The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1975/05/12I ~ ~ 1 ~ i ~ ~ r I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~; ~ .. . ~~ '~. ~ r~~ ~ ~~, ~, ; r' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ City Hall AnnFiei.m, California May 12, 1975 RGCULAR ~iCETIHC Of~ THE ANAHETM CITY 1'LANNING COhQ1ISSi0N l3~GULhR - A regular meeCing oE the Analieim City YJ.enning CommiReion wae ceiliad to Mf'sGTINC order b,y Chc~irman Herbek ut 1:3U p.m. in the Council Chamber, u quorum Uc~ing preaenl•. PK;'sSENT - CHALRMAN: Herbst -~ (;OAIIdISSION~RS: FA5•nnn (wlio enterpd the meeting c~t 2:4~J p.m.), Cn~ier, Jahnson, King, Morley, Tol.ar Ai3SGNT - CQt~tISSIONERS: t~onr. AL,SO FRESENT - Ronald Thompson r runk I.owry Jay Tit~s Don McDaniel Charles Roberts Annika Santalahti G. Allan Daum Patricia Scanlun DEV~lopment Servic~e Director Ueputy City ACtorney Office Engineer Planning Supervisor 7.oning iupervisor Asaiatant Zonin~ Supervisor Asslstnnt Planner Commission 5ecrutary PLGDGE OP - Commisatoner Johnson led in Che Pledge of Allegiance to the Fl~~g of the ALLEGIANCE United States of ^.merica. APPRUVAL OF - Commisaioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Com~nissi.oner Tol.ar and THE MINUTES MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner rarano being absent), to approve. the minuCes of the meetinga of April 14 and 28, 1975, as suhmitted. CONDITIONAL USE -- CONTINUSll Pl1BLIC HEARING, ROBERT HOSTETTIsR AND WARREN C. PROCTOR, PERMIT N0. ].517 413 South Brookhurat StreeC, Anaheia-, Ca. 92801 (Owners); THC COLONIAL MANUR HALFWAY HOUSES, INC., Attn: Frankl~n D. Rose, 703 North Lemon Street, Anaheim, Ca. 928v5 (Agent); requesting permisaion to ESTAB'ISH P. BOARD AND CARE FACIT.ITY FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALCOHOLICS on properCy described as: A rectauguixrly-aliaprd parcel of land conaisting of appr4ximately 7700 square f.eet located al• the northwest r..:•tler of W1lhetmina Stree.C and Lemon Street, having approximate fcontagea of 109 feet ais :'}~~ n~ c~h side of With?lmiua ~crePt a-~1 '? f~et on the west side of Lemon ~treet. Proper~; gresently classified Ki~~-1't0U (RESiDENTIAI,, MULTlt'L~-CAMILY) ZONE, 3ub~ect pe"_ '-. .~ was con.._~nu~d frot~ the meetir,q ^F :y+~~rc„ 3, ~975, Lo allow the petirioner time to imr•:ove the praper[y. No one ind~.cated their presence :ln oppusiti.on to suU,ject petition. Atthoug'. Lhe SCaff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1975, was not read at the public hpar.fng, it is referred to and mada a part af tlie minutea. Mr. Robert t?oatetter, one of the property ownera, appeured before the Plai~ning Commisaion and stated that to his knowledge the govErnment grant which wafl applied for by The Colonial Msnar Halfway Houses, Inc., was presently in a atate of 11mbo but waa forthcoming in the near futuXe, esid brant to provide Che funds necessary to br~ng the faciliey up ta the atand.ards of the Clty oF Anahetm; that~ additianally, Mr. Fr~ink Rose had been operating the facility at the subject addreas f~r some 14 montha without tncident and was willing to bring it up to atandarda at excessive coste; that he had apoken wieh Mr. Karcher, a property owner in the arer~, an.d Mr. Karcher at that time was pleased that the pr~mi.aes would bP brought up to the standards of the City; that presently there were various types of busi- nesaes and reaidentia.l uaes in the area; and that Mr. Rose had procesaed more than 100 residents at the aub;ject facility for placement~ with about 60X succesn. Mr. Frxnk Rose, the agent for the property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the facility dealt with people whu had no money, snd Anahzim ce:tainly needed a faciliey of thia type for ita female residents; that they had lmproved the property and 75-225 . ~w~l~^~ • ~ ~ MINUT~~, C1'1'Y PLANNINC CGMMISSION, May l2, ]975 ~5'z2G rONI)I'fT.ONAI. USEs PCRMTT N0. 1.517 (Continued) would cunCi.nue to du ec~; that he had talked to represenl•atLvea of L•hE~ government agency which was procQesing their granC uppllcAt~on~ anu wa~ udvl~ed Ch+at L'he futide would be xQady soon nnd had beeri approvsd +~t eome levels of thc governc,~nt; that the eub~~ct use of the proparty wne un improvement over the previou~ uee; and Chat th.l.s wnH n good ].ocaCian for the eub~oct fuclllty and iC would br n ehame if they had to mov~~ to nnother ].ocation. THG YUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Chairman Herbet expreseed concern about tl~e abllity of the appllc.snC to mc~~t thc conditi.ona as set forth in tl~e Stc-ff Report~ and Che requirert~ents of. t.he Fire DepurCment~ to ~zke the faclllty a exfe place for khe people ko live; and that Che Planning Commiseion could not change the ordinances or building cudeF to accownedflCe tiie ueF of the property. Mr. Roae stated that moet of tlie '. ~olation items enumerFit~d i.n the Staff' Report had been corr.ected. excepe for tlie electrical wiring; Chac to have che electrical work done by an electrician who could certify s~id worlc would co~C a~Froximately Yi2,OQ0; and ttiat when the gr~nt f.ur~da wer~ receiv~d, they could proceed witti snid work atid p~~~si.bly compleee it in 30 days. ~ommieaioaer Tolar noted that he woul.d be willing to approve the aub~~ct application, suU~~ect ta a dEfinite and tenable time ltmil- being establlAhed to complete the cor.di.tiona of appraval lo bring the facility ~.ntc> conformance wit.h the applicuble buildi.n~ cadea. Mr. Rose then stated that he had been advised by Mr. I3ob Keynolds of the governmen~ agency that they cou].d trarismit tha grant funda pasaibly within 15 daye after teceiving ful~. approval f~r eame. Mr, nose indicated that dcal.ing with governmenC a&encies was very time-consuming. Mr. Hoatetter responded thnt, in his ot~inion, 1.20 days would be a reason- nble assumption in order to complete the recommended work t~ bring the facility into compliance with the building codes, etc, Commissionex Tolar then noted that~ although he was not opposed to the use, he did not want prablems 120 days from now if the candiCions of approval were not met~. Commissioner King questioned some of Che items in violation at Che sub~ect faciZity, whereupon, :~tr. Roae stated they had already installed the stairway from the second floor to the ground level and had insralled a vent in the kitchen which worked and had been aeen by the Fire Department. I~i reaponae to questioning by Commissioner Morley, Mr. Rose atated the refere~~ced grant application was nok to fund improvemenrs for '!~c Anaheim Boulevard location; and that they were prNsenCly in the procesa of making the i.uiprovements on their own at that ].~cation since they were unable to obtain a satiefactory lease agreement which was necessary in connection with tt~e grant. Commisaioner K~ng inyuired if the applicant had anythtn~ in writing regarding when the referenced grant funds would be farthcoming, and Mr. Rose s~ated he had received a letl:er fro~~~ Mr. Reynolds indicaking that the grant had been approv~d at that ].evel and a.ll af the necessary documenCation to proc~ss the funds had been recei.ved from the applicanC; that they were applying for appruximately $36,000 £or the :lmprovement of the aubject propeLCy and he could not testify as to a specific time wfien those fund~ would be recei•~ed. 'There- upon, *Sr. Rose conc~~rred ttiat 120 days might be sufficient to make the necessary improve- menta to the sub~ect property. Chait-man Herh>;r inquired if the suh,ject petition could be continued for 120 days, rather than granting ic at l•tiis Cime, subject to the improvements being mede within that 120-day pNriod; t:~at he was not in favor of granr.ing the petiti.on, unless the work was ackually completed; however, if the applicant came back to the Planning Couunisaion in 9~ days and wae nble to aubstanti.ate that they were in receipt of the funde~ and thp work wae be~ng accomplished, he might be in favor of granting the pECition on that basis. CommisaionFr Johnaon conc~rred in ttie Chaixman's suggestion, and Chairman Herbst added that matters involving the government somet?mes changed overnight and th~ subject facilities were presently unsafe for the residents, Commieaioner Tolar noted that he wanted to lu~ow that within SJ days the Building llivieion would be. inepecting the sub~ect pzoperty. Zoning Superv.tsor Charlea Roberts noted that although he :~as not familiar witii the problems being encountered with the governmenl- agency Mr. Roae was •oorking w1th, there was a poasi- bility that Raid agency mi~ht want some indication from the City as to the use prtor to the approval and iasuance of the granC funds to rehabil.itate subject property. • ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLA,NNING COP4SISST.ON, May 12, 1975 CONDITYONAL USE PEItMIT N0. 1517 (Continued) 7 5-?.2 7 Commiseioner Tolar noted Chat he would vote tn approve the eubject petition but c~nly with a timP limit of 120 dayo~ aa ~tipulaCed tu by the applicant, within which tc~ make the necesr~nry improve~uente to the praperty. c`hnirmen Herbet then ref~rred to Che appllcntinn that wae made by the eub~ect ap~llennt Cu have o eimilar facllity on Aneheim llu~levard~ Gha?. t'IZe grnnt was appli~ed f~r but ^eya~ received and the people wer.e $till living there uua~r very unsefe condit2on~; and rhAt' he recognized tlint the grant funde f~r the sub~ect fracility mi~ht be forchcnming, as indica~ed by the applicant. Comwis~loner Cr~uer Eurther auaetioned the upplicant regarding the dispoeitian of the gtant which wae applied for on the An~hni.m Boule~vard facili.ty, whereuNon, Mr. Roae etated that ~he pr.~operty owner would nor extend tha period of the J.ease Co meet t_t-e requlrements of the grant application an3 he had decided to ~roc:eed with the improvemente on his own; that they hud Eiled for the grant on the Anaheim Iloulevard fucility approximat.ely two veara ago, but he hAd found that when dealing •v~th the go~,•ernment, you camiox pin duwn ~nyone to find out whaC ie going on and no one appeared to ki~ow anything. I.n rpsponae to further questl.~ning Uy Chnirman Herbst, Mr. Rose sta[ed thut the property at 8R7 An~l~~im Boulevard was being operated as a halfway house at the time hc~ be~an leaei.ng said propertv and, although he wns aware uf. the City's codes, he did not queation h•ls abil~iey to operate at thaC locatiun eince it was already being utilized for that purpose; and that he wouYd obtain something in wrlCing from the government within two weeks, although if the grant was nut obtained, they might be able to impr~vP the sub~ect property themseive~-. Deputy City Attorney I'rank Loo~ry advised that pr.ior to any improvements being made on l•he subject propertiea, tlie app].icent was required to obtain building permite f~r both facili- tiea -- 887 Anahei~u Boulevard and 703 Norlh Temon Street; th~st, additionallyr the applica~-t should obtain a general contractor for. the work; that, previously, C~unc;i.lman Yebley had offered to do the work; thaT, if the improvements were not ma3e according to the ~ode, and witb the benefit of building permits, there uo~ild be legal prublema. Thereupon, Nr. Rose stated they needed mercy in being permiCted to continue to operate at these faciLitiea. Commisetoner Johnaon noteci that there were many goad causea in the CiCy and t-o one would argue that tlie sub~ect t~se was not a good cause, however, the csuse did not relieve the applicant from tlie requit•ements of th~ applic:able building codes to makP the faci~.ities safe for the residents; and that if Che impxovements wex•e made i.u the reco~uended manner, the applicant would find that the City was definitel.y on hi.a side. Chai.rman Herbst agreed that the applicant sho~ild be able to make some of the improvements on his awn, however. bui'lding permits should be taken ~ut and the improvements made ~ccord- ing to the c~des. Mr. HoaCetter atssted that the lease for the uae of the buildin~ at the aub~ect loca[ion atipulated that build•ing permits were Yequi.red for any changea to said bul.lding. He fLrtlier stated that he had advanced ehe money to the applicant to pay the application fPe for the s~ibject condit3onul u3e permit. Cammissioner Gauer nntec, that if the property owner was interested in havins the use of the property continued, then he should be willing to help get the approval, whereupan~ Mr. Hostetter stated lie was willing l•o help, although ha did not have any contact with the government agenr_y. C:r~amissi~ner Johneon offered u motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley~ Co reopen the puUli.c hearing and further contin~e conaideration of Conditiona.l Use Parmit No. 1517 to the meeting of May 28, 1975~ in arder that the petitioner might be able to provide more de£iniCc_ information as to the disposition of the government qrant funds and to provide ~o~e written evidence thaC said funds were forthcoming. Chatrman Herbst clarified that if the government agency required that the zoning petition be approved prior to making a comnitment an the grant fun~t~, then aomething ~n c~riting ahould be provided to the Planning Commiasion co ChHt effect. Commiseioner Talar noted tliat~ in wis opinion, the applic~nt did nat have to have a con- tractor to do the remodeling or improv ~~nts to the subject facilities, but that building permits taken out prior to any work would a??^viate the problema. T1HE FOREGOING MOTION CAF.RIED by unanimous vote (Couunise . ~.r Farano being at~eene). I __ - ~~ ~ ~ MI.NUTLS~ CI'TY PLANNLNG COMMISS'fON~ May 12~ 1975 ~~-22A CONDITIUNAL USE: PT:It~tIT N0, 1470 - RequWeC for uxtenNion of Ci-mc~ -?roperty located `_"-' • ~ nC gg7 Sou~ti Annheim Bou.lavard, Chnirm~n lierbsC euggesCed that n continunnc~ nleo be conei.dered Por the Xequeet for exC.en- elon uf: time for Conditional Uec+ Petmit No, 1470 for t.he hnlFway houee fncility propoaed by the nPpllcunC~ Mr. I~r~-nk Ror~e, at ~ti87 South Maheim Doulevsrd; nnd Chat n report be sub ,.lt~od by thc R~~ ~.lding llivielori regarding the r.omnl ~red work, neceHSOry improvemen~s, an~ the er~timated ti.me that wae neceesary Co cumpleCe a1J. 1.mprovementA at thAC lo~etion~ said repor. t to nlr~o indicate what improvementH wer~~ appruv~d and~or noC approveJ by Chc }luilding I~ivleion. Ther.eupon. Mr, Roec atipulnt:ed that he would cooper~te with the City in mxking thE+ report recommended by Chairucui Herbttl for thR Maheim B~ulevard Lnc ility. Cnairmnn Nerbak offered n motiar., seconded Uy Commiseion~r Tol.ar and MO'~ION CAF.RIED (Commiseion~~r F~ireino bi~i.ng ubsent), thak conaideration of the roqueat for exteneioi~ of tiu~e for Cc~udition~l Use Permlt No. 147~ be and hereby ie conti~wed to the meeting of May 28. 1975. in ~~rder Eor the appllcanC and tl~e Building Qivielun ro pYOVide the requestad addi.tianal informocion. aH set forrh above. VARIANCE. NO_.