The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/07/22~; ~; ~~ MICROF'LMING ~,sRVICE, INC. ~ ~ r,tky tta~l Anr~heim, Cal..ifcrnia July 22~ 1974 KBGULAIt M[;F.TI~'(:_OF 1'~{R A,NpNEtM CITY PLANNING ~OP4'IISSI.QN EI~FC'f].ON OF Tf:MPOR.~tiY CIiAZItMATI TO OP~N TNE M~~TING ANG F(1R 'fNE ~LEC'fION Or OFPICEf~S Tha 1'lanning Commi~tsion gen~,rtilly ~"anutt-e m..hai.n~~a~ndgfornkh~rte~ection of officetr.x korcGed to aer.ve as Temt~orary ChaiYav~n to p 1974-75. ltEvULAR ••• A regular mc+oting of the Anaheim City Plunning Cotmniseion waa callad to I~EF~TING order by Tomporary Chu'Lrman GeUer at 2:00 p.m. on July 8, 1974 in ttis Council Chamb~r, x quarucn be.ing present. P1tL'SENT - TP.MPOAARY Cl1t1IRMAN: Gauer - COM2~LSSIONERS: Farano~ Herbat, King, Jahne~n~ Morley, Tolar ABSGNT - CO'dMYSSIONERS: Non~ A1,80 T'RESF.NT - lleput,y City Attorney: Frank T.owry JgY 1,~ ~~B Office Engineer: llan Van Durpe Chie£ Building InHpactor: Don Mcllaniel Planning Suparvieor~ Charl~a Roh~rts ?.oning SupeXVl~ox: Annika Santr~:lahti Assisr.ant Z4ning Supervisor: Ail.l Young A~sociate Pl.anner: Patric.Ca Scan3an Pl.aaning Commigsinn SecreCary: PLGDGF. OF - Cummisai.oner ,Iohnaon led ln the Pledge of Allegiance ko the ~]: ~L the ALLEG[AN^~ L'~:ited States ~f America. RFSULUTION OF APPRECIATIQN TO FORMER PLANNING COMM=SSIUNER Temporary ~~sirman Gauer pteaented a resolution of appreciation to former Planning Commissionar Gaylen B. Compton fo:- his period of aervice on the Anaheim City Plxnning Commission, said ~resolution Ueing ae foll.ows: RESOLUTIUN OF APPR~CIATIUN WHEREAS, GAYLEN B. COMPTON haa served the Citizens of the City ~f Anaheim ar~ a member of the City Planning Commission from Februlry 1974 through June 1974; and W11~RL~AS, his memberehip on the ('ity Planning Coumaission complemEnted this body of laymen i.n the pertor.aiance of their duti. d; r~nd WNEREAS, GAYLEN B. COt~T~N fRithfully fulFilled his du~tiea ar~ a member of eaid Pla*.ning Commission and endeavored to represent and serve the ~nteresCs of. the people of the City of Anaheim at all timed; and Wt1~REAS~ GAYLEN B. COI+~TON as a member of the Comm~saion was a valued mem~er and gave freely of his apecial kr.uwledga and talants in tha many decisions made by this body; NOW, THE1tEFORE, B~ IT RESOLVED tl~at the AnahTeIDiati.on Planning Commission doea hereby expresA their app for the service which GAYLEN B. COMPTON, as a member of the .lnaheim City Planning Comaniesion, gave in the intereat of ~he Ci.tizens of the City. 74-339 ~ ~ M'tNU'CE5, CI'fY 1'I,ANNING COMMISSTON~ Ju.ly 22, 1974 RESUI,UTIUN UC APP[tIsCIA'PIAN '10 FORMRR PLANNING COMMI3SYONER (CanCinuc~d) BI: LT FURTHUR RESOLVED th~t thie Reaol.utl.on ahnll ba mnda a maCCar of• rocord in the official mi.nuter. oi the Anahei.m Clty P.lnnning CoamiAei.un and that e copy aha.ll be pr~eenCed xo GAYLEN If. t;OMPTON in appreciation uf hia eervices us a Commisei.onar of tha Anal~dim City Planning Commis~ion, and furtiier oxpret~e their beet wighea for hie good hc~alth and continued auccees in all hie future endeavorA, THB FORBGQING RESULUTION ie heresby eigned Chia 22nd day of July, 1974. ANAHL'1M CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION Leigned) Melbourne A. Gauer , bIELB0URN8 A. CAUER _si ed) Lewie Aerbet LEWIS HERBST (signed) Floyd Farana FLOYD rARANO (slscied) Gl.en L. John~on __ GLEN L. JOHNSON si ned Paul King PAUL KING ~siQned) Richard Morle~ RICHARD MORLEY ATTEST: ei ned~ Patricia B. Scanlan SECRF."~A1tY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI~SION Membera of the P:Lanning Coumiission ~oined in extending good luclc and beat wishes to Mr. Compton for good he.alth and continued success ir~ his future endeavors. 74-:i40 F.LEC'PION UF 1974-75 PLAN'NING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN Temporary Chairman Gauer noted that nominations wer.e in order for the election of the ChAtrman of the Planning Commission for 1974~75. Cammissioner King nominated Commisaioner Lewis Herbat as Chairmar. ~or 1.974-7F. Commioaioner Farano moved, seconded by Commisaione- Johnaon, and MOTION CARRIED rhat the nominations be cloaed. Commissioner Farano moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, ttiat a unanimous ballut be cast for Commiasione~ HerbaC as Chairman, and MOTION CARRIED UNANISIOUSI~Y. Chairman Herbat assumed the chair of the meeting. ELECTION OF 197r+-75 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEI~ORE Chairman Herbat noted that nominationa were in order for the eZection of the Chairman Pro T'empore for the Planning Commisaion for Y974-75. ~ommiasio~er King nomi~~ated Gommissioner Floyd I'arano as Chairman Pro iempore for 1974-75. Commissioner Tolar move~:, seconded by Cormniasioner Morley, and MOTION CARRIED, that the nomin~tiona be closed. Cotmuiaeioner Tolar moved, seconded by Commissianer Morl.ey, that a unanimoua ballot be cast for Commisaioner Fa•rano ae Chairman Fro Tempore. ~.nd MOTIQN CARRTED UNANIMOUSLY. ~ ~ ~ 7~~-341 MINUTES, CITY PW1NN.[NG Ct)h41IS5I0N, Ji:l.f 22~ 197G CONrLi~MATION UF APPGIN7'MENT U~ FI.,ANNING ~AMF1iSS]~0~ SECRrTACtY - F'fSCAL YCAR 1974-75 There being a full Cummiseion preeant~ Commisel.one: Gau~r ric~red s motlon~ ~° inxm~nty Commieeion~r F~rano at~d MOTION CARRIEU BY UNANT.MOUS VUT1:~ ko confira~ tha reupp oE Patri.cia l3. ScHnlnn ~-s C~-a Anaheim City Planning CnmmiHRlo~t Sacretnry for r.ha f.,HC~t y~ar 1974-75. APYROVAL OF THF, MINU1i:S ~~~mmiBaioner King offered a motion, secoadc.i by Ccmmiesiunar Morl~~y iind MOTION CAItRIF.ll (Comm~ieeioner Harbst abai:a.ining) , to approve tt~e minu:es of Che mo~~ting of June 2b ~ 197k ~ as submitted. CONUITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBL'.[C HE,ARING. SPQNSORS, INC., ~/~ ~oy~ ~ta~lii~ 224 North PRRMIT N0. 1475 Glasoell ~traet, Orange~ Ca, 92666 Owner; reque~t~ng pc~~lde~~n to ESTAALISH A. HALF-WAY HOUSC FOR ALCGtlOi.ISM AND DR-)G-lt~'f.ATED PROBLEMS un property described au: A rect.angal.arly-~h~ped parcel of land conaisting of approximate!.>• .25 acre having a frontage ~E xroximxte1~t155lfeet, andthe weat si.de of Cl.audina StYeet, t~nving a maximum depth of ~pp Y being located approximately 31.4 feeL- nortti of the centar.line ~f Broadway. Property preaently cluseified C-2 (GLNGRAL COI~tERCIAL} ZONE~ No one indicuted Cheir presence in oppasition to nub~ect peCition. A.lthough the Staff Report to the Planning Commiseion date3 Jul.y 22, 1974 was no~. r.ead at the public heari•.ig, it is referred to and made a purt of th~ min~iees. Mr. Roy Otsu~i~ reprec~enting the property owner, appeared before the Commisaion and etated the ~:uposal wse to continue hhe operation of Che pres~nt hnli-w~y house f~r tt~e recovery of alcuholice and men with drug-related problems at the subiect lucation; thr~t the property owner, Sponeors. Inc., was a noci-profit organization whi~:h uaa funded in 1969; that the present operation WIIQ nownrequiringeaccon~litional~usatpermitit~ berg~le t~scontinuee[he~ however, the City use; thaC they had been informed r~ City Staf~ovedtforrChen~im~ccuianci~,nand furtherilthag were required prior to the building being app p y the buitding permit could not be approved t!ntil the propas$1 was considered by Che Redevelopment Agency; Chat they had written to the RedevelopmenC Commisaion offering the aub~ece property for eale; that they were presently in a di.lemma bc~cauae of tt~eir financial cor.dition and did not believe they could operate with lese than 13 occupants aince their total support wae from the residency of the ~o~ase; that there wereradeithegVail- able Co them through the State ~iepartment of Health which could be used ~o ''ugchase the facilities, however, they felt it would be waeted mone~ sinr.e the City u-ay P property fcr redevelopment anyway and Chey only wanted to a~ntinue the ~peration until that time; and that the half-way house provided an urgently-nezded service in tY-e community. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLCSED. In reaponse to queationing by Commiasiotter Gauer, Mr. Otsu~i ataCed the owner of BUfivet property was Sponsors~ Inc.; that t:hey had explor.ed the poasibili.ty of haviogtedlby the residen~~ at Che house, however, due to the fact that they w~.re solely ~tupp re~:.c~, they could n~t operate wi.Ch ~ust five men; t'hat operating wi.th 13 residenta had proved finxncLa].ly adequate; and thai i.f the application was denied by the Commisoion, they would have to closc down, thereby piitting the men out on the street. Commisaioneinueuae itepreseutlyhwaseuntil the~redevelopment$occurr~dmsincentherpropertyjhud uae to cont be~n used in ita present atate f.or aome time. In response to questioning by Chairman Herbst, Mr. OCau~i indicated that when the half-way house wbereo~roccupants,letcr, wereainaaccordatcecwith Cityrtregulations~8~ed tYiat the use and num Upon questioning by Commi~aioner King, Mr. Otsu~i indicaCed he hr_d not discusaed thP 3uilding Code o~su11=Weuld rothknow whatdthe definitn~requirem~entsiforrupgradingethehaC in th~t case Mr. 3 existing building were. ~ ~ ?~-342 MLNUTI:S~ CITY PI.ANNING CUMMISSIQN, Ju1y ?'2, 1974 C,,,ONI)I'fIUNAII 1~S.F PFI_tMIT N0, :~475_ (~%ontinued) Mr. OCeujl thex- rei.Cer.atpd tT~Cint~~hegeventtof~redc'.vel.opmentWin~the~ne~refut.ure£l~it~wUUld upgrade Che facillty~ howave , be waet.~ad mont+y t:o .lmprcve the structure. DepuCy Cicy Attorney Fr.rink Lowry udvised Chat n building per:~it conld be iesued it thp Red~v~lopment Agency cancurred. In reapons~~ to qu~~~ioning by f.oau~nlssic~n~r Guuer, Mr. Lowty udviaed tliat i.f thc uoo wue nor gc~nted, tiie r~eidency of tt~e fecility wuuld hr~ve to be ~educed to f:ivo immediutely. Chuirman Herb3[ inquired if tha petitioneX could be given elx monC;~s to obtai.n Che build- inBiud~m~ndaMr.bT~owrytAdvised~ChaCnthaCnwould~de{~enJ uponethenac[i.on~uf8thetPlanningg th~it pa . Commisaion. Commisaianer ,Iuhntlon noted thaC if th~~ sub,~ec[ proper.ty wae located in ttie path of the new Civic Cenr.er }'hase I, acid Lf the Ca~nnission recomn~er~ded Chat tt~e poCi[ionar spend a ccm- sider.able awount of money remod~o~egty wAeinurchasedrf:ar~redPVel.opment, expensea would be ~.ttcurred to the City wt:en the p P p use~wenbeing8proposecitand it woul.drbe upnto~C~hr~BRedevelopment~Agencyttoeact~incaomer~ ~ manner regarding the offer to ae11. Z~ning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for tl~e Com~nission that he beliiven toBCheisub~ect Civic Center pro~ect would go forward without any conalderat.l.on being g parcel; that it mighC be thxt conaideraCtons with regard to Project A1pha were aecon~iary; that the quEation wae whether the proposed use was auitable for the subject area ~ince '.he new Ciulc Cen~er would be in this part:leular t-rea; th~t lf Cht• answer t~ that queation ~ras yea, then Che secondssry coneideration would come into play witl~ t:ha Redevelopment l~gen~y as to whether building permits should be issued. Chnirman Herbst notcd that the pr.oposul To~u~dtbe An~ii;~ethatuevent~ia time linitgahould be I'ro~ect Alphn was ready to acquire tt~e p p 5+ placed an the use, if approved. Commiasioner Gau~.r noted that, in his opi.nion, the uae wae appropriate si.nce there were other uaee such as liqrovedtfor.sa timetperioduuntil Pro~ectnAlphacacquired~thetpropertye proposal ai-ould be app ~n responsP to questi.oning by Commissioner King, Chief BuiZding Tnspector Dan Van Dor.pe adviaed that an inepection of the building had been made, subsequent to the Staff Repore being written, and very little work would be cequired to bting the atructure up to H- occtipany standards; and thet the repairs would be of. a minor nature and would probably cost 1caR Chan $1~000. Gommisaioner Morley inquired Uflified~f•orifundaWChrough aiState agency11toyupgrad~a~thaMr. Otsujt rsiterated that they q property. theivalueHofbthenprupertytfor reimburaemenrnwhen it wpuldlbenpurchas~edeby the~Cityrrore r2development. It was noted that the Director of Development Services had determined thKt tlie proposed ar,tivity fell. within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines Lo the ~equirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was~ tt-erefore, categorically exempt from kt~e requi.rement Co file an ET.R. Cotamissioner Gauer offered Reaolutfon No. YC74-150 and maved for its paseage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditi~onal Use Permit ~io. 1475 based on the findfngs that the subject property is located within the Anaheim Redevelopmant Project Alpha and within the approved ~aganotrlocatedVwithinttheCPhaeeXl areaVOf~tle propoaedrCivic CenterhC~mplexct property w ~ • 7G~343 MI.dU'PES, ~I'CY PI.