Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/01/26./. • A C T I O N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1989, 9:30 A:M. Procedure to Expedite Meeting: The proponents for conditional use permit and variance applications which are not contested will have 5 minutes to present their evidence. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each have 10 minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. After the opponent(s) speak, the proponent will have 5 minutes for rebuttal. Before speaking,-please give your name and address and spell your name. ' Staff Reports are part of the evidence received by the Zoning Administrator at each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to and at the meeting. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in the Administrator's opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. All documents presented to the Zoning Administrator for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the City of Anaheim for the public record and shall be available for public inspection. The action taken by the Zoning Administrator on this date regarding conditional use permits and variances is final unless, within 15 days of the Zoning Administrator's written decision being placed in the U.S. Mail, an appeal is filed. .Such appeal shall be made at any time following the public hearing and prior to the conclusion of the appeal period. An appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee equal to one-half the amount of the original filing fee. The City Clerk, upon filing of such an appeal, will set said conditional use permit or variance for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. After the scheduled public hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest under "Items of Public Interest". Such items must be within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your last name. 0876H Page 1 1 n ~/ • la. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION lb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3108 (READVERTISED) OWNERS: DENNIS BERRYMAN AND CAROL BERRYMAN, ONE CORPORATE PLAZA, P.O. BOX 3060, Newport Beach, CA 92658 AGENT: JOE BAO TANG, 430 S. Anaheim. Hills Road, #C, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 430 South Anaheim Hills Road #C To permit on-sale of beer and wine in an existing restaurant. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-05 Continued from the meeting of January 12, 1989. 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-3 2b. VARIANCE N0.•3864 OWNER: MATTHEW W. GREENE & MARIE E. GREENE, 9115 Flower Street, Bellflower, CA 90706 LOCATION: 120 South Mohler Drive • Waiver of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum structural setback to construct a 32-foot high single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.DECISION N0. 3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3897 OWNER: NORTHWEST MOTOR WELDING INC., 519 E. La Palma Ave. Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: SHOOK BUILDING SYSTEMS INC., 2055 S. Baker Ave., Ontario, CA 91761 LOCATION: 501-519 East La Palma Avenue Waiver of a (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum front setback to construct a 6,120 square foot warehouse addition to an existing industrial building. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-06 January 26, 1989 Page 2 Approved. Continued in order to bring in revised plans to meeting of 2/9'/89 . Approved. Po~`~' ,, J ..,~ 4. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENTS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0024 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL Approved. EXEMPTION CLASS-11: Waiver of maximum area of freestanding signs to retain a "Triple A" sign (AAA) and a "Budget Host" sign at an existing motel. Property is located at 415 W.. Ratella Avenue. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-07 B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0025 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-11: ; OP~~ , + ply (3- 9 - ~q) Waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces to establish a medical office in an existing office building. Property is ~~ located at 230 S. Euclid Street. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. C. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0026 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL Public notice EXEMPTION CLASS-5: period ends 1/30/89 Waiver of minimum front yard setback to construct a 5,126 square foot single-family residence. Property is located at 7450 Hummingbird Circle. _~f/~x~,p~, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. fl~~~'" (i/s~ (~`"~ • ~~ ~ r~~ 5. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None . 6. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: N one . January 26, 1989 Page 3 • ., ..,~ ,•, CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 3O°~~^''' ' ' ~~ g ~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) ( ATE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSR SIGNED• © ~/ IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY ONE OF .THESE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECISIONS IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN A WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR T0, THE PUBLIC HEARING. January 26, 1989 Page 4 • • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - January 26, 1989 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., January 26, 1989, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard Mc Ghee, Senior Planner Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the meeting. ITEM N0. 