___2664 - CONTINUED PUQI.IC HEARING. TFIE ESTA'fF OF LILLTA*1 A. HTNRICHS, c/o ~ ~ Richard J. Z.lnket, Fxecutor~ 1666 Norlh Main Stxeet, Santu Ana, Ca. 92701, M. F.. SL.AUG1iTF.R~ nEPUTY CI1'Y ATT012N~;Y, P. O, Box 3222, Anaheim, Ca. 92E~03, ANll STATE OF CALIFURNIA, c/o John M. Cutler, Rigk~t-oc-Way Agent, Department of '~raneportat~~n, llisCrict No. 7, P. 0. Box 2304, Loe Mgeles _ Cu. 90054 (Owners); ROBLRT N. M~ODEY AND ~~~'TUS C. GTLFII.LAN, 4300 Campue Drive, Suile 20U, Newport Seach, Ca. 9266Q (Agent); requestir~g WAIVER OF PERMITT~D USGS TO F.STABL]'SH R.GTAI1, SALES IN AN INDUSTItIA;. C~Mt'LEX on property oescr. ibed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of •ipproximately G.0 acres located at the soutt~west corner af Kat~lla Avenue and Douglass Street, and having approxlmate =ronCages cf 21k feei on the south s1.de of Kstella Avenue a~id i45 feet on the wcat side of Douglase Street. Property presPntly cl.a9sified 1~4. (T.NDUSTItLAL, I.TMITED) RCNF.. ~ub~ect petiCion wa,s continued f.rom the meetin~a of January 6, M~rch 17, and April 14, 1975~ at L•he r.equest of the petitioner.. No one indicated their preaence ic- opposiLion to sub~ect petiCion. Alchou~ll the Staff Report to the P].anc-ing Coanniss~on dated May 17., 1975, wa~ not read at the public heAring, iC is :eferred to and maue a part of the m~.nutea. It was n~t~,3 that: th~e agent for the petitioner, Mr. Juetus C. Gilfillan, Juatus Gilfillan Associntea, had Rubmitted a letter atating that due to mer'ket and financing probleme rasul.ting from the poor economic climate of the past months, they felt it would be unwise to proceed with thc sub~ect project aC klie presen:. time nnd, ChereforF, were requesting that the aubject variance t>e wlthdruwn. Crnnmisaioner King offered a motiuce, seconded by Cammiaeioner Morley :~nd MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being abaent) , thu~: the public hearing be and l,ereby ia closed and all pxoceedinga in connectian with Variance No. 2654 are terminated, as requestsd by the petitioner, to be readvertiaed at some future dete. at tl~e reque6t and expense of the petitionero f;ONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HL~ARINC. WILLIAM KUGEL, 551 North Euclid Stxeet, PERMI'T N0. 1531 AnaY~eim, Ca. 92801 (Owner); I.AIRA D, AND DOROTHY I. HOSKINS, 1224 Weet Psrk Avenu~, Maheim. Ca. 92801 (Agent) ; reaueating permiseion for ON-3ALE BEER Itv A CARA ROqM on property desaribed as : A rectnngularly- ahaped parcel of land ~oasisting af approximately 10.5 acrea located at the northweet carner of Czeacent Avenue and E•:clid Street, having xpFroximate frontageK o~ 740 feet on the notth side of Creacent Avenue gnd 62Q faet on the west side oE Euclid Street. ProPerty preetntly classlf led CL (COI~(ERCLAL, 'LIMITED) AND CC (COt~QYtERCIAi., GENERAI.) ZONES. Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting ~f April 28, 1975, pending City Co~~ncil_ action on tt~e card room at the sub,~ect locetion. No one indicated their presence ir, oppoeition !o aub~ect petition~ u ~ s MINUTES~ CI1'Y PLANNINC c;UDfMISSION, Mny 12, 1975 ~s-2z9 ~ONDITIONAL US~ YLKMZT NU. 153J. (Gontinucd) Althougii the 5tnff lt~~p~~rt. Ca ti~e Planning Cammieeion ~lutad MaY 12~ 1975~ wns not: r.eact at Che publlc h~~+ring~ it iy referr.ed to and mxde n pert of tho mirwGc~, Mr. Dean Eloski.ne. 1224 W~et Park Avenue~ Mahaim, the agent C~r the property own~r~ appearod betorc the Ylnnning Commiseion r~nd stutod tt~~l ho hnd never had troi~ble with the Policu D~partmeut ~t t1~Qir pr~sant location; that the pehrnna werF~ gPn~rnily bFt:ween the ag~e runge of 45 ta SQ years, and nonc were undar 21. y eare af age; thar_ alt of the beer woul.d bc, consumed around the tnbles; that the gl.ass f ronhago nn Che building tc~ be uCllixed fc~r the propoecd use would be draped with curtainy and Aigning would be employed regarding the ag. limit for admieaion to the premisee; thnt the re were many other businesee~ in the subjQCC areu Rnd there wus only one~ other eimilnr type bu~tinQee~ bef.ng c~ billiar<l parlur~ thnt w~uld attract young people; unci that thc enla oE beor wae not pree~•~itly tliel.r >>rimary source of bur~iness and ~aould not ba i.n the future. THG PUBLIC HEAFtING WAS CLOSF.U. (:halrman Herbet noted ttiR~ if lhe peti.tioner wuA propoeing to t~ava a waiting room~ he wne not in favor of beer being served while the curdplayprs were wair.ing ta p].ay, sl.nce he did not intend to ullow a bec~r ~axden where peoplp could eit and watch the cur.d-p?aying r~cti.vitlea. Cammi:~sloner Tolur questi.oned the use of the bar or counCer, und Mr, Hoekiua al•ipulated Chat the bar would be a c~ervinR bar oniy with no eCoo18, nnd if iC was the Planning Commission's desire, tie aould elimfnate khe waiting Yoom from the prapoaed pl.an. Comm.iseianer Tolar then noted tliat the City would F.rabab.ly noC be ahle to police the wniting room, even if it were t.o be eliminnCed. Mr. Hoekina `urther stated that presently t.hey were planning to hnve a televisi.on ecutioned in tha waiting room and the paCrona would eiCher watch televisioci, reaJ the ne~ospaper or just talk among Chen-selves while wai.ting to play cards; and that with one or tw~ exceptiono, he did not believe anyone would drink beer while thay were waiting to play c.arda. Chairman Herbat noted thal with the card tablea it wus cunceivnble that the establishment could become a beer bar, Mr. Ho~kina st+~ted they were propoaing to c~erve warmed pre-packaged sandwichea for the convenience of *he customers, which would enable the establiahment Co recain the cardplayers who would otherw~oe leave to obtr~in food atid poaeibly nor return to Flay cards; and that the bar area cuuld be misleadin~, however, Ct.ey were ptoposing that L~o sCools be provided and, therefore, no one ~ould sit at the bar. In responae to questioning by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Iioskins stipul.ated that the primary use was for a card room and not a beer bar an:i, furCher , that there w•~:~lc~ ~e na atoola provided for aenting at tt~e Eervice count-ar or bar. Mr. Hoslcina further atate that he sald more cokea than beer and, in terme of revenue, Che sale of beer would constitute only about 5X of the gross. lr. was noted tnat the Director of• the Development S ervicea I)epactment h~d determined that the proposed acttvity fell within the definition af Section 3.01, C?ass I, of the City of Maheim Guidelines to the Requirements fcr an F.nvironmental Impact Report and was, tiiere- fore~ ca,. aorically exempt from the reqni.rement to file an EIR. Commi~sion~r Kir~ offered Resolution No. PC75-97 and moved for ite passag~ and adoption, that Petitior. for Conditlunal Us~ Permit No. ].5~1 be and hereby ie granted, aub~ect to tlie stipulation of the peti.tioner that the primary use of the sub~ect propFriy ~hall be for a card raom and not a beer bar~ and no cr~ols for sesting purposes ehal.l be pxovided at the aervice counter (bar); that ao persons under 21 ye ~-ts of age ahall be admitted to the aubject eatablishment, ae stipulated to by the pet itioner; and aub~ect to conditione. (See Reaoluti.on Bc~k) (!n roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following voke: AYES; ~OAIIYtI5SI0NER5: GAUER~ 30HNSON, KING, MORIF.Y, TQLAR, HBRliST NOES: COI~IISSIONER5: NONE ABSEN'f: COI~4IISSIONERS: FARANO ~ ~ LJ -..~ ~ MINU'CI:S. CTTY PLANNINC COMMI5ST.ON, May 12, 1975 75-230 RF.CLA5SICI(:A'firyN - PUDLIC HEAFtINC;. DAVI1) S, CULI.INS, 107) We~t 11a1J. Rnud. Anaheim~ Ca. N0. 74-75-32 92802 (Or^~er) ; LF.ONAIt~ SM11'kl~ 1'l5-A Sv~~th Claudina Strea[, Anatieim, Ca. ~! 92805 (Agant). Properly doncribed ad: AR irregulacly-ehaped pnrcal of VARIAtv~;L N0. 2700 land connieCing ~f approximately 7..46 acrQe located aC khe northwext corner oE Wilshlrc Avenue ar-d Pearl Stree;, having upproxima~e EronCages of 6b0 Ec~aC on Che north yide of Wllehire Avenue end 500 f.eet on the w~et Ni.dc3 of Pcerl. Street~ and having a maximu~~~ depth of approximetely 557 faet. Property presently claseified RS-A-43~OA0 ~I~SIPENT]Al,/Ai;RICUI.TURAI.) ZONF.. R~QUESTED CLASSIr1CATI0N: FlM-Z200 (R~SIU}~.Ni [Al MllLTIPLE-F'AMILY) 20hE R.LQUGS'fF.U VARIANCF: WALVFR OF (A) MINIMIJtI I~LOOR AR1sA AND (B) MINIMUM STANCi. BF.'TWI:EN RUILUING~~ Tv CONST1tUC'I' A 77-UNI'T APAttTMGNT COMP~.~;X. One person indica~ed hiA presen~e in oppu,,lcioi~ to sub;lect p~titions and indicr~Ced he would waive the full re~ding of the Staf'f Iteport. Alttiough the Staff Report to the P1Anning Cummi.seion dated May 12, 1975, was not read ut the public hearing~ it ia referred to ~nd mnde a par~ uf the minutea. Mr. Lc~~nard Smith~ the agent for the property ownet', appeared before the Flanning Commiseiun nnd atat~~cl the request.ed waivera were common for a complex of the size proposed; thr~t n good mtxture of. apar~ment sizes were propoaed, bPing some one, two +ind three bedroom3; thaT thc~ waiver. of the minimum disCance between buildings war~ techni.cal in nar.ure; that, in his opinl~>n, the proposal wouid be an c~eset to the sub~ect area; that similar develop- ments exiated on two sides of the eub~ect property; and that sem~-underground parking was proposed. Mr. Tliomas D. Peckenpaugh, representing the lnw firm of DeMarco; Barger, Beral and Pierno, Attorne~a for. Wil~hire Wooda, Inc .~ the ow,ter of properCy located immediately north oi and ad~acent to the pr~poaed apartmen t pro;ject, appeared hefore lhe Planning C~mmiesion and atated althouttt- hia c~.ic^tr. ~.,~re not objecting in general to th~ proposed developmeut, they were respectfu].ly requesting that tha project t,e approvea only after due .:onsidera- tion had been given Co ~!~c property to Che north, etc. ~lr. Peckenpaugh read a prepared summHry oi the obJecti~ns of his clianCs whicii lncluded the open parking spac.es, trasi~ areas and exposed carport areas wtiich wo•ild directly reault in fail odors. fumea and increased noise, and when many of hia clients' tenant~ wo~il~d have to continually view the itnsightly exposed trash and paricing areas, those conditions might reeult i^ a loss of Pxiat.Lng tenanCs; thr~t an Environmental Impact Report fur the propos~d project ohould be ~r~y prepared to include n recommeridation khaC the pro~ect be redesigne3 to either mc,. all of the proposec' open parking, carporrs and traeh areas propoaed along the north side of ~he proj~ct L•o th~• south eide uf the project, or to place sucl~ arens compl~tely underground i.n a truly subterranean facility as the project to the north wr~s ~~quired to do; l-hat t~is clients questioned the drainage provision for the pr.opoaed pro,ject; and that the pro.~ect would have a detrimental impnct on the community and more importantly there ahould be mitigar.ing measurea to hold down,the impacr ~n the exloting residenta in ::he aren. Ln r=sponse ko questioning by Cominissioner Tolar, Mr. Feckenpaugh ~tateci hia clients' development was presently unciergoing a conversion to condominiums and, ae such, would be on the market in the near future. Mr. Smith indicuted that since the ob~ectiona indicated by Mr. Pecker,peugh were relat•ed to design, and the projec* was similar to other-~ constructed b~ ";;. uevQloper, the architect for the project could offer a rzbuttai. lhere>>pan, Mr. William S. Phelps , 109~ N~rth Main Street, Orange, app£ared before the Planning rommission as the architect/designer of the proposal and stated he wae surprised at the ob~ections being raise~' s ince the pruposed pro~ect, as we11 as the project to the north, were wel' .~ithin ehe staiidards of r.he City; thaC the pra~ect to the north had gons subterranean with their parking, which ma,~e a big difference for that pro~ect; that the proposed project met every standard of r.he City of Maheim and they were aurprised since Chey had no warnfng that the prQ~ect wuuld be oh~ected to; that, in h'.s opinion, the open space parking was a,~ ad~antage to the adJacent property; that the aEml-3ubterranean park- ing did exactly the same thing a~ far as noi.se was concerned, as totally-aubterranean parking; that~ as far as deaign was concerned, he did not feel there could be any real change that :aould be an advantage to the adjacent property, eince the parlcing was submerged along the n~~rth pruperty line. ~ ~ ~ MINU'fES, GITY PLANNI'NC COF~4ISSION, Mxy 12, 1975 75-231 R~CLASS]:FICATION N0. 74-75-32 ANI) VA1tIANCL' (Vb. 2.700 (Gontinued) TNr PUIi1.LC HGARING WA5 CGOSLD. In response [o yueslioning by Chairmun Herbet, Mr. Phelpe aCated the roofing material proposed for thc+ open carporte alonA the north would be rack and the roof would bo flnt. Cliaittuan Hcsrbat Chen noted that. t1le roufA wexe aY~own £or the rest of the pro~act. Mr. ~'helps etcted Chat Lhi! raaf cl~a[ apparenl•ly wae being oh~ected co by tha oppoeitiun wus proposed eo be conetrur.Ced of sh~kee. Commiesi.oner Gauer noted th~tt white rack root- ing on tlie carporte in quoetlon would praduce an undeoirable reflection. Commisaloner Johneon n~ted that it appenred the proposed proiuct was wall withLn ite righta~ exc.ept parhape for l•he roofi:-g material on the cnr;•urte aud the covec•ing of tli~ trash ar.eas. Chairman Herbst noted thak he waH pr.ae~nC at the public hearing when the projecl• to the nortti was cansi.dered by tl~~: Plttnning Commiesi.on, and the aubterranean parking related to solving the denslty problem. He f urther noted that the roofing material far the pruposed carports cuuld be anol•her. color r~nd thF inaterials could be changed tu have a more aesthetic appearnc~ce from above; and he clarified that only the c~rport roofs along the north properry line were ob~ect'~nnble. Mr. 1'hcl.p~ then atated the developer was praposing to hxve an open lattice-type cuvering on the traeli encloaure nreus; that if the carport roofs were construcCed of ahakes, they mi.ght have a problem witli the orie-hour fire wall requirement At the property lfne and, additionally, there could be a drainage problem creatsd~ whereas presently they were proCecting the property line with the prop~3ed roof. Further d3.ecussion pursued regarding the c.arpor.C roofa, during whi.ch Chairman Herbat noted that no lAndscaping, especi.ally treea, was propoaed along the continuous wu'll at tt~e nortli property line, and he au~gested that aome tr.eea would hc:lp to br.eak the seark look down on the project from the project to Lhe north. Mr. Phelps s[ated that trees along the n~rth property line would have an inei.gnificant effect and, if plAnted on 2i)-foot centers, that would be quite a chore; and thAt he would t~ave space for aUout three Crees along that area. Cha4rman HerUst then noCed tl~at three trees araced out along a 500-foot wall would be very insigni.ficant. Chairman Herbst noted that the intended zoning Eor tne oubject property was C0, ana if the P1annLng Connnission was to conaic:er it for residential development in the manner proposed, a~-d inasmuch as tl:e City Counr_il had seen fit to appruve the adjacent property to the north for conversion to condom'.niuma, then the aub:~ect property should '~e considered eimilar to ~ingle-family rebidential and some sort of landscaping should be reyuired along the propErty lii-e; ar.3 that a residentia~ devel.opment was entitled to more than ~uat a 500-foot long cement wall. In response to questloning by Commissioner To1Ar, Mr. David Collins, the ~roper~y owner, ~tated it was not intended to convert the proposed development to condominiums in the future. Mr. Smith added that Mr. Collins was presently ~elling the property; that xhe company purchasing tlie property presently o~vne.d and operated apartment house units and it was doubtful that the proposed project would ever be proposed for conversion to cundominiums. Mr. Phelps stated that since the ad~acent property had created the condition where there wae a three-qtory building looking over the sub~ect px'operty, the Planning Commission ohould not penaJ.ize th~ subject pr.operty by requiring the landscaping, the change of roofing mater~al on the carporta and the addition of a cover for the trash areas. Chairman Herbst noted that he disagreed with Mr. Phelpa; that even an induatrial zone was requi.red eo have 2% iandscaping along thie type of area; that the tenants from the ad~acent pro~ect wou.id be looking down on the sub~ect praject and somethtng needed to be done to improve the aituation. Mr. Phelpa then inquired if they cou13 give the 2X landacaping, whereupon, Chairman Herbst r~oted khat the tenants of the proposed pro~ect also deserved somethi:~g to look at other than a long blank wall. COMMISSIONER FARANO ENTERED THE MEETING AT 2:40 P.M. Mr. Phelps explained that the ad~acen [ pro3ect to the north had provided a 20-foot planted buffer strip that almost protected that pro~ect aLready from any development of the sub~ect property; and that s buffer provided on khe ~ubjecC property would be a waste in his opinion. Chairman HerUat clarif ied that the Cowaiaeion ~ase not asking for a buifer, but • ~ ~ MINU'PL~S~ CI'PY 1'I.ANNLNC COMMISSIUN~ Mtry 11~ ].975 RECLAS5IFICA7'ION N0, 74-75~32 AND VARIANCE N0. 