Minutes-PC 1976/12/20~
~
Clty Nalj
Anaheim~ Cnllfornla
Oecember 2Q, 1974
REGUI.AR MEET I NG OF THE ANANE 1 M f 1 TY PLANN I NG COhIM_I SS I ON.
kG1;ULAR - A r~gular mneting of ti~e Ana~hclm City Plflnnlny Ccxrwnlss(on ~as called
MEE7ING to ord~sr by Chalrman Johnson at 1:3n p m•. on Oe.:ember 20, 1976~ In
the Counc(1 Chamber, a qurou~~~ being present.
PRES~NT - CI~AIRMAN: Johnson
CAMMISSIONERS: Sarnes~ Farano, Ile~bst, KinG~ Morley. Toiar
ALSO FRESENT~ Frank La~ry Asslst~nt City Attorney
P~ul Singer Trr~ffic Engincer
Aniilka ~ant~lahtl Asslstant t'la~ning Director-Zoniny
BI11 Cunningham Assaclatc Planner
Joel Ftck Assistanl• Planner
Patrlcla Scanlan Planntng Commission Secretary
PLE.DGE QF - ComMlasldne+r Herost led in the Pledge of Allegfance to th~ Flag
ALI.EGIANCF of the Untted States af Amerlca.
PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIGNER FARANO
BY MAYOR THOM
In recoanitlon of Commisstoner f'arann's recent a~-potntme.nt to the Oran.ye Cuunty Planntng
Commisslon~ Mayor W. J. Bilt Thom appeared before the Plani~ing Cemmtssf~n ~nd expressed
the City of Anahe!m's pride in hAVing Supervisor Clark c,F the Orange County ~oard of
5upervlsors s~lect Commissionar Ferano for this appointment. Mayor Than then presented
framed Resolutlon to Commisstoner Farano from the Anaheim Clty Council ex~ressing
gratitude for his decade of s~rvice on the Anahelm City Planning Co~m~lsslon and also
expres~ing good wishes to Gortmisslaner FaranU and his wtfe, Aldce~ as they cntered thelr
new role ~f serv(ce to the publlc.
The audicnce JninGd wtth the Mayor~ the Planning Commissioners~ and ;nembers of the CiCy
staff lii a round of applause in rccognition of Commissfoner Farsno's service on tF~e
Pianning Cc;r~missian ond congratulating him on hts new appotntment.
Commtssloner Farano publicly thanked the ~Idyor and City Council far thei~' exp~esslons oT
gratitt~de and best wishes e~d state~ It was with deep regret that he was leaving the
AnAheim C~ty Rlanning Comnission; that after having served ma~y years~ not only on the
Planning Commission but also with other civtl, publtc and volunteer organlzattons~ wlthou t
equfvocation I~e felt it had becn the deepest and most ~ewarding pleasure in his life to
ha~ve served with the pr~s~nt and past members of the Anahetm City Planning Commisslon;
that he felt very stror~gty that the citizens of the City of Anahetm sh~oulc; know tfiat they
had benefitted a grert dea! by th~e inte~rity oP this body, not speaktrg for himsclf
because one's Integrity was very aften reflected In the people sround him but he would
have been "chewed up" wlthaut integrity on this body; that the City oF Anahetm had indted
benefitted by the Planning Commission's effort; that~ for those present thi~ d~t~ wtth
a~plizations to be heard by the Planning Commissior~ one might r~cetve rpprovai while
a~other might not. and the dectslons would be r~ached after much time and study~ atth ea c~-
action receiving indtvtduel and deep con~idcration ~ny each and every membei of thls
Coimnisstan; and that each Planning ~ammissioner would vote Lhe way he or she felt.
Commissioner farano conti~ued by statirsg that he wlshed to ~express a special thanks to th E
Mayor, who had scrvod with him ~n the Plannfn~ ~.ommisston in prior years, and to the Crty
Council for not once having asked 2he oplnto,~s af the Indivtdual Planning Car.missioners,
but had lePt the Plannin~ Commissioners to consider ttems on thelr own mer1C~ and,
therefore~ any mistakes of the Planning Co~miss(on were their avn.
Cfietrman Johnson noted that xhe Plonnin~ ~:ommission's formal farewells to Gornmissianer
FarAna would bt held at a lat~r date.
76-630
~
~~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNINO COMMISSION~ DeGer,:ber 20~ 1976
7G-b 3 I
AF'PROVAL OF - Commmlss!~ner Tolar offered a motlon~ scconded by Camniastonei•
THE MINUTES King and MOTION CAitK1E0 (Cheirman Johnson abe~.,lr-inq ylnce he wos
not present at tiia meoting In queatlon), that th~ minutes af the regular
Pi~nni~g Commlsalum m~etln~ held on Novambc r 22~ 197~~ be and he~eby are
appr~ved~ a~ submitted.
VARIANCE N0. 2~93 - PUQLIC HEARINC, BROOKHUR~1~ SNOPPING CENTCR. 2293 Wast Dell Road
Anahefm~ Ca. 9'1804 (Owner); N. RALP M LbVETT~ 2293 wost Be11 Ra~d~
Anehetm, G~. 928~4 ~A9ont1; requesxing WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMdER OF
PARKING SPACCS FOR AN EXIS'~I!!G SHOPPING CENTER ~n property cfesc~lbed as a rnclangularly-
si~aped parce) 01' land c~nsisting of epproxi~ndtaly 22 ac~es l~t~ving rpprax(mate frontagcs
of 112E feet on the north slde of bell Roa~i ~nnd 625 feet on the west side of
Brookhurat Street~ anJ f~rther descrlbod as thc Brookhu~s t Slwppin,y f.r~ntc~.
Property presently claasificd SL (CAMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZOMlE.
No onn tndlcatcd thair presen~e In oppositlon to CPte !ub]ect ootttlan,
Although the Stof't' Report to the Pla~~ning Cumnissio~ datecl Du~cembar 20, 1976, wes not read
at the public heariny~ said staff report ~s referred to a nd r.ade a pert aP khe minutes.
Mr. Ralph Lovett~ thG agsnt for the pexttlo~er~ appearod befo~~e the Planntng Commission
and skated thcy wishecl to construct cwo addttional bulldtngs in the Imn~ediate fuCure; that
they hr,d purchased the Gorner perccl which was developad with a yas ~tation end wanted to
lrir.lude thot parcel in the xliopping canter complex; that they hnd pa~king agraeme~ts
amongst +~11 of the t~nAnts and none r~f the 5~- tenants kapt thclr parking requireme~ts at
the samc time and~ In thr. mpuroximatnly 20 years of ope ratlon of the exiwting shopping
center, he had never seen tti~ perking lat full; that con sidaratton ~houid be given to the
fact that the ~~uk p~r~cing hours of the theatres did n~t cor~flict with zhe or.her
bua~ness~es fn the shopping center; and that every store tn th~ shopptng center was lcased
and t!~ey wa~ted ec ke~p It that way. with Che ~arking no t be0ng a probl~sm.
THE PUBLIC NC•ARING WAS CLQSED.
Commissloner hbrley notad thet he had been in this particular sl~opping center Monday~
through Fridays and could submit thct there had never h een a pArking ~:oblem ~nd the
parkln~ Int had nevcr been fuil; ar.d that. alth~ugh he c-.c~uld nut spe~k, concernl~g the
parking lot usage on Saturdays and Sundsys, he did ~ot feul thAt a probyem would ~esult i!~
the requnste~ reduction in parking spaces was app~aved.
IR response to questiantny by Commlsatoner Farano, Assis tant Plannor Joel Fick edvised
that no devplopment p~ans were submitted far tht proposed uses of t~e new bulldi~gs; that
staff could nat proJect what the ultimate need evould be, h~rever~ the petttloner had
tndica=ed that th~ future buildings would c:c+nt'or~n with the parking rsquircmen ' the
Code.
Commisstc~ner Farano noted that it appeared the proFosed vartance was ba~ed upon the
existing square foutage ~nd, therefore~ there wAS no way of kno~tng r~hat effect approva!
of the propcsed varianc v~auld havp on the properiy in t he future,
Mr. l.ovett then stated that the prauosad new uses would probably consist of a flower atore
and a r'eLat 1 store, wt tFi a 3a~rtngs and ;oan but lding to be constructed in 1978 on the
cornar p~rtion of the property previdusly ~c~upied by a gas station,
i~ response to questiontng by Chairnan Johnsono Mr. Fick advtsed that none of the existing
parking wcwld actuaily be deleted from the s~te and the ly~ reduction ~n the requirecl
parking for ths ~existing racilitfes would free 164 spaces to apply to the new bulldtngs
propesed ~n th~: property in the future.
Commissto~er King notGd tha* Ccxnmissloner Morley was ve~y familiat wtth the subJect
shopptng center and appea~ed to favor the p~oposal; an d that the parkTng usage fluctuaCed
on the sltc because of the approxtmately 54 dlfterent h us~~esses involved.
Comnissioner Herbst noted that he vlas concerned since na hardship seemed appe~ent for tlte
proposal; and he was interested to knaw fram P~anning Department staf~ if some uses were
cansidered margtnal as fA~ as parl:ing requirement~~ wtre soncerned. In response, Mr. Fick
advised that the existir.g uees had less ~f a parking requlrement p9r the zontng Code~
U
~
~
MINUT~S. CITY PI.ANNINu COMMI~SION~ De~amber 20~ 1976
VARIANCE ~~Q. a883 (Gontlnued)
76-G3z
hc~wovcr~ staff calculated the parking rcqulrements based upon opttm;xn us~ of the
bulldings. Commissloner Harbst then m~de an observatlon that it a;~peared ataf} was
Indlceting tho exlating uses at the ~ubJc+ct shopping center reyulred a lvwer standMrd or
numbor of p~rking speces~ hc~wever~ If different typa uses wer~ p~opused~ a shortafle nf
parking spa~es mlght result in the Puture.
Cortmisslon~er Herbst then tnqulrsd if the existing usa:s could be classif~ed ea ofPlce uses
an~ fhr~t any future u~es cnuld be requlred tA also be oPfic~: uscs. Assistent City
Att~~rney Fr~nk Lc~wry advtsed CF~at th9 pres~nt Zoning Lode ~id not permlt dltf~rentlettan
of cnmmercial usEt In dntermintng parking SpACE requlremants~ except by the verlance
pr~c iure; and that any other cAnslderatian t`or such d(fferenttatian would requlre a Code
artwnu~re~t.
Commissioner H~erbst relLeraced I~Is concerns th~t It was difftcult to dntermine a hardship
for the proposal~ a~ dePtned by the Cade. Gommissioner Morley noted that a hardshlp could
be dctermined based upan the frct that the perktng lot w~s nevcr Pull. fommtaston~i~
Farano nated that the hardshtp might be Justifled in terms of kh~ e•;isting canmercial uses
of the praperty~ but approval In relati~nship Lo any ~uture.• comne~clal uses might be blind
~lthout any k.nowledge oP what was actually planned and~ tl~eref'orC~ he agrccd wlth
Commtssloner Herbst's concarn that no hard~htp reatly cxisted.
Cc,~nmissioner Morley than noted thst he daubted that the p~atitioner would short the cent~r
af parktng ~paces and possibly drlve away the customer•s r~nd~ therefore~ he consldered the
subJect rtquest reasonable. Commtssioner Farano addeo -h~t he dld not doubt that the
petltioner mtght xry to squeeze a few addltlonal tenants in~ taking a chance that the
dert-ands for park(ng would have varying times.
In res~onse to queskionlnc~ by Chalrman Johnson. Mr. Flck advised thAt the proposed new
buildings were not included in the variance requesL; however~ the parking space
calculations were based upon gross floor area of existtng bulidfngs and~ without a plot
plan~ stafP could r,at make a valid evaluatiArs of the proposed butldings.
Chairman ,lohnson noted that the proposal should be considerGd very carefully~ especlally
s'ir,~~e the subJect shopptny center was a busy one a~d a good one.
Co~rnissloner Tolar noted that he had pe~sonally 6een to the subJect shopping center abaut
four or fiye times a day ter a long period of timr and witnessed n4 evidenc~e of lack oF
parking spaces; that approval of the proposed waiver would preclude overbuildtny the
parking lot; tliat the vallalty of the request was very rcal and Justifiable~ not in the
serese of a hardshlp but in consideraticm of the mixture of useg proposed and exist:ing; and
ttiat when the saving~ and loan building came before the Planning Commission at a future
ttme~ a closer evaluacion of the parking space requiremPnts could be made; and tha:: it was
posstbly out-of-order to even discuas the savings and loan buildtng at this time.
Mr. Lovett submltted t~sat the new stores which would be proposed in the future would have
approximately 5200 square feet of floor area.