~ANNINC (,OMMISS'LON. Ju1y 22~ 1974 CONntTIONA:. USE PFRMI'P N0. 1475 (ConCinut~d) tha~: tha patiCloner tndic+~ted that an offer Co sell tha sub~ect prop3r.cy had bflnn gent to the Comtuun.lCy Reclavelopmant CommiHaion and u repl.y had noC yat been recelved; thqt iC was dAtarmined Ch~C khA Fxisting etructure sho~ild ba brought. iuto coitformance with Building C~des for an N-u~cup+~ny and tlio cosr Co d~ ao wu~ld be minlmal; thaC the paki.tior~er indicnted that thm m~ximum occupanay E'or the propoeed uae wae 13 persone, includi.ng two reaid~nt etaff inembere; Kub.ject to the condition thet t'.ile conditional u~e permit ia ~rantad for n p~riod of tw~~ ya~r:+ ~ub,ject to roview nnd coneider.atian for an rxteasion o£ tim~ by the Pl.xnniiig Commie~ion nnd/or City Coun~:il upan request by the petition~r; ttinC the condiCion regurding fee~ f,~r tree planting purpoeQN ctnd thet r,he~ exigting r~Crur.ture be br~ught up Co the minimum D~~11ctl.ng Code eCandards ba c~mplied with w.lthin sixCy duYA from the datu cf thie reeolution; and eublect to canditionr~. (See Rceolu~~-~n I~ook) On roll call~ the f.oragoing r~solutiun was I~ueaed by the fol.lowing vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONEItS: FAlZANO. CAUI:R~ JUHNSON~ KINC, MORLEY, TOLNt, H~itltSl NOES: CUt~41ISSI0NERS: NONG ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ AMGNDMENT TO TITL~ ].8. - CONTINUED PUB1.]:C HEARI:IG. INI.TIAT~D AY THF. ANAHET.M CITY GARAGE 3EIBACKS AND PLANNING COI~IISSION. 2Q4 F.aet Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. PAKICING aTA*NARDS _ 92805; to r.onsider amendmente to T~CJ.e 18 perlrsining to sl.Ca developmenr etandurde uf or~e-family residential a.aiies Gar£ge s~tbacks und parking etxndarda. Planning Siiperv~sor pon McDaniel noted for the Planning Comwission tt1RL' tt~~~ ~ub~~ct Municipa'l Cude amendment was heard by the i.ommiseion nt cha meeti.ci~; :-t Jun.~ 2~~, 1974 snd conCinued Co the meatiag of .Iuly 22, J.974, wi.th a Commiasian work 9as~l.on to be conuucCed July 18~ 1974 t'or i.nput from representxCives of d~velopmenC firms and Eor ~nTe~ently of soae uf the ramifiaationa of changing the 6 Co 10-foot set6ackA wnich were per.'mitted in all aingle-family resi.dential zones. back to a straight 25-foot ~~s had bPen d±scuased at the ~oint City Council./^lanning Commiesion work ~esaion in M~y 1914; that the July 18~ 1U74 work sessior, had proven to be very valuable in Che ~ense that ther~ was lnput from tlie de~velopera IIlltl the Commi•esion diecussed at IengCh some of the alinr~u~LTim.eepf to changing back to a straight 2S-foot t~exback ~aithout any kind of ~lexibility averaRing or p~err_entage; Chat no eubstantive chac~ges to the StBfferecommendati nerand d;.rected by thc~ Commission at said work eaesion, ther.e~~oeosed at tha Commiaeion hearing proposed amendments were identical to those initiall.y ~ P on June 24~ 1974. Mr. John Millick, Vice President, Anaheim Hills Inc., appearad bc~fore the ;'~~'~umie~ion and aCated ~ht~t one of the resulta of the work ees[~ion on July ?8 was that they had ma~e a propoeal I:haC the parking requir.e-nenta, along with gr.ading, slope planting, drainage, aewer~ water, fi.re protecCion, etc., be dovetailed into the new Hillaide Ordinance and that the parking aetbacks waa one item thst was very mucofather25-foote~etbackaitheyewou~d that ~lthough they did not disagree with the philosophy hope that the Commlesion an3 the Planning Staff would put that into context as plrt of the new Hf:laide Ordinance; that between T.he July 18 meeting an~l this roeeting, the~ had made another proposal to the Planning Staff regarding the varying aetbacks and it was his understanding that there wae a way of haviag varying aetbar_ks even in the flat land, which from a mnr''.eting atandpoint might have some attributee, and woxding was auch that there could be a percentage of lots leas than 25 fee[ as long ae the average was l.5 feet on any on~ block; that in that context, :tf khe fears wera Chat. the developer would load the developmant~ the City could restratn by lot coverage and by mi.nim~im rear. yard setbacks and could be ~-~~h~~1CheeHillaide Ordinange ve~lnoked atuas a~different~itemeentirelyiatmain tl-r~st wae later data. There being no further responae frum the sudience, THE PUBL:C HEARING WAS CLOSED. rommiasionerpCa~lh~ TeaddChearecommendations~containadhin thedStaffhReportlto r.herPlanning and~ theraup n, Commiseion datesl July 22, 1974. Paf;e 2-d' ~ ~ ~ 1G-344 MINUTBS~ (;1TY PLANNTNC CUPLMI3SION~ Ju.ly 22, 1974 AMRN[~Mt:N'P '1'U '1'ITLE 18 - GAItACB,SI:TBACKS AND PARKING ST_~ARUS (Continued) 'I'hn~ eupon~ Commieeinn~r Cau~~r ofic+reJ u resoluti.an to adopt and recom~nend to thH City Co~.~ncil aduption ot tno amendmanCK to t'~a Anaheim Munlcipal Code pertainl.nq to Garag~ 5atbackg und i'c~zkl.n~ Standards Onu~-Fumily Re~idontiul Zonea~ ue net Eorth in Exhib.lt"A" of ktie SCuff fsepur~. In raaNuna~ [o quoetioning b,y Co-mniydionar. Kir~g, Mr. Millick i~tidicakcd he hed r~vi.ewed the propud~d Coc1Q umendmonte in Cheir enti.rety. C~wmiesionor JohnAOn ~ioted khat ue he undarstood Mr. Mllliclc's poeition~ tho propoeal was rea~onabla~ knowing Chut che City w~ae wor.king on hilleidF+ zoning, however, Chat duri~g thc+ 1~.Ztarin~ thora would hn aoma hurdr+l~i.p on b~tb thc Commie~a.lun and tl-e dnvalupers to madiutc~ the middla ground. Commie~ioner Juhn9on conrin~ed by etuti,~a Chat with the proposed ~~rJinunce varianceB would etill be filed iii somo inatances but it was hoped that tlie Hi:l.leide Ordinance would cloar up i:he mntter; and thnt ha wou1.d yupp~rt tF.e resolution [n ndopt khc~ Stoff's recotomondaClon. Chnir~aan Herbsl notcsd that if tt~e propo~el ~aae adopted. the City would be regreoeing to the Cimr~ when Cho 2S-f.oot setback waa requir~ed; that, i~x hie opinion, r.he develoFero would need vnr.ying er_tbacku to muke a better living environment; that the variable seCbacke wc~uld ec+nble the developer.e Co huve 5 to 10-foot seCbacke even in the hillside ureae which waca dasirable; thut 1E tlia Rtraight 25-foot setback wea adopted~ thare would be a coneider- nbl.c iiumbe~: of variunce requests as a result; that in the writing of a new ordinanc~, as many baseo ae poaeiblc needed tu be covared; thac he did not agrPe with the strnighC 25- fuot s~tl~ack; that if 6 Co 10-funt aetbacka were allowed~ the developere should be cequi.red Co co~lstruct a threP-sCall garage rather than a two-etall garage, wh'ch would muke+~ di f ferenr . of one apnce in compar. iaun to the four propuaed; and that Che deve lopere would only have a few houses sit;,~.ted close to ~he aCreet and the remainder would be back~ Commiseionar Morl~y nutc~d th~t he would a^ree with Chairman Herbst and that by goin~ back to the 25-foot oetback, the. City would b~ ,oi.n~ back to rowhousing and there should be some area for imagination ox flexibitity; and Chat tha City should wcrk with the devel- opers 1~ the d~velopera would work witt~ Ctie Ctty. Cammias~ioner King notec; ~:hat he agreed with Chairman Herbst in tliat th~re would be a variety of di~tancea from the pr.operty lines to the face of Che homee and he would favor t~iat rather than rowhousee. Commissioner Jahnson noted that to pre-pzesum~ that all oE the homes w~uld be set beck 25 feet war, n.oC valid, since the developere w~iild not have a marketable product in that case; that he would look skepticall.y at buying a home in an area with a11 uniform, 25-foot s~tba~~cs; thRt the developers would be forced to va:y Cheir setbacka ~aith some being at 25 fe~~t and others being farther back; however, lf aome were neceasary to be 20 `eet, etc.. ~ r.h~ a lenca procedure aould ba used; that the rowhouaes were no longer markeCable; that the City would aot be precluding the developer from varying the aetbacks, howev'er, the intent of the proposed amendments and of the City Colncil wae to try to keep thc houaes farther back frum the curb than presently permitted; that relief would surely be permikted thr.ough a vari:-~ce and the proposal would help the develonment of the City as far as livability wae concerned. Upon questioning by Comn-iseioner Johnson, Chairman Herb~t indir.ated that th e Chree-stall g,arage referred to earlier was for use with the 6 to 10-foot aetbacka only. Commisaioner King made an observation that with the proposed 25-faot aet~ac k, a developer could legally conr~truct e de~elopm~r~t with all of the homes set back 25 feet in a row. Chairman Herbat noted thaC hie intespretati~n of the propoaed ordinance wae thnC R-1 de•:elopment woul.d hsve sCraight 'L5-foot aetbacks and that since the majority of Che devel- opmenC in the City ere R-1~ if the builder pxovi~Pd a aetback '_~rger than 25 feeton a 72a0-eyuare fooL loC, he would n~t have a very large bmck yard. Commiasioner Gau~r noted L•hat he had aeen some very fine subdiviaiona wher e the homes were all set beck 25 feet and Chey did not look like rowhouses, '+ith the lawns well developed; that Che homes he was yefaxring t~ were on LOtR not much 1 ier than 7200 square feet; that the idea of the Cuda amendm . e was L•o get away from tl~e 6 to 10--foot setbacke; that if the developer had a hardshi.p, a variance coul.d be granted; that variancea had been ~ ~ • MI1Vl1TFS~ CI7'Y P1,ANNI.NG COMMISSION~ Jul.y 22. 1974 74-•"i4~ AME:NI)MEN'f TO_ TITLE 18 - CAItAG~ SEIBACKS AM? PARKrNf7 ';TANDA1tDS (Cuntinuad) requeetad fram tt~a varioue ordinances and etandarde af tha Clty and no '.aa~:tex how they wero wrltten or dr~~wn up. thn poopte did noC livc+ by them; und that: r.h~ 6 to 10-foot eatbnck~ hnd ba~n troublaeome nnd thx~ wae why cha r~rdinance~ wae b~ing rewt'itton ~nd coneidered et tl~is Cime. Ctielrman Herbdt noted that a Par~:entage waH not given in the new ordinuncA an~ that wact what wr~s wroctg with i.t. Un ro12 call, the Lore~oing rc~eolution Co ad~pt and recommend edoption of the ~ub~ecr. amandment to the Anahaim Muni.cipal. Cod~ fuiled by the tollowing vota: AYES: COl~IISSIONERS: .)UHNSON, FA1tANU~ GAUElt NOES: COMMISSIONBk:S: KTNG, MORL~Y~ TOI.AIt, HERRS'1 ABtiENT: C01~4dISSIONERS: NONE Commiaeioner Faram~ notad thnr.. cha propoRa'_ would h~+ve very llttle t!ffect on wl~at would happen in the C~nyon area aince t-niform'ly it would be diff:icult ku ]iv~ with it due to the shape of Che sereate una the canfiguration of the land; thAt the ability to average the setbucka woul.d prubably produce soma problema thnC '.3d nut been conceived yat; that he would like Co take thid opportunity to cantinue ttie proposed amendment untiZ the Rillside Zoning Ordinance waa presented or until xuch time as there waf~ a Hill.eide Zoning (h~e'rlay; that if Che parking eCandarde and tt~e hil2aide zanLng were considered togother. klie Commiesion could Probably see more rtearly what the implicationa would be and ulau tliis auggeation might ~fter an incentlv co comp2ete thQ Hilleide Zoning Ordinance more quickly; and thaC unlase the Co~ission could analyze what the efEect of aetbacka ~veraging would be~ he would nat vote for it. 