27U0 ((:ontinued) 75-23? for treeA on 20-foot centern to bre~k up the lang vall effect. Mr. 1'lielpa then euggested that einc~ Che planning wae to futhar proCect the northerly properl•y line. thdy wc~uld be willing to plant ndditianal trees on the nd~ac~nt property to khe north. with the permie- eion of that property owner. Ctiairman HerbBt mt-de an abAervati.on that Mr. Phelpa wus apparenCly not ~;oncerned about Che peaple in the propoeed pruject ChaC would be looking down on tha long blunk wall; and thaC the presence of the oppcaition was not hie reaeon for arguing the landacIIping pc~int.. Commisetoner Morley noted tbat the Chairmuci war~ intereated in ttie Yandcarsping for thc tenanCb ~~ho would ocr.upy ttie propoaed pro~ect. as well ae Che tenante uf the ad~ac~ent pro~ecC; ancl thaC all of the peop~e deeerved as much protection ae P~esible. Commisal~~nex Tolar questioned the pnrking spacea locuted nt the northwesterly corner of the proposed pr~~~ect where s ramp was ahown. witli inaufficiec~t buckup epace, and at the eoutheasrerly corn~r of the pr.operty where the ra~ap entrance ,~lid noX meet tt~e minimum width requirement. Thereupon. Mr. Phelpe stipulated that revised plans would be eubmitted t~ show modiflcAtiune to said parking ap~cea c~nd r.xmpe whichwould meet tlte requiremPnte. 7'he Pl~nning Commieaion entered into further discusaion with Mr. Phelpa regarding tree p].anting along Che northerly property line, during whlc:h Mr. Phelpa ngreed to inetal7. ~ne triangulurly-shaped tree wel.l tor ever;~ three paiking spaces, on upproximsCely 25~-foot cenCsrs, along the northerly property line and each tree well would be planted wiCh either three Itralian cypresa or one broKd-headed tree. Chairman Herbst indicated that would suti.afy the reQu.trements as long as the trees were noC very amall, wtieretipon, the peti- tioner at~pulated to planting a minimum of 5-gallon size treea. t;hairman Herbst clarified ct~at unles9 tlie peeitioner i..~r.ended to ~7.nnL the three Italian cypresa or one broad-headed tree in each of the trec: well~, then he wou?d insir~t upon a 10-foot laiidscaped strip along the nortrerly property iine. Commissianer. Tolar then questioned the density of the proposed project, And Mr. Roberta adviaed that figuring one u.nit per 1200 aquare feet of acreage, the pro.ject co..ld have 36.3 units per acre. llpor, questioning by the Pl~nning Commiseion, the petitioner atipu~_ated to install a lattice-type ~.overit-g on the trash encloaure areas ta acreen said areas from viewing from the apartments to the north. Coromissioner Mo~ley noted that the requested waiver of the minimum distance between build- inge was minimal, since there were only three instances when a variance was propoaed. Commissioner Farano noted Chaz he w~uJ.d be abstainin~ from voting aince he was nor, present for a ma~or portion of the public hearing. Cummissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner '~alar and MOTION CARRIGD (Cummissioner Farano abataining), that the Planning Commiasion recommends to the City Council that the sub~ect project be exempt from the requirement t~ prepare sii Environ- mental Imp~ct Report, pursuant Co che provisions of r.he California Env ironmental Quality Act. Chairman i~erhat offered Reaolution No, PC75-98 and moved for its passage and adoption, to recummend to the City Council. approval of Reclassification No. 74-75-32, sub~ect to conditiona. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO2~fISSIGNEItS: GAIJER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: COt~4dISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COt~iISSIONERS: NONG ABSTAIN : COI~fISS10NERS : FARANO Chairm~n Heroat offe.red Resolution No. PC75-99 an•1 moved for its passage and adoption, that Petition for Variar.ce No. 2700 be and herei,y is grantea, granting waiver of the minimum floor ar~~a to allow 550 square feet~ as propoaed, on the basis that the P1annLng Commisaion has ~~eviously granted eaid waiver for ef£iciency units, ^c~ to exceed 25~ of the total number of apartment units; granting waiver of ~"° Ta^{m„m .~t CtA!1(~P }1PttJLP_i1 ~ ~ ~ MINUTF;S~ CI.TY T'i.ANNLNC COMMISSION, May 12, 1975 ~5~233 R~CLASSIFICATTON N0. 74-75-32.AYD VARIAN(:E N0. 2700 (ConCinuad) building~ on the baeio Chat --c~i.d wnivcr pertulned to only Chr~e locAtlonA in the propoaed developmrznt ~nd~ therofore, tlia requaet ie determined Co be minimal.; eubJect to the stipu- lution of tl~e peti.tioner to utilizp more p.lc~ae~nt earth-tunr_ r.olora and mnterit~la for the roofe oI [he cnrporte lac~ted ulong the north property line :~nd that reviAed plane ahowing eaid modificutiuns ehnll. be bubmitCed prior to City Caut~cil review of Che propnhtl; eubject Co tt~e stipulation of ~hc petitioner. tu prnvide one tri.angularly-oliaped tree well for avery tl~ree P~rking epuce~ alon~ the northerly propcrty line~ each tree well Co be plantod wiLh elther threa Ttallnn cypreas CceeR or one broad-headed tree. eai.d trec~e to be rs minimum of 5-gnllon aize~ and that revi.sed Flana to shnw the lacntion of the tree wclls approximutel.y 25~ f.eet npart nnd epecifying tl~r. Cvpe trees Co be planted ehn.ll be submitCed prior to City ~~uncil. review of the pruposal; ~ub~e.ct to thN etipulati.un of ~he petiti.onei• to modify the parklnq spaces locaCcd At the nurt:~weaterly ~nd southeneterly corners of t:l~e ~nb~ect proper.r.y to provide c-ciequate backup epace~ and thnt revised plane showing aNid modi.CicuCion shall be aubmitted prior to r,ity Council review of thc propoaal.; subJect to the stipulatlon by the petit:oner to inatall a latCice-type coveXing on tl~~ t:rash encloaure areas to acreen eaid areus from viewing f'rom the apartments to th~: north, and that reviaed plana showing eaid covering ehall b~~ s~ibmittad prlor t~ City Council r.ev~.ew of the proposal; und oub~ece to condltians. l5ee Reaoluti.on Book) Or; roll ca11, the foregoing rec~oluCion wae paesed by the f'ollowing vote: AY~S: COhII~1IS3I0NERS: GAUER, JOHNSC~N, KING, MUkLFY, TOLAR, NEFtllST NOES : COIy4~1ISSI0NERS : NONE ABSEI~T: COMMI3SIONERS: NONE t~BSTAi:N; I:OrIINISSIONERS; FAkANO NATIONAL I'I.OOD INSURANCE PROGRMi •• Propoaed particip~-tion by the City of Anaheim. AE~pruximately ten persons indicated their presence in ti~e auJience regarding ttie subject pr.ogusal. Aseociate Planner G. AYlun Daum presented the Staff R~port to tt~e Planning Commission dated May 12, 1975, and the szn-e is wade a part of th~ minutey. Mr. Daum m~.de a slide pre~entation regarding the National Flood Insurance Program and explained Chr3lC fuilure of the Ctty to participate in said pr.ogram would result in a cut-off of all federal an@ fr.derally-r.elated financing t~ the community in ttie flood hazard area, as defined by the Federal Insurance Adminis~:r.ation, and would affecL a'1 construction, real estute acquisi- tion and any substantial ~nprovements to properties in the flood hazard area; that the City would have until July 1, 1975 or oi~e year from the publication date of. the fl.ood hazard boundary map to actuaZly participate; that the flood liazard map indicating those portions of the City which the engineering contractur determined were in the flood hazard areu, was prepared by an engineering contractoX in Har~risbur.g, Pennsylvania; that, with the assist.ance of a map prepared by the local Corps of Engineere, City staff wa~ able to scale the FIA Map down to a much amaller area that would be consider.ed lo be the flood- prone area; that rhe City had appealed the FIA map on Che b~sis of the Corps of Enginee~'s map and acknowledgment was received fro~ FIA that the appeal was accepted and a re-study would be conducted az soon a~ Fossible; and that, however, no revi.sed map had ~e~ been received from FIA, and L•he City would be compelled to Join the program on che basis of the first map recei.ved frc~n FIA. In response L•o questioning by Commissioner Farana, Mr. Daum adviaed that the Federal Insurance Administrat'_on had cuntracted with [he firm of Michael Baker, Inc., of Harris- burg, Pennsylvania, to prepare the f]ood hazard boundary map for Anaheim and oCher. cities throughout Califurnia; t~~at aa revised mapa became available, *he areas excluded from the boundaries would becnme exempt from the lnsurance program; that if the revised maps were not received prior to Che mandated deud5.ine, then all proFertiea wtthin the presently- deaigr.ated flood hazard boundsries would be required to purchase the flood insur~zr:ce for construction financing, acquieition, or any substantial improvementa, a.nd when the revised maps were publiahed, the ~roperties exclude:~ from the ~+oundaxies at thar point in time would become exempt and poeaibly a refund of any £lood insurance premiums for the excluded properties could be affected. Comm~esioner Tolar inquired if the individual propertiy owners would have to appeal to obtain a refund if their property was excluded aftEr purchasfng such insurance. Mr. Daum adviaed it was his undecatandi.ng that if the preeent flood haZard mapb were negated, the inaur.ance companiea would make refunds to properti.es excluded from said boundnries, where appropriate. s ~ • D1INU'fl's5, CITY PI.,'1NNiNC COr41iSSTON, May 12~ 1975 NAT[.ONAL FL001) IN5UftANCE PR~(iEtAM (Continuod) 75-2 3~i Tn response ~~~ quoRtioning by Chairuu~n Nerbst, Mr. Deum advised thet Che critaria for developnwnt in the ilood haznrd area would baaically remuin ue it pr.eeently wo.e until. tho elevnCi.on etudy was completed. which miglit Cake approximately three yeare; that if n dev~LoUmc~nt wue constXUCted Ln phases~ for inatanecY the developer might he able to coo- etruct two ptinees in the em~rgency etage of the Nqtional FLooJ Insurunce Prugx'nm with minur or no ci-anges to kltc. exietis~g building criteri.u, ho~rever~ for Cha third phaee thaC developar might be required to build in confor.mance to new and etringent requ-remenl•H~ Chairman Hcrbet questloned 11ow the work of the Corpn of L'ngineers could be negatecl, and noted that the Corpe of L'nginaers had been doing work wltt- the Prn-lo Dam~ etc. Mr. Daum c~dvioed that ttie NFIF had baen suffering many mppeals and it war~ evidene that there was u lack of communicati.on in ttie preparation of flood hazard boundary mapa; thKC, in his opinion~ there was no queation ttiat lhare were problema involved if the mape, as received, wer.c to he enforced; that, although ~ re-aCudy was ini.tiated, by Che tia~e revised plnns werP rece:tved, the City would have al-endy joi.ned the pr~grum and mRde certain commicmNnts, and citizena of the community would have purr:hased ingurance who wuuld not have otherwise had to do ao. Chaira-an Nerbat que~tioned what impact would reault on thP NFIP if the Corpa of Engineers raised Yrada Dum ~nd mf~de t;~e lmprovement to the Santa Ann River Lha~ would eliminate ttie City of Anahetm t'rom the fl.uod hazar.d nreA altogether. Mr. llaum adviaed that a loc~l agency, known ras the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency, aina `ormed to lobby in that regard; that if the known itema which cause~ the Cit:y of Anaheim and other cities and counties to be i.n the floo~ tiazard areas were e].i.mina~ed, it would uppear that Che NrIP wo~xld tiot be necesaar.y fur sa~d ereas. Commiasioner Piorle,y m~de an observation that by the time the corrected work was accomplished to allpvint~ the need for insurance protectiun, the pr'esently remaining undeveloped portions of the City migi-C be aonatructed on atilts. ~hairma.n Herbst added that writing to the City's congres~men and other responsible public officiala might be i.n order to save the spending of milliuns of dollars in insurance premiuma, constr.uction costs, etc., since a fJ.ood might. not or_cur for another ten or more ye~rs. Commiaeioner Tolar noted tt~at there would be millions of dollars spent for insur.ancp premiume by citizens wi~o were purctiasing homes, even under the revi.sed maps if they were received; th~~~ he intended to vote against tiie City's participation in the program based on the unrevi.sed map and, as a result, he mighC be out of the real zatate business for six mor-ths or so sin~e federal funding would cease; that, in his opinion, Che program wae "graft" on the people throughout the United Stritea for flood cantrol proble~ia which exiated i.n the midwest; and that insurance corapanies concurred that it wa~~- ''graft." Mr. Daum explained that since there was no real identificatiun of flood losaes, in an attempt to alleviate the problem, the government had come up with the nation-wi.cla program. Commissioner Tolar further noted t}iat in Anaheim, the insurance companies and lenders had got~en together and agreed to require the flood inaurance on a11 properties and, preaently, most of the people worked two jobs in order to buy ~ liome. Commissioner King noted that the EnvironmenCal Protection Agency had already about ruined the building trade. Commissiotcer Farano inquired how the developer.s and property ~wners felt abou.