It was noted that the Director of xhe Planning Departme~it had detei•mined that the proposed
acei•itty Fell within the deftnition of Sectt~n 3e01~ Clmss 11~ of the Ctty of Anaheim
Gu(delines to the Requirements for an ~nvtro~mental Impact P,eport and was~ ther~fore~
categortcally exempt ~rom the requlrement to file an EIR.
Mr. Low ry requested that~ i~ the Pianning Comnission viawed the proposal fave-rably~ an
additional condttlon of Ppprov~~l be imposed~ "That the varlance shall be gra~te' subJect
to the cnm~alPttL~~ ~~ neclassift~:ation No, 54-55°40; provided~ hcwever~ that the praper'y
owner(s) shall apply for deletto,i of the condition of ~pproval af said reclassification
pertaining to deed restrlcttons." M~. Lc~wry further requested that, In the eveni• the
Planning Commisslon was desirous ef considering an amendment to the parktng ordin~nce to
take into consideratton the operating hours of various uses~ some instructtons be gtven to
Planning DspartmEnt stafP in that regard; whereupon, the Commission so instructed.
Coa~~~~issi~ner Barr~es ~uggest.ed that a findtng of hardship eould be the special
clrcumstances applicab!e t~~ the subJect property whlch do not a~ply generalty to the
preperty ar class of us~e in the same vtcinity and zone. She noted that l•he props~ty had
unique ~lrcumstances in ~:iat It was partially dzueloped with a theatre and offtce uses.
with minlmal parking need~.
~ ~
MINU7ES, CIT1~ PLANNING COMMiSS1QN~ Decem4er 20~ 1976 7fi~•633
VARIANCE N0. 2883 (Contlnued)
Commtsslor~er Farano noted that If plena for the ~utu~e developmont wera pt'asented~ It was
posstble khet the Planning Commiaalnn could establtxh e bagis for a hardship In c:Annectlon
wlth the requcsted waivor; and that he dld not under~tand why pla~ns wera not aubmitted
w(th this request.
Commissioner Herbst fnquired It the Plan~ing Commission would consider grantin~ the 15~
r~ductlon ln parking spaces If the eubJect shopping center was not already ~xisting buc
~as being pre~ented for ~3nvelopment at thls ttme. Commisgloner Marley replled In the
negetlve~ noting thet the owner of the shopping r.enrar hed experinnced the pa~king dnmenda
fer the center and knRV! whrt was needed and~ there}o~e~ he Pavored th~ proposAl.
Commissloner Farano noted thAt~ during certnin busy shopping timcs of thc year. he hed
seen tha shopptng centrer parking lot "Jamned" wlth cers, or ¢tlied; and thet he wes
concernad whechsr Chr, Flanning Commleston was cansidesrl~~g avcraging thr, parking space
usagc over 365 days a yeer ar structurl~g lt }o~ peak parlods.
Commlssioner Tolar then noted thAt~ bacause the shopping center bulldinga were preaently
100$ occupled~ on rare occasions thc p~rking lot might be Full but he never had seCn tt
fuYi.
Commissioner Nerbst noted that a retall use ve~sus an oPflcc use repres ented qulte a
dtPference tn parking space demands.
Cammis~loner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC76-261 and moved for Its p~ssage and a~doptlon~
that the Anahetm City Planntng Commlaston does hereb~ grant Petltlon for~ Varlancc No.
2~83~ yranttng the rcquested waiver af the minimum numbar oP parking spaces on the basis
thbt unique circumstances exlst~ stnce the shopping center at tFits loca tlun has been ln
existPnce fc,r approximately 20 years and the propasel for a 15$ ~eduction of thn parking
space rnqulrements for the comrnrircial uses Is based an th~ potential maxtmi~m usage of the
exlstin,q commercial bulldinys; and~ Purthermare~ the petitioner stlpulated that any
addltlonal constructlon and/or develo~mm~nt tn the shopping centr.r wlll he In comp~tilance
with the perking spt~ce requirnment`~ as set forth in the Cade; subJect to the condltlon
that this variance be granr.ed subJect to thr c~mpletton of Reclassiftcatlon No. 54~55~l~0~
prorided, however, that the property owner(s) shmll ~pply for ~eletlor~ oP the condttton of
app~oval of sbtd reclassifl:.atlon pertaintng to deed resCricttons; and subJect to tha
interdcpartmental Cornnittee recommendatio~s. (Sr.~ Resolution Book)
On roll cAll* the foregoing resolution was pASSed by the following vote:
AYES: COMP115SIONERS: BARNES, HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ "fOLAR~ JONNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; FARANO
ABSENT: COMMI5SIONERS: NONE
VARIANCE N0. 28g5 - PUBLIC HEARING. GRAMERCY PARK ONE QWNERS ASSO~IATION, 1800 West
Gramercy Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca, 92801 (Owner) ; W. D. GRUBB~ 1E300 West
Gramercy, Unit 15. Anaheim, Ca. 92801 (Agent); requ~sting WAIVER
OF MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT~ TO PERMIT EXIST~NG ILLECAL FENCES on prqperty described as an
irreg~larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3•~ ~~'es havtng a frontage
of approxlrt~ately 345 feet on the cul-de-sac terminus of uramercy Avenue, havtng a maxlmum
depth of approxlmately 5~0 feet, being located approxlmately b05 feet east of thtl centaer-
ltne of Cl~ippewa Avenue, and further descrtbed as 1800 West Gramercy Avenur,. Property
presently classifled RM-12R0 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPl.E-FAMILY) ZONE.
Twu ~ersons Indicated their presence in oppositlon to the subJect petTt(o~ and forthwtth
waived the full readie~g of the Staff R~eport to ~he Planning Commissiajtdis~referredgtaZand
1976. Although 2he staff report was not rsad at the p~hlic hearing,
made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Bob F'erkins~ repres~:nting the ~etitloner~ appeared before tfi~e Planning Cortmisslor~ and
stat~d thpt the higher fences ware requtred to provide vandallsm protection for tl»
recreational vehicles (RV's) parked on the subJect r+roperty; that he tiad been tnformed
that he would not need a va~iance fo~ the fences since they were within the complex; anci
that they had experienced no vandatism~ whatsoevar. to the parked RV's since con~tructfng
the 9~faot~ 2-inch high fences.
-~1
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Doccmber 20~ 1976
VAt11ANCE_N0. z885 (Continued)
76-634
Mr. Irvlnfl November~ 1777 Wnst Glenc~~est Avenue. Anahel~. elso repre~e~ting the rasldents
et ;781 and 1791 Glencrest Avenue~ ap~ei~ed before the Plenning Commisslon In appc~sltlon
and steted that. although he dld not mind tha~ height af the fences. he did not fyal that
t.he petttlonars we~e dcsorvtng and, thereforeh the praposa) should be doniod; :hat the
sub)ect apartmnnt complax had been using blowers to cle~n out thelr flaragns. with tha dirt
and debrl~ betng blodvn Into the ml~dlo of the alley rext to his properiy; tl-at the dirt
went up Into a cloud and eventually tnto the ciwelling u~fts ~nd garage~ on Glencrest
Avenue~ even Chaugh the garagns wnre kept closedt that the peopln on Gloncrest Avenue
dl~posnd ot thcir awn rubblsF,~ but th~ potitlonmr~ did noti thak the pecitloners had
" takon him apart" eb~ut parking a van in the elloy and It turne~l out that the van In
questlon b~longed to ~ tenant at thn sub)ect apartment complex; end that~ withln a perlod
of about three m~nths, the upsxetrs units In his r~ea were so dirty they could not s~e out
of thelr screens becausc of the t~ctivlcy on the aubJect property.
Chalrman .Johrson noted that~ with all due respect to Mr. Navember's complalnta~ the
Planning Comrnisstan wes eharyed only w(th eonsldering the merlts of the proposal at thls
tfmC.
M~. No~ember conttnued by stating that they were opposed to the subJect fence on the basls
that it cut off access to about '0 of th~ir garages; that Ry'e were parked in the S-foot
setback area, with the chelnlink fence being loc~tad lmrnedlataly adJa~cent to a dedicated
alley; and that he had contacted the City .Attarney's Offlce appraxlmately sIx months ago
to obJect to the blowers and here the petttioner was requesting a varlance for the fence.
tn rebuttal~ Mr, Pcrklns stated he was undar the aasumption that tha subJect public
hnariny pertalned only to fences; that the fencas were on the sub)ect property and the
residents on the adJacent propsrty had plenty uf room to get ln and out of thetr ga~ages;
that three parking spaces prev'lously exist~d where a chalnllnk fence was presently located
at the sou!:,'wrest corner of the subJect property, hownve r~ the people had no opportunity to
uttlize '~e parking spaces because others parking ln the n11ey blocked said spaces.
Assistant Gity Attorney Frank Lo+vey advised that the fence in question was located oe~ the
3ubJect property and not In the public right-oF-way~ hawever~ it was within the roquired
5-fc»z sQ~back area. Assistane P~~nner Joel Fick advfsed that the Code permitted only 6-
foot hlgti fences unless they were set back 5 fect from the property li~e.
Mr. Parkyns stated that he knew Ig~o~ance of the iaw was no excuse, t~ut that he had been
informed about everything by the City staff. except the permttted 'netght of khe fence.
THE PUBI.iC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Morley noted that while a 6-foot high fence would not p~ate~t an RV~ a 9-foot
high wall would protect it fully.
Commtssioner Dar~es noted that the parking of RV's Inside the fence was not Justification
fcar a hardshtp and the situat~on was certalnly not untQue since people all over the Ctty
owned RV'~. with only 6-foot high fences.
Cammissioner rarano noted that~ although it was common for tha newer apartment compiexes
to prdvide ~or the parktng of RV's~ it appeared that the parking spac~s betng utilizcd on
the subJect property for RV's was prohably intended for the parking o~ automobites~ and
not far s.:asonal vehlcles.
In response ta questtoning by Commissioner Farano, Hr. Perkins sXated that they had also
installed sllding gates next to the alley for acce~s for the ftV'J. Commissi~ner Farano
then noted xhat he pald about $8 a month t~ park hls Qwn kV in a place speclftcally
designed far s~ch vehicles.
In respo~sse to qu~estioning by Corm-3ssEuners darnes and Farano~ M~. Lowry advtsed that the
subJect comF'ex was one of the fi~st candamintum p~oJecta in the Cixy oP Anaheim anci was a
co~version from apa;tms•nts; ct~at the~e were no parking standards f~r candominiums Ax that
tirne, ho~ever, the canver:,;r,n complted with xhe apartment hou:~~ p~rking standards for
ragularly used vehlclcs per dweltl~g unit at that time; and that RV's were not wtdely us~d
at that tlme.
Cammissioner Herbst ~oted that 6-foot high fence~ sed thrauQhout the Ctty and
everyone had to contand with vandalism, sincn the 0-foot fiigh fences would fencc
~
~
MINUTES~ CiTY PLANNII~G COMMISSION~ Docember 20~ 197~~
76-G35
VARI~NCC N0. 238 (~Contlnued)
everyo~ie in; Chnt th~nre were other ways to prakect RV's~ I.c.~ he waa famlllar wlth a
complex which was usV~g dogs to protoct thelr property. Commisstoner Toler agraed that he
could not see puttlnl~ up 9~f~t high fences on pr~perty to allevlate vandalism~ sinc:e thn
awncrs oP the RV's wc~uld be botter off going to n storaye yard.
Ik was noted that the Olrector of the Planning Oenartment had detcrmtncd th~t the proposed
activtty Pell wlthin the dePlnitlon ~` Sectlon 3.Q1, ~lass 3• of the Clty of Anaheim
Guld~llnes to the Requlrements for an Environment~l Impact Rnporr and was~ thnrefore~
categorlcelly exempt Prom the requt~ament to flle an EIR.
CommissionGr Farano offered Resolution Na, rc76-262 end mc:ved for Its passaga and
adoptian, that the Rnehslm City Planning Commission daes hereby deny Petltion fot Varlance
No. 2885~ on the basis th~t the parking ste+ndards as appllesd to the subJeet property at
the tlma of converslon to a condominlum proJect did not prov(de recreatlonal vehicle
starege spaces an~ tf such storage ts neaded~ spaces should bo provtded in accordance wtth
tha applicable zoning rogulatlons; that the axisting 9-fc+nt~ 2-inch high fances wero
111ege11y constructed with~ut bulldln_y permits and tn violatlon of tho 2oning Code; that
the petitioner dtd nut demonstrate thAt a hardship would be created if sald varlance was
not granted; that If satd vartance were granted, a precadent wou1J be set for futuro
similar r~quosts; end tha+. special and protected off-site ~~QC~^~e~olutfon~Book)~able for
parking of recreetlonel vehiGles in the City of Anahielni.
On roll cali, the foregoing resolutlon was p~ssed by the following vox~;
AYES : COMMi SS I ONERS t BARNES, FAftANO. HERl3ST ~ KING p MORLEY ~ TOIAP, ~ JOHNSON
NOES; CONMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONC
VAR~qNCE Np~ , 2886 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES A. CRUMM~ 511 North Rose Street~ Anahelm~ Ca.