'Thareupon, Commiesioner. Farano offered a motion, secoitded by Commie~,tAner Gauer, to poat- pone the aubject Code amendmont to be conaidered with t;ie Hillside 'Lotiing Urdinance when the Hillside Zoning Ordinance wae completed. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry aavieed the Commission that in the case of a poatpon~~ment, the matr~,. Would probably havs to go on to the City Council without a Planni.ng Cummlaston rec~~ .endation. Mr. McDaniel adviaed that the a~utter hbd been ~eferred to Csie Commiasi~n by the City Council ar.d the City Attorney's Office wu~: concerned that aince the Commission had not responded within ttie apecified ttme limit, the Gity Council might be required to take an action without a rec•.mnendation from the Planaing Comanission. Diacussion pursued, during wi~ich it -as pointed out that a~aint work session of the ~ity Courcil and Pl.anning Cummission :~ad been gcheduled for July 29, 1974, and that it might ba prop~r to get the Counctl's opinton with respect to contim~ing the matter at that ~ime. Thcreupon, Commissioner Farano withdrew his former moti.on to postpone the aub~ect matter and Commisston Gauer withdrew hia aecond. Commias~.oner Farano offered a n~w motion, seconded by Comwissioner King and MOTION CARRIED~ to continue the sub~ect Anaheim Miinicipal Code amendmenC to the meeting of August S, 1974. Commisaioxi~r FaranA then noted that further study shauld be directe~l toward tots instead of setback Eootsge, aspecially in the Canyon area. VARIAN~:3 N0. 2614 - CONTINiJ~D PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ROAD REAL'1'Y 6 DEVELOPMENT COMI'ANY, 101 Continental Boulevard, E1 Sagundo, Ca. 90245, Owner; AD-ART, INC.t 1715 64th Street, Emeryvi].le, Ca. 94608, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE'TWEEN ;'IGNS, (B) PERMITTED LQCATIdN OF A SIGN, AND (C) MA}IIMUM NUMBEit OF SIGNS, TO CON3TRUCT THREE FREESTANDING SIGNS on property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of ~and consisting of approximately 3.0 acres locroximatelh easterly of the Sanca Ana Freeway and West Street, having a froatage of app Y 656 feet on the eaet alde of West Street, having a mr~ximum depth of approximately 41G feet, and being located apFcoximately 32Q €eet south of the centerline of South Street. Property presently claseified M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. The public hearin~ on the aub~ect petition was poatponed from Che meeting of July 8, 1974 in order for the petitioner or liia rapreser.tative to be preaent. ~J ~ M'LNUTF,S~ (:~'CY YLANNINC COMMISS[ON~ .iuly 22~ 197A 74-346 VA~[,LANCI? NU, 2614 (ConCinued) It wae not~d Cliat the petitioner hnd indicatt~d tu Staff by telephone tliet due to eoroe cuntualan a~ ta wt~ich ~g~~C would utt~ncl end r~ypraeenG the petitionex, no one waN proeonC, and they were confaequenCly xequasting a contln~ianca r.o t.hd meeting of A~guet S~ 1974. Commieeioner Kin,g oft~.rud n motion~ ~~~conded by Commiseiuner N'urano and MOTIAN CARItIED~ tt~ut th~ public t-earing on Petltf.on Cor Variance No. 2614 be furthar paatponed to tha m~je~ting of Augu~t 5~ 1974 in urdox lhnt ttie petitioner ox hlo rapres~nCutivu could he preeento and Chat Stuff bc~ and hereby id dirc.cted to notify the petitloner that if no one wnR preaent to represnnt cho petiCioner at tho Auguet 5, 197k Planning Commi.esion maeting, Cl-Q matter would be tak~n off Che agenda. ENVIRONM~NTAI. IMPACT - I'UBLIC NrAR1NG. JOAN HERRY ~ C•,T AL, 10282 ~lcelcy Circle, REPORT N0. ~9 Hinl•ington Aeach, Ca. 92646~ Owners; WILLIAM H. MILLER, 9732 ~ ~ linzar.] Avarwe, Sa~ntA Ana, Ca. 42703~ Agent ; requesting thaC RECLASSiFICATT.ON properL•y deacrib~:d as: A rectangularly-ahapod parcel of land N4. 74-~75-1 onsiating of appruximatell~ 4.3 acrea loca ted at tl~c~ southwest curnar of Creacent and MAgnol.ia Avenues~ Yiav~.ng approxi.mate trontagee of 620 feeC on the eouth side of Cx'escent Avenue und 306 feet: on tt~e WP_AC Ai.de of Magnoll~ Avenue be reclaseified fr.om thn R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZUNE to the C-t (GENGRAL CUD4IERCIAL) Z,ONE. Commiseioner Fr~ra.ao q~ ~astioned the LIR tio. 99 ~eing etill in compliance with relationship to the new proposoi Eor development of tha sub~ect property and indlcated, in his opinion~ that esid ~IR at-ould ba reconetdered by Che Planning Commiseion. Aasiskant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti advised that some of the reasono f.or denial of tlie previoue app.lication concerning a 20-fuot buffer, G-foot wa11, etc., were now being pr~posed; and that the ~IR was ~ ine monthe old. Deputy Ci.ty Attorney Frank 1.owry advi.sed that an additionAl review of the EIR would be the prErogative of the Conmiiaeion, hawever, the r~asons for reconeideration might be moot. 'i'hree peraons tnd icatad their preaence in oppoaitivn to subject p~ tition. Mise Santalahti r ead the SCaf.f Report to the Planning Comn-l~aion d ated July 22, 1974, and said Staff Report ie re£err.ed to as if aet forth in full in the minites. Mr, W liam H. Miller, r~gent for the property o~aner, appeared before the Cormaission ai:d read om a prepared stAtement, .lndicating that Che peti~tioner was propusing to canetruct a neighborhood shopping center on th~, sauthwest corner of Magnolia and Creacent Avenucs; that the center wauld reflect ; Spanish motif and would be canstr. ucted of quality block and til~; that a variety of landscaping, includi.ng trePs, ahruba and flowering planta, would be provided; thaC tt~ey would also provide bike racks, e::tra-wide parl:ing stalls, and other amenities to please the eya and the public; that the tenant s would include Alpba Beta Market and various shops and services; and that they felk certain that the majority of the peuple in the area wuuld be proud to have the propoaed cetiter in their neighborhood. Mr. Mill.er addressed himeelf to the reasons outlined i.t~ the Staff Report for denial of Reclasaificntion No. 7J--74-20 and presented sxhibits to demonstra xe hia points. In re- buttal to "(a) The propoeal is not in conformance with Che land usa deaignation oi tt.~ General Plan," he preaented Exhibit 1, being a copy of the Anahe~m Genernl Plan and st.ated Chat the aub~ect property was designated for me~ium densit} and that the parcel w:,s oriented to Magnolia Avenue; tt~at the official map oE Anaheim dpsignated Magnoli.a Avenue as a ma~or highway and Creacent Avenue as a e~condary; that on ti-ze narth side of Creacent the General Plan indicated the Peter Marshall Schoal, ot~ the northeasC corner 1ow density was i.ndicated, and commercial was t<<dicated on the southeast corrzer; that the sub~ect property wae located in Planuin~ Area "A" of the Anaheim General Plan, and tn ttia't Plan- nin,g Area most of the vacant, large land parcels suitable. for conom~rcial ~iae had been developed; that there was a need for certain comm~rcial development in the older and mature co~ounities; that the purpoae of the G~noral Plan Was to serve ae a guidelin~, and teasonable modi£ications of thaL Plan had bean made in the paet to serve the n~ede of the comwunity; and that the subj~ct requeat for a chas~ge in the GeneYal Plan was proper an~ not unreasonable. ~ • MiNU'fl:S~ CITY P(.ANNIN(; CQMId1.SSi0N. Jul.y 22~ 1974 ENViROI~MENTAL IMPACT R~PUK'L' N0. 99 AN[; RECI,ASSIE~I_CA'1'TON N0.__. 75-1 (Conttnued) 1t~-347 Ln ragurd to renHOn f.or Jeni:~l. "fb) Petttionor dict noc damonetrate thut the hlghest and buat uee+ of the propart:y wAe fur comnercial devolopment nt thie lo.:ar.ion," Mr. Mi.il.ar el•at:ed Ch+~t Co de~termf.nc tlia highest nnd be~t use uf nny pro~~erty would require +~n evaluu- tion trum eevoral aapc~cte and aconomlce woul.d be an importnnr. conaiderntlon; that th~ trade area xs cunc~rned tlie sul~,~csct property Eell. within u ono-mile radius of tt-e propo~ed aite; that withia th~ Nub~rct nrea there wna n p~pulatiun of upproximately G0,000 aK d~plctod on Exhi'r-~[ 1.9; tlint the noighborhood trnde nrea wae wvll defined; ehat Chores wnc~ a commcrclal etrl.p center dir~.ctly ncrosA t:hA ~treel from Che prop~~sed ei.te on the oouG1~- eu~t curner of Mngnoli~ und (:rcecent whicl- hr~d a llquoc~ Atore and da11 snd did not m~et ch~ neede of Che ncighborlicod ~nd therw hnd been nuroeroue complninta that Chat etore wns too amall ~nd tou high-priced and there were several. lettere Ln the City Elles to eripporL tlial• dtatement; thnC there wr.re many peopla living in the Coannona ApartmentH, khe Vi.vu Apartmonts, and in tha Cer~n tiermosa Trailar Park wrh~ aniet wnik to *_lie storE~ to buy food and e amall liquor store was inadequutn to ser.ve :heir neede and tl~al cc~nter had ele~en etoras wi.th one vac~ncy; Ct~ut north of khe eub~ect property on Che southeuet corner of M~gn~l:la and Lc- Palm~ wa,, ~ bmnll aupermar.ket and fifteen other etores wiCh no vacanci.es; that the cloaesC nefgt~borhood mnrket wag a free-sCanciing Stater Br.others with no ea[ellite eCor.en, which was loc~ated .7 mile from the sub~ect property c.n tita Auutheast corner of Magnolia and Iiroadway and ad~ucent to Maxw~ll Clementary School; thret directly ur_roae the street from Stater liroll~era wuc~ the Bioadway-Magnolia Centar whict~ had eighteen atores rsnd no vncancy, eaid centar being next door to the achool; that une mile northeast of the sub~ect prcperty wxa ~ free-vtr~nding Smith's Food Mnrket aiid 'Ptiritty Drug Storw on th~ corner of Dale Stree~ nnd Lu Palma Avenue; r,hat one ar-d one-hal.f miles AoutheasC of the subject prop~.rty ~n 1,incuLn Avhnue wae a Gemco atore which wae for the patronage ~f inembers only; ttiaC there wert approxim.~tely 6,000 people .Living wichin a one-heJ.f mile radiua uf the ~ubj ect property who c~uld efi~ily walk to the propu«ed mark~t; thnt there were difie- rent age and income groups within the trade areA r~nd .3 mile easr of the site was the Cnsx Hermora TYailer Park nnci m~ny of those rPaidenta 1J.~red on fixed incomes and ind:icrated they were ;-r.xi.~us for the proposed cenCc:r Lo be conatructed; that he had also conl•acted the residE~r~ts iii the C~uunons Apartments Atld they w.,nted the proposed market because of the high pLtc.:a they must pay in thP small neighborhuod stores; thnt the residente of the V'_va Apartments that he liacl rontacted indicated they would welcome a ma~or food market; that the H~snaver Street area ~outh ~f Crescent appeared to be an abov~-average neighborhood of busine s s~nd profegsiunala, or a higher inr_ome group; that the balance of thr_ homes in the trade a rea conKibted oE medium income and aparlments; thut within the one mi.le GrAde arca from Hu:~ton 3tre~C, west to Beach Boulevard, south to Orange Avenue and east tu Brookhurst Street, Statei• Qrothere was the only md,jor food ~u~rket that pai.d revenue to the City; thar. the F~ropo~ed centsr would generate n subetantial amount of r~:venue to the City and the A~sessoz~s Office had Qrojected the subject property'~ taxes at appr~•ximately $50,000 per year;. ~hat the ~: ~'izd ~f C'quriliza~ion had pro~ected apr'" '+<<rely $30,~00 per year in sales tax fr~m th~~ Alpra Reta t•~ar'~cet and a~proxim~:ti $35 ~r ttie halance of the center; that r.here wc~uld be add:t~ :.on.11 revenue for the Ci ir~iness licen~es and personal propecr ~+ tax; that tt,_ ~~r.opeeeut center wc '.