*. the program and Commissio-aer Tolar noted that they would probably pay the $6 or $7 per month; howaver, he wus not serving on a political bod~ end was apposed to it. Cotnmisaioner Farano then inquired iF CommiasLoner Tolar thoughe lt was fair to jeopardize the abil.ity of the citizens to gain financing., althougl~ they were being forced to select between two forms of auicide; and he noted th.r perhaps the citizens sh~uld be able to make their own choice. Commiasioner T41ur noted that it waa unfair to force an,ything do•an anyone's throat. In reaponae to further questioning by Commi.ssioner Farano, Mr. Daum ad~iaed that if the City did not join the Program, the government was ~tipulating that the property owners would not be indemn3.fied in case of a loss; that if a citizen k•iahed to purchase the ineurance but the City wae not participating in the Program, the insurance would not be available at the federally--subaidized rate and the citizens would be required to pa~ many timea the National As»ociati.on of Flood Inaurance rate. Cowniseionec Gauer reviewed the handling oP cl.aims for flood damage in 1970 by the Red Crosa Baard when approximately $?.5 million was handed out to individuals who were unable to c~bsorb their damagea. Mr. Daum then advised that t~-ere wue a 1X chance of a 100-year. flood every year. ~ o M1NU1'~:5~ CiTY P1.ANNINC COMMISSTON~ May 12~ 19'75 NATIQNAL FLOOQ I.NSUItANCE PROGftAM (Continuod) ~ ~ 75-23`r Plunning Sup~rvieor llon McllAniel noted far the Plenni.ng CotGmiseion that e mailgram l~ed bpen recei~~ed from idr. Robert Ftunter~ Federsl Lieurynce Adminetruti.un, WaehingCon, D. C. ~ and suid mrilgram wae rend into the rtcord r~s folluwa: ~r~YoC Mahelm~ City of Orange Co. P. 0. Sux 32?2 An:iheim, Ca. 92803 To: All. flood pr.•on~ communitea~ not particip~-ting in the National Floud 7neurhnce Pr~gram F*om: J. Rabert Hunter, rederal Insurance AdminiAtration, I 5ubiect: Flood Dieaster 1'rotecCion Act of 1973, Section 2U2~ Gffecl of. NonparCicipetion in Che Flood Inaurance Progrr~m Thie ie to remind you t1~aC there are approximately 90 d~ya r~maining befure tiie Kanctione of Secti~n 2U2 of tlie Flnod Alsaater 1'~•otection Act of 1973 will begin to kakr. eff.ect in your commtiniky. Ae wc t-ave communicated to you pre~~~iously~ effective July 1, 1975~ or one year c~fCer a comrnunity t~as been iiotified of its tentat.ive identificatinn as having one ar more areas oi special flood hazard~ whichever is later, no f.ederal or federally-reluted financial as~iatance for construction or acqui- sitlon purporses may be approveu for. use in an urea identif•Led by the Secretary of HUD as a special flo~d hazard area, unlesa the community in which such area is aiCuaCed is then participating in the National Fl~od Insurance Program. Such financial assistance includes FHA- and VA- insured mortgage ~oans, as weli ~a conventional mortgage loans from federally- regulatcd lending inatitutions. We urge you, therefore, to submit an applicati.on for participation as soon as posaible, not only to avoid the ~dverse r.onaequencea of nonpArticipation, but ta make available to tl-~e residenta of the communiCy both the benefits of federally-subsidized flood in~urance, and the prntection afforded by Che c~mmu~ity's responsible regulation of its flood plain. If you requtre any assistance in completing the application for.n we previously iurnished you, or if ttiere are questions about any aspect. of the program, you may contact one of our r.egional flood tnaurance specialists at the HUll Regional Office nearest you or the Star,.e Coordinating Agency in your area, a list of whom was provided to you earlier, or ;~~~~ may contact o~ir Offlce o£ Fload Inaurance in Wast~ington at (20?.) 426-0015. We will be wait- ing your. res}~on,se. Acttng Federal Insurance Admini~traCar" Mr. Daum then advised that the City had been notified all a1~~ng that the reviaed maps were forthcoming in the L•uture and, to hls knowledge, sai.d maps would probably reflect the Corp;~ of Engineerg' data. Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, Presidetit o£ the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Asaociation, 131 South La Paz, Anatieim~ appeared before the Flanning Commiasion and questioned how much of. Anaheim was involvec~ when Che flood occurr~d on March :i, 1938. In responae, Chairman Herbat ncted the approximate area, which included across the canyon to Fullerton, stopp:ing at the railroad trscks, with the main f'lood guing through La Pa1ma Park, and that the citieb of Fountain Valley and Stanton w~re also flooded. Mrs. Dinndorf then stated that Prado Dam was conatructed with a concrete base and she underatood that a reaidue of silt had built up, reducing the capacity by about one-fourth. She qu~stioned the amount of damage to the canyon area during the 1969 flood and noted that the Carbon Canyon Dam had been conatructed since Chat time. She further questioned what would happen to tha hac~s in the river bed if they did not have thE flood insurance. In response, Mr. Daum adviaed that the property owners would be required to purchase the flood insurance only if and when they snld their homaf or if they purcha~ed a home, ~ ~ ~ MTNUTIsS~ CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIQN. May 12, 1975 75-•236 NATIONAL FLO(7D INSURANCE PRQGttAM ((:~ntirwed) depending on the type of flnancing th••y dought; that the propcsrCy uwcier.r~ woul.d I~ave the option Co purchaee the fluod in9urance and would not be forced to purchaeo it unJ.oee thvy boughC ur eold; nnd that if the prupe.rCy owner wae withln the fl~od h~aard boundnry and did not puxcliuse the ineurance, 1-e would be negl~ctli~g ku do eo at hin own ri~k. Mr. J~-um explnined that the ineurnnce ~ramium wauld be approximatelv 'l5C par $lUU vz~luntion to a m~c~auw of $~0,000~ und Chat lat~~r on additional amounts oE ineur.ance would t~ecome nvHil- nb.le. Mre. Dinndurf then~ cnmmented t~...t the houaes in tt~e canyon ar~:+~ were presenCly oel] ing for more than $50,000, nnd perhapa no more homes ehould be built on Ch~ river bottom. Mr. .TE-mes l:mmi~ Kimberly Development Company, 1009 I3olphin Tarracc~, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commiesion and atut~d he was the owner of Sun Industrial PY~upertiee developed on Kimberly Avcsnue next to Fullarton and the drainaqe di.t~h; that he wae appa].1ed nt Che attitude af the Plann~ng Commi.eaion s.tnce, in his opinion, the pro~ram wns a good Ghi.ng; that ho had Uoen waiting for years for the opportunily to purchase f]ood lnaurance on hie proparty anci it had not been ~-vailable to him or hi~ tenunts in any torn-; t.iiat khey :~ad some pretty sevore losses on some ~f their buildinge in Che paet; tt-at Pracio Dam had nothing to do witfi the need thaC had develope~i from all of. the bui~.ding that had ~ccurred in Fullertun~ Placentia and Anaheim, cr~ur.ing coneiderably more runoff with the drainage ditch being unable to handle :t; tt~at ae a result, wt~enever thPre was a l~eavy rain for u ehort duratior~ of time wiCh approximately one-half lnch of r.ain in an },our, Che drainage diCch overflnwed and the culvert under Raymond wao not large enough; thet all of thc streets and buildings in the arex were fleoded and the owners were helpless co du anything about ir..; and, therefore, in his opinion, ~he Commigeion wo~il.d be wel.l-advised to aeek advice from the City Engineeriug Division on r.he matter. Chairm~an lierbst inquired lf Mr. Emmi betieved that all of Anaheim ahould be raised one Eoot at>ove the floon level, and Mr. F~smii etaCed that if the existing buildings hud been require~' to be constructed in thut fashion. the City would not have ttie problem iC had today. Commissior_er Tolar noted thet lt appeared that the whole cicy of Maheim wuuld be asked to subsidize the problem that Mr. Ermni was havinR. Mr. Emmi then stated that the people would not be required to take out the ineuranc~: unless they wished to do so. Mz. Daum interjected that ~~he people would be required to purchase t.he insurance if they weza ~elline or buyin~; pruperry in the flood hazard area. Commiasioncr Morley noted that the anawer to i~~olated problem areas was not to penalize the entire City. Mr. Emmi suggeated that Che City ~oin the program to receive the benefits, with ehe idea of modifying the flood area boundariea later on ~cince L•he revised mapa werP forthcoming. Mr. Daum advi.aed that the City did not know when ths revised mapa were expected. In response to questioning by Guwmissioner Farano, Mr. F~nmi stated that a[ the time he constructed the buildings on tiis property and the uther development occurred in the citi~s of Anaheim and Placentia, there was not enough runoff to even require a drainage ditch; however, with tFie amount of development in the area, the Flood Contrul District should have provided f~r more drainage than it did; and that the drainage problem in th~ area had occurred within the past two years and with relatively light rain. Chairman Herbst noted that if aome mechanical chunges could be accompliahed to correct the £looding problem of the City, the entire City should not be penrslized. Mr. Emmi then stated that th:re were a few law sui.ts pending regai•ding the flooding and he was atrongly ~!n favor of t~ia program; and that he continued to develop in Anaheim but, from hie point of view, the flood inaurance wouJ.d be a great benefit similar to fire insurance, et~. Mr. David Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, appeared b~fore the Planning Commission and star.ed he was not garticularly familiar wi.th the details of tha law but it bothered him when people atated there were no rroblem~s regarding flooding; that he was in Anaheim in 1916 when waCer apread over all the City in a ma~or flood; that Lake Flainore did not r~in over in 193'_ however, durirg a general rain, the spi].lway did get uaed; that improve- ments would inake t~« water run rapidly into the atreets and when that happened Chere woiild be serious danger all over tewn and r~ot in ~ust a few places; ehat the CiCy should be in th~ progrem as part of the anawer to the problems; that, basically, the guvernment was ~ ~ ~ IdINUT~:B ~ CITY PL.MINING COA4115SION, Mny ;.2. 1975 NATZONAI. rI.00D TNSURANCE PRUCRArt (Continued) 75•-237 muvi.ng ta Eill a vacuum thet tiie citl.oe hAd refused to fi.ll over the yeore; that ['rRd~> Oam ehould be raised and the City ahould try to get the Cor.pe of BngineerH ~c~f~ccelerate thut program e~nd the chon~ali.zntion of the Santn Ana River; that he would auggeeC ~oining the progrnm~ and then aCnxk beal:ing khe d~'um e+o tttiat Anahelm would not have ko br reieed ~~ti stilts and nlso to c~l.levieate the neceesity to purct~ase ttte lnsurence. Mr. Rohert Hoel•etter~ 413 South Brookl~urAt S~reet~ Anal~-eim, appaared befot•~ th~ Planning Cownlasiun and eCated t~e ~11d not favor governmcsnt inc:ervQnti.an into community probletaa and he did no~_ take it li~htl.y thr~t the Planning Commieeion was oppoRed to whut had occurred; that he was preeenC duri.ng the fl~ud in San Hernardino ancl wes of the opinion thAt tiie: cities were cap~ble o£ solving their own problems withaut getCing ~nvolved with Che government. Commiasioner Cauer then noted ttiat the Planning Commisalon wae not oppoh•:d to tt-e ineurance eince the pcople shu~ild be able to buy iC~ however, he was oppoaed ro blackmalling the aren into a situation that was created by incorrect maps; and that, in hie opinion, t.he property ~~wriers should be able to purchase the insurance wlthc~ut being forced to do 30. Commiasiuner Murley then n~ted thak it would be ~ifficult to accept the respon~sibility ~~f a negative vate when the repercu~ssions to the citizens of Anaheim could be so greut. THG PUBLIC HGAR'LNG '..+S CT.OSED. Commiasioner I'arano noted that t4ie prugratn could more a~proprintely be ralled "h~ghway robl~nry"; thaL• if only the neople who actually neeled r_he insurance purchased it, the co5t would be prohibitive, likened to an Rutomobile owner who had an accident every 60 days and had to insure himself; that the echame to produce a reasonable prsmium, whether private or aubsidized, would have to epread tiie cost Aver a broad base or it would not be practical and the ones wtio would auffer th4 lasses would not be able to afford zhe insurnnce. In that relationship, Comn~tasi~ner Morley noted that on that same baeis, why shauld :~ man who owned no automobile at al]. have to have automobile insuinnce. Commisaioner Farano then noted that the theory of insurance was to eprea~' the ris1. Mr. Daum claritied that the City had challenged the bo~indary maps and the prugram would apply to revised maps which should bagically be the eame as the area designated by the Corps of Engineera; and that the stri:~genC land ~.ise controls would be effective after Che fl.ood eleva~ion rate study was c:ompleted~ about three years from the time Che City indi- cated it w~uld participate in the pr.ogram itaelf. He further advised that if the City ~oined on the Uasls of the maps available aC this xime and nubsequently revised maps were received, the building co~ntrols would be applicable to the revised boundary mapa. Commissioner Farano then indicated t'~at he did not sliare the c~~nfidence lhat tlie revised maps would be rece.ived in the next f.ew monthe. Mr. Daum advised that the C'.ty had written communlcation indicating ttiat the re-study wae underway and revised mapA were forChcomin.g. Commissioner Farano suggested that the Planning Co~nnisaion approve thE area designated by the Corps of Gngineers and that the City pursue the matter with their governmental le~is- lators to expedite the revised maps eo that th~ City would not be uub~ecting the developera and property ownera to unnecessary harasament; and that it would appear that it would be easier to get out of the program than it would be to geC intc it. In response to questi.oning by Chairman Herbst, Mr. llavm advised thaC the City could probably get out of ttie proqram if it was willing to forego the federal financing; that in the event the revised mapa were never received, the City would be bound by the. original maps; and that the designated flood area would probably be the only area affected by the elevaGion rate study. Commiesioner Tolar noted that it would appear that the Cit~ would be condoning the actions of the Federal Government in thia matter unless the City did something ubout it. Commtesioner Farano noted that the City had some influence with its legislatore nnd Chat influei-ce should be exercised. Mr. Daum further advised that participarion hy the City at this point in time would not negate the appeal which wae on fil~ and which would be part oF the City's package of approval, atipulating t.hat Che C..ty waa not negating its appeal and that the City intended to have revised mape. ~ ~ ~ MINUTN:3~ CITY PLANNLNC COMMISSION. May 12, 1975 75-23F3 I~ATIONAL FLOUD INSURANCE PRaCRAM (Coc~tinued) Deputy City Attorney N'i•:.nk Lowry noted for the Planning Commiesion L•hut eample resolutiona had t~een eubwitted hy ~ha Qovetnmental egency fnr appro~vnl by the City ro affact partici- pation~ and khet no chn.~gee could be mado to dame; tharefore~ if tl~~ City did not accopc nnd adout tha resalutione~ ae preoented~ tha approval would nat be effective. Chairman HerbeC notad that if the program was Curned dawn and the people could not get Pinancing~ the community wrould become acCl.va snd poseibly get a more appropriate progrem for tha City; and that: ~he financia]. inetitutione~ real eetate buxinesaeR, etc.