9280$ (Owner) requesting WAIVER G~ (A) PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES~
(B) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, AND (C) i~iAXIMUM REAR YARD COV~RAGE, TO
CONS7RUC7 A TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITN KITCNEN FACfoxlmate~n 5495~5quaresi'eet d
as a r~ctangularly-shAped parcel of land conslsting of spp Y
having a frontbge of approximately 50 fPet on the west side of Rose Street~ having a
maximum depth of approximatety 110 feet~ being located aoproxImately 132 feet north of
the centerltne of Sycamore Street~ and further described as 511 Nortli Rose Street.
Properfy presenYly classified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ StNGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
No one indlcated thetr presence In opposition xo th~ subJect petltion. Although the Staff
P.eport to the Planntng Commisslon dated ~ece~Uer 20~ 1976~ was not read at the public
hearing~ said report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. ,lames Crumn, the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commission to answer
qu~stions concnrning the proposal.
THC PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
:,~ respunse ta questtoning by Commigsioner Morley, Mr. Crumm stated that his dsughter, wh~
would occupy the proposed dwelliny~ was marrted a~~d, therePore~ the dwelling would be for•
femi ly-typc occ~+p~sncy.
Commissioner Tolar noted that the applicatlon w~uld ~reate a multiple-famlly us~ in a
stngle-family zone and he was questiontng whether tfie propasel should have been processe~
a~ a recjassiftcatlon of zoning. since it appear~d that the preposal might be a good use
of the subJect property. In re~ponse~ Assisxane Planning Director-Zoning Annika
Santalahel advtsecl that the s~bJect property was situated in the center of a single-family
housing area and a reclessification of the one parcel would constitute spot-zoning.
Com!nissioner Tala~r further notnd that ap~~oval of the proposal~ as p~ocessed~ would
definitely set a precedent In the subJect neighborho~d; that the Planning Comnission had
recently dmnied a slmiler proposnl on Cerritos Avenue on the 6~asis that the Qroperty w~s
in a stngie-family residentlai area; that he vrould have na qualms about approving thls
particular proRerty fo~ multipie-fam;ly. duplex-type developmenr, espacially since it
t~buttnd duplxxes fn the rear, lf it cou~d be done in a ma~ner that would not causa future
problerns or set a precedent for the other properttea (n the area.
•
0
MINUT[S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ De~ember ?.0~ 197G
VARIANCE N0. 2c~}3F, (~ContinuuJ)
76-636
Commlasion~:r Fara~o quetttonecl the laxitude involved if the w~lvor of tha rnaxlmu~ni r~~ry~rd
coverage was appr~ved for the 92$. Mts• Santalahtl clarified that the welvor In questlon
pertalned to the r~ar yard o~ly end not tu thc tntal atte.
Discu~,slon pursued, du~ing which Commissloner Tolar noted that evan lf the pruperty waa
rezc,ned for multtple-family~ the design of the structure encroached into the requirad
setb~,cks and~ thr_refore~ a red~~ctlon or redesign af the proJect might ellminate some oP
thn walvers which would br setting ~+ precedent In ~hc area.
Assistar~t Plenner Joel Fick advlsed thatthere was an cxlsting fnundatlon which would
encr~ach Intc the requlred setbacks end~ thereupo~~ Mr. Crumn a~ipulated to t~tally
ramoving the nxisttng fns~ndakion and to s~+hmitting reil~ed plans ln c~nformance with RM-
2400 Zone standerds.
!t was noted th~t the ~lrector of the Planning Department had dctermined that the proposed
activlty fell wtthin the deflnttlon of Sectlon 3.~~~ Class 3~ of the City of Anr~heim
Guldellnes to the Requlrements for an Envi~•onmantal Impact Repart rnd was, r~~er~efore~
categorlcally exempt from the requlremen*. to file an EIR.
Cornr,isslaner Tolar offored a resolution and moved for tts pa,sagn and adopttun that the
Anaf~elm City Planning Cammtssion does hdre:by grant Petttton for Verlancc No. 2~8E In
pert. graneing the requestad watver of permitted accessory uses and struGtures and denylny
the requested walvers of the maximum lot coverage and maximum reAr yard covnrage on the
basts th~t th~ petitioner stipulated to submitting revised plans ln conformence with RM-
2400 Zone standarda~ satd plans to be submitted to the Planning Commtssion for approval
prior to the tssuflnce eg o building permtt.
Discussion of the foregoing resolution pursued~ du~ing which Gommissioner Herbst suggested
that a contlnuance of the su~Ject item ap~+eared to be En order stnce tt was pussible that
some ninor variance might become necessary In redes(gning the proJect. Commisstoner
Fa~-ano indicated that a determination as to whcther the area was suttable for
reclassificatian would tnvolve an entirely different set of ftndings and he questloned the
granting of a reciass(ficatio~ tising a variance ms the vehicle. Chairman Johnsun noted
Chdt he would not support the resAlution to grant the proposal as submitted,
In respanse ko questioning by ti~e Planning Cammisslon~ As~istant Ctty ~lttorney Frank Lawry
advised that, as a Charter City, the ardtnances rezoning property did not have to
conform ~o thc Genardl Plan.
CommlZSioner Tola-• ttitn noted tt~at the proposal should probably be considerrd in
conJunction wlth a General Plan Amendment for the adjacent area ~nd~ thereupon~ he
w(thdrew the foregoing resolutior~.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motian, seconded by ~omnlss(onzr Fa~ano and M0710N CARRIED~
that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does he~cby continue zan~tderation o'F Varfance
No. 28$6 to th~ ?lanning Commission meeting ~f January 17, 1977, at whtcn time the
Planning Corrmisston shall consider tl.a initiatton of zuning on the subJect property and
ad)acent area~ satd are~ to be as dete~mined by the Planning L~epartment, to the RM-2400
tone; and said rec~asslfication of zoni~g shali ba at the City's expense,
VARIANCE N0. 2$88 - PUBLIC HEARINf. WI~LIAM E. AND KAY 8. THOMPSON~ 3877 Vlneyard
Avenue~ Oxnard~ Ca. 93030 (Owners); DEAN JENSEN, P. 0. Box 776,
Oxnard, Ca. 93~32 ~A9ent); requesting WAIVER OF (A) ?ERMITTED USES
AND (B) MINIMUM IANUSf,APING, TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL MAItKET AT AM EXISTING SERVICE S~.,TION
on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ccnsisting of approximately
0.5 acra located at the southeast corner of Howell Avenue and State Colleg~ Boul+~vard,
having approximate fro~itages of 150 feet on the south slde of Now~il Avenue and 150 feet
on the east side of State Coltege Boul~vard~ and further describnd as 1650 South State
College 8oulevard. Property presently clsselfiQd ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) 20ME.
O~e person was present ln oppositton to the subJect petttion a~d waived tho futl read(ng
of the Staff Rep~r*. to the Planntng Cocm-issian dated Qecember 20, 1975. Althaug~ the
staff r~port vias not ~ead, lt is referred to and made e pa~t of the mlr.~~ie~.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ Decembe~ 20, 1976 76-b37
VARIANC~ N0. 2E~89 (Cor+t(nued~
......_.~--.-~.~..-_._-.
It was nut~d that netther the petitloner nor the agent were presnnt tn represent the
proposal ~nd~ pursuant to e telephone c*11 made to the Natttioner, Aasistant Planner Joel
Fick advised that the petttloner wa~s requGStl~g to wtthdraw the subJer,c pro~osal at thts
tlmo and would submit a letter formally reqU~sting withdrawal to the Planning D~partment
for the records.
Commisstonar Farsno ofto~ed a motlon~ ~aconded by Commts!ianer King and MOTION CARRII:D,
that tho Ant+h~im Ctty Planning Commissfon dae~ hnreby termtnate all proznedings tn
connectlon wtth Petltton for Vartence No. 2888~ as requesked by the petitloner.
VARIANCE N0. 288q - PUB~IC HEaRING. MARY M. PARRISH, 1919 Als~na Lane~ Nunkingxan 9each~
'""~""'""~~ CA 92648 (Owner); MARGIE A'NN MAR5HIiLl., 1818 West Avenue~ Fullnrton~ CA
92636 (Agent); requastiny WAIVER dF PERMITTED liSE5 TO f.ONSTRUCT A
FO70MA'(' An property described ~s a recta~gularly-shaped parcnl of land conslsting of
approximately 0.4 acre located ~t the northwest cornar of La Palma Avenue ~nd Brookhurst
Street~ havin~ approximate frontagas of 39 feet on the north slde oP L~ P~lma Avenue a~d
1S0 fect on the west side of Droakhurst Street. and further described as 1107 Narth
Brookh~urst Str•cet. Prnperty prese,ntly classifted CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZdNE.
It w8~~ no*.ed that no one was present fn o~positlon to the subJect petltion; and that
nelthe~r ttie petitt~ner nor the agGnt wcr~~ present to r~present the proposal; however~ the
pet~tlianer (MAry M, PerPish) had aubmittcd r letter dated Deccmber 18p 1976~ requesting to
wfthdraw the propasal.
Although t~~e Staff Repart to the Planninv Commisslon dAted Oecert~he~ 20~ 1976~ wds not
read~ It is refcrrc~ *_^ nnd made a part of the minutes.
Commlssioner Tolar offered a motlon~ seconded br VM~Mi~tssioner King and MOrION CARRIEp~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon ~+oes hereby terminate all proceedings In
connectton with Petttion for Variance No. 2889~ r~s requested by the petttioner.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC Fl~ARING. PNILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY~ 1423 Security Lifa
PERMIT N0. 1672 Building, Denvcr~ Calo~ado 80202 (Owner); CHARLES E. QUINETTE~ 2911
East La Palme Avanue~ Anahetm, CA 92806 (Agent); requesting ON-SALE
BEER AMD WINE IN A PROPOSEO RESTAURANT ~n prope~ty de~crtbed as a
recta~ngui+~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxlmately O.S acre located st the
southwest corn~r of Broa~dway and llagnolia Avenuc~ having approxtmate frontages of 147
feet on the south side of Broadway and ik5 feet on the west slde of Maqnolta Avenue~ arid
further descrtbed as 301 South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently ciassified CL
(COMMERCIAL, LIMITEO) ZANE.
No o~e indtcated their presence in oppositlon to the sublecK pntittryn.
Although ~he Staff Report to the Planning Commisston dated December 20~ 1975, was not read
at Che public hearing~ satd staff report is referred to and made a part of the minutes~
Mr. Charles E. Quinette, th~e agent for the petitioner~ appear~sd bofora the P3anning
Commission and describad thelr operation~ being a la~ge~ nattonwide restaurant chain
s~nclalizing in Italian foods. Ne stated that they typically served 5enr and wine~ which
roprasented a small percentaqe of their total sales and in no way approximated a bar
operation; a~nd that the beer And wtne would be sold only tn conJunctTon wtth the serving
of ineals.
THE PUBLIC FiEARlNG WAS CLOSED.
In response to quastioning by Commisstoner Morley~ Mr. Quinette st~ced tt~eY were proposing
to ciose the two existing drivevrAys which were located closest to the lntersection of
tlagnalia Avenue and Broadway as reco~mronded by the Traffic ~ivisi,~~.
Discussion pursued concerning the policy ~equlrireg a 20-foot wide la~dscaped buffier strlp
fer conmercial developmi+nts located a~~acent to residentlal uses, during which Mr.
Quinette stipulated to providing a 10-foot wldo la~dsCaped buffe~ strip adJacent to the
wcst prope~rty ltne~ said strlp tfl be densely planted with tree~ on 10-faot centtrs to
• •
MINUTES~ GITY PlANN1NG COMMISSION~ Decembnr 2~~ 1976 76-~3~
CUNDITIONA~ ~SE PERMIT N0. 1672 tContinued~
effectlvely screen the ad]acent single-femily restd~ncA~ from potentlal dtsturbances
ger.erated by thc pronos~d uee; and that plans f4r the landsceping wouiJ bn submltted to
the Planning Departnx.it for revlew and apprnval.
Pursusnt to furthar diacuaston~ Mr. Qulnttte stipulated that the drivaweY on Nagnalia
wau1J bes loca~ed no closer than 110 feet to the curb prolongatlon at th~ Intergectlon of
Magnollr Avenue and Broadw+~y and that the drivewny on Broadway ~~ould ba loc~~ted a minimum
oF 115 feet from the center of ssld driveway to tho curb prolongatlon at the ~ntersectlon
of Magnolta Avenue and Brt~adway, to provida adequata spACe for the l0~foot wide landscaped
buffer a1~ng the westerly property line.