~1 provide ~tely 54 percr,anent ,~obs and 30 pai t-tim~~ ,obe; that cne e:.c tmated re~ ~•'^• for a'.0-, ~_ ~,zriod from proper~y and sales taxea would be aver 42 mi.~.l;.on and ~here •.~~ no other compatible use that would produce t'+~at much reven„e i o,. Ch ~ity, in nis judgment; and that there were other benefits to demotistrnte the liighesi. ~.~u bes*_ use, such as £uel conser.vation, b~tter food deiivery syatem. and nu negative i~-pact on the environment. That r egarding reason tar dec~ial "(ci Petitioner, by his own admiseion, s~cated thar this would be a difficui* p~~:~el to develop .`or commercial purpuses," Mr. Miller atated he was not sure thar was a ve.lid re~son for re~tcting a good pro~ect simply because the developer stnted he lla:1 a difficulC ~oU; and that he was not surpri9~d if he had said that bacause it was diffic~ilt to develop C-1, R-3, or any oCher letCer in the zoning alphabe~. That r egard~ng reason for denial "(d) Fetitione~ did not submit evidence that a iand use change had occurred to warrant favorable considernCinn of commercial use for medium deasity reaide~ntial land use as depicted on the General Pla~," ~lr. Miller atated a land use change had occurred because the neighborhood had matured an.! there wae a high~r density of popula- tion with a grea[~r demand for food and aervicee; and that ~her~ was a proviaion ir: the Gener al Plan to make al.lowances for changes in land uae. ~ ~ MTNU'l'[:S, CI7"f I'LANNLNG CUhtA1LSSI0N, July 2'L, 1974 ENVLRO HI'~t 1MYA,~',T RBYpRT N0~ 9~ANn R~CLASSiF'ICATiUN NA__7!+-75-1 (Conlt~iued) 74-3G8 Thi~t: rugnxding rura~~on for donial "(a) Commf~eaion ia the pnnt hod requ.tred a 2Q-fooC land~ Kc.up~d ecro~r~ i.mmedi.ntel.y nd~uc~nt ho gingl.e-family reeldontiul ~see, ae well as nn alley boCwe~n r.ummerclul ~nd reeldt+ntial usea~ whera~r~ petitinnor wae praposing loading and unluuding duc:kes tn c1uNa pr~ximity tu eingle-fuaolly reeidentiul lund uass, thet'aby ~1~erroy- ing the uye uf t.hr. r.oar yuroe tor outdoor activiCloe fc~r thena ein~le-family homea," Mr. MiU.ar etnt~~d thnt whan l•he eite pl.an was submitted to the Stnff l•he 20-foot secback r~qulromerlC ~+i~H ovar.loolc~d ond eince thot ti.me Che 20-f~ot e~tbnck t~nd been in~l.uded and the plo-~ would n~•t i.nterfare with the rear y~rJa of ti~e N-1 in question becauae tt~e pro- ppeod well wuu1~1 be located where th~s existing wall preacntly etoad; thnt th~ wa11 would have nu Offect on ttie renr yurde of. the tliree eingle-fumlly dwellinge thal would be af.[QCted; that C1io R^1 would be buffered fxo~n tho canter by n 10-£oot wall as recommended by EIR No. 99 tt~at had been previounl.y cer.lifieJ hy the City Council, and the 20-fuot aetbuck ae r~cotianunded by the Nlnnning Coma-ieei.on; thnt Che R-3 propertles eouth of ~he ~ub,~ecl prnparty would be protected by a 6-foot well and a:~w of trees; that all of the exieCing Cc~da etandurde had been mat se rcqulrc+d by the local. urdi.nancP dictating Che relationship batween R-3 and commercinl developmei-t; thaC the nir-conditioning uniCa for the markel would be designed and insulated Ca rAduce noise to enCisfy Clie requiremente of the Sound QrdinancQ, and the Alpha Beta Merlcet had agreed to mnk~ only one nighC delivery in a 24-;~our pesrlod; tliat ~ccording to Ct~e comparable aound etudies he had rsad, the maxi.mum euhauct dBA fram a typical Alpha DeLa daeael triick waN 75 dBA st full throttle, and 65 dBA at Che idle; that it took only three-fourths of a minute to park a truck; that it appeare3 tha c~ntire burden of eo~ind pollution should t~ot ba placed upon the developer c~nd Lhere were other uroas that plunners should direct eome of their influeace anc] the truck manufacCurinq buei~ne~a c:ould be improvad in that reapect; and that the devetoper Felt they wcsre in complictz~ce witn the Sound Ordinance becauBe the,y were not producing Any ;~~~ •', that w~uld Ue radiated for extended p~riods. Mr. Miller continued by atati.ng thut he had a petition in favor of the proposal and the reaidenta had indica~ted they dia no4 object to a 10-f~ot wull and did r.ot ob~ecC to hav:ing a shopping center next door; tl~at Mr. Tracy Brogan, wt:a lived at 2649 Stockton, had indicated he woulc~ aend a letrer to the Commiasion in favor. af the pro;Ject; that he had n ahort note froaiDtrs. Winddust who lived at 2648 Stocktnu which atated her .ipproval of the ahopping center and the fact that she lived on Che pc.~;~Frty line; that a~i~p had Ueer~ prepared uf the affected area ~hat coincided with the petiti~n. Mr. M~ller presented the map whicli wae color-coded to incilcate Cheir responsea and stated th:.t they ha3 contacCed 502 unit.s from which 37R contacta were actually made and 319 indi.cated "yes," 45 indicated "n~," 13 w~re undecided and the remaining 12k were not in; that the oppoeition had accused Che developera of fraud becauae they were able to obtain approximately k00 aignatures in about fi~e or six days of work, and the oppoaition had be~n accumulating their signatures for the past eix or seven month~; that the map and pe[itions ahould add to the credibility of the project; that the opposition had taken signatures from anyone who waA willi.ng to sign including people from Fo~entain Valley, Garden Grove, Buena Park, rullerton and liemet and that result was not surprising when it wae re~lized that the majority of the signa- tures were obtained from the wall of the local liquor store. That regarding reason for denial "(f) The reclassification o£ sub'~a ~~r.operty, tsnd the progosed use~ would create a health and ~afety hazard to the entir~~ srea, parCicularly to children who would have to pass l•his facility Co and from school," Mr. Miller stated an in-depth st~dy had been made of variovs achool~ in Anaheim and neighboring coffinunities and it was discovered thaC cou+mercial areas and ac}iools were c~mpatible; thst they had been compatible in the paet mnd could continue to be in the fucure; that m~st schools were ortented on mu~ar highwayR and secondary streets neAr high concentrati.ons of people, which was neceosary aince act~ools depended ~n children Co support them and commerci..:. was neces- sary to eupport tha needs of the people, being a normal and p' ~a.l. relationBhip; that some of the schools Chey had visited were located near railra ~'ks, hospitals, and heavy industrinl concentrations as well as c.ommerci~l areas~ .. . Miller pr~sented phot.ographs to show ~he relationslJ.p to schools in thase araae. He atated that children lived w±th commercial on a dai.ly b~ais in the Magnolia School Uistrict and L•hroughout the City of Anaheim~ tt,nt through atudies of the trsffic, there was no need for niast of the c:hildren attending Peter Ma.rshall Schuol to cross the street, and that only th~ approxi mately 75 children who lived in the Common5 Apartmente would have to walk past the shopping center. ~ ~ MINI-TF:S ~ CI'CY PLANNLNC CUMMT.S5ION, July 22, 1974 7G-349 BNVIRONMENTAI,,_IMPA~T R~POR'1 NO^_~~ A1dU RFCLASSIFICA'~LU._~10. 7~-7,5 1 (CanCinuedl Thc~t rngnrdi.ng reaeon £or denial "(g) Tt-e Traf.flc i:ngf.neaY• estlmeted an incrasse of from G~000 Co S~OUQ vnhiclas ner day at Cl-i.e interaecGion if th~ pr.~poaed commercinl uee were e,etnbliehed," Mr.. M111er etatad the 'IrafEic Grigineer tiari adviec~l him thAt he did n~t give tt~e estimete of 4~000 to 5~000 vehicles per duy einca he would have no practical way of m~king Chat duterminaCian unla~~ t~~s dld epecimen studiea nnd Huxvr~ys; that the developer. had angagad the wArvicee ~£ Harman l;lmmel 6 nesociates uf Newport Beacl~ to do the traffic e.ngineeri~g etudy, who dieagreed with ~hc~ 4,000 to 5.QQ0 eotimate~ and thair report indicated nr~ incraaae nf 3~200 v~hiclea per day coald Un expeckecl; that the Traffic Departmnnt had adviead tham that the additionul load could bf- handled by the prasenC etreet eyscem w1Ch no problewca and that the City Counci]. had certified BIR No. 99 which projacted an increaee of. 3,200 vehicles per day. Dr. Sol Teitelbaut~~ 511 Haiiover Street, appeared before the Commir~sion in opposition to eubje4t poCition und sta;.~d he had nn ec.unomic interest in the sub~ect property; tt~at Che people in hib ~rea had beQn pr.eeent uc tlie previoua h~arin$s on the subjec:t development and ttiot they could not conl:inue t~~ fill tl~e room eince ir we~ hnrd for them to be awt~y from Cheir liomes und ,Jabs contir-ua11y; that he had cunducted a eurvey of 60 people in the Viva Aparr.m~anCs und 58 were oppaeed and 2 wE~re noncommittal; and he would not agree that the surv3y taken from Cha liquor etore was invalid. Mr. John Pee~k, 2625 BaYlor, nppeared befure the Commission in oppoaiCiun to aub~ect petiCian gnd diecussed the projected noioe from tfie propoc~ed deve!.upment and how that related tu l-he Cude provision; and etated that the pLOpoaal would set a precedent that would di.recCly nffect every citizen J.n the City; that it appeared the effeTt~ j~~~hWhiclehe wae les~ if ~ pereon could not see the ~ource, and a high wsll was beinA p P uncleratood waa the reaeon for the rehearing; that if a barrier was ueed, it ehould be 2 feet higher than tlie exhauet stacke on the truck; Chat regarding tlte property being diffi- cult to develop, that wxs x Crue eCatemer.t since development of Che nature proposPd did not belong aC the subiect locati.on, adjacent to the achooly and R-1 and high-density R-3 devel~pment; and that the City was b fine place to live and with continued good guidance ie could only improve. Mios 5antalahti r.ead a letter of opposition oubmitted by Mrs. Joyce Schweppe (no address was inciicat ~d) . Mr. hndrew Fox, 2244 Lincoln, appeared before the Commisalon and stated he represented the School Dietrict and was present to expreas the position of the Distr.ict that they were opposed to the. pxopoRed development on the basia of the safety of the children. In rebuttal~ Mr. Miller etated that the naise levele could be reduaed; that not much could be done as far ue the oound coming from the trucks, however, they would have only one nlght delivery and, if need be, the Crucks c.ould back in fro,n the aCreet for that delivery to f.urther remove the trucks f.rom the homes and apartments; and th3t wiCh the propoaed wa1L, Chere ahould not be any problema regarding noise. THE PUBLIG H~ARING WAS CLUSED. In xesponse tu queat~oning by Commissioner King, Mr. Miller stated the pet•ltion included the signatures of the parenta of the children who would pass the ahoppin~ cent~sr, but those aignatures were not separ~ted from others wha signed~ the petition In respons~ to questioning by Cop¢nibaioner Farano, Mr. M~ller indicated the grade ~f the ramp leading to the loadin~ area was 109.' and that the suChoritie~ ha~ indicated Chat a dieael truck on thaC grade would emit a maximum of 75 dBA. Chairmsn Herbet nGted thet the California State Law permitted 88 dBAa at 50 feet for a diesel truck~ however, he wao concerned about the loadi.ng and unloading at the rear of the atore qext to the R~1 repi3ences; L•hat there would be smog emitted and also noiaP; and that the stacks on the d:esel l•rucks were approximatel.y 12 feet high and a 10-faor fence would give inadequate protection. Mr.. I~[i~ler ataCsd that thc~ noise would travel in an upward direction. Commissioner Morley noted thaC during the day there would be b~tween 20 and 3C gasoline riga making del.iveries of eoda, meat, bread, etc., and he que~st~.oned the operating houra of the market. ~ ~ MINUTES~ C1TX YLANNIN4 CUMMI.SSI(~N. July 22~ .1974 7G-35U ENVIRONMI~_:NTAL i~MPAC7~[tFPUR'~'.