~ would be~_omo i.nvulved in thin andeavor. Commiseionor King indicaXed that t•he uc~iona would eleo becrnne involved, Chairman tlerbet nor,e~l that his reaction stemmed from the fact that the legls],atore had nut even bothered to look at Che City of Mahetm's flood plain; L•haC the government was telling the Ci.ty that it had to join by a certai.n date even tho~igh the government had not complered their work in the maeter and~ therefora~ it was hia £eeling tliat the govern.ment ehould poetpone the mandatory daCe for participaCiun and by doing eo n~t penaJ.ize tha many property awnere in the City ot Anc~helm wha did not need to have the lnsurance. Commieaioner Johneon concurred that the City was being forced to vote between t~.°o undeeir~ able pr~~;~~aitione --• that voting "no" would accomplish a purpoae and wouZd. stimutate community inCereAt to get an appropriate progrsun for the City, however, a few busi.nesa people would be out on the front line during the interim period; and that by voting to participate ai thia time would be committing the citizene to the program ar~d the appropriate maps might nevpr be r~ceived, etc. Commiseioner Farano made an obaervation that it appeared there wae not time to turn the prugra~ down and to inatitur.e Che appropriate mer.surFa to oUtain the revised wr,ps prior to the man3atory date. ComtoisRionex' King noted that by ~oining wiCh other Orange County cities, and combining forces, something might be accomplished towa:d having a more appropriate program £or the citizens; and t'r~at tl~e Co~mniss•Lari was we1~. awh~P of what the EPA, OSHA and ather .legis- laCive bills could do. He further noted that if the cities acted ic~ unison, all conatruc- tion in Lhe County would stop and that would great].y affect the untons and posaibly encourage quick ar.kion. Commissioner Johnson noted thaC reaponsibility for such an ac.tion would be placad with the citl~s. Commissioner Farano then noted that the cities' responsibilit~~ was to be on the front line xnd the cities should think in terms of an acceptable solution to the problem. Mr. Daum noted for the Planning Commisaion that three draft resalution~ were attach~d to the Staff Report lor the Commisaion's conaiderakion; that to participate9 two of the draft reaolutiona were necessury to be adapted by the City, being the reaolutior. pertuining to the mrstter of parti.cipation of the City of Anaheim in the National Flood Insurance Program, and the aecond resoluti.on pertaining to the City of Anaheim's eatablistunent of a building permit system and review procedure; and that the third resalution pertained to affirmation of the City's appeal of Special Flood Hazard Boundary Maps. He clarified that the City had little or no oppartuniry to change the commitments contained in the first two resolu- tiona~ if it wished to participate in ehe program. Commisaioner Farano noted that he would want the Ci.ty Council to know that r.he system emp~oyed by the Federal Goveznment was obnoxi~ua to the American way of life, and the Council ehould exercise a power of influence to see to it that, if the program was to be conducted or cont3nued, the proper £lood maps were prepared as early as pnsaible ao that the ci.tizens uf the City would be no more expoaed to a"rip-off" than absolutely necessary. Chairman tlerbst noted that h~ wanted Co go on record as opponed to the program as preaented; that he owned property in the Noxtheast IndusCxial District and might stand t gain by the insuxsnce, but he was oppoaed to the manner of the program which was unJuat and incorract, and the City ahould not participate on the busie of incorrect maps; that the Orange County cieies ehould get with their city councils and governmental representatives to change the program in a manner that would be more appropriate aad not uader the terms, boundari.~e, and manner tn which it was preaently ,~roposed; and khat the ultimatum glven was ~~ot appro- priate~ sp~cificall;~ in view of the fact that all of the work ti~~t ehould be done b,y the governmental ~gency wae not completed. ~ • ~ r MINUT~3~ CIT° PLANNING COD41I33IQN~ May 12~ 1975 ~~-?3~ NATIONAI. FLWO IN3UItANCL~ PROGRAM (Continuod) Commieeioner Farano noted thet if l•ha I'lnn~ing Cummieai.on wou].d coneider euggesting and recomcnendinQ to the Ciry Counc~l that the City preecribe a epecifi.c method by which the whoie matter. ehould be protected~ inc1u31ng to the legielstore~ by aggreseiva and pooitive actiang, then he would be in favor of preeing on the draft reeolutiona. Mr. Lawry advised that tt~e Comml.seion could take whatever action rhey falt approprt:~r~, and thttt Cheix action would the~i be c~neidered by the City Council i.n waking the fLnal decieion in tlie matter, Cummiesioner Moiley raitarated that if the Pl.anni.ng Cam~aission did not recowmend partici- petion in Che program at this point in time, he would vote againet eaid acCion becauae he wou].d not subjecC Che citizena of Annheim Co tlie probleme thal would ariae if the City did not ~oin. Chairn-an Herbst furtt~er notpd thaC two wronge did not make a right; thet the City Council. ehould m~et with repreeentatJ.vea at the State and Fed~•31 levels in an effort to cor~ecl• the eituation in a mannet acceptabte to the Ci.ty; and that b~1 denying part.iciputi.on, tha Ci.ty would force repr.eaentativee of the banking, building and loan, and real eatate bueir-esoes~ ae wetl as many homeowYiers~ etc.. to bacome invol.ved in eomethin~ thal af~ecCed them moeC directly. Cotnmissioner. Fuxano inquired if theze was a poseibility that the City o£ Anaheim could hAVe any recourse againat Michael Baker~ Inc, for not completing the revised mapa within the time frame which would a11ow the CiCy to base their decision to parti.cipate or not to participate un same. He noted thaC a1t that the City of Anaheim c~uld bring to ti_ar, sllnuld be arought to bear on the matte;- tu have che reviaed mape by July 26, 1975; and that perhapa some preseure ehuuld be placed on Michae]. Baker, Inc., alsu. Commiesioner Tolar noted that either way tlie Planaing Commission voted ~n the matter, i.t would be tarong. Commisaioner Morle~ noted that *he City was making ~'. decisiot- for the Gitizens of Anaheim and the citizena liad not had enough tiine to makE: input for conaideration. Chairman Herb~t offered Resolution No. PC75-105 and moved for ite paseage and adoption, as follows: RESOLUTION N0. PC75-105 A RESOLUTION OF '1`~iE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAtiEIM PERTAINING TO THE MATTER OF °.AFtTICIPATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN THE NATiONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FROGRAM. WHERCAS, official notice of Anatieim's flood-prone atatus and flood hazard boundary maps became effective July 26, 1974 anci, under provisiocia of the Nations~l Flood ~n~urance Program, the City has until July 1, 1975, or one year from the publication date ef flood hazard boundary maps, to voluntarily participate in the program, or within aix (6) months appeal the inltial findinge of the Federal Tnsurance Administration; and WHEREAS, in view of evident d:tacrepancies between the Federal flood hazard. boundary maps and ].oc~J. Corpa of ~ngineera flood hazard data, the City of Anaheim appea2ed said Federal maps; and WHEREAS, notice has been received that a re-sCudy of Anaheim's floud hazard boundariea, as well as other California cities, has been lnitiated by the kederal Ineurance Adminiatration and~ although said re-atudy and reviaed mhpa were to be available by February, 19i5, sa3d reviaed mspa have not yet been received; and WHER~AS, the City Planning Commfssion did hold s public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim cn May 12, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., noeice of said publi.c hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance w°iCh the proviaions of t'ho Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear. and consider evidence for and ageinat said proposal to participake in the Natianal Flood Lneurance Frogram by the City a£ Maheim, and to inveatigate and make findings and recommendatiions in connection therewith; and ~ ~ ~ MINU'CES~ CITY PLANNINC COMMI33IAN~ May 22, 1975 75-240 NATIONAL FLOOU INSURANCB PROGRAM (Cont;inued) WliL~REA9~ naid Cc~mcuiseion~ after due i.nep~ction. inveetigation and atudy a-ade by itself and in ite bahalf~ and aPter due conaiderntion oP all avidenae and reporto offerc-d at eaid ha~ring~ DOES H~~tEBY FIND: l. That~ aince the flood~pxone sCatus and flood hazard t~oundary mape submitCed by the Federal Ineurance Adminietration ara erronaous~ suber_ribing t~ the National Flood Inaurance Program at thi~ time may not be in the beet interasC af the c~.tizane of lhis City. particularly ~inca there ie n conflic: between the boundary mapo aub~aittgd by the Federal Ineurance Adminietrakion which indicate approx~.mately 90X of the City ia located in the floud-prone area~ aad tho mapa prepared by the Corpe of ~nginuere which indicate ep~+roxi- mistely 30~40X of the City ie located in the fload-prone area. 2. T'iat~ until currc;cted mape and relative informatiu:~ are received by the CiCy~ it may be r~pproFriats to form a"aittzene committee" to vigorously puraue the type of Federal insurancc program needed by the City whiah will be based upon a definite and eubetantiated n~Pd far a deeignated axea of Anaheim to have thie type of inaurance. 3. That there are reaervations in the minds of the City Planning Commiasionera that, if participation is a$reel Co, tt~en the reviatd maps may not be expedited to an early completion and may never be received by the City, which would be mate.~ially and economically detrimental tc the Citizena of the Cl.ty of Anahei.m, 4. That the City Council is urged to meet wi.th representAtives of Che United States Cuvernment responaible for ;:he National Fluod Inaur.anr.e Program and with thie City's legislative representatives to make the City's posiCion in this mAtter more Cenable by at least having a correct flood hazard boundary map an whicli Co base ixs declaion prior to the mandated deAdline for City participation in the Natianal Flood Inaurance Program. 5. Tliat the City Planni.ng CommiaRion conr_urs in a auggeation made by the opposition at said public hearing, that the City not be tequired to parti_cipate ln the NationAl Flood Inaurance Program but to be requir~d t~ participate wir.h other cities in the area tio correct the aituations wnich are kno~~n to exise making Che City flood--prone. NOW, TI~IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City P1Rnning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the City not parti.cipate in the National Flood Insurance Program at this time, on the basis of the foregoing findings. On roll cal'l, the foregoing reaolution was pasr~ed by Che following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, ~OLAR, HERBST N~ES: C~)~iISSIONERS: MORLEY AB3ENT: COMMiSSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Gauer offe:ed Reaolution No. PC75-106 ar.d moved for ~ta passage and adoption, to rec~mmend t~ the City Council adoption uf a xeaolution affirming the City's appeal of Sppcial Flood Hazard I3oundary Map purauant to the National Tlood Inaurance Program. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoi.ng reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AY~S: COMMISSIOI~ERS: FARANO~ GAUER, JOt~NSON, TCING, MORLE'Y, TOLAR, HEkBST NO~S: CC~r-MISSIONERS: NON~ ABSENT: COt~4~tI5SI0N~RS: NONE RECESS - At 4:30 p.m., Chairman Herbxt declared n recess. R1:CONVENE - At 4:45 p.m., Chairman Herbat reconvened the meeting with all Plaaning Commissioners preeent. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COhQ~1TSSI0N~ May 12~ 1475 75-2N1 CONDITIUNAL USE - Yl1BLIC HEARTNC. ANAHLIM ML~MORIAL li0'3PITAL A3SQuipTION~ 1111 Wast La PERMIT N0. 1533 I'alma Avr.nue~~ Anaheim~ Ca. 928~J1 (Owner); JAMB3 W. MC p1.VIN, AriMINI3'PItA'TOR~ 1111 Weat La PnJ.ma Avenue~ Anxheim~ Ca. 92801 (Agent); requaetin~ permiseion ta E3TAALISH A NELI9TOP IN CONJUNCTION W'ITF' AN EXT.STING HOSPITAL oii properr.y described es: Axt irregularly-ehaped parr_Q1 of .tand c~neist~ ing of appruximately 11 acree lacated at tha northweet coxner of Za P~lms Avenue and West Str.eet~ having appror.i.mate frontages of 850 feet on the north side of La Paluia Avaniie and 380 feet nn the eaet eide of Weat S~_reet, znd furChar deecrib~sd a~ 1111 Weet La Pa1ma Avenue. Property pre~ently clasaified CO (C01~4lERCIAL~ OFFICE A"D PRGFESSIONAL) ZONF. One pereon indicated hie preeeitce in opposition to ~ub~~ct petiti~n. Aesietant Zoning Supesvieor Mr~ika Santalah[i read the Sr.aff Report to Lha Planning Commiasion dereJ MaY 12~ 1975~ und said Staff ~tepor' ia referr.ed Co as it aet f~rt:h in cull in the m~lnutes. Mr. Randy Bosah, r~pregenting the archit~at for the pr.opoeal., app.~ared before the Plannin~ Commioaion and s':ated tt-e Rubmitted plnns would speak for themaelvPe; that Che AnahEim Memorial Hospital t~nd established an nutstanding reputatlon and wae very well kn~wn, partlculurly for the equipment and ability lo rare for coronary patienCs; that it wae estimated thaC approximately 115,OOG peaple were wiChin five miuutee of eurf.acP travel tc the hoapital, however~ there was a need f~r a heli.copter a~.rcraft to transpor.t patients when the made of Cransnortation might determine Cheir life or death; Chat the proposal had been .inapected by tile Aeronautica Di~~ision of the Califort~ia State Department ot Trane- purtaCion and the Fedaral Aviation Administration, and their approval would be bg~aed upun the City of Anaheim Plur,ning C•~nmisaion and City ~ouncil approvals of eame; that the Orar.ge County Airport wae aloo agreeable to thA pr~poeal; that two aerial pholos of the hospital facility had beeii submitted for the Commission'~c review, said photos indicating the flight pattern for the helicopter.; that, regarding noise, the helicopters ko be used would be similar. to ~hose used by the Anah~im Police Departv~ent; and that very rarely would a marine or off--ahore helicopter use the facility. Mr. G~yle Adams, reprnsauting Bell He~icopter Company, appeared before the Planning Commiaeion to anawer qveations regarding the propoeal. He explained that the heli.copters were not heavy duty; thak the flight patCern would cnuae a m{.:iaal amount of dio~turbance in the area, however. they had not measurad the noise; that the aircraft would be turbine- po~wered, versus the piaton-powered aircraft whicl- was mu~h noisler; and that the noisiesC portion of the operation would be when L•he aircraft F•as ~t full power -- immedlately upon approach to the sit-down and upon lift--ofi aC Che site, HP further expl.sined that du~ Co the unobnoxio~is frequen^y af the sound from rhe aircraft, the decibel rating would be different from other kindu of sound and, in sCrai~Y~t decibelr~, the sound would be louder; and that concerning control of the fiight pactern, the aircraft would be governed by the FAA requirements ~~nd thP hPlicopter. directory. Mr. Ralph M, $owers ~ 1135 Nor:h ~Jest Sti'~:eC, Ar-aheim, appeaz•ed before ChP PLanning Commission ana atated he lived immedately ad~acent to the hoapital parking ~ot and there waa only a concrete block wall to aeparate his properCy from ssid parking l~t; that the pmergency aircraft usually operated on Sundays; and t.hak followl.ng a diesel truck do,an a Freeway would give the ~ame aound effect as a helicopter overhead. 