Commissloner King offiered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED~
tha, eh~ Aneheim Cit~ Planntng Canmtssion cfoes hereby recommend to the Ctty Cou~cfl of the
~;ty of Anahrim that a negative declar~tion from the requlrement t.o prepare an
environmental impact report be approvcsd for the subJect proJect~ pursuant tc the
provfstons of the California Environmental Quaelity act,
Conxnlssioner King oPfered Resalutlon No. PC76-263 and moved for its passage and adoptlon~
th~ot the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hcraby grant Petltlon Por Condttional Use
Permit No. t~~7~ subJect to the stipulations of the petltioner anJ subJect to the
Interdepartmental Committne recommendations. (See Resol~tton Book)
On rolt c~ll, xhe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: C~MMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~PIERdST~KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR, JOIiNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS; NQNE
ENVIR(1NMENT.AL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. WALT OISNEY PRODUC710NS~ S00 South Buena Vtsta
ltEPORT N0. 192 Street~ Burbank, CA 915~5 (Own~r}; WRATNER NUTfLS~INC.~ 270 Narth
Canon Drtve~ Beverly Hills~ GA 9021Q (Agent); ~er~uesting permisslon
CONDITIONAL USE to ESTABLISN A 13-STORY HOTkI. TOWER on property described as a
PERHIT N0. 1673 rectangularty-shaped r~rcel of land conslsting of approximgtely
""'"`~ 8.9 acres having a irontage of approxtmately 666 fect on the east
s6de af Walnut Street~ havin9 a maximum depth of approximat~lY
616 feet, and being located approximately 655 feet south of the center~ine of Cerritos
Avenue. Property presently classified RS-A-43.000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE (with
a resalution of intent to C-R).
No one indicAted their presence in opposition to the subJect petit~on.
Although the Staff Repo;t ta the P~anning Commisston dated December 20, tg76~ was not read
at the publir, hearing~ said report is referred to and made a part of the mtnutes.
Mr. Edward 0. Tisch~ representing the agent for the Qetitioner~ appeared before the
Planning Commisslon and introduced Mr. Kurt Weber~ the architect for 4i~akher Hoteis, Inc.
Mr. Weber presented two re^derings of tl~e proposec~ hatel tow~er and descrQbed the praposal~
as outlined in the staff report. ~
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
in response to question6ng by Commmissiorter Farano, Mr. Weber stlpulnted that line~of-
sight studies had been conducted and the proposed structure would not b~ vlsible froan
within Disneyland Park.
I~ response to questioning by Commissioner King~ Mr. Tisch ~tipulated that th~y were
agreeable to rebuild the existing traffic signals at the intersection oP Cerritos Avenue
and West Street ~na along West Street at thr hotel entra~ce, at the petitioner's expense.
In response to questioning 6y f,emmissloner Nerbst~ Mr. Tisch further sttpulated to
conduc*.ing an additional line~of-~sight study consisting ~f flying x bailoon mt the maximum
buitding helght t~ assure that no portion of the p~oposed 152-fac~t high nocei w~,~l~ ~_
vtsible from ~tthin Disnnyland Park~ in coTpliance wlth the hetght s+~andard guldelines of
the Anahetm Comme~clal-Recreation area, as defined in Map Wo. 1124.
~ ~ ~r
MINUTES~ CITY PLANMING COMMISSION~ Oecomber 20~ 197~
ENVIRO_NMENTAL INPACT REPORT N0. ly2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1673 (Continued)
76-G39
Commissloner Herbst offered a motlon~ secondecl by f,on+missioner King and MOTION CAaRIED~
that Envlronmen~al Impacl Report No. 192~ hUVing baen cons~dered this d~Ce by the Anoh~im
f.ity Planning Commisston and evidence, both written and oral. havlny bAen presented to
suppicment ~ald draft EIR No. 19~~ th~e Plrr~ning Commisslon bellaves thar, said dreft [IR
No. 192 does conform to the Clty p~~ State Guidelines ~nd the State of Callfornla
Ctt'rCounctl~ofuthetCltytofnAnaheimdthatnthPyhcertifyasaid~ElR No,e192yls~in~ompllancCc
Y
with said Envlronmantal Qualtty ~ct.
Camni~sioner Nerbst off~rad Resolutlon No. PC76-26~~ anci m~ved for its pd~sage and
adaptton, that the Anahetm Clty Planniny Commisslon doea hereby ~~ent Petltion far
Conditianal Use Permlt No~ {fi73~ subJect to the stipulatlons of the pettttoner~ nnd
subJect to the Interdepartm~ntal Commltte~ recomnxndations. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call~ tF.e foregoing resol4~io~ was passed hy the f~llowtng vota:
~YES: COMMISSIONERS: BARMES~ rARANO~ HERBST~ KING~ M~RL~Y~ TOLAR' JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NbNC
ABSENT: C~h~~11SSICNERS: hONE
CONDITIONAL USE - PU~LIC NEARING. LEONARD G. MUSKIN AND DONAID T. ~EANY~ WEST AMERICA
PERMIT N0. 5674 CQ~iSTRUCTIO~ CORP,' 8929 W~lehire Boulevard~ Sulte 400~ Beverly Hills,
CA 9~211 (Own~rs); THE GRAY LINE TOURS CdMPANY, 12~7 W~st Thtrd Street~
Los Angeles~ CA 9001'1 (Agent); raquesting perm~sslon to ESTABLISH A
TOIiR ~US TERMINAL on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist-
ing of approximately 0.6 acre havtng a fronta~e of approximately 133 feet on the east side
of Harbor Baulevard~ havtng a maximum depth of approxtmately 201 feet~ being located
approximately 40A feet South of the centerline nf Orangewond Avenue~ and further described
as 2132 South Harbor Boulevard. PrAperty presently classlfled CL (f.0i1MERCIAL~ LIMITED)
7.ONF .
OnP persor, indicated his presence In oppasition to the subJect prt~tTon t~nd forthwtth
walved the fuli reading of the Staff Report to the Planning Gommission dated December 20~
1976. Although the staff report was not read at the public hear~ng~ it is referred to and
made a part of ~he minutes.
Mr. Gary Balitnger~ rapresenting the agent for the petitioner~ appea~ed before the
P~anning Comrelssian and stated that the proposal would establtsh a bus boarding and
passenge~ accommodation area at the subJect iocation~ which wa~ suitable fo~ handling the
tours; that, in their application, they had made every effort to provide as much
information as possible regardtng their plans in the distant future and~ therefore, lf the
Planning Comn~sslon would have any obJectia~s to the implementation of any of tl~eir future
plans they want~ed to be ~pprised of satd ohJections at this time.
Mr. Stewart Allan Messntck~ 1600 South Anaheim 9oulevard~ Anahefm~ appeared befo~e the
Planning Ccxnmission in opposition and st~ted he was the owner of tt~e property imrr.ediately
conttguous to the subJect property on the north et 2144 S~uth Harbo~~ Boulevard~ wiiich was
developed with an Arby`s Roast Beef Restaurant; that he also owned a bus and slght-seefng
company and was familiar +vith the problems of thls type facillty; that they had purcha:,ed
the Arby's property some time ago and it was formerly a cer lot lacation; that his
obJections to the proposai were based on the noise and fumes which would affect the
restnurant customers wf~o mtght wdsfi ta eat out-of-doors; that, with the volum~ histourlst
business proposed~ the proposed use w~uld requi~e about 15 bathrooms; that,
opinion~ not all of the taurists wo~uld take the sight^seeing buses but would take cars to
the subJect stte; that~ although the petitioners claimed they would perform no heavy
mainte~ance~ the work proposed~ es outllned in the staff report~ was not minor~ t.e.~ an
oil change would requtre 40 quarts af oil and would be admintstered right on Narbor
Boulevard wnicn was one of the maJor access p~ints ta Oisneyland; that buses would be
parked at the subJect location overnight and would start up eArly ln the mornings to bulid
up at~ pressure and brakes~ etc.. requi~ing about 15 minutes; that immedlately to the east
of the subJect property were apartment complaxes which would be li~ipacted by the idling of
the ~u; r,tctors to warm up in tihe morning hours~ in addttion to ~he fumes; that a buswash
was not a small faciltty, slnce It would have to accomrtadate a 40-faot 1onRecardin athe
noise impactWaMrr Messnlck furtherestate~'chG,could n~t imagineslivingnnext to this9
!
CJ
MINUTES~ CI1Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 20. 197~
ENVIRONMEN7AL IMPAC'f REI'ORT N0. 192 AND COND1710NAL USE ?ERMIT N0. 1673 ~Conttn~~ed)
7'6-639
Commissloner HcrbsZ ~ffered a mottan, secanded by CommiQ,loner Klny and MOTION CP.F'RIED.
that Envtronmental Impact Rep~rt No. 192~ havlnq been considered thtsbpen~pb~sente~ntp~itm
City Plannin~3 Commisslon and evldenGe~ botli written nnd oral~ havlny
supplement said draft EIR No. 192~ tl~e Planning Commisslon belleves that said draS'r EiR
No. 192 does confarm to the Gity and Statc Guid~lines and the State of Californla
CitirCouncll1oPuthetCltYtofnAnt+heimdthatntheyhcertifyasaid~[IReNo,P192Y reJnmcomPll~ncer
Y
with said Envlronmantal Qu811ty Act,
Cortmiss(oner Herbst offercd Resolutlon Nn. PC76-26-i and moved for its passage and
adoptton~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission docss hereby grant Petitlon far
Condltlonal Use Permlt No. 1673~ subjecL to the stlpu~~*.lons of the pexltioner~ and
subJect to the Interdepartmental Commtttee recommendatlons. (5ce Resolutio~ Boak)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMt11SSI0NERS: dARNES~ FARANO~ NERH~T~ KiNG, MaRL.EY~ TOLAR~ ~OHNSON
NQES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: MONE
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEONARD G. MUSKIN ANO DONALD T, LEAHY~ WEST AMERICA
PERMIT N0. 1674 CONSTRUCTION CORP.~ g92^ ~~'shire Boulevard~ SuiCe 4G0~ Beverly Hills~
CA 90211 (Owners); TH~ GRAY LINE TOURS COMPANY~ 1207 West Tf~ird Street~
Los Angeles~ CA 90017 (Agent); requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
TOUR BUS TERMINAL on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land tonsist~-
(ng of approximately 0.6 acre having a frontage of app~oximately 133 feet on the east sidc
of Harbor Boulevard, having a maxlmum dcpth of approxtmately 2~1 feet, b~eing l~~cated
approximately 4Q0 feet s•uth af the centerl~esentlorclassifledvCLu(COMMERCIALheIIMlTED)bed
as 2132 South Harbor Boulevard. Property p Y
ZONE.
One person indicated his presen~e ln oppositian to ~tne subJect petition and forthwith
walved the full reading of the Staff Report to the Plann(ng Commisston dated December 20~
1976. Although ihe staff report was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and
made ~ part of the minutes.
Mr. G~rY Ballinger. representing the agent far the petitioner, app~:ared before the
Planning Commission and stated that the proposal would establish a bus boarding and
passenger accommodation area at the subJect locat(on~ whlch was suiYable for han~ling the
tours; that, in their application~ the:y had made e~ery effort to provide as much
infarmation as possiblP regardtng their plans in the dlstant future and, therefore~ if the
Planning Commission would have any obJectians to the implementation of any of thei~ future
plans they wanted to be apprised of satd obJectlons at this time.
~1r. Stewart Aiian Massnick~ 1600 Sout~ti Anaheim Boulevard~ Anaheim, a~peared before th~
Plmnning Commission in opposition aRd stated he was the awner of the prape~ty tmmediately
cuntiguous to the subJect property on the nor'th at 21~i4 South Ftarbor 6oulevard~ which was
develaped with an Arby's Roast Beef Restaurant; that he also awned a bus and sight-seetng
company and was familiar with the pr~ob3ems af this type facility; ~hat they had purchased
the Arby's property sUme time ago a~d it was formerly a car lot locatlon; that his
obJections to the propo~al were based on the noise arsd fumes which w~uld affect the
restaurant customers who rnight wish to eat aut-of~doors; that, Mith the volume o~ tourist
business propased, the proposed use would require about 15 bathrooms; that~ in his
opinion~ ~or all of the tour!sts would ta{.e tf~e sight-seeing buses but would take cars to
±he subJect stte; that, although the petitioners claimed they would perform no heavy
maintenance~ the work proposed~ as outltned in the staff report, was not minor~ i.e., an
oi1 cha~ge would require 40 quarts of ~'1 and would be admintstered right on Harbor
Boulevard which was one of the maJor access points to Disneyland; that auses would be
parked at the subJect lacation overnignt and would start up early ln the mo~~~ings to build
up air pressure and brak~s~ ~tc.~ req-~iring about 15 minutes; ch~t imm~diateiy to the east
of the subJect property were apartment complexes which would be impacted by th.: idling of
the bus motors to warm up in *.he morning hours, in additton to S:he fumes; that a~ buswash
was not ~+ small far.ility, slnce it wouid t;ave to accommodate a 40-foot long coach, and
noise lmractWeMrr Messnick furtherestatedche,could not imagineglivingnnextRioethiss the
P
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY HI.ANNIWG CaMM15S10N~ Uo~~mber 20~ 1~7G 76-6~0
CONDII'IONAL USE PEaMIT N0. 1f~74 (Co~tlnued)
__----._ - -
loc+~~i~n; that, In hts experlence, th~ buses would be vacuumed~ fueled and started up at
7;30 a.n+. or errlier~ an,i this would lend a prohlcm to both the adJacent re~sldents and the
restaurant~ In the area; and that ve~y 1ttt1F was consldercd Cr. be mino; mechanical work
when i t i nvolvecl buses.