~0._.~.,~.~ND~Gl.A55IFI.CATinI~NO.__74_.7~-1 (Gonti.nue~l) Mr. Mill.er etuted the eCOte would probaUl.y be np~~i ~~'~m :?.:00 naon to lO:OQ p.m. Commiseianur ~arano quuetlunod 1P the p~~tiCioner l~nd a 1L~t ~r yuesli.ane asked i~ ordei to aecartain lf the pyCition waN a va11.d onN~ Rnd Mr. Millcr titated evaryono was nware uf the noiae. etc. ~ end tt~er~ wao a 1c~C of diecueslon with the peoplo regurdlnR ~:he v,~rioucs aepectH of tho propos~l. In response to yucetloning by (;haironan Horbst~ Mr. Millar ~Cated tu+ did not reprosant th~ AJ.pha Bata Mark~~t~ but the dav~ilopc~r; nnd thut although he: coulct ao~ reg~ulata the hoursr that could probably be arcaaged. Cammisei~ner J~I•~nean noted for the opl~~nent~ thnt the Cva~mi.:+sion woul.d certxi~ ly ~,reigh the oppoeitiun; thaC if Chcs reNid,~rits to thr~ rear. oi the subjuct p:operty had si~nr_d tha peti.tion far the pzop~Agl~ thac: wouid mean a gre,a[ denl. Commieaioner Fnrana took axcv:pt..lon to thc~ validl.ty of the potl.Cion provided by th~~ deval- opar and etated Chnt he cl1i, nor: lielieve fl aux~vey waA valid un'_sea r.~eres wpa pr.oof that trie in£urmation hud bean usslmileted nn~ diac.us,~ed wi.th the peapl? snawering Ct-e~ qusetione; thst he did not knaw if the petit:lanex hnd ,i.acuased kh~: fact that a di.Qael would be ,;limbing a lOX grnde and thc~ en~inr. wou].d be operating nt npproximt~tely 2"00 rpms; ttiut he waa n~t nece~Reerily queHtianing '.he i.ntegxl.~:y of the peCitlonex buC s wauld Jnut like to know wh~-t q~tc~ati~n:~ were nslced s~nce he cou.ld nat projecG Co whaC degree the peopl.e had been informed, and that hi.r~ c.onccrn ~~ould apply t~ c~ny Eiuxvey. CommiRa.ianer. k'arnno ex- plained thut if` a qu~e~tian had been af~~:~1 ''W~uld yoa like an Al.pha Betu MnrkFC convenisnt to you a-~d wi.Chin walki.ng dietuncc," r~ pc:raon n~.ight: have answexcd "yas" to thxt quaetion. Mr.. rtiller aCated that ha had contacted the City At~orney'A Affice a^~' wa~ infcrmed there w~re no set rulea for per_itione nd they had trled to make tt~e petLti~ as ~.rediblc at posaible; however~ if che rules wer.e impor.Cant for hi.r~ p~titton, tben the snme ehould be applied to Ch~t of the opposition; nud that Che people Were aware ot `he prupos~tl. and some of them were in favor c~f it. Chairman Gauer noted thut t~:e developer had improved the application r: ehe exkent that he had put in the bu$f:er z~~ne, depr~e~aed the 1~ading aceA, and proposed construet~.on of a 10- foot wRll tu reducE. the na:.Fe I~rublem; that Chere was no question th2t Chis was a problem piece of property; thut i.f ctit. propert.y was d~•veloped reaidential rhere waul.d be a lut of foot and auLomabile traffic genc~rated; thAr to a certain extent~ the developer had tried to meet the criterii~ of the Plt~nning Cormo~iseiu:~, that it apper~red many wpr~ for tl~e proposFal and many wPre aguinat it; th~r c~ne point in favor, of the project wae that khere was no ~.arge gxocery eter.e in eht~ Br.t:~.; aad that there was a IoC in favox of what aaR being offer.ed. Commissioner Morley nuc~d ~hat he ~aas in favor of the pro~ect with the e:~~.~ption uf the loading area; ~fiat if the dc~veloper worked with Al.phr~ Beta, iC was quir.e ~>~~siUle that all night deliveries could b~ eliminated. Commiasianer King nated tli~t pr.lor ~o any c.<~nsideration for t.he project, t~ e clev~loper should nbtain a lett~r from the three p~apertieo wh;.c}~ 3butted it to Che wegt, iudicating that th~y ~+oulc3 n~:t obj~c:ct to Ch~ wail ~r ~the Crucks on the grade• Chair.~an Herb~t no~E:d thcit the Commiasion would probsbly nat be able to restrict the houre of. operatton or. the night deliveries, and thereupon, Mr. I.~'~aY'y advised ;.'~at the l~etitioner ;;u~+ i.n3lcated i e had ~~o author~ty or~ behalf: ~of l~I.pha Beta Hnh a1s~ the C~de did not provi3e for Lt~e restric:j::~ of hour3 under n re.cl~.ssificutton; however, i€ ic was the Commission's desire~ u lecter could 1>e acquired by the pet:ttioner from ,-.he appzopriate carporate off•ices of the Al~ha 6eta ~iarke~. In reply to questioning by Chutrmun Her.bst, Miss Santa~ahti 9~ivised thar cne parking requirements for the~ bar.k to ba conatruct~d an the sub~~c*. 1r.~re:rr" nad been taken into considerr~tian. ^ommiasioner King auestioned the inaJeq~acier~ of the trash atorage areas, and M~ss 5antalahti r~dvi~ed thst the Sanitation Divlsion tiad their requirements and that the mat~er woul.d have to be r~solved Chrou~h tt~at division in connection with b~iilding permiCs which would have to be issued. ~J ~1 MfNU'f~5~ CITY t'LANNING COh~1TS9I~N~ July 2'L~ 1974 CNVIRQNMENTAL_IMPACT REPQRT N0. 99 ANA RKCI.A9SiFTCATION N0. 74-75-1 (Continued) 7G- 351. Gommiehionur Tolur noted thar. the patiCione filed by tlie oppoeiti~~n und tlie d~val.oper. did iiut agree; thnt tha oppoeition had indicated 60 people were contacted from the Viva AparC- n~enCN~ and S8 wera c-oC in favor snd 2 wero undacidad; howaver, according to the petiti~n filad by Chc+ devalupar, 80X of thoc~e people wor~ in favor, ntc. Mr. Peek the~~ eCated that was the ptimary reaeon h~ hnd concetned I~imealf; that lf tt~Pra wero 80X in favor of the pro~ect, he woul.d ~_hnllenge t}~c~ c:ircumetuncae; an:l thut thE no1eQ wae of gregt concarn einc~ the 10-Fuot wall would not etop the noise; and tt~ek l•he rntionale wne very renl. Commis~ioner Farano notect ~hat he would apeak atx'onRly againet the propaeal; thut Che ai.r hrakea of thr_ diesel. trucks werc~ al~noet c-s dieturbing ae the acceleratian of the motor of the diosol ~quipment; that the air••conditioning was propoaed to be acountRd on the raof.; thnt there would be people tryii~g to sleep in the daytime ae well ea at nighC; that perhape a variance ohou.id be requestQd Co nllow the matket to be cloeer to r.he street; that if tha pr.opert~~~ras d~velopad R-3~ there wauld be a lo~ oE automobi.le traffic ganerated, however, khnt tyF~a diaturbance wrse diffarent fr.om truck traff_ir_; that with the propoeal there would be an echo ctiamber next to the r~Ai~ienti.al property; and that dependin~ upon the size of the trucka and the nature af the dell.vecies, Che unloading could be oxtremely n~iey. Commiss:.~'~n9r Mo~~ley noted that the market would pr~bably be supplied 70X by tlioir own equipment; and that incidentale~ aucli ao beer, soda, etc., would ba dellve~ed by 1~-Con trucke. In reapor~ae Co questioning by Commiasioner Farana, Mc. Millar stated tlie Crucks would drive do-~an the ramp to a common loadi~;; srea. Commissioner King inquired if the pelitioner. had consideced putting the r~mp on the east side of the b~itlding raCher than tl~e weat side, and Mr. Millar stated that that would create some problem because t.he ramp would then be in front ot tha etote. Cl~airman Herbst noted that it appeared further informati~n wqe needed; that Che Commiesion was requesting leCters from the ad,jsr.ent reaidenta to the west and thd officers of ttie Alpha I3eta M~rket, and it would not be his desire to send the ?roposal to the City Council without those docu~.2nts in any event; that, in hie apinion, the propoeql had come a long wa~ and some of the amenitiea normally r~qu~stad hacl been added; thut he would want to know if tihe people really were in fav~r of the pro~ect and were aware of the dieael trucks and the 75 dBA; that with the addition~l information he might favor the pro~ect more; that an R-3 development on the sub~ect propetty might genernte m~re traffic; und thrst there w~re proa and cons regarding the proposal., however, the property must be able to deveJ.op in some manner. Counnissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Co~iasioner King and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the public hearin ind continue con~iderar.ion of Petition for Reclaesiffcation No. '14-75-1 to the meeting oi Auguet 19, 1974. RE;CESS - Chairman Herbet declared a recess at 4:05 p.~n. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened Chc m~eting aC 4:15 p.~•, with all Cou~isaionera presenC. ~ ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNINC COI~4~1I35IUN~ .iuly ~2~ 1974 74-352 VARIANCE N0. 261f1 •- PU~ILIC IiF.ARTNC. DUHN PRUPL+ltTI~S CORY. ~ 2009 F.aet Bdinger Avenue, Santa Ana~ Cn. 92%02~ Owner; RON BUit~r nc~n w. II. BURKB, 1833 South Str-t~ College Boulevard~ Anaheim, Ce. 92806~ Aqente; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTLD USE" TO CONSTRUCT A CQt~Q~1F•RCIAL OF~ICE 9UILUING un property deecribod ae: A r~cC~ngularl.y-ehaped parc~l of land coneidling af approxim,~tely 1.04 acrAe~ Fiaving a frontage uf approximately ld3 fe~ot on the AouCh ei.de of KaCalla Avenue. having a maxi- ~mim depth of approximstely 250 ~eet, and being locatc~d approximately 445 fent west of thr centerlin~s of State Colloge 8oulaverd. Proper.ty pxes9ntly claeettled M-1 (LTGNT INDUSTRI.AL) 20NE. Cortuniqyloner King nc,CeJ ChaC he hnd a conflict of interaet ae defined by 1:he Mahcica Municipal Code Section 1.1.400 and Coveramant Code Sectian 3625, et seq.~ in that he owned etock in the Pacific Li.ghting Curpoxc-tion which was affiliated wiCh Dunn Pr.operties; that purauant to tha provisions af tha foregoing Gode, he was her.eby declaring to l•he Chairman that he wa~ wi.thdrawing from thc~ hearing in connec io~i with Varianca No. 2618 nnd ~ould not Cake part in either tt~e di_cu~sion or. kl~e votiY~g thereon; and tliet he had not diecussed the mattex with ac~y me.~uber of the Planni.ng CommiReiun. Thereupon, COMMISSIQNER KING LEFT THE MRCTIN'' A't 4:17 P.M. tio one i.ndicnted their presence in opposition Co aubjecC petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Cowniosion daC~d :July 22, 1974 was not tead at th~: public hearing, it ie referred to and made a part of Che minutes, Mr, W, Ii. (Bill) BurkQ, one af the agente for the propei'ty ownar, appeared bef.ore the Cammiseion and statod he wao also one of the dev~lopere wiCh the identi~ty of Fickwi.ck Ranchea; and tt~r~t he ~ras avai.l.;ible to answer queationr~ regarding the proposal. THE PUBLIC HRAItING WAS CLOSED. Chair.ma» llerbat noced thaC he would consider the aub~ect requeat as Kpot xoning for commer.:ial uses serving the genersl public; ;hat in ttie past the Commission had al.lowe.d comr~ercial usea r,rienterl to induatry and any coiranerci.al _~~rea~ion z~ning had been reverted to M-1; and that the undet•etanding wae the petitioner ~oas requeaeing a general range of commprcial uses. Mr. Burke s~ated th:+t thPy would be looking for accountr~nt~, architects, real estate brokera~ etc., but not far commercial tenanta as such; Chat any of the uses could be coneidered aligited witli the indu•4trial area; and that they were deairous of avoiding the handicap of comin4 to the P1a.nning Commisaicn wlth each potenCial tc:nant. Chairman Herbat noted t11at perhaps the petitioner had chosen the wrong area for the sub~ecl develupment; and l•haC motels, bank~, etc., ~ere permitted i.r~ the indtistrial zone. Mr. Burke ~tated that Pter 1 was located in the general area, and De~uty Ci~y Attorney Frank Lowry advised that Pier 1 was a noncociforming use that had been in existence for a long period of time. Mr. Burke then atated he underatood the nature of the area along Katella Avent~e wae intended to commercial-rer.reation and Chairman Herbst noted that since the time lhat the C-R zoning was considered, the City Attorney's Uffice had declar~d that mure than one zoning could not be placed on one propercy at; ~ne time; und that tie was concerned with the uses and not wiCh the proposed building. Mr. Burke then queationed