7'NE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. In re~ponse tu questioning by Comar~.^^ioner Tolar, Mr. Sosch sCr~ted the numt,er of f1lghCs per week wo;~ld be from three to ffve, depending upon r_he requests recei~-ed; and thak the aircraft would be used entirely for emergtncy cases and in casQS where the life of the petient could or~ly be austained by thE ~Lacili.tiea at the subject hoapital. Mr. Bowera further stated that the p~lice and ma~ine helicopters ~n tYie ai=a were quite noisy. Mr. Bosch furth~:r explained the noiae levele to be axpect~d frem the proposed usa~te. a^~ etated that the emergency aircraft would be t~sed for people critically in need of the facilities nffere3 ae the Anaheim Memorial. Hoapital; tnat xhere w~~re very fe~r other hospitals with this type emergency trac-sportation, which was still in ttae pioneering atagea; and that Hoag Memorial Hospital was the only oCher hoapiCal in Orangc County that had Ruch an emergenc~ accese. He furCt~er atated that as the paramedic program fn the Cuunty advanced, they anticipated eome pattenta from thae ~ource. ~ o ~r MiNUTI:S~ CI'CY PI~ANNING GOMMISSJ.ON~ Mt~y I2, 197:i CONLITIONAL USE 1•~:~'MIT iVO. 1533 (Continued) 75-2G2 Conuniesion9r Johne~,n mude ~tn obeervat~.on Chat 1f noiee from tt~o atrcxaCt wae n roul. [actor, uoually a hospital would heoi[aee to conoider euch n eorv.~ce. Ccmnnieeianer i'ing NddQQ tliut aavLng u life wae more importnnt than tho noiee chat woulci be goneratQd. Ct~ai.rman }Ierbst note~ ttiat the emergency servicQ would be an aeset tu tha citizene af An+~haim und even it cheze were inore Ct-an fivc trips a day~ the five minuteo chat it would take to put down ~r lifC off from the aite would not make that much dtfference; a~' that ttics cauee caade the propo~al workhwhila. In reRponae to questio~ing by Cowmiseioner King. Deputy CiCy Attarney Frank Lowty ad~~lsed that th~ Clt;/'a Code did nat co~,cern i.ta~~lE witti noie~ from aircraft. C~mmia..~orer Kin~ offered u mot~on~ secoctded by Co~mniaei.oner Johnaon and MOTION CARltIED~ that the Ylunning CommisAion tecommende Lo Che City Council. that thc aub~ect oro~ect be expmpr from the requirement [o pre,pare an Environmental ImpacC Rceport~ pursuan; t~ the provl,aions oE the California Gnvironmentul Qual.iCy Act. Commie3toner King ofEered ReAOl.ution Nc. PC75-100 and moved for iCe paseage and adoption, Chat Petition fc~r Canditional Use Permit No. 1533 be and hershy is granted~ aub~eck to conditions ~nd that r.hc op~ratian af the su6~eat he1'stop shall be in compllance with a11 ragulations ae required by tiie Aeronauti.ce Uivi.aion oL thr. CaliEornin State Dapartraent af Transpor.Cation and the rc~derul Avtakion AdminieCration. (See Resolution Book) On ro1 call, Che furegaing resolutian wae ~~assed by the folrowing vote: AYBS: COr41ISSiUNERS: F~'.RnNO~ GAUER, JOtINSON, KING, MOItLEY, TOLAl~, HERRS'P NOES: CQ2~AtISSI~NERS: NONE ABSENT; COA4~11SSIONER.~; NONE CONDITT.UNAL USE - YUBLIC H~ARING. DAI.E FOWLER, 1430 ;outh Grand, Santa Ann, Ca. 92705 PP,RMT.T N0. 1534 (Owner); JOHh H. FINNFY, 7.950 Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92806 ~ (AgPnt); requeating pet~mission to E3TABLISH AN AUTOM~BILE ItEPAIR FACILITY on property described as: A rectnngularly-ehaped parcel of land consiat~.ng of approximmtely 3.2 acres locaCed at the aoutheast corner of Mir.aloma Avenue and Red Gum 5treet, h~ving approximate frontagea of 298 feet on the sauth side of Miralom~ Avenue and 475 feet on Lhe east si.de of ked Gua- Street, and further described ae 2950 Mirlloma Avenue. Property preeently ~lassified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMI:,'ED) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in oppositiun to subject petiti.:n. Altti.ough th~ Staff Keport ::o Che Planning Commission dated May 12~ 1975, wns not read at the public hearing, it is referre~l tn and made a par.t of the minutea. *tr. Jol~n L'inney~ the agent fur the petirioner, appeared before the Flanning Cummiasion aad took er.ception to the Staff ~teport, and stated that in addition :o the lOd parking epaces indicated in said Sraff Iteport, they had approximately 70 spacee in Lhe back of tha build- ing which were .f:euced of~. THE PUBI.IC HEARING WAS CLQSED. In reaponse t~ questioning by Cocir,nissione~ Morley, M.r. ~inney st~zted t.he additional 7C parking spaces were used for a combination of aturage and psrking a~td were also uaed for the other businesses in the complex; that all of the automobile repair work would b~ canducted on the insi~s uf the building; that they would baeically perform repair work, specializing in lcw-cost tune-upa; and ~.tiat mot~t cf the buainesa would be from employees of the Autonetice facility and the indur~Crial romplexea in the nrea. Chairmar_ Herbst noted that the prop~aed a.ocation would apr~ar to lY.mit the exposure of a commercial business~ being in an induatrial area; whereupan, Mr. Finney stated that t~e would have a following from a previoue pbrtnership in this type bueii~esa; that if he stayed w±thin a 20-mi'e radiua nf his previous eatablishment~ the cuatomers would follow; that h~~ ~~ud chos~n the sub~ec.t locaCion aince ti-e commercial areas were genera].ly dumpa an~l he could have l~cr-ted on Anahefm Boulevard but did not want Lo have his buainese thPre; and that, also~ he had a fr3end with a restaurant in the eubject area who wauld send him cusromers. ~ ~ MINUTE:3~ CITY PLANNIN(; (;QMMI3SION~ Mny 1.2, 1975 CONDI'fI0NA1, USE PERMIT N0. 1534 (ContAnued) 75-2G3 Ic wae i~ute~t that th~ Diractar oE the Dovelopment S.rvicee DapArtmont had d~termined that tl~e propoeod nekivity fe.ll within the clc~finiciun of. Sactzon 3.U1~ Clasa 1. o.f tha City of Maheim ~ui.delinee to tha Requixecnante for an Env.tronmeatal Impach. Report and wae~ tha[e- fore~ cata~o~ically exempt from tt-e requirament t~ Pilc, an F.IR. Commiseioner King ofiered Raeolutiun No, PC75-101 And moved for ita pa aeage and adoptlon~ Chat Potition far Conditional Uee+ Permi.C No. 1534 ba and her~sby ie granted~ eub~ect Co conditione. (See Rdeolution Book) On roll. ca11~ tho foregainA rsoolutiun wae passed by the fo~lowing +ro t et AYES: COMMISSIONERS: E~A.^.ANO~ CAUER~ JOtINSON, KING~ MORLEY~ T01.AR, HERBST NO~St COMMISSIONEftS: N(1NE ABSBNT; COMMIS5IONERS: NONE CONDI'PIONAL USL' - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBF.RT L. CLARK, 810 Glenwood Tc~rrecc. FullarCnn~ Ca. PF.RMIT N0. 153.5 9263'l (()wnar) ; LEONIDG M. LEDUC, 1007 North Laguna , Anaheim, Ca. 9280~ (AgenC); requeating permiaeion for ON-SAI.E LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITN M1 EXiSTINC RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM KITCHBN ARLA AND (B) MTNIMIJh! FRONT I.ANllSCAPINC on property deacribed ae; A rectangularly- shaped parcal o: ]and coneisting of. approximately 1.4 acres loca[~d at the northeASC corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookt~urat Stre t, having approximate frontagee of 257 feet on thP north eide of La Palma Avenue and 230 feet on the east side of IIrookhurst Sr.reet~ and b eing further described as 1112 North 9rookhurst StrQet. Property presently claesif ied CL (.COt~A1~RCIAL, LIMITED) ZON~. No one indicated thetr presence in opposition to aub~ect petition. Although the Staf.f Repc,rt Co the Pl.anning Commiseion dated Mny 12, 1975, was nat read at the piiblic hcaring, it ia referred L-o and taade a pur.t of the minutee. Mrx. Pauline Leduc, repreaenting the agent for the property flwner, appearEd be£ore khe Planning Commission and took exception to tlie Staff Report wherein the kitchen aren was deacribed. She prnsenCed a revision to the ori.ginally-aubmitted plan of the sub,iect building and noted that the kitchen area was approximately 12 x 22 f eet in size. TKE PUBL'iC HFARING WAS CLOSED. In resp~nse to questioniug by Com~miasioner King, Mrs. Ledi~c etated children and families were allowed to patronize the sub~ect eatabliahment. Commlesioner. Gauer nAted that for family-type restnuranta, Che ~ockta il bar was requirerl to be separated from the r~ataurant portion. He inquired if there was any way the ~~pli- cant could make auah a separation and Mra. Leduc atated it would Ue imposaible, Ia reaponse to quesCioning by the Planr~.ing Commission, Mrs. Leduc sta ted the houra of operation would be from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m.; that the per.cent age ot food customers was about lOX to J.SX and the rest were cocktail lounge customers; that she could not tell the customera they could not hring their children into the eatablishment; that they also had pool tables i~nside the restaurant; and that they had been operat.ing under a liquor licenae for the past four years at th~ eubject locatfon. Deputy City Attorney Fxank Lowry clarified that tlie reason the aub~ ect matter wae bef~re the Planning Commiesion waa Co bring the eatablishment up to dete w~ th the City's require- mente; that four yeare ago~ tl;e Alr_oholic Beverage Cor~~rol Board had iesued en on-sale liquor lice~iae for the sub~ect 14cation in error, since approval of a conditional uae permit was not obtained. which wae a requirenent of the ~ity; that the owner wae no-~ trying to estl the ~atablishment ~nd was bringing the 11~:ensing requirement up-to-date; and that the City's protest would be lodged with the Alc~holic Beverage Control goard an~, although the eale of the license cou13 be atopped, the present owner could continue to ~perate at thi.a location with eaid licaase. Comm_ssioner King ildicated t~at if novablo planters or potg were ut 311zed to entisfy the landecaping requiresasnts, egid cfln~taii:ere would pr~bably be used for aigarette butta. Commiasioner Morley nnted that in viewing the a~ib~PCt property in the field, it was noti.ced that thare wae no area at a11 to be land9caped xince the pr operty was blackt~pped rS.ght to the aidewalk. ~ ~ ~5-2~G MINUTE5~ CITY 1'LANNT.NC CU~41[SSION, May 12, 1975 CONDITIONAI. USB PERM'IT N0. 1.535 (Continuad) Coauniesionar Morley made A r~~pr;;. .OT1 that ~ L~ased an the revln~d plan aubmitted by tha appllcunC ~ thura wae aprr~M ~~uately 264 squaro feet devotad tc+ kitcha~n area, which would Ue approximately 17X of the grns~ floor area. Ir. wes noLnd that the Director of thc Development Services Depattment hud deter.mined Chsl• tha propor~~d activity foll witi-in the definittan uf Section ~.~1~ Claee 1. of the City o4 Meheim Culdal.i•nee to the Re~uiremenr.s fnr. an Environmen:al Impact Raport and wae~ therp- fore. categorlcally exempt £rom the requirement to f ile un EIR. Commiaei.oner Tolar oftured Kusolution No. PC75- 102 and moved fox i_e puosage and adoption, that Patition for C~nditional Usu Fermlt No. 1535 be a»d hexeby ie granted, granting tlie requeBCed wai.var of Cl~e minimum kitc}ten ar.ea an the baeis that the pelitioner euUmitGed rovised plane indicaCing 17X of tlie grose fl.oor area ie deeignated for kitchen use and, the~refore~ tha requeat is dGtermined to be minimal; granting waive1 u~ oeee wanIDUreviou~ly Landscaping on the baeis t;~at sinca dedlcction for straet widening p p P made~ thereby reducing the si~ of the aubject property and eli.mineting the lundecaped setbacks. a hardehip would be created if said waiver were not granted; euU~ect to the detetmination of the Planning Comraiss:ton that, since the. uoe ie primarily x cockr.ail lounge and it would be impractical to inotall a acreening wall betwean the har aroa and t~~e seating area, no pereonq under 18 yeare of age ehall be admitCad to the establiahment and nppropriate eigning shal]. ba uti~lzpd to aseure this provision; aubiect Co t,he proparty being develaped eubstantially ' accor.dance with the plans and epec•1Fir.ationa on file wiCh the CiCy o£ Anah~i~p mr-riced Exhibir Nos. 1 and 2(Revision No. 1). (See ResoluCion Book) On ro1L call, the Eorsgoing reaolution wae ~ased by the following uote: AYF.S : COI~"MISSIONER5 : FARANO ~ GAUER, JOHNSON ~ KING ~ MOR.LEY , TOLAR, HI',RIlST NOES : COIYQdISSIONERS : NONE ABS~NT: COMMISSIONL'RS: NONF. VARIANCE N0. 2697 - PUBLTC HEARING. K& B CENTER, ~21241sS uthhKnotttStreetL~Maheimh~Ca~• ` y0813 (Owner); GOOD LUCK MARKET, 92804 (Agent); requesting WAIVLR OI' (A) MAXIMUM AGGAEGAPE SIGN ARRA, (B) MAXIMIUNi NUMBER OF SIGNS ~ tC) b[INIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN SIGI~S AND (D) MINIMJM GROUND Cl 'ARANCE OF SIGN, TO ~ERMIT 15 EXISTING I'REE-STANDING 3IGNS an property deacribed ss: An irregularly-- ahaped parcel of land coneiating of nppxoximately S acres loc~ted at the southwest corner ~f Ball Itoad and Knott Stzeet, having appruximate frontages of 4Q faeC on the south ai.de of Ball Road and 390 feet onresentlytcl~s~ified CLt(COMI~3RCIALa LIM7TED)dZCNEibed e.a 1241 SouCh Knott S*reet. Property y~ No one indicated thei- presence in oppositiun to sub~ect petirion. Although the Staff Report to the Planning ~o~ission dated May 12, 1975, was not reAd at the publ~.c hearing, it i~ referred to and made a part of the minutea. Mr. S. tl. Yate2, representing the property owner, appeared hefore the Planning Commisaion and atated the previous market at the aubject location had gone bankrupt and he hadueuto opened in Dacember. 19i4; that they were experien~i.ng a dif£icult financial timp the lack of publicity and customers; and that they we.re continuing to Xose money from the business. iF1E PUBI.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiesionor Farsno noted that the oub~ect application was similar to the produce stand un Euclid Street which had caused the City so much trouble; that ha fosnd it hard to believe that the hand-pai~~rP~ ai.gns would eolva the financial problema ot the business; that if the Planning Coauaiasion felt c~uch a plan vould atop every other businese fr~m lasing moe~nptt~he asedandranithernalternative wouldihave~toebe~conaiderader, l.t appeared that wa ;,ommiesioner 'Colar noted that the propoaed signing could noe be approved for the applicunt, sincP there ~~ae a great numbet of othere that would xleo like Co have this type~ndgthe ~ violakion atgh8ndf~~ra~~partiallywwhat crPatedhth~cnecd for~auSign Ordinanceity; ~ ~.w~ ~ MINUTE3~ CI':Y PW1Nh1ING t;QMMISSION~ May 1?.~ 1975 VARIANC~+ N0. 