1.CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3108 (READVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: DENNIS BERRYMAN AND CAROL BERRYMAN, ONE CORPORATE PLAZA, P.0. BOX 3060, Newport Beach, CA 92658. AGENT: JOE BAO TANG, 430 S. Anaheim Hills Road, #C, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acre having a frontage of approximately 38 feet on the east side of Anaheim Hills Road, having a maximum depth of 530 feet, being located approximately 541 feet north of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road and further described as 430 S. Anaheim Hills Road. To permit on-sale of beer and wine in an existing restaurant. Continued from the meeting of January 12, 1989. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Joe Tang, agent, said the restaurant was new and had just been open for four months. He said they were applying for on-sale beer and wine in order to increase their business. He said they were only open until 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and were closed on Sundays. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JANUARY 26, 1989 PAGE 2 Ms. Santalahti approved this Conditional Use Permit based on the fact the proposed use is one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code and will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS-3, VARIANCE N0. 3864 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: MATTHEW W. GREENE & MARIE E. GREENE, 9115 Flower Street, Bellflower, CA 90706. Subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.32 acres located at the northeast corner of Mohler Drive and Del Giorgio Road, having a frontage of approximately 223 feet on the northeast side of Mohler Drive, a depth of approximately 97 feet and further described as 120 South Mohler Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height and minimum structural setback to construct a 32-foot high single-family residence. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and one person indicating his presence in favor of proposal; and one letter was received in opposition and one petition was submitted in favor of proposal. Matt Greene, applicant, introduced his family. He said they were drawn to the area from traveling the 91 Freeway. He said they noticed it was a combination of old and new fine custom homes. He said they purchased the lot from a builder in the area named Paul Ehline who gave them some background ,of the area. He said Mr. Ehline made them aware of two conditions that applied to the lot; 1) construction of a fence on the east property line and 2). the lot was in the Scenic Corridor and a Variance would have to be obtained in order to exceed the 25-foot height limitation. He said they went to the Planning Department and got information on setbacks, etc., which they took to their architect so he could design a 5,000 square foot, two-story, french country home. He said it was critical in the design to keep the house as compact as possible to maximize the remaining yard area, as well as positioning the house in a manner to give appeal while minimizing the impact on the neighboring homes. He said the house is compatible with the homes in the surrounding area and it would be a hardship if they were denied the same building privileges as their neighbors. He said they took the plans to their immediate neighbors and submitted a petition signed by those neighbors indicating they had no objections (copy attached). He said Paul Ehline was the builder of the home just north of the property and had previously obtained a lot split which created that property and subject property. He noted an area was dedicated at that time for an equestrian and hiking trail and some street improvements were put in making a sweeping radius curve access to Mohler Drive. He stated that dedicating the property for those improvements has made the lot substandard as far as square footage goes. He said that the pitch of the roof required for a french country home necessitates exceeding the 25-foot height limitation. He stated their house would be compatible with the existing houses. He said there were homes in the immediate area that had been granted height waivers ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JANUARY 26 1989 PAGE 3 exceeding the height they are requesting. He noted they would be the second house off of Santa Ana Canyon Road and they would not be impacting anyone's view. He said after some discussion at the Zoning Counter it was decided the lot could be considered a reverse corner lot with the front yard setback being 25-feet and the side yard setback would be 12 1/2 feet. He said this was the information used to have their plans drawn. He said they had their building plans approved and when they came back to the Planning Department there was some question as to whether or not the lot could be considered a reverse corner lot because of the way the house was positioned. He noted some homes in the immediate area exceeded 25 - 30 foot front setbacks; that there were also homes with garages being 5-feet off the street, 10 feet, 15-feet and so on. He said they would like the opportunity to develop this property and not be denied the same privileges that previous people have .been given. Craig Miller, who lives on Eucalyptus in Anaheim Hills, said he was going to develop a home on the corner of Santa Ana Canyon and Mohler Drive. He said Mr. Greene's plans looked great. He felt the 25-foot height restriction was important, but in this case, Mr. Greene would not obstruct any view except for one neighbor and that would only be the view which looks at E1 Rancho Junior High School. He noted other neighbors were in support of this proposal. Kathleen Lake Andres, 150 S. Mohler, said their property is on the east side of this proposal. She said while they welcome development in their community, they feel development should be within the parameters set forth by the City when this area was annexed from the County and when the property was subdivided. She referred to City Council minutes, dated March 30, 1982, page 304, Resolution No. 82-R-167., granting a