how Che other properties in the ar.ea had been allowed to ~evel.op and the Co~amissi.on entered into diacuseion witti Statf regarding other. siwilar develop- atents and the manner in which they were appraved, durir-g which Mr. Surke indic~ted th~t he would r.ot be opgosed to submitting a liat ~f potential uaea and he atated the proposed development would hav~ much landscaping and ample parkictg, but not for commercial uc~es. Chairmsin Herbst made an observation that the subject brea might need to be luoked at for what was Ltxere now and for what it might be in the future, gince the propei'ty had been t~nder the ~nfluencE of the C-k zoning for s Iong per.iod of time. In response to inquiry by the Planniag Commisaion, Zoning S~iFervisor Charles Rob~rts advised tt~at there was po~sibly another petiLi.on Khat ~aas ati? i ar,tive in the area k~hich had been appr.oved subject to certain »aea being allowed and, ther~:upon, the Commisaion delayed any furCher diacueaion to all.ow ~taff an apportunity to r_11PC~C the filc~s and rer.urn wiLt informatio;l £or the Commiesic~n. ~ ~ MIIvUTn5~ (,L'fY Pi,ANNi.tr't% C~N1~IISSIUN~ Ju1y 22~ 141G 74-:353 VAftYANCL' NO. 2b18 iConr.inued} (Tha Coauniesion ~sroco~dad at thia point in the meoting tn t~old the public haaring on Variance 26'21 ecee furthsr. on in tiia minutes.) Mr, RobarCe roturnud to the meating ond noted for the Cunwisaion that Varisnca No. 2G6G filad by the Kinly Corporation in Che goneral. vicitilty of ttis subJect property~ norlh of the Rnaheim SCadium~ hnd ceyuedted waiver of. Chn pertni.tted ueea in Che M-1 Zona to estab- lieh ~wo~ two-eta~Y of.fica/profesaionnl buildinga; tt~at duxi.ng that public heax'1.ng Xhere was discueaion regarding usee and the peCitlonc+r had etipulaled Chat Che rental officee would not generally be made nvai.lable to pt~yeisiand and dentiste due to the location. Mr. Burke presdnted un c~xl~ibiC ind•icating the l.ocation of. other usue in thQ area including Che Radio Shnck, the Fnbric Wnrehouac, end thQ Lincoln Marcury danlerahip that wae presently under. conaCruction with drivewaye on KaCella Avenue, and etated thc~re were 88 acr~a surrounding the auU~ect property thar. were openly advertiesd for sale a~ commercial xt $100,000 per acre; that, in hia oplnion, if s~meone came in with a eCrong commercial development rsquir.i.ng a vnri.ance, it would and should be granted; and that !f a highly- commercinl use was proposect Eor khat adjacec-t pzoperty, it would be ideal. Mr. auxke ac:aked he. would b~ happy Co atipulata tu the excluairn of physici.ans and dentleCs 1a outlined in Variance No. 2466, howevei•, ho was not suYe what he aauld be omitting and ha mighC be pr~~udi.cing his case in thnt ev~nt. Ch~irman Herbet then noted thut the petitioner could always come bQfore the Cammiseion for a clarifi.catLon to see if a use was within the lntent of the approved usea; and thaC the intent of the City was Co bring the commerctal t~ses bflek dowc~town and there might be a litCle more resietance in that respect tha~ would have baen experienced i.n the past. Mr. B~irlce atated they would like to have the vxXiance granted and ti.ed to the plans an aubmilted, with parking only for office uae and noC for retail uae. Commisnioner Farano noted that alxhough the sub~ect property was zune~ M-1, the General Plan. projected it for commercial-recreat•ion uses; that the sub~ect property aas n.ot solidl.y M-1 and it appeared that similar requests tiad been approved; and that if the Kiely property was onl.y reatricted concerning pr.yslcians and dentists, then iC was doubtful that the Cammisaion could hold the petitioner to more than that; ~nd that the original C-R parcels had been conaidezed on their own merit. Mr. Rober[s noted that wlth the C-R zoning, the properties had a choice of being either commercial or recreational, and in that fashion there would be a lot of incompatible uses. Mr. Burke atated it. seemed tt,at the request for a general o£fice building thx'c.ugh a variance was probably noC inappropriate under the circumstances and that later on in time ehere would be no quesCion as to wheCher it would be appropriate. Ch~irmat~ Hsrbst requested to raview the uees l•lated in the Dunn Propertiea appli.cation under Conditional Use Permit N~. 1427, which included reataurants, a bank, and an office buil.ding, etc.. and following some discuss~.on of the matter, :.t was generally felt that the sub,ject proposal was more in line with the Dunn Properta_ea dc:velopment, and Mr. Burkc sCipulaCed that the rental officea would not generally be r~ade available to phyaician~3 and den[iats due to the locatiun And due ta the increased numbe~r of parking apaces that wauld be needed. Couunisaioner Gaver noted that in the near f~iture, the Commisaian would probably be r.e- quesCed by the Community Redevelopment Coamiiasion not to grant any additional epot zaning in the City, and Commisaioner rarano indicated that t£ thia wsre true, the matter eh~~uld be made public. Cnmmissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Co~omissioner Morley and MOTIOr CARRIED (Cocmissioner King being absent), that tt~e Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that thP aub~ect property be exempt from the requirement to pr.epare an Envir~n- menttsl Impac;r Report purauant to the provisi~ns of Che California Environmental Quality Act. Cauunisaioner ~'arano o£fered Kesolution No. PC74-151 and moved for its passage and adoptiurl Co grant Petition for Variance No. 2618, on the hasis that aim~.l.ar waivera have been gr~nCed in the pasz an~ such uaea have not been detrimpntal. to :h~ eurrounding in~'ustrial land usea; provid~d, however, that the uses shall be reviewed atid approved (see Condition ~ ~ ~ MLNUTFF, CI'PY YLANNING COMMISSIQi~~ Jul.y 22, 1974 VAkIANC~ N0, 2618 (Cantinued) 74-:354 No. 18 af reeolution of appravul of Coiiditional lise Parmit~. No. 1427); and thaC the petitione+r aeipulntud the-t renCal ufficas would not generally be mad~ avHilable to phyeicinnA and dentinta dua ta the locntion aii~ tha irtcre+aaed iiumber af perki.ng ~pucoa that would be n~~~~ded; and eubJ~ct to canditione. (Soo RaeoluCion Book) pn roll call~ r}~~~ focogoing resolution wna paoaPd by the followi.ng vota: AYL:S ; COPUdtSSIONERS : FARANO ~ JQHN50N, MORI~GY , 1'OLAR ~ HEkBST NJES: COt4tI.SSIO:J~RS: GAUk,Et ABSEN'I': COI~1~SSi0NERS: KING VA1tIANCC N0. 2521 - PUBLIC HEAtIING. CRUZ A1VD MAD~LINE VARCAS, 1839 Mountein View~ Anat~sim, Ca. 92802~ lT~mers; raquesting WAIVF.R 0~ (A) MINIMUM DRIVT:WAY WIT~TH, (I3) PEltMITTED UuES~ (C) MNXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT} (U) MINIMUM FRONT l'q1tD SETBACK, ANU ~E) MINIMUM SIDI~ YARD SETBACK~ TO FERMIT TkiE CONTINUEU USR OF AN L?XISTING '?'RUCK STORl1GE TL1tMINA1. AND TO CaNSTRUCT A COt4ICRCIAL OFFICE DUILDING on property described us: A rectangularlv-ehaped parcel of land coneisking of approximatc~ly 1.U acre llavi.np; a trontage of approximately 1.18 feet on the west ~ide of Mot~ntain View Av~nue, h~vinq a m.aximum depth of approxiniately 360 feet, and b~ing located approximately 420 feet~ soulh of the centerline of Katella Wey. Property preaenCly clasei.fied R-A (ACRICllLTURAL) ZONE. No one indicar.ed their predence in oppoaitior, Co sub~e:ct p~ticion. Altliough ttie Stsff Repott to th~ Planning Commiesion dAted July 22, 1974 wa8 not read at [he puUlic hF:aring, it is referred to and mc+da a part of the minutea. Mr. Carln~ ~argao. representing Che petitioner, appeared before the Commi.esion and etated they wauld li.ke to conatruct a truck atorage terminal and un office huildi.nR; and ~hat they were engaged in conetruction clean-up. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to que~:ioning by Chairman Horbst, Mr. Vargas atared the buainess belotiged to ;iis brather; that they had taken out a permit to d~emolish an exie[ing building and the CiCy had adviaed that a variance would be required for the ~onstruction of the new struc- ture; that they were proposing sn 8 to 10-foot wall all around the property with the bui.lding to be located toward the front; and that they would comply with thP Code. In reaponse to queationing ~y the Planning Commisaion, Mr. Vargas it~dicated he did have a City buainess licsnse; ehat the trncks would be 16 to 18-foot gasoline tsucks and a maximuu~ number of 10 trucka would be runni.ng moet of the time; that they owned all of the trucks; that none of the off.ice space would be rented out; that Chey would make mi.nor repairo to their equipment au~:h us tune-ups and maintenance but no major work. Mr. Everett Holmes. 14i32 Mountain View, r~ppeared before the Cammiesion and etated he had lived in the neighborhood of tite anbject property for many years and although he had no objection to the peti.tioner making a living at the subject property, ther~ was enough property involvel Chat they ahould nor. have to bac.k the Crucka in all the time; hut they could develop some other system for enterin3 ttie property. Mr. Vargas anawered Mr. Holmea' concerns in ti manner which appeared to saCisfy the appoaltion. The Planning Cowmission entered i.nto discuesion regarding the possibility tiiat the sub~ect properCy ml.ght revert to commercial in Che future and the need for the requested waivera in that event; Chat there was sone question what the petitioner intended for uae of so much parking area and for the amount of floor apace in Che proposed atructure; that if the plans were redrawn, it was poseible ttiat so many waivers would noC be needed; and ~t was expreased that the proposal aho~ild meet the C-]. site development akandards if and when that zoning became effective in che area, however, presently the petitioner could noc ,ji~stify the hardehip due to the amount of land inv~lved. A continuance of the maeter for six weeks was also discusaed. ~ ~ MINUTE5~ CIT`L PLANNINC COt4lJSSII)N, Jul.y 22~ 1974 7~~-355 VA1t.iA,~YI:E N0. I6.~.1 (Continu~rd} Chairman lle~rbee l.nyuited if the petiCioner Nhould npply for C-1 xon~ing on the eub~ect properCy and '!•~ning Supervl.6or Charlee Sober.ts e~d'vieod that 1.n the evunt the Planni.ng Commise.lon contlnued the mattar f.ot the eix••week period, ths petlt~oner cruld file the neceeeary additional petitic~n wt~ich would be appr~priate in lighl• ot tha ~:~~iesion'e diecueaion. Commiesioner Juhnson offarad a motion~ gaconded b; Commieeioner Farano an~ MOTION CARItTED (Comm~iseloner King being ~bsent), tr~ reopen the public l~earing end conr~r~ue coneiderskiori of Variance No. 2621 Co the meating af SeptQmber 4~ 1974. CU~~ISSI.ONER KTNG RE-ENTERFD THE ME~TING A7' S:20 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEAltING. HAROLD llUTLRR ~1TERPRISES N0. 137~ INC., 14256 Eaet PEItMIT N0, 1481 I'irestone Boulevard ~ La Mirada, Ca. 9063~i, Own~sr; W'f.LLIAM G. TAYI.dR, ' ~ 811 North Euclid Street~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92801, Agant: requeaCing permiesion for 'JN-SALE Bt?FR ANU WINF. IN AN E}tISTING RESTAURANT on property deacribed as: A rectangularly-ehaped pAresl of land consiating of approximately 0.58 acrc located aC the nortliweat corner oE Bucli.d Stxeet ~nd Glenoaks Avenue, having 3pp:oximute frontag~s ~f. L00 feet on the west eidp Qf Buclid StrQek and 277 Eeet on the nor.th si~e of Glenoaks Avenue. Prop~rty presenCly claeaified C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL} ZONE. No une indicated Cheir preaence in opposition to aub~ect petttion. AlthouLh the Staff Keport to the Plenning Commiesion datea July 22, 1974 was not raad at the publ.