269 i (ConCinued) ~~ ~ 75-245 The Plannin~ Cammi.oion anCerad into diecueeton with the applicer~C and City StaPf regar~- ing the threa permanant-type f ree-etandtng eigne~ plue tha othar 12 a1Qn~ ahich wer.e mounted on wooden poeCe and~or light dtandards, during wl~ich it wao duCotmined tltiat the C& R Clothier rign migtit Gu abla to be eliminated eince tt~at bueinaen wa~ longer operat- ing; that only t~ro frec-sCanding signe ware permi.tt~d fur the eub~xct properCy; tha[ by better uCil.isation og the allowab].e aign area for Che two permitted fres-otanding eigns, and by elin~inating the hand-paioted signa, the applicant might be able ~o proparly adver- tise hie busineee withouC all the waivers, a~ requeeced. The P].anring Conmiieeion 1r.dica-:ed that aome relief regar,d~ng tha minimum diytance beeween eigna mighr be apprapriate in this caea. In r eepunse to questioning by Commieeioner Morley, Mr. Patel aGnted he wae only concern ed fAx~ th eign:ing fcr hi.a own t~ueinege and not for the antirc ehnppi~R :enter; whereupon, Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised rhut the Sign Ordinance made refarance to owne r and/or lussee. Mr. Patel raqueated that tha eubject petition be conti.nued to a11ow time for revi~w of tlie proposal and for him to muka an efEort ta Pliminate some of the requested waivere. Zaning Superviaor Charl~e Roberta nored Chat during the interlm, Str~ff would inveotigate the permit is~ued for :he three existing free~s~anding eigns and information thereon would b e submitt~d for Commiaeian consideration. Coauaiaeioner. Tolar offered a motion. eeconded by Crnnmisai~ner Mr~rley and MOTTON CARRIED, to reopen the public hearing and continue conoideration of Patition for Variance No. 2 697 to ihe meeting of May 28, 1975~ as requested by the peeitioner. Mr. Patel inquired if he ahould taken down the hancl- .ainted slgna during tlie interim and Mr. Lowry advised that, eince the ~tigne were illeg.~i, t-e ehouJ.d do ao. VARTANCE NO. 2698 - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK L. RF:ED, 423 Suuth Brookhutet Street, Anahe im, Ca. 92804 (Owner); requeeting WAYVEF OF (A) MAXIMUM WAI,L H~IGHT p,ND (,B) MINIMUM NUMBE& OF ENCLOSF.A ~'ARKING SPACES, TO PERMIT AN EXTSTING BLOC:K WALL ANb LANAI on propert~~ degcribed as : A rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land con- s isting of approximately 7150 square feet having a frontage uf npproximately 65 feet on the west aide of Monument Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 110 feet~ being located approximately 715 feet north of th.e center~ine of Broadway~ and further deacribed as 137 South Monumpnc SCreeC. Pr~perty preaently clasaified RS-7200 (RESIDENTI?.L, SING?.E- FAMILY) ZONE. Yvc~ one ind iceted their presence ln opposition to aub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commisaion dated 1~Pay 12~ 1975, wa» nct read at the public hearing, ik is referred to and made a part of the minntea. Mr. Frank Reed, the ~etitioner, appeared befure the Planning Commisaion and etuted the wall in question wae conetructed when the awlmming pool was inetal?ed and eaid wall wa s apparently signed aff oy the Building Diviaion when the pool was approvad in 1958. THE PUBLFC iiEARING WA5 CLOSED. In re~ponse to queatloning by Commiasioner Tolar, Mr. Iteed etated he nurchased the pruperty several moatha aga and was presently in the procesa of ael~ing it. Mx. Reed reviewed the h istory of the changes and/or improvementa to the eub~ect properCy. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advisad that in 1958 there were no £ence requirement s around a pool area. Commis~iox~er Tolar queetioned the VeCerans Administration'a reaction to the par~ing s itua- tion for the home, and Mr, Reed ~tated Chere was no reaction except that he l.ad to ahow pronf that two off-street parking spacea exiated; and that although the one space remain- ing in th e garage could be uaed, it was not being used for paLking. Commissioner To].ar then noted that the homes in the aubject area did not have back yards to apoak of. an3 Mr, Reed at:ated tnat approximAtely 14 of the homes in the immediate area had ewimming poola fn thei:- front yarda and app=oximately G had or~e-csr garagea. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COFQ~tISSION. Mny 12, 1975 VARIANCE N0. 2698 (Cantinued) ~ • 75-246 2oning Supervisor CharleA ltoberto noted for cl~e Coannieeion that tha permit for tt~o ewlm- mir~g p~ol was iseuud prior. to the City adopcing the ordinanc~s requiring two pnrking epacee in a garnge. There~ipon, Cheirman Hgrbst mada an obaarvation ttint che exieting wall ~~eight and parking spaces eppeared to maet the intent of thn Code at the time snid improve+menCe were mada. Commiesioner ialgr noted that ~'' the buyax wnnted to purchase the properCy in its exieting condtt!:.~~~ th en he did noi: feol it wae the City'e right to deny thnc pereon the opNortunity to locnte with a one-car garage and a 5-foot 1.0-inch wall in the fron t yuxd, under the circumetances. It wae n~ ~~ed Chat the Di.roctor of the Development 3ervicea Dcspartmant had determined that tha prop~aed activity f.ell within the definition of Sectiun 3.01, Cla Ae 5. o£ the Cit.y of Anuheim t;uidel ines to Che Requir.emente for nn Environmental Impacl Repart and wae, thate- fcre, cntegorically exempt from Che requiroment to fil.n an EIR, Commiseioner To].ar off.ered Reeolution No. PC75-103 and moved for its paseage and adoption~ Chat Petition for Variance No. 2698 bP and hereby is granted, granCing waiver of Che maximum wnl] height on Cha basie thae similar wnlla exiat in the sub~ ect area; grati~ting waiver of the minimum number of enclosed parking e~paces on tl~e bneie that the r.emodeJ.ing of sub~ect garr~ar:, L•heraby reducing the ntmnber of onclos~d parking epacea from t~~o to one~ apparently occurred prior tn the current Code requirement that two enclosed parking spr~cea be providPd; sub,jecC to conditione. (See ResoluCion Book) On roll call, the foregoing xesolution was paesed by the following vote: pYES: CON4~tZSSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY~ TOT~AR, HERBST NOES: COP4fISSIONEIZS: NONE ABSEN7': COI~IISSIONER5: NONE VARIANCE N0. 2599 - PU6LIC H~ARINC. E. J. JOHNSON~ Armatrong Develo pment Company, 171$2 ~' Armstrong Avenue, Santa Ana, Ca. 92711 (Owner); At~RICAN BAKERI~S~ 7222 East Gage Avenue~ Loa Angales, Ca. 90040 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF (A) PEItMITTED USES AND (B) MININUM NU1~ER OF PARKTNG SPACES~ 'PO EXPAND RETAIL BAKERY SALES on praperty deacribed ae: A rectangularly-ehaped parc;el of land cunaistinQ of approxima tely 1.83 acres having a frontage of approximately 240 f e~t on the wesC side of East StreEt, ha•ring a maximum depth of approximatel.y 325 f.eet, being located approxi- maCely 185 f.eet north of the cei~terline of Snuth StreeC, and further deecribed as 711 South East Street. Property preaently claseif ied IrII. (INDUSTRIAL, LIMI'fED) 20NE. No one indicated their preaence in opposi.tion to aubject peCition. Although the Staff Report to the Planni.ng Commisaion dated May 12, 1975, was not read at the pub.lic hearing, it ia referr~d [o and made a part of the mitiutes. Mr. Donald Fordiani, rapresenting the agent for the property owner, appeared before the Planning Commiseion to anawer. questiona regardiiig the proposa].. 'I'~!E PUBLIC HEARING WA.S CLOSF.D. In reaponse to queationing by Commiaeioner Mor.ley, Mr. Forciiani s~ated that the parking spaces were not striped~ whereupon, Commissioners King and Morley indicated they had viewed the sub~ ect prop~~ry in ehe f ield and counted at least 1.5 spaces which raere partially atriped. Comruiseioner Morley noted that the bueine~s had been in operation f or a period of time and withot~r. ar.y problema aC all xnd, in hia opinion. the degree to which expansion was propesed, shoula not cause any problems. In response to queationing by Deputy City Attornay Frank Lowrv, the petitioner etipulated to providing reviaed plans showing the striping of all the parking apaces, and a minimum ot 19 parking spaces, said plans to be aubmitted prior tn CiCy Council review of the pro~osal. It wao noted that the Director of the Uevelopment Services Deparkment had determined that th~ piopoaed activity fell within tha defin°_e•lon of Section 3.01, Claea 1~ of the City of Aneheim GuidElines ta the Requirementa for an Environmental Impact Report end wea, thare- fore~ categoric.ally exempt from the requlrement to file an EIk. . ~ ~ MINUTL+S ~ CITY PLANNTNG CQ1~tI3S'[ON, May 12 ~ 1975 VA[tIANC6 N0. 2699 (Continuad) 75-747 Commie~lonQr Morley of~ered Reeolution No. PC75-104 and moved £or itn paeoage and adopCiAn, thae Petiti.on for Varianco No. 2699 be and hereby ie granted~ in part, grrtntin~ waiver of tha parmi.ttnd ue~e on the basl.e that although the expnneion ~f tha retnil uee of sub~act proparty would maka it a primory coamaercial use in +~r~ induetrial zone~, asid retsil use hae been 1n exietence Por a period oP time and hae nor bean datrimontal to the area; that waiver of t.hn minimum number of parking epaces fe ollminu~ed on the baei.s thaC e~if~iciant area for additional parking epaces ie available an the sub~ecC proprrty~ however~ revioed plane showing the etriping of all the perking epacea sholl be s~ib~eitCed prior to City Council review af the pr.opoeal, ae atipulated to by the petitioner; and eubSoct to conditions. (See ftFSOlution baok) On roll, call, the forPgoing resoiution wne paseed by the following vote: AYE3: COI~tI3SI0NL~ItS: ~ARANO' GAUER~ JOHNSUN, KIN(;, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ HERBST NOE3: COr4[ISSIONEItS : NONE ABuENT: CO1~tI3SI0NEitS: I~TONE REpEVELOE'MEMT PROJECT AREA BETA Commisslonor Farano noted tliat ~ letter dated May 8~ 1975 ancl addressed to the Planning Cormitssion from Mayor Thom, had been roceived; that the Mayor was reque~ting that the Planning Commisslon meet in Jolnt sasslon with the Anahelm Redevelopment Agency on May 13, 1975, at 1:00 p.m., to discuss the possiblp modiflcation of ProJ~ct Beta boundarles; that the pro~ec+ appeared to be moving ahead wtth a citizens meeting scheduled for May 14~ 1975; that the ~,tizens committee would be formed on the 1Wth, wtth public hear(ngs to be held the end of June and the ftrst of July; that the City staff was apparently moving ahead toward an early publlc hearing date; that, as a Planning Commissioner, he was not prepared to say whan a public hearing could effectively be held; that until he and the other Planning Ccxnmissloners were co~vlnce~ that the publfc was properly oriented and/or informed as to what was happening, the public hearings should not be held; ~hat if scheduling the public hear6ngs to neet Che deadline for tax assessment was the obJect of the City, then that reasoning was not good enough; that he would suggest that the Planning Commission,in their meeting wtth the Agency~shnuld proaose that the Agency set down very ~pecific guldelines or programs and procedures to be used by the City staff to use in educating the public and preparing for the publlc hearings; that he was Interested and concerned to have a defini~ion of the ~rofile as to how the Pr~Jec~ Area Committee would be formed and the members sought, specifically what the ~rogram would consisr. of to bring ProJect Beta to the cc~m~unity involved and how Staff would present said program, and he was also interested to see any written material and schedules, etc.; t;~at he had a feel(ng that the program was beiny "ram-rodded" and he opposed that approach in thesP matters; and that the cltizens ln the proJect ;~rea noeded to be educated to the program. Cortimissioner Gauer noted that he had attended a cltizens meeting already and thax the Rede~~elopment Department Staff passed out pamphlets regarding the ~rocess by which the members would be selected to serve on the Committee. Commission~r Farano then nated that if a~l that he had seert in the newspapers, etc,, was all th~t had been compiled and presented as far as spetifics were concerned, then not much had been done; that if the Planning Cortmis~,fon, as a body~ was not agreeable to making hi~ suggestl~n to the Agency, then he would be willing to praceed with i; aa an individual; that since the ProJect Beta proposal was first submltted to tt-e Planning Comnissi~n, he was not aware of one sentence or other change baing made to the Qroposal; and that although he did not want to ap;~ear unreasonable, he was concerneo fc~r the community. Comm)ssloner Tolar noted that h~ agreed wl'th Conmtssioner Farano in that the Plann(ng Commissior had requested alternatives reyarding the proposed preliminary plan fur Beta and the Redevelopment Staff hac continued to bring back the or(ginal proposal. Canmisstoner Faran:, noted tl~at he would Itkc to present his comments as a~ argument by the Planning Commission to the Agency, whereupon. Deputy Ctty Attorney Frank lowry advised that such an arg~nent should be conCluded on at thn meeting on May 13, 1975 and that b~y formulating le at this meeting, the Planning Commtsslan might be pre,judging their own action regae'~~ng the reformulation of the ProJect Beta Preliminary Plan, and the Planning Crxmilsston did nat pr~sentiy lcnow what program would be presented at that meeting. Carnnissioner Gauer expressed that ho did not favor ProJect Beta ~t all. In c:onsideratlon of the advise tendered by eha Deputy City Attorney, Commissioner Farano noted that he would consider brtnging the afaremention~c~ cortmen*s out at the loint meettng on r~ay 13~ 1975• Pr~~yISSIONER FARANO LEFT TNE MEE1'ING AT 6;15 P.M. ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS, CI'~Y PLANNING COI~IISSION, May 12, 1975 ~5"2~~8 REPORT5 AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENllATI0~1S O1tAP7G~ CUUNTY DEPARTMENT OF RFAL PROPL~RTY SEAVICES - '-' Proposed leaea of madical oCfico apace. The Etaff Report to tha Planning CommlBeion dated May 12, 1975, wae presenked ~nd made a part of the minutes. It wae noted that the Urange Couiity DepartmenC of Real Praperty 3~arvices wae propoeing to lAnac: medicul o~flcs epace tn provide a Child Health and Fami.ly Planning Clinic at two locakione in Anaheim -- 1825 Romneya Drive (Maxtin l.utl~er HospiCal) and Y211 West Lu Palma Avenue (Anaheim Momorial Hospital); thar. both locatione wete appropriately zoned for medical cli.nic usa ancl deeignated on the. Anahaim Generul Plan for comnercisl-• profeBelonaZ use; and that upon investigation of the propoeed medical clinic ~sasp there appeared to ba no adverse enviroY~mental impacC involved. Coromiseioner Gauer offered a a ion. aeconded by Commiesioner. King and MOTION CARRIED (Commiseioner Farano being absent), [haC in accordanco with Sect~on 65402 of the Government ~od~, the Mat-eim City Planling Commiesion doea hereby find that the prapoaed lexse of inedical offic~ epece to provide for a Child Health and Family Planning Clinic at two locattonA in Anaheim ie in c:onfat-mance with the City of AnAheim's adopted Gener.aL Plan, and thxt the pro~ecCS would tiave no eignif•lcant adveree effect on Che environment. ITEI4 N0. 