I~t wa~ noted tlirt lnttera favoring t!~e propos,}1 w~r~ receivcd from Sambo's Restaurant at
Z110 Soutli Harbor Boulsvard; the Federal Sign and Slgnel Corporatlon of ~.os Angclas; West
~unerice Construction Corporatlo~~ c~wners ~~~f the suhJect property; and Berrsarcl Karcher of
~:~rl Karcher Enterp~~aes~ Inc,
The ~lanniny Commission nol•ed that the lette~s from Sambo's and Garl Karc:her Enxerprlses
refarred to the proposal as a"hospltallty center".
I~ rebutte+l, Mr. Balltngcr stated he respected the ohJections to the proposal; howev~r,
Sambo~s Restaurant was a 24-hour operation ar~d was highly In favor of tha proposri slnce
it would be ,~ssett~ thcir buslness; that a Carl's Jr. E~estaurant was located ~eros~ tlia
street and they~ also, suppor4nd the proposal; that~ in his oplnlon the ob~ectlo~a frdn
the Arby's Restaurant wore not valld; the~t there had boen +~ compla~nts received from the
tenants uf the adJacent apartments; that a carwash facilifiy was located sannwhat cl~se to
the apartments and h~ dld nut feel that the protesC in thelr behalf was valid; that,
regarding malntenance~ the~~ were only indlcating that as onz of Che things Chey might llke
to do in the future ot thls locatlon~ and f~r the timc being there would not be any
malntenence conducted on the slte at all; that they wer•e definilely no~ (~roposing any
heevy maintenance~ and brake adJustments were not cc~:idPrd heavy m~intanance; that~ in
some cases, tlie subJect operatio;i was a coR~~tltor of Mr. MP,SSnICI(~5 buslne5s; and that~
to his knowledge~ Mr. Messnick aw~ed the property which was developed wlth the Arby's
Restaurant and Arby's, per se~ was not obJecting to thc proposal.
Mr. Ed Shaheen~ realtor wlth Walker and Lee Realty~ appeared before the Planning
Commisslon to represent the subJect praperty owner and stated that Arby's Restaurant was
on a short-term lease~ however, he had discussed ehe proposal with Sambo's who indicated
the proposal would in no way be detrimental ta them; that Carl's Jr. was not obJecting and
he could~ therefore, see no valid obJecttons under any circumatances; that there were also
no obJectlons from the Hyatt House where the applicants wer~ presently operating; that the
adJacent Arby's Restaurant was encraaching on the subJect east property line for parking~
and no arr~ngements had been made for that use; and th~c he was urging the Planning
Cortmission ta approvc the pro~aosal.
THE PUBLIL HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Planning Cortimissiun entered into discussion regarding th~ reference to ~'hospitality
center" tn the letters from Carl Karch~r Enterprises ar~d ~ambo's~ durinq which the
Cemnisslon indicated they wa:re curlous what the cor~cept of a hospitaltty c~nter was
understood to bs; whereupan~ Mr•. Ballinger indicated he had not contacted those partles
personally.
In response to questtoning by Commissioner Farano~ hfr. Ballinger stated that the futu~e
matntenance wc~uld be conducced on Chs back portfoi~ of the property; and that khe reference
to ma0ntenance in their appllcation was for tak~ng uu slack on brakes, etc. Conmissioner
Farano inquired lf the petittoner would sttpulate that nothing in the way of malntenan~e~
regardless nf how slight, except for the vacuumirog of buses~ would be coRducted on the
Cortimi ss i oner
site. Mr. Ballinger replied that th~ey might have to use aumper cables~ etc.
Farano then indicated that any kind of ma~ntenance would have to be donG indours and on an
organized basis~ lf the proJect was aporoved; and that he was concerned that the use of
Jumper cables would eventually develop inta engine ~emovals. Commissioner Farano inquired
if the petitloner was willing to stipu~ate that prlor to the installation of fueltng
facilities~ the use would be brought before the i'lanning Comnlssion for approval;
whereupon, Mr. Ballinger so stipulated.
In resp~nse to further questloning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Ballinger stated that they
would nat house anywhere close to 15 buses In the i~~wnediate future• that they would
probably have a maximum of 8 or 9 buse~ durtng the summer months bvt i~i perhaps th roe or
four years they might find it necessary to house aduition~l vehlcles on ~~~ property.
Comnissioner Farano d1s:.ussed the facliities in more detal) and, in respo~se to
que.stloning~ Mr. Ballinger stip~lated that the pro~csQd structure o~ the north slde of the
proNerty was for tr~sh storage. Mr. Ballinger further stiputetad that the use woula begin
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY P1.i+W;;ING COMMISSION~ December 20~ 1976
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIY NQ. 1674 (Continued)
~.r.._.
76-6A1
with ~pproxlmately 8 or 9 buses and that there would be a mdximum uf 15 busr.s housad on
rhe subJect property within the •.~ext th~ce years.
In recponse to questlontn~ by Commissionc+r Farano~ Trafflc Englneer Paul Slnqar advised
that the acces~ pattern~ using AcamA Street for ~•~us lnyress and Harbor Boui~vard for
egress was based on goc~d trafPic cirr.ulr~tion and dtd not consider the lmpact on the
adJacene residentla) use~; liow~ver~ sald Impact might present problems~ although~ ln hEs
opinlon~ thera would not be traffic congestion from the buszs.
Cummtssioner Herbst noted thet he would want to see exactly how the bus parking areas
w~uld be laid out.
Commissioner Farano questloned xhe locatian and usc of the "c~+tch basln" shown on the
plans, which was lacated approximately ln the cente~r cf the drive~ways and noted that~
although he clid not like to see khe opentngg left fii the walls~ he could accept su~ch a
proposal since Che buses wuuld be parked tn a manner~ which would block arid openings. Mr.
eall(nger stated that the washing of tf~P buses vrould presently be done after the buses
were parked at night.
Chairman Johnson noted thar, the bus t~rminals he had 6ee~ around usually had a lot of
people~ running motors~ congestion, etc.~ and he was li~terested in the reference to a
"hospitallty cr,nter" by the two netghboring restAUrants and needed to know how those
par•tles wsre adviscd of tl~e proposal. Commisslo~,er Fari~no added that the Commisslon
needed ta know whether said restsu~-ants had in mind what was being presented to the
Conmission this date.
Commt;:ioner Nerbst queseioned whether ndequate parking vn~uld be provided f~~r the b~~s
drivers~ other employ~es~ and the peoplt whn would be drivinr, thefr ~~~r~ to the subJect
site~ recognizing t~~at there would be pienty of room when the buses vlere ~ut but making
sure that there was rc~cxn for them when they returneda He t~ls~ noted that th^. bus~s should
be parked in the rear~ with no parking allowed in the fronr area uf the proper~y.
Commisstoner Darnes noted that her ma,)ur ~oncern was the °~olse level of the buses starting
up in the marntng.
Chairman Johnson suggested a four°week contlriuance ~or revise~d plans. et:c., following
which Commissioner Tolar noted that he dld ~At fe~l the subJect loca~ton was th~ most
sultable one for this type us~e; that it was tao ctosc to resident(al use:s and~ alChough
there were no res?dents present in opposition~ they had probal,ly not ~gone through an
experience of being bac~ed up to this type of use in the past;; that~ while he wnuld 1!Ka
to see the facility g~ in somewhere close to Dlsneyland~ he questloned whetiier ~ one-half
acre comnerctal site was su~table; t1~aC he did nat agree that the buses shoul~i i~se Acama
Street for ingress or egress; that the noises frorn the buses warming up would be very bad
for thr_ apartments; that there were certainly othe~r areas~ i.e,~ induscrial sites, th~t
would better accommodate the proposed type facilit;i~ since it was a meeting place for
greaL numbers of peopte; and that~ for the foregoing reasons, hP did not feel thaC a
continuanGe was ttie avenue to take on the praposal at this tlm~, ~ven with the
modifications an~f/ur st(pulations that ha~d be~n made.
Commissioner Farano questioned the approprlateness of a negative dec;aration fo~ the
environmental impact assessment~ since it appeared that the impact o~ Pffects frcxn the use
sho~ld be covered in an environmental impact report (EIR); and t~iat he did not favor the
~rr~posal~ as presented. Commtssioner Tolar noted that he would question r~quirirtg the
petltioner to spend money on an EIR document if the ~~se was not approp~iate for the
property in the first place; and that he also needed clarificatlon from t!~p twa
restaurants as to whether they fully understood the pro~osal. Commissioner Herbst noted
that perhaps the City could cooperate with the pet~tioner by assi$ting with the t~sting
for decibel read~ings of buses traveling up and down A~ama Street; and thPt the EIR
document shoula include dlscusslon of the air pollutton, nolse and traffic from the
proposed use.
Asslstant City At~orney Frar+k Lowry advised that !he tenants in the aFartment dwellings
would not have rec~ived notification in the mall concerntng the subJect public hearing~
since they were ~ot the property owners.
In respo~se to questloning by Commissioner Herbst~ Mr. Ballinger stated the buses would b~
traveling on Acama Street at abaut 7:00 a.m. and at 5:00 or 6:OA p.m.
~ ~
MINUTES~ C17Y PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ December 20~ 1y76 ~6'64z
CQNDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 16?4 (Contlnuad)
Com~issioner King Inqulred if thc petitio~er had any other faciltttes as smoll lii araa as
the one proposed, Mr. Ballinger replled ln the ne~atlvc~ stattnc~ th~t Che actlvlties khey
requlrod d1d not demand a lot of bus p:~rkS~g spaces. Mr. Ballinger then requested to kn~w
If tha Plannin,y Commfsslon felt the subJect property wAS totally unacceptablc for thn
propo~ed use.
Chrirman Johr~son noted thae the Planning ~Commtssion could nu~ indicatc one way or the
othcr whether thoy would approve che proposal, In all f.~lrness~ unlc~s It w~s voted on At
this Cime. Thereupon~ Mr. .all(n~_er requested a cont:nuance to JaRUary 17~ 1977.
Commissloncr Farano offered a motiu~~~ seconded b/ Cummtssioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIEU~
that the Anahetm City P12nnfng Commisslon does hereby reopen the publlc hearfng a^.d
continus conslderT~lon of Petition for Co~dltlonal Use Fcrmlt No. 1G74 to thc Planning
C~~mmisslon me~~ting of J~nuary 17, 1977~ as requestcJ by the petitloRCr, fc~r rcvised plars
and addltlonel lnformatlon pertatntn~~ to environmerstal impact.
RECESS - At 4:00 p.m.~ Chalrman Johnson declared a recess.
RECONVENE - At 4:'10 p.m.~ Chalrman Jc,hnson reca~~vened the m~~ting with
'--~ all Plannin~ Commissioners being present.
COI~DITIONAi. USE - PU9LIC NEARING, ROEi~R7 W. AND DONNA HOSTETTER~ 2129 Vlctoria Avenue,
P~RMIT N0, 1675 Anahelm~ CA 92~04 (Ownera); JACK NOTERY dba SHERWOOD INN~ 413 South
B~ookhurst Street~ Anahelm, CA 9Z804 (Ayent); requesting permission Co
EXPANO AN EXI~TING COf,KTA1L LUUNGE WITN WAIVER OF MINIMUN NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES on pr~perty descrlued as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting
of approxlmatelv 0.6 acre having a frontdge of appr~xlmately 70 f-et on the west side of
Braokl~urst St ~ having a maxtmum depth of approximately 351 feet~ befng located
aparoxirrakel, ~s5 feet south of t~,~ centerltne of Broadw~y~ and further described as
413 South Brookhurst Street., Praperty presently clas;ified RS-A-43~Ub0 (ItESIDENTIAL/
AGRICULTURAL) ZONE (with a resolutlon of intent to CL).