•lc hearing, it is refexred to and made a park of the minutes. Mr. William Taylor, l•he agent for tlie properCy owner, appeared before Ctie Commiesion and stated they were making mppllca.tion for beer and wine for an establialuner~t which ~ould be known se Taylor's RestauranC. THE FUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In responae to queattoning by Chairman HerbsC, ~'• Taylor stipulated that bear and wine would be sold only in con~unction with the sale of food. It was noted Chat the Director of Devel`eC~£o~"'3 01,eClasa leof~theeCityaof~Analeimosed activity fel], withirl the definition of Gui.delines to the Requirements for an ~uvironmental. Impact Report and wae, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to £:Lle an EIR. Commiasiuner Ktng offered Resolution No. PC74-152 snd moved for its passage and adoptiun to grant Petition for Co-lditi~nal Use Permit No. 1~:,1 sub~ect to conditiona. (See Resoluti.on Book) On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was yassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, l1ERBST NOES : COIyRtISSIONERS : NONE ABSENT: COI~iISSIONERS: NONE 17802 Sk Fark CONDITIOIJAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. RAPT COMPAI~'Y, c/o Penniman & Company, Y PERMTT N0. 1G82 Circle, 11203, Irvine, Ca. 92707, Owtt~er; kONALD G. CAMERON, 33~~ission Pacific Coast Highwzy, Malibil, Ca. 90265, Agent; re~ueeting p to ESTABLISH A PUBLTC SKILT.IIRIVING COURSE on property described as: An irregu:.arly-ehaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.75 acres locatad souChwest of ICatella Avenue nnd th~ Orange Freeway, having a frontagQ ~f approxitaately 95 feet on the south ai3e of Katella Avenue ac~d h+;ving a ma~~imum depth of approximaCely 800 feet. Pruperty presently claeaified M-1 (LIGE.I'C INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in oppooi.tian to arib~ect petitinn. Although the `"~aff Report e~ the Planning Commiesioa dated July 22, 1.974 wss not read at the pub]ic heartng, it ia referred to and made a par~ r~f the minutee. ~ u MCNUTfS, CITY PI.ANNINC CUMM[SSLON, .1uly 22, ~~7h CONULTIONA4 l1Sl?, ,'CRMIT N0._~f)2 (Gontli~uad) 74•-356 Zoning Supc~rviecr Ghac].oK koUer.e re:atad to Che Commi~aeion a convQrec+tion he had had wiCh the SCF1fE ut thi: Stadium ~~nd Convcsntion Center priar r.u tho m~eC~.np~ rognrding the eub~ect petlCion. und :n~icu*ad r.hut the ob~ect ~~C tho convereat'.on was Co dc+Cermine whather ther~ would be ri contil..lct b,tween Che propa~cd busineee end the oporatf~n uf Che Studium, and !n Mr. I,iog.ler's ~beunce, "tr. Vincent had lndicated baead upon tlic~ Lnfc~rmation provided thnC tFeir iniCinl renction r-ou?s i,^ to oppo~e the propo~al; hOWEVeY~ Mr, Vincent hnd requebted thnt Che mtitter ehould ba reviowed by Mr, Liegler upon I~.ls reeurn Co Che City. Mr. Ruse Penniman, representing ~he Rapt Company, thc pr.operty ~wner, eppeared before the Commiseiuc~ und etated Chey hud owned the property f.ar ten yoare; that Chc~y hed anticipnted and tried Cu develvp it under n varitty of plana but had been detained d~ie to the freewuy; that they w~re requeeting ~ conditional use permit to be xllowed the proposed use. Mr. Penniman tnad~ a el.ide presentntion et~owing Che lsyout af the properCy anci the location to the freeway, kha Stadi~im~ atc „ and &tated that the property was incapaul~Ced by tha freeway und the S~adium. I~e continued by stating that they had talked to aome uf tha property owr~ere in Che Area aho wer.e in favor of it; th~t they nad a problem in rhat tl~e State owned four of the r_en Acrea xnd there wao no frontage, hawaver, they were the anly peraons wlio could p~.trchase that land from the State; thAtrove ittasepro~oae:cly W~~t~.ld not be devsloped as a fragmented use if the City felt fit to app P Mr. Ronald Cameron appeared befc~rs the Commisaion and indicut~ed he wculd be the operator of the pr~~~~osed use, and offered to ana~aer any questiona concerning s~me. THE PUDLIC NEARINC WAS CLOSEG. In r.eaponse to qtiestianing b~ Commisaioner Ki.ng. M*. C~ameron e[ated ttiE hnure of. operxCion would be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Satu.rday und 5~r,day, and during c:he week Chey would probabry close at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. In resp~~nae to questioning by Commisstoner Gauer, Mr. Camero~x stated the 1lgliting would be abouC t:he level ot five candles on 50-foot poles; tY~at ttie .lights they had been conaider- ing w~re di.rectional and would be nimed directly at the course witt~ very '_itt1E light Ueing Hpun off. Mr. Cameron continupd by stating tiiat. the car~ would be about 59 inches wide s+nd 110 feet long, with 99 CC displacement motors, with race car designs and very low to give the illusion of apeed. In reaponse to questioning by the Planning Coaunission, Mr. Cameron stated th~y had aub- mitted a saund atudy prepared by Olsoc- Laboratories; that the prop~aed use would be not quite as loud as KaCella Avenue; Char. a11 24 of t.he cars wauld tt~t be running ar. the same time; that if 12 cars were running, b would probably be on the 10-314 acre courae at ane ti.me; however, he was not sure what the problem would be with regard t~ ~he Anzheim Stadium; that the cars were not deaignad to be particularly quic:, however, Chey did not wish to make more noise than was fun; that standard ChPvreleC sedan mufflers would be used since the cars would run better with a bigger muffler; that the r.ars were designed to satisfy the urge to make noise without creatin~ too muc.h of it; that the cars were com- plet~ly aafe and never reached more thar, 35 miles per hour; that thex'e were a lot of ~'ight turns; and that if any of the course was vieible f.rom the Stadium, it woul.d be beautiful; that r.egardin3 Pcople watching the courae from the freeway, thc driving was not exciting to look at but was exciting t~ do; and that the course would be a c~howpl.ace. Commisaioner King noted that before any action was taken, the Commission should wait Co hear from Mr. Liegler, Mr. Cameron then requested to know if gpprova" :ould be granted contingent upon the Stadium'~~ concurrence, and Deput,y Cit~• Attorney Frank I~owry advised that the petiCion could noL be granted aub~ect to a departmental approval. In response to ques[ionin~ by Chairman HNrbaC. Mr.. Cameron indicated tY~eir lease was for ten yeara and they cunai.dered the businesa to be permanent aince there would ti~ many capital improvements involved. Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commisaion.er Atorley and MUTION CARRIED, to reopen the public hearing and continue constderation of Peti.tion for Conditonal llse Permit No. 1482 to the meeting of Auguat 5, 1974~ ~ ~ MINU'['F:S, CiTY PLANNiNC c:OMM~53IUN, July 't2, 1974 7~--.357 RRQUE57' FOit LCR NLCA'fi.Vl: p[;(:LAItATiUN FOR CRADTNG Pk;EtMIT FUR TNDU9TRIAL SITF AT hb3~ F.AST. 1,A F'A1,MA _AVENUI; ~~---„_-..._-~~._.______-.__~ ____...-._.-------__..~ L~ woa noted thnc Che A~1~~I1CN11C hnd applL~d for a gradinH parmit in conn~ction with the canH[ructton of ~n adcli~lon tc> nn indueCrial hulldinR locnted in the Noi..henst Induatr.lal Arert; rhat tha proponed projuct wne connieCont with the Anxh~im Ceneral 1']nn; that thn aite wr~s 'lavc!1 r-nd no draf.naKc~ nron~.~~y ware +-ntlclpated; und that f.r~eurtnc~ of a grgding permit tiuch ne wne beinq rwyu~~Nted wuuld usuelly be ci~Cegorf.cally exenpC fr.um tho requlr~^ menC tu Eile nn l:nviconmental lmpact RuporC, howev~r~ tho eub~oct pro~ect wus locnted withi.n the Sc:eni.c Cocr. faor and the Cuidclin~.~r~ to Ch~ Requlrem~~nr.s for nn F.IR did not allow cntagorl,~nl exrupCi~~n ln n acenic nre+t. Commiusloner Ki.nq o[fared n roor,ion~ seconded b,y ~ocmniesioner. Johneon and MOT10N CARRIEI~~ tnnt rhe L'lanni.nR Commi~-eior, Cf'_COUmtt!Il(jFl to the ~'1t.y Co~.~nc::ll thaC the sub~ect project be nx~mpt f r,~m the requiremr.nt tu prepe~re n~ l:nv t~ nmentel. Impt-c t Report pureuant to the provi~ions oE t•.hc CaliEcr.nia Ecivl.ronroentul Quality Ac[. Rl?QUkST FOR Clk NECATIVG UECI.Ai:PT[ON FO}t GRADIN~ PL~RMIT FOR INDUSTRT.AL SITF. ON THE SOUTt1RAS'C _CORNF.R OF FEI's ANA STRLF.T AND 1..A YAT.MA AVF:NUF.`~_ _~`~ It war~ noted Ct~nt Ct~e applicc~nt l~ud npplled for a gtncli.nK permit in connactiun with the conatruction of un irduytri.al building located iii thf: Nor.tlieaeC Ir~dustrial ArFa; that the proposed pro~ect ~+nr. consiaCant witti ttie Anahaim Genernl P1ai1; that khe site wae level and no drainug~ nrohl~me were anticipated; and that it~suxnce of a grading permit aur,h ae wne being requestu~i wc~ul.d u3ually be cr~tegorical.ly exempt from ttie requiremant to file an F.nviro-tmentnl ImpacC Reporr, however.', the auh~ecC projPC.t was located within the Scenic Corridor and the Guidelines t~ the Requirements for an EIR did not allaw cr~tegorical eacepCion in a ecenic: r~r.ea. Commissi.oner Johnaon offered II IIIOC~UtI~ aeconded by Cammiseioner Y.ing and MOTION CARRIED~ that'the Planning Cou~ml.asion recommendrs t~ thr City Counc~l that the sub~ect pro~ec[ be exempt from tl~~ raquirement to prepare an Environmental 'impact Report pureuant to the provisions of tli~ Ca'lifornia Envi.ronmental Quallty Act. RRQUEST :OR FIR NEGATIVE DECLAR.~TION POR GRADING PERMIT FOR SINGLE-FAN~ILY 110rtE AT 1112 MOHLI.K ~RIVG ~ -- It was noted that tt~e applicant had applied for a grading per.mit in connection with t}~e conatruction of a aingle-family residence at 1112 Mohler Uri.ve; r.hat the slape of Che siCe was greater than ]OY. ar.d conaeq:~ently an evaluation of the enviror~ental tmpact w~as re- quired; and that the Engineering Division had determined that grading cf the site would not have any aignificant environmental impact. Commissiuner Gauer off~red a mo2lon, sc~conded by Commissioner Ki•ng and MOTION CARRIED, thaC the Planning ~ommission recnmmenda to the ~ity Cuuncil that the subjPCC project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Er.viro;~mental Impac.t Report l~ursi,ant to the pruviaiona of the California Gnvironmeneal (~uality Act. RGQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GRADING PERMIT FGR SINCLE-FAMI1~'t RESIDENCE AT ~ 1 S7~ MnHT.F.R PI.ACF. -__- It was noted that th~ appli.cant had applied for a grading pe~nnit in connection with l'he construction of a ai.ngle-family reaidence at 21576 Mohler Place; that the Engineering Divisian had detecmined that grAding of the aike would not have a--y eigni£icant environ- mental impact and that the pro~ect was Categorically Exempt from the requirement to fi].e an Environmental Impact Report; and, therefore, no action was required by the Planning Cor~misaion. • • M[NUT[:S~ C1TY PI,ANNTNG COMM159ION, .luly 21~ Iy74 74-35A KI?PURTS ANl) - I1'N:M N0. 1 RBCOMMFNDA'tIONS REQUEST FOR APPRQVAi. 01~ RIBBED 5Tf:~:L TYPIs OF NO1SIi liAFIRiCR - -'~~'~~ ' Annh~im 9horea Pl.a~~nod Cummunity, locaCed e~~uth ~rf tha Rivareide Froeway a~rl west of I:uclid SCroet. Pl.acining Supervieor Uon Mcbani~l pr~B~nCed the 5taff KE~~purt to th~ Pl+~nnl.ng Cam~ieeion <lnt~d July 22, 1974, und eaid Staff Report. ie r~furred to i~e if xet, Corth tn f.ull tn the mi.nutes. Mr, McUuniel noted tt~nt kho E-ivironmental Impnct Rnport fo: the : nnhnim ShoreA Planned Cummunity racommended ktiet nn ll.