2 ORANGE COUNTY AEPARTMENT 01~ REAL PROPBRTY. SERVICES - Pruposed exten~ion of lenae. The Staff Report to the Planning C~mmiselon datEd May 12, 1975, wae presented uitd made a part of the minuxes. It w~s noted that the Orange County L~•partment of Real Property Services was propoeing n one-year extension of an existiug lease for a Health Department Facility in Anaheim at 1011 South ~~st Stre~t; that Che exiating facility was a nonconforming uae in the NII, Zone and the ~ahaim General Plan designation was also for induatrial use; and that upon inveatigatiu~i of the exi.sCing use, thece appearPd to be nn adverse envir~nmental impact involved. Commiseioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Cotamiar~ioner Fttrano being absent), Chat in ar.cordance with Section 65402 of the Government Code, the Anaheim City Planning Commission doea hereby find that, although the use is not in conformance with the City of Anaheim's adopted General Plan, it ia a compatible existing use with no significant adverae effect on the environment and, therefore, tt~is Comroi~tsion has no ob~ection to the proposed lease exteYi3ion. ITRM N0. 3 REQUEST FOR EIR I3EGATIVE DECLARATION - Street widening of the north side of Ball Road, weat of Brookhuret Street. The Staff Report to the P1Anning C~mmiasion dsted May 1'?, 1975, was presentad and made a part of the minutes. It was noted that the Pub11c Warka Department was propoaing to widen the nor~.l~ side of Ball Road za its ultimate widY.h from 185 feet west of Brookhurat Street to 962 feet weat of Brookhurst Street; that the section of the parkway to be reamoved was presently causing some reatriction to the flow of trgffic and the propo3ed project would remove the r.estric- tion; that the 12 palm trees exieting in the parkway to be remove~' would be removed to City parks and replaced with smal.ler palm trees of a more appropriate epecies ar.d locnted i.n back of the parkwuy; and that tt-e existing trees reached the telephone and potver linea located near the curb 1ine, sahereas, the new row of trees would be away fro~ the utility lines. Commissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and MOTION CARRIED (Commi3aioner FaL•ano betng abseat), that the Planning Commiasion recommenda to the City Council that the subject pro~ect ba exempt from the requirement to prepare an Er~viron- ment~l Ir~pact Repart, pureuant to the provieions of the California Environmental Quality Act. e • • MINUTES, CI'CY PLANNING COP4dI3SI0N~ Mny 12, 1975 75^zA9 LTEM N0. 4 VARIANCE N0. 2599 - Raqueat for extenoion of time - Property conoisting of approximately 1.4 ncree~ having A frontagcs of approximately 260 f.eet on the nortt-aset side of Anahelm auulevard, being located approximately 200 feat norCh of the canterline of Pacifico Streat, and further deACribed as 1922-30 South Analielm lloulcvard. Tha Staff Kepor.t to the Planni.ng Commieoion dated May 12~ 1975, wae preaentad and made n part of thP rninutas. It was noted that ~~~e applicant~ MT 1' -tnelh M. Keesee, owner of Keesee 'fank and Pump Coropany, Inc.~ wae requesting an in~.. ~lite extension of time for Vntiience No. 2599~ einc~ the iae~ing of eaid variance t~ad not been detrin~e,ntal ta the pcoperty concerned nnr to +any surrour.di.ng proper. ty. 'Loning Supervieor Charles Ruberts requested tlial• the Planning Commisston cuntinue coneidera- tion of the eub~ecr. request for two weeks in order thaC he might make an additioncil lnveati- gation of the eubject properr_y. Commiasioner King offered a moCion, seconded by Commieeionc~r T~1ur und MOTION CARR1cD (Commiasioner Farano bAing abaentj, that coneideraCi~n uf the aub~ect request for an extenaion of time for Varian.~~ No. 2599 be and herehy ia contlnaed to the meeting of May 2R, 1975. ITEM N0. 5 VARIANCE NG, 2332 - Request foi extenaiot- ot time - Property consisting of approximate].y one acre, hxving a frontage of approximately 203 faet on the north side o£ Ball Road, being located approximately 140 feeC east of the centerline af Gaymont Drive, and being furthex' dFacribed As 29Q1 We~t Ball Rutid (eingle-family residence and mobi.lehome). Tt~e Staff Repcrt to the Planning Commi.saion daCed May 12, 1975~ was preaented and made a part of the minutes. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti noted for the Planning Commiasi.on that the aPplicants (Mr. and Mrs. William Ditmar, ~~wr~ere) ware requet~ting a three-year extension of time for Variance No. 2332, permitting the conrinuec use of a r~obilehome as a leg~l use in conjuaction with the exiating single-f~mily dwellin~; that the mobilehome was being used by the aged pareats of the applicant; that the property was currently being offered £or sale and ahould it be so1d, the applicanta have •lndicated the mobil.ehome would be removed as apecified in Condition No. 2 of Planning Commisyion Rasolution No. PC72-42; and that no complaints had bean filed by the eurrounding property owners regarding the mohilehome usage. Comu~~.asioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commis~ioner King and MOTION CARRtED (Commissioner Farano being abaent), that a time extenaior~ of three years be and hereby is granted for Variance No. 2332, said time extenaion to expire March 6, 197A, or when- ever the aub~ect property is sold, or whenever the existing mobilehome occupanta vacate the mobilehome, whichever oc~urs first. ITEM N0. 6 CONDITIONA'L IJ~E PEFMIT N0. 1G70 - Requeat far exCens~on of time - Property conaisting of approximately 0.8 acYe, located on the weat eide of Anaheim Boulevard, approximate].y 154 feet north of the centerline of Vermont Avenue, anu being further deacribed as 887 South Anaheim BouZevard. Thia item wae considered earlier in the meeting and continued to the meeting of May 28, 1975. (See Pagea 75-225 through 75-228 of ttiese minutes.) ~ ~ ~ MINUTL3~ CITY P1.:~NNING COMMISSIUN, Muy 12, 1975 15-250 ITEM N0. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PrRMIT N0. 1218 - Raviaw of propoeQd ueen - Froparty conei.eting af approxim,nte~y 8 acres locatecl nt ttie n~rthweat corner of La Jolla StreAt and Kraemer Boulevard, nnd further. described as 1G01 Kraemer BoulPVqrd. The Staft Rep~~rt to lhe Planning Commleaion deted May 12, 1975~ wt~s prasentad nnd made a part uP the n~inutes. It wae notcd thul the upplicants (Neil L. Winegar - Certlfied Public Accuuntant nnd Ted D. Naleon - Controller.~ Car~ ~nterprises) were reque9ting npproval under Cnnditional UAe Permit No. 1218 to conduce two businesses on eub~ect industrial property, being an accounCing and incomQ tax aervice and u convale~cenL haspiGt~l mnnagement hendquurtera; that the Planning Commiaeion approved Conditi.onal Use Permit No. 1218 on Mar.ch 22, 1971, to permit eaCabliehment of reC~-il distributing f:irms and SQTV~.CO bU9~I1@R3 firm~, incl.ucl- l.ng businesa and professional ufTices primarily aervicing commer.r_e and induetry, with on.ly incidental service to the generat publlc; and that upproval was Auh~ec.t to the conditi~n ttiat each propoeed uea be submitted to the Planning Commiesion for review and approval, in order ttiat n deCermination might be made ~-s to whether sufficient p~-rlcing wae provided on the ~roperty to acconunodale an ~idditional ~,ArkJx~g demand creaCed by auch us~. Commtsaioner King noted that the locati~n appeared to be ideal for ttie type Uueinesses proposed. and Chairmun Herbat noted th~t althougi~ the convalescent hospital management headqunrters was not necessarity s~~rving commerce and induaCry, said u~e would probably not be detrimental to the sub,ject proper~y ~~~d eurrounding area. Commissioner King offered +a moTian, seconded by Commiseioner Morley and MOT'ION CARRIL'D (Commisaioner Farano being nbaent), that the accoun+•ing and income tax service ~nd con- valescent hoapital management hEadyuarters, as proposed, are wi.th3n the scope of tl~e activitiea which the Planning Commiseion intended to permit under Conditi.onal Use Permit No. 1218. ITEM N0. 8 ONE MZLLION GALLON RESERVOIR IN ANAHGIM HI1.LS AREA - P.equest for recommendation regarding alCernative development schertiea. Water SupNrintendent Larry Sears presenCed the Staff Repozt to the PJ.Anning Commiasion dated Mxy 12, 1975, and the accompanyiag memorandum from the Utilities Director. He noted that the proposed reservoir would be located on the ridge line sepnrAting the citi.eR o.f Anaheim and Orange, approximaCely 3000 feet east of Hidden Canyon Road; that on October 1, 1974, [he City entered into an Agreement with the City of Orange stating, in part, "..oall grading, construction and landscaping plans for said properCy shall be submitted by the City of Anaheim to the Orange City Council rar review prior tu construction..."; that said a~reemenr. was necessary becauae tY-e reservcir would be bui.lt on the Orange side of the ridge for geologic reasons and would be more visible to future Orange residenta than to Anaheim residetits; ChaC on April 14, 1975, the Planning Commission hnd recommended certi- fication of Environmental Impact Repor*_ No. 148 i.n connection with the aLb~ect proposal; that on May 6, 1975, wher.i the Cit~• Council revie~aed ttie Commission's recommendation on said EIR, they inquired if the Couuuisaion had made a recommendation as to ~,hich develop- ment scheme alternative would Ue the most desirzble, and Staff ha:l indicatec! 4hat the Cummission had nat been requeseed to make a recommendation regard~ng the alecrnatives, but simply to make a recommendation regarding the EIR; whereupon, the 'ity Council had requested that Che alternatives be submitted to the Com,nission for a recomme~,~lation. Mr. Sears continued by noting Ct1at there were two basic alternative development scf~ecnes involved - Alternative No. 6 and No. 8; that AlternativE No. 6 was being recommended by Staff on the basis of economica or costs, technical advantages of eteel raCher than concrete, etc.; Chat both alternativea would be well landscaped and well hidden; and that th safety elemente between the. two alternativea were easentially a trade-off. Thereupon, Mr. Seara offered to answer questions re$arding the propoeals. Commissioner Gauer noted Chat the sQeel tank woulcearabadviaedtthateleaksefromkconcreteg8 a concrete tank ~~ould crac~c and hav_ 1er~ke. Mr. t~nks had been a problem, niatorically, however, technolagy had improved that problemy that wtien there was a leak, there was usually a probleso finning the leak and then sealing it; and that either the steel or concrete woul.d be eafe +~pplications. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CI'TY PLANNING COhII~1ISStON, M.~y 12~ ].975 75"Z~~ ITEtt Nd. 8 (Cnnti~iuau) Chairman Herbet noted that t~Q urAe cancerned that tiie landecaping ot th~a slopee be in conformance with the newly-udaptad Grading Ordinanca, w:~ereupon~ Mr, Seare gdvised Chak tl~p requeated landecaping could he incorporated lnto the inpuC to the coneultent tor th~ landecaping plans. Chairman l~erbet then noted that the eub~act pru1ect could aerve ae an i.ndicaCion that the C1Cy wns L•ollowing through with the ~roviaione oc' the Cxading Ordinance. Commi~sioncsr Gauer. offered motion~ secnnded by Commissi.oner King and MO'1'ION CARRIED (Commiesioner Ft~rano nbatuii~~ng eince he was not presenC when F•Ilt No. 148 wae consi.dered b,y the Planning Commiseion)~ that the Anuheim Clty Planning Commisei.on doed herebv recom- mend approvnl of Alternative No. 6 ae the development scheme fnr the propoaed One Million Gallon Reservo:lr [o be r.onetructed in the Anaheim Htlle Area. with the landscaping of the slopea to be in conforiuance with the City o1 Analieim'e Grading Ordinance. (NOTC; Thie iCem was considered earlier in tY~e meeCing.) ITE:M N0. 9 TRACT N0. 8713 - RequeAt for approval of floor plan~ and elevaCfone -~ Property coneieting of approximate:Ly 7.05 acre~ located northeasterly of Mohler Place, approximately 35C0 feet south of Santa Ann Canyon Road. Assi.stant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santelahti pt'~aented Cha Staff Repoxt to Che Plnnning Commiasion dated May 12~ 1975, and said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Stie iioted that the Code required that sing].e-car garage doors be a minimum of 9 f.eet wide and the proposal w~t~ to have aome such doora which were ~nly 8 feet wide; thet the aubwitted pl.ans did not apecify the roofing material, although the architectural renderings appeared to indicate heavy ahakes; l•hat a aite plan indicattng khe locatian of the houaes on the lots had not been aubmitted, and a review of the required setbacks might be in order, '[n response Co the foregoing mattera, Mr. Joe de Coster, the architect and designer. of the proposed developmen.t~ appeared bef~re the Plunning Commisaion and statpd that Che aeCbacks would prabably vary bet~•qen 30 and 40 feeC in each cRSe and, ~uileas the City required three-car garages for those seCbacke, tha third garage door width should be irrelevant; and that they were proposing to have either tile or fireproof shake roufing material. Miss SantalaYiti clarified that for 6 to 10-foot setbacks, three-car garages were required by the Code. Mr. Don Boucher, President of Crlterion Development, Tnc., appeared before the Planning Commisaion and stated they may be required to have a fireproof roof and they were conaider- inq the poesibi.lity of a tile roof. Chairman Herbst noked thst, i.n the best interest oF the people who would buy Che homea, either the fireproof shake or tile rooffng mnterial should be uaed, Commiasioner King o[fered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Farano being abs~nt}, that Che floor plana and elevations (Exhibit Nos. 1 Chrough 25) for Tract No. 8713, be and hereby are approved, as submitted, suU~ect to the etipulations of the developers that the setbacke and the garRge duor widths shall be in cenforenance with Code requirements, and the roofing material shall be either fireprooi shake or tile. lTBM N0. 10 SET~iACK FROM PRiVATE DRI'VES - Req-xest for clarification. The Staff Report to the Planning Cummiaeion date~i May 1~. 1975, waa preaented and made a part of the minutes< Tt was noted that a requesz hed been received for clarlfication of the aetbacks from private drivea; that on April l~i, 1975, the Planning Commisaion had directed Staf= to further study the applicable Code Sections and provide recommendations thereon; and t.hat although said st~idy was not yet available, an in~srim clarificatlon was presently needed to satisfy the request for clarification. ~ ~ MINUT~3~ CT'fY PLANNING COtQh(I89I4N~ May 12. 1475 ITBM N0. 10 ((:ontinued) ~ ~ 15-~52 Commiesi~ner King offered a aotior.~ ~aconda~d by Cummiaeioner Morley and MOTIUN C~IRRIEU (Commiaeionur Farano bein~ ab~ant)~ that s~tback requirem~nnte fr.om private driveB servin~ mare than one pr.operty ehull ba intarprated as being the eame a~ fxom dedicated public eCracte~ and that StafE be and -~areby i~ di.racted to further atudy the sotbeck requixe~ menta whLch may differ in certain eitnatione~ and to make ~recon~endation~+ kherer,n ta the Planning Commieeion. ADJOIiRNMENT - Tht3re be~.ng no further bueinese Co di~cuea, Commieeionar King off.f~rc:d a motion~ eacondad by Commieeioner :olar and MOTION CARRIED (Commiseioner Farano being abeant), to nd~ourn the meeting to Maq 13~ 1975~ at 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, to meeC in ~oint eeaeion with the Redeaelopment Agency. ThQ meeting ad~ourned at 6:30 p.m. RQapectfully aubmitted~ ~~•/ ~ Patricia B. Scanlun, Secretary Mah~im City Planning Commiseion PBS:hm