No one irdicr.ted their presence in upposition t~ Che subJect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated December 20~ 1976~ was not read
at ti~e publ;c heariny~ sald staff report Is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. nob t~astetter, the petltioncr~ appeared befo~e the Planntng Commissio,~ and revl~red
the previous zoning actions on ehe subJect property~ stat~ng that althougn the
r~classification of the praperty had not been final~zed~ he felt that al! of the
condlttons were presentiy satisfactorlly completed~ i~cluding the lands~aping
requlren~nts, Mr. Hostetter stated~ in 6et~alf of Mr, Notery, khat the subJect cocktail
tounge had been in operetion for th: past 15 months; and that compliance with the
cunditian pertaining to trash storag~e arEas Nnuid present no problems, since they had bPen
s~erved by Ane~heim Disposal for many years at this locatlon and ~nder exisr.ing condltlons.
TNE PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to Questioning by Cortmissioner King~ Mr. Hostetter stated that~ aithough the
Sanitatlon Division had ?ndicated t!iat the existing trash location did not have adequate
truck access, they had been xerved under those cAnd(tions for many years; that he had been
paying for bin storage and having bi-weekly Ytckups for the past 12 years; that
lanciscaping plans would be submitted in the next day or two~ indicating the sld~walks and
planters, etc.; that the required 45 parking spaces would be mor~ than adequate for the
proposed use~ hawever~ they were wiliing to pro~~ide an additionai tU oc^ 14 spaces if the
need arose ln the future and said spaces wou1J be provtded In the rear of the bullding
where unused space was avPilable.
Asslstant Planning Direct~r-Zoning Annilca Santaia~tl advised that the Code required ~he
pRrking ~paces to be surtaced and marked.
Commissionzr Herbst mddG ~n uhservation that the proposed parking spaces vre~e
approxtmately 5~~ short of the requlremnnts,, which -~dicated potentlal pro5le:ns. In
response~ Mr. Hostette~ stated that the businesses ln the sub)ect shopping center would be
~w
~ ~
MI~IUTF.S~ CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ Dec~mber 2Q~ 1~76 7~-64:t
CONDITIONAL USE PER~~11T N0. 167$ (Contlnu~d)
closnd at St00 p,m. ertd that they were. un7y proposln~~ to lncr~a~n the a!z~ of the bullding
by dpproxlmately j65 square Pcet.
Commmisst~ner 1lerbst Indlcated that staff I~eci bQen inatructed eerller ~n xhis meeting to
tnvestlgato p+~rking requlrements whe+re the hours oP oRcratlon varl~d far busl~asse~ in
shopping centers, Rtc.~ and to recommend a Code amendment whlch would ellminate meny of
the ~robl~mt ne~eSaltAttng varlances from the parkin,y standsrds. In responsc to
questloning~ Misa Ssnralahtl advis~d that t'ie referenced study would r~aqulr~ approxlmately
four weaks to prepare.
In rasponse to ryuestloning by Commissiuner IlerbsCs Mr. liostettcr stated that the hours of
op~ration In the subJect shopptnq center were frcun 9tQ0 a.m. [0 5:~~ p.m,~ with the
e xccption of th~ cockCall lounge whi~li c~,~ned at 6;00 e.m. and wes open past 5:00 p.m.
Commis`innor Nerb!~t then Inq~~lred lf the petltloner could ahtrln commltments pe~taining to
parking space usage and oper9tlon hr,;irs f'roni the othe~ tenants.
Thereupon~ Commiss(oner Toler noted that it ml~ht be wise For the petitioner to go aheed
,~nd provlde the addltinnal 14 parking spaces in the reer of the bul'cling~ and Mr,
Hostettcr so sti~+uleted. Comm!ssioner King noted that al) parkiny spaces on the property
sh~uld bc of tho stdndArd size.
In rasponse to qu~::;tloning by Commissioncr Tolaro Mr. Hostetter stAted thAt the proposed
dlning arna would nat be vlsible from t.he bar area.
Assistant Planner Joel Fick adviseci that if the Plannlr~g Commisslon should consider the
proposal fs~orably~ an additiona' condltton should be Imposed~ mek~ng Che approval subJect
to com~lec•lon af the reclasstficatlon of zoning on the property. Mr. Hostett~er khen
stated that there were preseRtly 12 )untpr.rs ~n the property which had been t~ere slnce
early in the year; howcder~ hc would ~e happy ta add more landscaping if the Gommiss(o~ s~
dostred, Gommissianer Herbst indicated that the landscaping sho~~ld meet the approval of
the P1An~ing Oepartment staff,
It was noted that the Directcr o` the Planning Departmcnt had determined that the proposed
activity fell wfthin the definition of Sectian 3.01~ Class 1~ of the City of Anahelm
G~+~delines to the Requlrements for an F.nvironmental Impr~ct Report and was~ therefore~
c~tegorically exempt from the requlrement to prepare s~ EIR.
Commissioner King offered Resolutian No. PC76-265 and moved for lts pas5age and adoptfon,
that thc Anr.heim Clty Planning Cornmission cloes hereby gra~nt Petlttan for Condltlonal Use
Permlt No. 167§~ granting the r•equested watver of the minimum number o1` parking spaces~ in
part~ on the bas(s that the petitioner st(pulated to providfng an addittonal 14 parking
spaces, al1 parktng spaces to be of tF~e standard size snd surfa~ed and r~~arked in
accurdance wlth Cade requirements; that, If the need arose. the petitloner ir~dicated
adclitlonal area for parking was auailable on the subJect property; gr~nting the proposed
use o~~ the b~sls that the proposal is an expansion of an existing cocktatl lounye whi~:h
has ncc been detrimental to the area; subJect to the completlor of Reclassification Na.
63-64-:18~ prior to the ~ssuance of a building permlt; and subJect to the
i~tcrdepartmental Cortmitt~ee reconm~endations. (Sae Resoiutt~~ Bork)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo?lowtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOMERS: BARNFS~ FARANO~ IIERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSE~~T: COMMISSIONERS: NOtic
~ ~
M 1 NUTF.S ~ C 1 TY PLANN ( NG COMM I SS I pN ~ Dncrmbar 24, 197E, 7fi-6-~~i
CONUII'IONAL USE • PIIBI.IC II@~RING. A. E. HQ(~.LS~ INC.~ 151 f's~rr~ingto~ Avcnue~ Nartford,
P~RMiT N0. 167G Connactlcut 0615~ ~~+n~-'); CQLLINS s KOCLER~ 359 ~~n Mf~uol Dr(ve~
'-'~- ~ Sultc 103~ Newport Beach, CA 9z66o (Agent); request'ig ~armissio~ tu
ESTARI.ISII AN AMISEMEI~T C~~IPLEX (WATER SLlC'_` WITN NNIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM
NUMaER OF SIGWS AND (8) REQUIRCD SITE SGREENING on propr.rty u~sc.~~bad as an irregularly-
shapcd ~~arcol of land conslsting of epproxtrn~tcly 3.t1 acr~s ~~aving r frontpqe of r,pproxl-
maCely 3--8 feet on the eant sidc ot West Scre~t~ h~ving a rnexlmum depth oP epproximelcly
555 feet~ being located ~ppraximately 775 feet north of the centerllno af Ball Road, ,~nd
furthcr describcd t+s a9H South W~st Strtlet. Praperty pres~r.Cly c:lassifted Ml. (INpUSTRIAL~
I.IhSITED) ZONE (wi th a ras~lutlon of Intsi,t to C-R) .
On~ person indlcated his presence in oppositfon to tfie subJ~GC pC~ItIOn anci f~rlhwitli
waived the full rr.eding of thn Staff Rnport to tiie Planning Commissio;t~iSCdeFerredetoZOnd
1976. Although the staff report was not rcad at thc public heAring~
made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Mike T. Colllns, r'e~+resenting th~~ egent far the petltfoner~ bppcared b~foro the
Planning Commission and clar(f(ed thr~t they were not propostnc~ a"big~ green~ super~lldc"
as mi9ht be cnvlstonod, but tha+t they would be cnrvin~~ concrr.er. flumr.s lnto a hllls(de and
cascading wa:er fran the tQp~ etc.; tliat it was a permnnFnt installetion and athlecic in
natur~:~ ~nd w~uld he a real asset to the arca; th~~r. the water slide wae a hlghly dcsirable
amusement activtty and would be h(ghly compatible with Dlsncyland and adJacent hatels;
that~ regarcling signtng. they were entitlec~ to only one~ 35~'square foot s(gn, but were
requesting ta have a frecway-oriented sign Co identify r.he proJect when l•he prospective
users left the freewAy~ and another sign to relate directlans to the slte; and that~
regarding screeninq of the s(te from the freeway~ ti~e proJect itself would be a real
improveu~:nt and Chere would be no reason to buffcr th~ noisc from the freeway,
Mr. Hewitt Gaines, Sy9 South West Street~ Anslieim~ appeAred before the Planning Commisslon
in oppos(tlon and gtated h~ lived dlrectly across the street From the so~~:h end oti the
subJect propert~; lhat he was retlred and awned a rental unit on the front of hts
praperty~ and was vltally Interssted in the proposa) from a noise standpalnt. Mr, Galnes
reviewed the hlstory of the property north of the subJect site which was prevlausly
occupied by a mo2orhome business~ stating that ti~e restdents ln the ar~r had been
disturbed by thetr publlc address system. He inquirc:d tf the proposed operation would
utilize a publlc address system or provtde music which mic~ht be obJectlonable Ar a
nulsancc to the area. Speaking for tl~e Sheraton Hotel~ he stated that approxlmately 60
rooms faced the north side of the subJect ~roperty a~d~ whlle the music might be fine~ it
was annoytng after abo~t G;00 p.m. Mr. Gaines further stated that slnce the people who
would be using the proposed facilitles were y~ungsters and could get botsterous to the
peopls in the hotel and, prfmarily~ tu his cwn te.nant, and th~ youngsters rrould be drivinc
"hotrod" type automabiles, he was suggesttng that the hotel parking lot not be used for
~verflow parking, but tf~at khe landscaped area be relucated from the north slde of the
subJect property to the south side~ se~>arating the proposed use from tl~e existing hotel
and giving ~he hotel nccupan*_s something better than a parking lot to look down upon; that
he d(d not feel he was breaking any confidences by ~tating tha; the SheraYon was somewhat
lnteresteci in the subJect property for an addition to the hotel; a~d that~ although the
propcsa) mighL be the best use for the property~ he agreed with Comnissioner He~bst that
after a proJect was approved and bu11t, it was too laCe to think of the detrtmental
aspects. He reiterated that he would rather look out onto landscaping than a parktng lot.
In rebuttal, Mr. Collins stated that the ~ubJect water sllde was for a11 ages~ and not
just children; th~t the property was presently under a Resolution of Intent to the C-R
Zone and~ therefore~ the proJect was within the scope of the zon(ng; that, to hig
knowledge, the Sheraton Hotel had made no attempt to acquire ~'-^ subJect property and
should be d~lighted with the proposal; that~ because of the topography that would be
created on the property~ they dld not feel a great deal of not~e would be generated from
the use and~ in fact, ther~ should be virtually no noise; that. in comparison~ the(r
"skatcboard park" also had virtually no naise~ wlth the excepr?on af sounds made by tt~e
users; that the top4graphy of the site would stope away frcxn the adJacent hotel and
residences or. purpose and would be all tawar~i the freeway; that they vre~e proposing a
landscap~d area adjacent to the south proNerty line and, in fact, the entire proJect was
primarily landscaped hillside; that they had been apprised by Ctty staff conce~ning the
public address system whlch was used ln the neighborhood by the motorhome hustness and
they had no plzns for such a system~ but n~,ight h~+ve rEC~ssed sFeakers whick~ cou!d not b~
heard from far eway; that they might also have a type of music, but not rock-and-roll; and
that thE propo~~ed operation was family-oriented~ but n~t laud or notsy.
~...~
~
~~
•
MINUTES~ CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION~ De~cen+ber 20~ 1976
CqND1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1676 (Continued)
TNF. PUBLIC HEAFtING WAS CI.OSCO.
16-645
In responee to quostlaning by Canmisstoner Kin~~ Mr, Colllns stipulated that any loud~
spe+~kers wauld bri dlrected away Prom the ad)acent resldential usns ancl the ilghting wauld
bes dl~ected ~ay from khe ad]acent rexldentlal uses end the adJacent freew~y traffic and
stated that they w~uld shleld tha lighting ir~ the perkl~y lot; th~t the She~aton occupants
would luok down anto their own parking iot; chat the requlred berm and wall or combinetton
thoreot a~Jecent t•o the freoway would serve no u~eful piarpose~ especlally slnce ha esnu~ned
it related co sound-attnnuatian; and that thelr posltlon was that the proJ~.ct not be
served by a w~+ll~ nither for ae~thetics or for sound-attPnuation~ hacause the pro~~c,t
ttsalf' would provlde bath.