Variance on this property. She read the following portion of the Resolution: "Construction of a fence at owner's expense along the east property line of the most southerly lot, fence to end whenever lot line ends. Foot print of the house on the southerly lot to be no closer to the easterly boundary then 15 feet." She said that fence. area is between their two properties. She said this item has not been approached nor is it on the plans and should. be a consideration if this Variance is granted. She stated the majority of the homeowners had not been contacted other than the direct four and noted Mr. Miller was not on Mohler Drive but off in another area. She stated height Variances have been denied as put into the staff report. She said hardship for the developer is not an acceptable excuse, and noted it was the architect's responsibility to investigate any restrictions on the property. She said she would like the variance denied. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, said the requests for height variances which have been denied this past year by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council in the immediate vicinity of this site are Variance No. 3773 (seven houses) and Variance No. 3830 (four houses). She said if this one were approved it would carry the most serious negative visual impact to the area. She noted it is at the entrance to the Mohler Drive area on a very visible corner. She said the lot is approximately one-third smaller then the surrounding lots. She said the size of the proposed structure would be obtrusive and not compatible with the neighborhood. She felt the hardship was self-created and rests on the design of the house and strongly urged the Zoning Administrator to deny the Variance. She submitted a letter of opposition from Mitzy Ozaki. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, .JANUARY 26, 1989 PAGE 4 Ms. Santalahti read the letter from Mitzy Ozaki and another letter in opposition received from Dirck Bedford, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association (copies attached). Leonard McGhee made copies of the letters for Mr. Greene. In rebuttal Mr. Greene discussed area changes. He said he felt the 25-foot height limitation seemed to be a catch-all for development and allowed concerned residents to have a voice in each and every building situation taking place in the area. He said the lots that are left are eyesores and unkept and need to be developed in a favorable way. He said in viewing this lot from angle, regardless whether the roof ridgeline is at 25-feet or 32-feet there would not be any change in the visual impact. He said they positioned the house on the lot to minimize the visual impact of the roof and designed a compact house to maximize the open area/yard of the small lot. He stated that the City had granted the lot split, and noted that denying tracts of seven houses and four houses is different from the impact of one house. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if applicant was aware of the Variance No. 3254 that granted the undersized lot, plus the conditions his neighbor had referred to. Mr. Greene said no, only that a fence had to be built and there was a 25-foot height restriction in the area. Ms. Santalahti asked if the equestrian trail were ever built across the property. Mr. Greene said there is an equestrian trail that runs on the west 'side with a fence right against the curb and is about 10-feet wide which they are supposed to maintain. Ms. Santalahti said the Conditions of Variance 3254 included three which were imposed at the City Council meeting in 1982. She said one was that the owner construct at his own expense a fence on the east side of the most southerly lot. She asked if that fence was existing and applicant said no. She said secondly the owner was to construct an equestrian trail along the entire westerly side, which applicant indicated existed. She asked if that included a bridge over the drainage ditch easement or was it a natural trail and applicant said there wasn't any drainage ditch there. Ms. Santalahti said the final condition was that the footprint of the house on the southerly lot shall be no closer to the easterly boundary then 15-feet. She noted the most suitable way to accommodate conditions like this would have been to require the owner to record them on the property as Covenants so that any future purchaser in connection with the title search would find the information. She noted it is in a Resolution on the property and it is clearly the Council's intent that these Conditions be satisfied in connection with any development of the property. Ms. Santalahti noted that in connection with the request for the lot split, drawings had to be submitted to show that in reducing the size of the lot it can still be developed and that a hardship had not been created. She said the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JANUARY 26 1989 PAGE 5 plan submitted at that time maintained minimum 30-foot setbacks along both sections of the public streets and showed 10-feet along the east property line, so the 15-feet was an addition made at the City Council meeting. Mr. Greene said the front setback (southerly property line) at this point is over 30-feet from the street Ms .' Santalahti asked Leonard McGhee how the Code worded the RS-HS-22,000 street setbacks and he said to a street or highway. She asked if the Code differentiated between interior property lines .such as a side setback versus a rear or front setback. Mr. McGhee said Code indicated a side yard setback of not less then 10-feet in width and did not specify whether that setback was from a street, and the rear yard to be 25~ of the depth of the lot and front to be 25-feet. Ms. Santalahti said she wanted to verify that it was not like the one-acre zoning which says the setbacks are the same all the way