-foot liigh noiee barrier. be .loc~-ted ndJncent Co tt~e frue- way ln urder to redur•e traffir nolae to levelP epecifi.ed by HUD Guldolinao; that ~~ne of the pr.oposacl conaitions for the grnnting ~f x condi[io«::1 use permil for tha prupoead inobilehome park wuuld bo for nn 11-foot t~igh noise bar.riar ad~xcent to the fr.oawny com- pric~ed of n combinution earthen baYm and concretE block wall; end t1iaC the appl.lcunt wae reyueel•ing npproval for a ribbed eteol barrier inetead oP the coinbinntf.on oarkhan berm and m~sonry wall which would normrxlly be reyuirad, Mr. .lim Ch~istiunaon~ 611 North Mountu:r~ Avonue, Upland~ reprasenCing Mntceyek liomes, the Jeveloper of Che sub~ecC property, aP6~en*ed befare the Commission and describod the devel- opment ~f the Anaheiin Shor.as Planned CommuniY.y torogoAedgdwe111nc~u~lte,~IIer~acrcetoi8ygfor the enCire project wae down from Che originnlly p p 8 P He a4ated that Che reaeon for the nolse barrier wae to attenuate lh~s noise f.rom Che free- way for the residents of the mr:bilehome commutiity and to give a buffer betwaen the vary axpeneive I~.-n-es tY:ut would be conatructed in the condominium sec tlun oP the Planned Co~amunity. lle deacriUed the changea tliat had takan plare as a reaul.t of the CiCy Council's actiona which changed the configuc'ation of. ths mobilehome community atea and stxted that it would be financially i.nfeasible to reduce the number of units in order to constr.uct the berm to meeC the standar.d requirementEl; that the grawth alon~ tha fr.eeway wae already 2S to 30 feet high, making it difficult for the sub~e~t property tc bo seen from ttiu freeway; that the queEition was whether or not ttie pr~posed ribbed ~reel type wall would do the job that c~ block wall. and berm wouJd do; thut steel could be uaed fo r ubout everything other building materials cuuld be uaed for; that n wxll constructed of the ribbe3 c~teel had been conskructed in tlie City of Ontario, nnd the State Divisian of Fiigl~ways had indi.cated the steel wail w~uuld gttenuate Ciie noiae and satisfy the HUD etnndarde; that tt~e State had been req+~ested foY• permic~sion to cunatruct Che b~rm ~n their property buC the Stnte dld not wish to destroy the tremendoua growth of Che Crees and other fau~A in order ea do ao; Chat the developer would loae u total of 28 feet in order to provide Ct~e berm and wall.; that throughout the entir.e Pl~nned Community Chey had not previously requected a sinR1N vari~nce from the Code requirements; thet the corrugated steel wa11 was -p dense than a concretE block wall; r.hat any aou~id coming uver the wal'_ would be at a 45 , angle and would not prevent the residente from uai»g the preperty to the byet advantage, chaC, in his opinion, e 5erm was for aesthetic purposea, however, no one would see the berm; that the pr~poaed r.ibbed steel wall cuuld be any aoYor desirab'_e; that through their landacaping plan, the mobitehc e co~nunity would be e~~sthetically beautifui ~, and that they had requested Mr. Larr} Daniels :om Kaiaer Steel to be preaent at the meetir.g to discusa the uae of steel rather than concrete blocks and to angwer a~ny questions r egarding the ma~.erial. Mr, Larry Daniels frem Kaiaer Steel appeared before the Cum~.a~s sion and atated that if only concrete bincka were beautiful, whv wasn`t ~verything cot-.truct~;d of that matecial; tt~at the propoAed rib~ed steel. wall wouid have the effect of aoard ~nd batten wood, ~ince it had texture and color~, thst there appeared to be a fixation on a r~ingl~ soluCion, being concrete blocks; and thnC t~~ere should be soma freedom to use otlier building ~naterials. T.n reply to questioning by the Planning Commisaion, Mr. Daniel s explained the cotoring pracesu f~r the ateel material xnd aCated it was masa produced through a plxnt where it was cleaned~ cut, s»d tha col~r baked on before it was formPd, and that the procesaing produced an unquestioned quality product; that there w~s a 20-year guarantee on the color; that the c~teel would be treated below the ground in ~he same manner ae abova the ground, however, in tlte inetallation, the water would be drained away by concrexe caps to prevent any problem~; that for Che purposes being discussed~ the mater ial would not have a eCreng requirement but a weight requirement; th~st there werP alterna t e ways of inatalling the wa11 and the actual inetallation deaign should be diacueaed w i th the landacape archiCect for the projeck; that the wall would be constructed ac~ording to the building code and en~ineering require~eents of the City; tY~at atiffneas of the material was important because of the sound reaction; that regardi~tg safety, i.f a car hit a 16-gauge ribbed at.eel wsll, the wall ~ould bend but a car could not drive through it and, in the event there wae such an incidenc, the wall would be conatructed in such a way that any corrective work c:ou2d be done quite easily and quickly. . ~ MIN'JTE3, CIT1t PLANNTNC C~MMISST.ON, July 22~ 1974 74-359 IT~4 N0._ 1 (ConCinued) in reepunee ta quedtioning by Chairman lierb~t, Mr. ChriAtianeon er,atad in place of rho barm~ landecuping would be provided nll along the wall ln order tu make thu epaca usable; ttint t.he landecnpad nreaA would ba under coaunon ownerntiip and it wnuld nut be ~~p t~ the individuale to maintain ttiem; that tha ownRC of. the praject wou~J charge raare ront in order to have an 9@AL'FIOCI.CAlly j1OAUGL~UL comm~-nity; tihat regar.ding Staff'e avnluatYon that ther~ nppeared to be insufficiant J~~etifi~ation for daviation from tt~e eCandard require- menta. he etNted the devolopcir had ona of thu moat expansive dr+~inage probleme in Cha City of Anaheim; that thc~ prapc~aed walt would be a!.nckground type r~all; snd that the raaeon for requaeting thc~ Coa-mission'd npprovel of th~ material to be usc+d c"or the wall at r.hie time wae bacauae c the ndvance lend ti.me needAd to obta~in tho sub~ect muterlal. Offica EnglnQSr Jay ~fitu» adviead tliat Mr. Chriatianson'e etatemenCS regarding Cha drein- age problema were true~ however, thoee problems did not affect thQ vuU~ecC wall itself, or t~ave anyttiing to do with ths wal.l. Mr. ChrisCianeon then statad that the uversl.l aconomice of l-he pro~ect wae •lmportant aC thie poinC; and c:ommieaiuner Farano noted thnt origf.nally he wae oppused tu tha deneity o£ Che eub,~ect project and, Co date, it wae not. reduced to ttie denait;~ he wculd like to aee there; and that perhaps providing tha berm end wall would aervn a good purpoea by fur[her reducing Che deneity. Chairmnn Ner.bat noted that the subject location might b e a good one to try out the ne~w matP*i.als~ und that he would like to oee the wall atagger ed an3 with l.andscaping to further break up tlie length effect of the wa11. Mr. Chriatianeon stated th~st the wall would only be seen between the mobllehomee~ and no erne would be looking at a veL•y lc,ng eection of it at one tlme; *.hat, also~ the mobilehomaa clasest to the wall woul.d be the quietest; and thet he would not li~Ce to eeo g roatriction placNd on the architc~:.t as to the deeign to be used in Che installatior at this point in time. Deputy C.ity Attorney Frank I.owry advised that th~s aub~ect requeat was befor~ the Commiseion for a recommendstior_ to the City Council; and that Che r equest wae for the relief £rom Tit~.e 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which could only be granted by the Ciky Council. Zoning Supervisar Charlea Roberta claricied titat wheneve r the applicant filed for the cosditional use permit to conatruct the mobilehome co~unity, the designe for the wall could ne revi.ewed by the Comtaiasion at thnL timc; howevEr, pxesently the Commiasion should determine if the steel buildi.ng material was acceptable from an aesthetic and sound- attenuation 3tnndpoint. Coa~missioner King a£f ered a-cotion, seconded by Commissioner Jc'onaon and MOTION CARRIFD (Co~amiseioner Farano voting "no"), that the Plannin~ Co~iasion recammen3s to the City Council that tne prop~~sed 11-foat high ribbed steel bar rier is acoustically aciequate to prov~ue the desirable sound aCtenuation and L•hae ~aid material would be aesthetically acceptable since on.ly approximately 80X of said wall could ba~~1AAid wall woulddnotebe freeway due to the exi.ating plant growth alcng the freeway, viewed in significant portiona from the mobileh~me co~unity. :TEM N0. 2 PP.OPOSAL TO PRUVIDE COUNSELItiG 5ER4ICE BY ORANG~' CO~TNTY DEPARTM~IVT OF MENTAI. HEALTH - ~n pYOperty located at 501 Narth BrookhursC St r eet. It wae noT.ed that the Orange County Departmant of Mental. Health was proposing to lease approximately 6,000 square feet of office apace at th e sub~ect location for tlne eatablish- meat of an autpattent couuseling aervice; that under the provisians of Government Code Section 65402~ the Count} was requpsti.ng to know whether the proposal was in conformance with the Git~• of Anaheim General Pign and, in additior., whether the oropoeal ~+ould have an adverae eff~c` o•.~ the envirorment; that the eub~ect pr operty was designatad for General Commercial on ~he General P1an and zoned C•-1; ~nd that a~naultent's uffices for any field and medical o£ficea were permitted uses in the C-1 Zone. Commi.ea~oner King offexed ~ motion~ eeconded by Commie si~ner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED, that the Plann•ing Commiaeion hereby finda and dr.termine~ that thQ preposal of the Orange County Department of Mental Health to eetablish an outpatient caunseling s~rvice a[ SO1 Norrh Brookhur~t Street is in conforo-ance with the Ci ty of Anaheisa General Plan and would have no adverse effect on the environaac+nt. ~ ^~ ~ MINUTL'~, C7TY PI.ANNINC CQMMISSION, July 22- 1974 74-360 RF.PORTS ANn ~- ITBM N0. 3 RECOt~NTiATIONS SEIyMIC AND SAFE1'Y BLEMENT - ANANEIM GEN~RAL YLAN The Staff Report. to the Planning Comcni.eeion daCed July 22, 1974 we• pree~nted ~nd it was not ed thet Chn propoeed Seiert~i.c and Safety ES.ement of Che Anahaim Caneral P1an was b~ing fine~li:~d and could be eahedulad fur public hearing ar.d consideration at tha August 5, t97 4 Plenning Commieei~m meeting, pur.auant to Californ~la Gavernment Code Section 65302(F) ar~d 6530'l.l. Coauniseioner .~~i~~.son offecad n motion, soc:ondnd by Commieeioner Mor.ley and MOTLON CAitftlBD, to set the Seiemic .~iid Safety Element of the Ai-nheim Gen~Yal Plan for publ:lc henri.ng on August 5, ].974. ITL~M N0. 4 CONllI'I'IONAL USR PERMIT N0. 101.5 - RequesC for xarminatian -• Property located at the northwesC corner nf Euclid Street und Urange Avenua and further deecribed as S17 3outh ~ucl.id Street, and zonod C-1. It was notad Chat on Apri1 8. 196$, the Plattning Commieeion granted scb~ect peCition in Reeolution No. PCbB-111 xo eatublteh nn automobile service etati.on within 75 fac~t of a rP aidential zone~ with a waiver of tha waximua height for a buitding within 150 feet of any residential zone; and that the petitionere, who are parenera of the presant ownership of ~ub~ect property, have aubmitted ~ letter requesting termination of all proceedinge e ince the aervice station had been removed and a c~mmer.cial buildi.nR was now under con- atruction on the site, Commissioner Fatsno offered RPaolution No. PC74-:.53 and moved for ita paesage and adoption to terminate all proceedings in connection wlth Conditional Uu~ Permit No. 1015, as requested by the petitioners. (See Resolution Bonk) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pur~sad by tt~e following vote: AYES: COIdt1ISSI0NERS: FARANO, GAUF•R, .JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ HERBST NOGS: COMMIS~IONERS: NONE ABSEN'P: COk4~lISSIONGRS: NON~ ADJOURNMENT - TheYe being no further buainess to dlacusa, Commiesioner Gauer offered a mation~ seconded by Comm•is~ioner Morley and MOTT.ON CA[tRI~D, to ad~ourn the meeting to Jiily 29, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting ad~ourned at 6:30 p.m. ~ Reapectfully submitted, ' • ~ ~ PatriciA B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commiseian PBS:hm