In r•esponse to questlonfng by the Planning L omnisalon~ M~. Callins stated that tha water
would be heAted by Solar heattnc~~ w;th no ot her plens for heating during the wintcr
months; tha*. tho facillttes would nev~~r bo open past 10:00 p.m. and~ speclftcallv~ w~uld
be open from Ju~ie 1 through Labor Day until 10:OQ p.m,~ durinq non-summcr~ monkhs op~n
until dusk~ during Soptember and Oct~ber apen on weekends anly~ end c~c,sed from
app~oxlmatcly November rhrAUgh February~ dcp ending on weather condltrons; that the hlgt~est
hill would 6e 2f~ feet fram the strect lev~l; th~t there would be no dressing rooms; end
thst they had done co~siderable markPt resea rch and deterrnined that the sub,ject site wauld
be a winner,
Commissinner Nert:st indicated that the proposed use appeared t~ be mora approprlbte for ~
bcach area~ where the people would already b e wearing swimming sults~ and Chalrman J~hnson
noted thax if the proJect dld not suc~eed~ thr. City ~auld he left with a iot of nlce
landscaptng ~nd to~ography.
In re~ponse to quest(oning by Commissioner F arano~ Mr. Collina stated khey would not
~~~ thdraw the i r app 1 1 cat i on t f the r~ques tea f rePV+ay 31 gn was d 1 sapprove~i s 1 nce ~a t d s i gn
s not crftical; howeva . they felt It would be d~sirabie to identtfy at lcast the name
of the pr4Ject from the freeeway and then have the sign an West S t~eet. Cammissioner
Tolar tndicar.ed that he did not favor the slgning request since he did not feal that the
freeway would provld~ the type of business tl~e water slld~e operatton would be looking
for, and it would be up t~ rhe management to adverttse in the hotels~ motels~ etc., (n the
surround'ng area.
Canmissioner Tolar further incJtcated that he vrould ltke to sse the subJect proJect
landscaped along West Street in the same ma ~ner as the tennis court pro)ect on Walnut
Strcet~ south of Ball Road~ wfth the ea~the : berm and wall~ etc. Cortmissioner TolAr noted
that such a condition should alleviate many f the co~cerns of Mr. Galnes, sald conditfo~
being~ "That a two and one-half to three-foot high earthen berm shall b~ p~ovlded outside
(tu the w~•st of) a flve-foot high block. wall, sald wall to be five feet high as messured
from the highest finished grbde level at the base ot the wali~ and that specific
landscaping plans shall be submltxed ~or ap prowal by the Planning Department." Nr.
Collins stipulated to the foregoing conditTo-.
Cam~issi~ner Barncs guesti~neci whether it was a gond idea to have parking al~les wtthout
"speed ~:unps" in vtew of the fact that there would probably be a lot of teenege drtve~s i~
the parktng lot. There~ron~ Mr. Coliins stipulated to tnsialling the "speed bumps" to
reduce the speed of cars in the parking lot.
Com~t.sionar 7olar nffered a ma~lon~ seconded by Commtssio~er Morley and MQTION CARRIED,
that the Anah~im C i ty Pl ann ing CorRni ss ion does hereby recc~smend to the C i ty Counti l of the
City of Anaheim that a negative declaration frcxn the requircment to prepare an
envlronmental impact report be approved fc r tl~e subJect proJect~ pursuant to the
pr•ovislons of the California Envlronmental Quality Act.
Comnissio~er Tolar ~sffered Resolution No. PC76-2G6 and moved for its passagn and adoption,
that the Anaheim City Plann)ng Commission does hereby grant Petition for Conditional Us e
Permtt No, 1676~ in psrt~ de~iytng the requested waiver of the maximum number of s!yns on
the basis that the petitio~er did nat demonstrate th.:t a har.iship ~oould be created (f sa6c!
waiver w~re not granted; granting the req~ested waiver of required site screentng on the
basis that the pro~ased recreational water~ slide cor~sist~ of an approximetely 20-~oot high
landscaped ht 11 which wi 11 be located ad)r.~.~:,it to the Sante Ana Freeway and wt 11 ue
visually ple~sing to passing traffic; a~d, furthermore~ that the rcquired b-foot hlgh wall
would not eftectively screen satd landacep ed hili; subJer,t tc the stipulatlons of the
petltioner pertaining to outside lighting. outside loud-speakers, hours of operatlon not
..~
~
L~J
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNINC CQMMISSION~ December 20~ 197G
COND_ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1675 (Continued)
76-646
exte~nding past 10sQU p.m.~ the installatlon of "speed bumps" in th~ ~Sarki~~g >>1: alslc,~ and
the c~nstructi~n of an carthen berm~ wall and lendscaping adJace~t ta Wost Strr_et; rnd
subJect to the Inte~department~l Cammittee rer~omme~idetlo~s. (See Resolutlon Book)
Qn roll call, the foreg~ing re s olution w~~ passod by the ~ollowing vntet
AYL•S ; COMM ( SS I UNERS t l3ARN[5 ~ FARIINO~ KING, M~RI.EY , TOLAi? ~ J04NSON
NOE5; COMMISSIONERS: HER85 T
ADSENT C011MI SS ION[RS : NONE
ENV I r~ONh1ENTAL I MPACT REFORT tJ0 . ~ 91 -
._._.._--....~._. __.-.--~--
ARE~ DCVELOPME~lT PLAN N0. 117
AMEri~ DMENTS Tu TITLE 18 (2oN1~
AMENDMkNTS TO COUNGIL POLICY
NOS. ?~6, 206A, 207 ANp 207A ,
To consider ct rculation and access f~r a~~ approxi-
ma tely 140-acre ar~a genorallv bounded on the ~orth-
wes! by Santa Ane Cenyo~ Road and the R~ ~rerstde
Fr ePway, on th e east by proposed Monte ~/lsta Road
and on the southwest by Mohler Drive~ and to conside•
amendmen~ of Codes and Po-. 1 ci es to prov 1 dP unl forml ty
~f terminology and standards for prtva t e ruods~ private
lai~es and acce ssways in iow-density hlllside areas.
It wos noted that the subJect items were continued f ~om the Planning Commission meeting of
November 22, t97E~~ fellcywing discussion where(n the Com~nission determined that tt would be
approprtate to meet (n a Planning Commisston lJork Sessia~ to discuss circulatian problems
of Che subJect area with residents, developers~ and City and Caunty staff; that aC the
wark session held on December 13~ 1976~ at EI Rancho Junlnr f11gh School~ a speciai task
force was appolnted and sald t ask force met on ~ecember 1S~ 1976~ with an addltional
m~eting scheduled for December 22- 1976; and tliat staff wa,~ therefore~ requasting a
further continuance of the subJect items to tt~e Plan~ing Cnmmission meeting of January 17,
1977.
CammissionPr Morley offered a motion~ secanded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIF.D,
that the AnahPim City Planning Commission ~ues hereby fu~ther continue the ~ubiect Ite:ms
to the P l ann i ng Comm i ss i on meet i ng of .I ~riua ty 17, 19 77 , on the bas i s nf the ~orego i ng
findings.
ABANDONMENT _N0. 76-8A - Request for abandonment o~ an existing pubi ic uti 1 i ty
"'~"' easement located East of State Col lege Boulevard~ north of
Wlnston Road.
Commissianer King nuted tha t he had a conflict of ir~terest as definad by Ana heim City
Planning Comm(ssion Resolutio~ No, PC76 -t57 a~ 'n g a Conflict nf Interest Cade for the
P 1 ann i ng Ca~mi ss ior. and Gove rnment Code Secu~suin t2 to theSerov t s i onseofhthewaboveC odes,
s tock i n Pac i f i c Te 1 ephone Company; that, p P
he was hereby declaring to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the Mearing in
connection with Abandonment No. 76-BA (Item No. 13 of the Planning Comrr, 3sion Agenda) and
would nAt take part in eithe r the dtsc usslon or the voting thereon; and tha t he had not
discussed this matter wtth a ny member of the Planning Commission. THEREUPO N, COMMiS510NCR
KI NG LEFT TNE COUNC 1 L CHAMBER TEMPOMR 1 LY AT 5~ 3~ P.M.
It was noted that the subJe e t easement was acqui~ed at the request af the Cixy Electrlcal
Divi?ion to satisfy the elee trical req uir~ments to provide utllity servlces to the
originally planned development at ttiis locaCion; hawever. the plan of development had been
changed and the new location of the proposed bui ldi ngs 1~ relationship tu the sub,ject
easement would cause the developer considerable hardship tn arranging for the financing of
the proJect; that the appl i eant (Ashwi i 1-Burke &~ ~~.) had executed a new easement deed to
replace subJect easement as approved by the Clty Electrical Division; that an
environmental revlew of this request indicated this abandonment was catego~ically exer~--t;
and that the subJect reques t had been reviewed by the necessary oepartments of the City
and affected outside agencie s~ and the City Engine~r was recommending approval subJect to
reservatlon of a publlc utility easement unto the Qacific Telephone~ Campany. as defined In
the legal descrlptlon.
~
~
~
M 1 NUTES ~ C I TY P~.AN~~ I NG COMM I SS 10N . De~cembe r 20 ~ f y 76
ABANOONMENT N0. z6-8A (Continued)
76-F47
Commisslone~ N~~~bst of~°ere~ a motion~ seconded by Cummissloner Farano and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissian~r King beiny temporarily abannt)~ that the Anahelm Clty Pl~n~ing Canmtsslort
doe s her,:by ~ecomrt~end to rhe Ctty Council ot the City of Anatielm th~t Che request to
abandon en exlsting pubtic utlllty eas~mant lo~caked eest of State Collage Bouleverd, north
of Ninston Roed~ be appraved~ as rec.ommended by the Cfty Englneer.
~:~AN~ON~9ENT N0. 76-9~ - Raqueek tn abandan a p, rtion of a decficeted publtc atreet
'-' cortmonly known as MecDuff Streot, located south o~ Stanybrc~ok
Drive~ eest oF Udle Avenue,
It was noted thet Connnlssioner King was temporartly absenc but hed flled a conflict of
interest declara'•tan sincr he had a conflict Af Interest aa deflned by A~ahelm f,lty
Pla nntng Cammisslon Rasolutlo,~ No, PC76-157 edoptiny a Conflict of Interest Code for tf~e
Planning C~mmiss~on and Governmert Code Sectton 3625~ et sey.~ In that he ohned comnon
stock tn Pacific Telephone Company; that~ pursuant to the provislons of tha above Codes F~e
had wlthdr~wn from the hearing in connectlon with Abandonment No. 76-9A (Item No. 1k of
thF Planning Commission Agenda) anci would not take part In elther the discusston or the
voting thereon; and that hc had not discuss~d this matter wleh a~y member of tha P1Anning
Commisston. (NdTEt Commtssloner King left the Cc+uncil Chamber tmmpurarily at 5~30 p.m.~
prTor to consideratlon of Itam No. 13 on thts agenda.)
It was further notPd that the epplir.~nts (Mr. and Mrs. E. Cha~lea Nendrlcks and Mr. and
Mrs. Maurice E. ~Inden) desirsci to acqutre the stre~t are8 adJacent te their respective
properties a~;~tntng each side of MgcDuff Street In an effort to close or llmit ac~ess to
the adJ~cent schoo) property Lu d:.crease vandallsm and~ subsequently, to develop thc
abandoned portton of th~ slreet; that ~n environmental review ~f the subject abandonment
in dlcated this proJect to be categorically exempt from the filing of an environmental
Impact report under the prc+visions of Sectlan 3.01~ Class !~~ of the City guidelines; that
the subJect request had been revlPwed ~nd approved by the necess~ry departments of the
Clty and affected autside agencies~ and the City Engineer was~ thei•efore~ recommending
approval, subJect to the following conditions:
1. That public utiilty easements be reserved unto the Ctty of Anaheim, the Pacific
7~lephone Co. and the Southern California Gas Co., as defined in the legal
descrtption to accortmodate existing facilitles.
2. ThG appltcant to bear the cc~st of aba~donment. removal and/or relocatton of
existing water and g~s 11nes.
3. The appiicant to bear the costs of removal of the existing street improvements
and construction of curb~, gs~tters~ sidewelks and paving aiang the south side of
Stanybrook Drive across the abandoned portion of Macpuff Street. The existing
steel barricades and street name signs should be set aside for the City to
salvage.
4~ The owner of the property at the w~st side of MacDuff will exscute a hold
harmless agreement raleasing the ~tty of any liablltty for tihe lcrss ~of publ(c
access to the existtng garage that faces Ma~Duff Street.
Canmissioner Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Conantssioner Farano and M~TiON CARRIED
(Commisslone~ Ki~g being temporari{y ahsent and Canmisslo~er Morley voting "no"), that the
Anaheim City Planntng Cort~ ~ston does herEby recommer~d to the City C~unctl of the ~tCy of
Anahelm that the request to abandon a portion of MacDuff St~eet be approved~ as
rncommended by the City Engineer~ subJact to the abov~-me~tioned condittons.
