Claire stated they would have to provide parking on site or purchase adjacent
~roperti<s and in order to protect the nei9hbochood, the redesignation should
be done.
Commi.ssioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Chairman McBurne~ and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anahei.m City Planning Commission does heceby dicect
staff to initiate reclassifi.cation proceedings on these properties.
Commissioner Herbst stated Lemon Street is desigrtated as low density
residential and Zoned RM-2400. Greg Hastings stated staff has received a
request from the majority of the property owners on the west side for their
properties to be rezoned and that the west side of Lemon is alceady designated
for low density residential.
A lady in the audience asked aoout the 700 block of the west side of Zeyn and
Commissioner La Claire stated tonight's actio^ pectains to a General Plan
Amendment, but there wi.ll be a public heacing in the futuce to discuss
reclassification to cezone the properties. Annika Santalahti explained the
reclassifications would probably occur in January with ownecs all being
notified.
ITEM N0. 14 E'iR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3596 (RENOTIFIED)
PUBLIC HEAP.ING. OWNERS: R. DURBIN ET AL~ A. BELLARD ET AL~ AND M. BEACH ET
AL, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. i+GENT: HUGO VA2QUEZ, 2240 W.
Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801. ?coperty described as a sectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.40 acres, 518, 822 and 828 North
Lemon.
Waiver of minimum site area per dwelling unit to construct a 17-unit
affordable apartment complex.
It was noted the applicant was not present.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
11/24/86
~
~ r
..
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOJEMBER 24 1986 795
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La
Claire and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the pcoposal to construct a 17-unit affordable apartment complex
under authotity of State Government Code Section 65915 with waiver of minimum
site area pec dwelling unit on rectangularly-shaped poximately 153afeetSOntthe
of approximately 0.40 acres having a frontage of app
east side of Lemon Stceet and further described as 818, 022 and 828 North
Lemon Street; and does hereby apptove the Negative Declaration upon fin6ing
that i.t has considered the Negative Declarati.on together with any comments
ceceived ducing the public tevi.ew process and furthec find'zng on the basis of
the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Hecbst offered Resolution Na. PC86-297 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim Ci.ty Planning Conmission does hereby deny
Variance No. 3596 on the basis that there are no special ciccumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogcaphy, location and
surroundings which do not apoly to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; ano that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by othec properties in the identical zone
and classification in the vi.cinity.
On roll call, the fo!egoing resolution was passed by khe following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENi: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Ccmmission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
The meeting was adjou~ned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
f0 `~ "~ " ' /~~~~'`-~'
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0232m
11/24/86