around. Mr. McGhee said he thought the applicant's plan indicated the distance to the street, meaning the street for vehicular access including the equestrian trail as part of the setback so his actual setback from the street portion of the right-of-way is greater than what is shown on the plan. Ms. Santalahti said because of the street curvature there is not any clear cut front yard versus side yard, and in this case the entire street frontage has been interpreted as the 25-foot setback. She said she could see some type of adjustment in the northerly direction allowing for less than 25-feet; however she was not in favor of it in the front area where applicant was showing a 22-foot setback. She said she did not feel the proposed westerly setback of 14 feet to a deck covering or patio would be a problem. She noted she really had a problem with the height waiver. She said this lot did not have any of the criteria that would make a height waiver acceptable in this area. She said the exception might have been if the proposal was consistent with the direction that City Council has given staff for a Code change ,whereby you can go to 30-feet for not more than 10~ of the roof area for an architectural feature. She said City Council specifically wants to exclude the major ridgeline of the structure. She noted the applicant is far in excess with 32-feet to the ridgeline. She said in granting Variances she looks at what is different about the lot in question from the area and when she has granted Variances in other cases they have been lots that are not very visible, they have had large setbacks from the street, or on terrain that drops away from the street or up from the street so that in either direction you have a different grade situation. She said this is one of the most visible lots you can have in the Mohler Drive area. Ms. Santalahti agreed they angled the building in a way that might reduce the impact of the most impacted neighbor to the east; however, she could not. approve the plan as it stands now. She said petitioner would have to maintain the 15-foot setback along the east property line and noted staff would give him a copy of the City Council Resolution. She noted this property already has a lot-size Variance that makes it a bit less developable then a standard MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JANUARY 26, 1989 PAGE 6 one-half acre lot; however, it is a self-created hardship by the prior owner who supplied a plan at the time that complied with Code which standards are still the same. Ms. Santalahti said if she were to grant this Variance in any form it would be with a modification of 15-feet on the east property line setback, showing 25-feet front setback, but the side yard setback on the west she did feel could be reduced because of the curvature of the street, and on the height would be the 30-feet Council has directed not counting the chimney and with the higher area not to exceed 109s of the total roof plan. She said those changes are enough that she would want the plans revised. Mr. Greene said he might be able to make a compromise on the design of the house by possibly dropping the roof pitch to a 5:12 pitch to bring it below 30-feet. He said he thought the height was to be measured from the highest grade below the ridge to the ridgeline which would be 31 1/2 feet and said there was one portion over the dropped living room that is the highest portion and that was taken from the lowest grade rather then the highest, so if they start at 31 1/2 feet and are able to reduce the roof pitch they can bring it down to 28-feet. Ms. Santalahti said Council also directed staff to take the measurement from the highest point to the finished floor level. directly below and he said that would reduce the height another six inches. Ms. Santalahti noted that what exceeds the 25-foot height should be an architectural feature or embellishment or part of the roof such as a designed aspect of the roof, not the basic roof. Mr. Greene said he thought by reducing the pitch of the roof it would eliminate one of the L-shaped sections. Ms. Santalahti said if she were to approve this it would be for a maximum 30-foot high measured from the finished floor level to the highest point of the one ridgeline with the other two being under Code, a 15-foot setback from the east property line and allowing less than 25-feet for the deck and or patio on the west side of the house. Mr. McGhee reminded applicant that setback measurements take into consideration any easements on the property and the measurement is taken from , the property line not from the actual street. Ms. Santalahti said the City needs an accurate site plan reflecting the dedicated horse trail, the proper property line, etc. Mr. Greene said he would like to ask for a continuance in order to bring in revised plans Ms. Santalahti continued this item until the meeting of February 9, 1989 and noted it would not be readvertised. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JANUARY 26, 1989 PAGE.? ITEM N0. 3. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3897 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: NORTHWEST MOTOR WELDING INC., 519 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: SHOOK BUILDING SYSTEMS INC., 2055 S. Baker Ave., Ontario, CA 91761. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.75 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Sabina Street, having approximate frontages of 379 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 202 feet on the east side of Sabina Street, and further described as 501-519 East La Palma Avenue. Waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces and minimum front setback to construct a 6,120 square foot warehouse addition to an existing industrial building. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Chris Quesada, with Shook Building Systems, said he was available to answer any questions. ' PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if he were representing both buildings between Sabina Street and Pauline Street. Mr. Quesada said they were proposing the addition on the Sabina side but noted they were all part of Northwest Motor Welding. Ms. Santalahti asked if.the paved area in the middle was parking for both buildings and he said yes. Ms. Santalahti noted that when she went out to look at the site she did not have the site plan with her and when she came around Pauline Street from the north she was surprised to see how people were parking. She said mainly they were parked tandem in the front setback along La Palma Avenue and a few other places. She said she assumed that was because the parking area is being utilized for storage, thereby, prohibiting vehicular access. She said the Variance has not caused a problem in the numbers sense to the Traffic Engineer's Office staff who have analyzed the actual business usage versus the proposed number of parking spaces, which is about 254 off Code.. She asked if they were actually proposing a zero setback for part of the building along La Palma Avenue. Mr. Quesada said they were trying to match the existing buildings on-site and the building they were adding onto has a zero setback line. Ms. Santalahti looked at the aerial photograph and noted that the grassy area was actually in the public right-of-way. Ms. Santalahti verified that they were actually adding. into the setback primarily along Sabina Street and a dogleg going across the front of the existing building next to La Palma Avenue. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JANUARY 26. 1989 PAGE 8 Mr. Quesada said one of the reasons for bringing up the line of the building is to give it a consistent look, and also to improve the aesthetics of the existing metal building and basically give a nice clean frontage along La Palma Avenue. Ms. Santalahti said because of the circumstances along La Palma Avenue, in general, a zero setback or a five foot setback hardly makes any difference. She noted this was one of the few areas that has made street dedication on part of the property. She asked if the dedication now required by the City basically affected the easterly part of the frontage along La Palma.- Mr. Quesada said he believed so. Ms. Santalahti said she had a real problem with the parking after she observed . what is physically going on at the location. She said she is not inclined to approve a parking variance until she sees spaces available for parking. She said she would like to continue the item to give enough time to have the outdoor storage cleaned up so that it can be enclosed or, make it so it does not infringe on the parking area. Mr. Quesada said the owner is presently taking action on that, he has rented space in order to clean up his lot and move the materials. He said the proposed warehouse they want to add will take care of the rest of the outside storage that isn't covered by the transfer of materials. He noted that once this happens there will be ample parking available on site. Ms. Santalahti asked if they were in plan check at this time and he said yes. Ms. Santalahti said'she would approved this Variance based on the fact the waiver for minimum number of parking spaces will not cause an increase in traffic congestion or adversely affect any adjoining land use, and the waiver for minimum front setback is similar to setbacks presently existing for most nearby industrial buildings located along the north side of La Palma Avenue, and adding a Condition that prior to final building and zoning inspections, all of the parking spaces as shown on Exhibit No. 1 shall be available for employee and customer parking and that there shall be no outdoor storage what-so-ever in any of the spaces. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 4 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0024, CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-11: Waiver of maximum area of freestanding signs to retain a "Triple A" sign (AAA) and a "Budget Host" sign at an existing motel. Property is located at 415 W. Ratella Avenue. ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JANUARY 26, 1989 PAGE 9 Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on Administrative Adjustment No. 0024 and noted the appeal period ended January 23, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act to approve this item. B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0025, CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-11: Waiver of minimum number of parking .spaces to establish a medical office in an existing office building. Property is located at 230 S. Euclid Street. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on Administrative Adjustment No. 0025 and noted the appeal period would end January 26, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. She said if written opposition is received before 5:00 p.m. this item could be readvertised and scheduled for a public hearing at the request of applicant. C. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0026, CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5: Waiver of minimum front yard setback to construct a 5,126 square foot single-family residence. Property is located at 7450 Hummingbird Circle. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on Administrative Adjustment No. 0026 and noted the appeal period would end January 30, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. She said if written opposition is received before that time this item could be readvertised and scheduled for a public hearing at the request of applicant. ITEM N0. 5 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 6 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalaht Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator 0188g