COMMISSIONER KING RE'fURNED TO THE C4UNCIL CHAMBER AT 5=35 P.M.
• ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decembor 20~ 19~5 ]6-648
REPOR7S AtJD - ITEM A
R~COMMENDATIONS AE~J~'T FOR ~ENERAL PLAN A,MENDMENT - Northwest carnAr of
L~ncoln Avenuo end Sunklst Straot.
Assoctate Pla~ne~ 811) Cunninghdm noted that a request hed been recelved from the ownera
af e(ght parc~ls f~onttng the north alde of Llncoln Avenue w~st of Sunklat Street~
requesting a General Plan Amendmant; end that~ evon though the opplicants hdd n~it
requesttid a specltlc lend use destgnatton~ the locetion of the property on a meJor
arterial migl,t dictate epproprlat~ land uses of htgher denslty resldentlal or coim~erctal.
The Planntng Comnl!~slon enterod tnto discu~slon wlth staff~ during which Mr. Cunningliam
edvised thrt the hardshtps werc only tdsntlfled wlth the prapertlee fronting on Linculn
Avenue and not those tn thn Paradise Road nelghborhaod; and that ther~ was a questlon
concerning the aventuality that the small parcels mlght be rezu~n~ one at a e(me~
resulting in potenttally poor development of the arca.
The Plann(ng Conmisslan generally agreed thAt the study area should Include the elght
propertles west of Sunklst Street on the north stde of Lincoln Avenue to the alley and
also the proparty on the south side af Ltncoln Avenue developed with the Ralph': markct;
and that the Psradise Road neighborhoocJ not be tncluded.
It wAS noted that the pr~perty st the northwest corner of llncoln Avenue nnd Sunkist
Street had been for sale and advertised illegally for sume time as c:ommerclal propcrty.
Cammiss(oner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIEQ
(Commissioners Farano and Talar voting "no")~ that staff be directed to prepare a General
Plan Amendment study of the eight propertles west of Sunkist 5kreet on the north side of
Lincaln ANenue tu the allr.y, and the property on the southwest corner c~f Llncoln Avenue
and Sunl:tst Strcet, sald amendment to be incl~ded in the next GencrAl Plan Amendment
tentatively scheduled for February~ 1977.
ITEM B
AR ANCE M0. 2247 - Request for a~ extension of time for a beauty shop in
a stngle-family home - Property locAted on the east side of Sabina S*reet
approxlmately 120 fect sauth ot Liic ~~n*erline of Sycamo~e Street~ and
zoned RM-1200,
It was noted that Var~ance No. 2247 was gran~^d by the Planning Cammission on ,pril 29,
1971~ to permtt the conversf~n of a bedroom and bathrocxn in an existin9 single-Family
resiQe~~t~a1 structure into ~ single-chair, owner-operated beauty salon; that said variance
was granted for a period of three years~ subJect to revtew by the Planning Commtssion for
poss(ble time extenstans; that one prevlous extension of tine was approved, to expfre
Ap~il 2g~ 1977; that no complaints had been rec~ived about the subject buslness; and that
the applicant (Mrs. Esther D. Munoz) had submitted a writteR request for an additional
extension of tlme.
Comnissioner Kir.g offered a motion, seconded by Cortmissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED~
that the Anahetm City Planntng Commission dces hereby grant a three-year extens(on of ttme
for Variance No. 2247e said extension of tin~e to expire on Apri) 29, 1980~ as requested by
the appllcant.
ITEM C
~CE N0. 2454 - Reques2 for an extension oP time - Property
consisting of approximately ~.85 acre at 1332 North Miller Street.
It was noted that Variance No, 2454 was granted by the Planntng Coomilssfon an January 8~
1973, fo~• two ye~rs~ permitting the continued use of a nonconforming building in an "M"
Zone and wsiving the minimum fron: getback abutttn4 a seconda~y arterlal highway; that
discusston at the Ptanning Commission publ(c hearing indicatec: chat continuation of the
existing nonconforming building was being requested on an i:~ter - basts unttl the
residential str'ucture being utllized as an office was removed ard replaced wfth a building
conforming to ths indust~tal sites development standards; that investigation by staff
indicated general cc-nfarmance with the stipulatior~ made when Varta~nce No. 2454 was
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decc~muer• 20~ 1975 7G-6ti9
ITEM C (Continued)
considerad~ and the now warehouse app~eared tu be conslstent wtth surrounding l~nd uses~
wlth employee parking on~sita; that one prevtoug extonatan of tirtre had been granted to
expiro January S~ 1977; ~~d that the applicant (411) Allen~ J~,~ Vlce Prestdent of
T'~ompton Pool Plumbing~ Inc.) wes requ9sting an additlonal tw~-ya~r cxtenston of ttme on
the basts that their preserit finan~tal arranciementY h~d been extended Por two years and at
the exptrntion of thts period they were propo~ing to construct a new buliding.
Commissinner Farano offc~red e motlon~ seconded by Cammissionor King and MOTION CARRIED~
that thr AnAhclm Clty Plann'Ing Conmisston does hereby grant a two-yea~ extenslon of timc
for Vartance No. 2454~ sdid extension of time: to exptr•~ on Jrr~uary ~~ 1973~ as requoste~i
by 2he npplicant.
(TEM D
1~~T1~"~ FOR EIR NE~ATIVE DECLARATION - For a gradtng permtC (N~. SS4) at
119 Peralta Hllls Drive,
It wds noted that sn oppllcation had been filcd for a grading pnrmit to construct a
single-family reaidence at the subJect locakion; that an evaluatioR of the environmental
lmpact of gradtng at thfs location was required under th~e provislons of the Californta
Envlronmental Q,ual(ty Act and the State EIR Guicielines because the proJect was located in
the ScF ic Corridor bnd the slopc of the land was at least 10~; that a study of the
propose,~ ,yr~ding by the Engineertng Dtviston and the Planning Department indicated thrt it
would have no significant environmental tmpact; ond that quanttties of grading would be
90Q cubtc yards oP excavation and 650 cubic yards of fill~ thus 250 cubic yards of
surplus.
Commissloner Farano offered a motlon~ seconded by Cortmissioner Ktng and hi0710N CARRIED,
that the Anaheim C!ty Planning Comnission does r~ereby recommen~i to the City Cnunctl of the
City of Anaheim that a negative declaration from the requirem ~r. to prepare an
Pnvironmental impact report be approved for the subJect proJect, pursuant to the
provisians of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ITEM E
REQUEST FOR EIR NEGATiVE DECLARRTION - For a grading permit (No, 563) at
5215 Crescent Urive.
It was nuted that an application had been flled for a grading permit to construct a
single-f:~mily residence at the subJect location; tl~at an evaluation of the environmenlal
tmpact of grading at this location was required under the provisions of Che Galifornta
Environmental Quality Act and the Stata EIR Guidelines because the praJect was located ~^
the Scenic Corridor and the slope of the land was at least 10~; that 9t~0 cubic yards of
earth w~uld be excavated; a~d that a study of the proposed grading by the Enginee+-ing
Divisian and the Planning Depsrtment indicated that it would have no signiflcant
environmental lmpact.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion~ s~conded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby rec.onrnend to the City Cauncil of the
Clty of Anaheim that a negative declara~~on from the reguirement to prepare an
en~iironmental impact report be approved For the subJect proJe~t~ pu~suant to the
provisions of the Californta Envtronmenta) Quality Act.
ITEM F
REQUEST FOR EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION - For a grading permit (No. 564) at
341 Peralta Hills Drive.
It was noted that an :pplication had been filed for a grading permit to construct a
single-family residenca at the subJecc location; that an evaluation of the environmentai
impact of grading at this locatton was required under the prc+visions ~f the Califor~ia
Envtronmental Qualtty Act and the Stat~ ~IR Guidelines because the pro)e~t was located in
the Scentc Corridor a~d the slope of thz land was at teast 10~; that i150 cubic yards of
earth wnuld be excavated an~ ~edtstrtbutGd on-site; and that a study of the proposed
~
--••-
~
MINUTES~ CITY PL,ANNING COMMI~SIQN, December 20~ 1976
76-d5o
ITEM F (Continued)
._...~
grading by tM~e Engtneortng Otvlsiun ancJ the Planning Departm~:nt Indicated that It would
have na aignlficant environmental impact.
Commisstoner Far~n~ ofPerad a motton~ seconded by Commiysioner K~ng and M0710N CARaI~D~
that the Anaheim Ctty Pla~~ning ~omnlsslan daes hereby rocommend to tha C(ty i,ouncil of the
Clty of Anahelm ~hat a negatlve decleratiun fran l•he requlromene to prepare an
envlronmenta) impact report ba approved For the subJect pro,JACt~ pursuent to the
provtslone, of tho Californla Environmentel Quality Act.
ITEM G
~`BA~G~IONAL USE PEaMiT N0. 125~ - R~q~esC for EIR NegBxive neclaratlon
and extension of time - P~aperty consisting af approxtmately 0.75 acre
locAted on the wess aide of Impertal Hlghway. approxlmately 640 fcet
south oP Santa Ana~ Canyon Road.
It wns noted that Canditfonal Use Permit No. 1250~ to establtsh An automobtl~s ~ervico
station withln 75 feet of a residentlel zone~ with wniver af the requlrement that servlce
statlona bcs l~aated at the tntersecrlon of two arterlal htghweys. was grc+nted
condlklonally by the Ctty Councll on September 7~ 1971~ following approval hy tl~e~ PIAn-ring
Corcmtssion; that the servtce statlon was proposr..d for development 1n con,Ju~ ton with a
shopntng centPr; however, the shopping center was subsequently developed uut constructlan
of the serv(ce ~.tetion was pastponed becAUSC of uncertalntios resulting frorti the energy
crlsts; that~ at the ttme of approval, there were no requtrements for revlew of the
envtronmentel impact and~ in o~der to ccxnply wlth the provistons of the Caiifornta
Envircmmenta) Quality Ack, staff prepa~ed an Inttlal Study of Envtronmentbl Impact and
found no signtftcant lmpact which would result from the proJect; thax one previous
ext~n~sion of ttme~ whtch expired June 19~ 1973~ was granted; and that the applicant ~David
B. Osraelsky of Alexander Haagen~ Shopptn~ Center Development) was p+'esently requesting an
EiR Negative ueclaration and a retroactive extension of time for Conditionrl Use Permit
No. 1250.
lhe I'ianning Commission entered into discussian regarding the P~regoing requests~ notinc
that, white it might be approp~iate to have a service statton at the subJPCt locaxton~
changes had been made to the Anaheim Muntc(pal Code which should bn applled to the
prop~osed ser~rice station~ especially regarding the Scen(c Corrtdor Zone - Overlay, etc.
Com~nissiuner N~rb~t afferecl a motion, seconded by Cammissione; ~arano and MOTION CARRIED~
that the AnaF,eim City Planning Cammission does hereby dcCsrmin~ that a public hearin'
shail be requ(red to consider the proposed service station at the subJect location~ at the
petitfoner's expense,
ISEM H
~?`'L~S I F i CAT I ON N0. 73~7~+-25 ~ Req~~est For approvb 1 of p rec t se p 1 ans ~nd
removal oT sp~~tmen trees - property consisting of approximatety 5 acres
located at the northwes~ corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and imperlal Nig
A!;sistant Plan~tng ~irector-Zoning A~ntka Santalahti presented the Staff Repo~t to the
Planning Cor~mtssion d~ted December 20. 1976~ and said staff report is referred to and made
a part of the mir.utes.
Cormilssioner Morley offered a motion to approve the subJect request~ following which tha
Planning Commission entered into discussion and noted that there was con5iderable
oppositlon at the public hearings on the reclas~ificatton and that. stnce ttie subJect
request ~as no~t a listed itern on thP agends. tt should be so in order that tht public
might be able L•o be present for discussion~ if they so desired. Tl~ereupon~ Commissloner
Morley withdrew the foregotng motlon.
Commtssione~ Barnes offered a motion~ saconded by Con~n-issione~ Morley and MO~ION C~RRIED.
2hat the Anahetm ~ity Planning Commissto~r does he~eby dete nnlne that the ~UbJect item
shall be listed an the agenda for the Plenning Commission meettng of January 3, ~977.
~ ~ •
MINUTES~ CI'f1- PLANNING COMMISSION~ De+combar 20~ tg76 7b'~5~
ApJOURNMENT - The~e bntng no further bustno~e to discuss. Commissloner Farano effored a
~~ motlon~ ~econded by Commtssloner K(ng ~nd MQTION CARRIED, t'hat the meetlny
be ~dJour~ad.
The mseking adJourned at 6t00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted~
~
.~'/,~c G`- ~ C~ tC./ ~ S ~~ ~~l~-c2 rt. .)
PatrtclA B. Scanlen~ Secreta~y
Anahelm City Planning ~Commission
PDS:hm