Minutes-PC 1975/05/280 ~t C 0 MICR~~ILMING SEitVICE, INC.
~
~
~
C:I.ty Ha~l
Anot~cim. Culifc~rnin
'-"~,Y 2b. 19)S
RI;CUl,AR MELTING OF THE ANAHI;. CI'CY PI.ANNING COMMT3STON
~
•
RECULAtt - A regu] ~r meeCing of. the Anaheitn City Plannin~ Commieeion wae call~~d to
I~F.TING ordor by Chairman Herbet aC 1:30 p.m. in the '~ouncll Cl~nmbcsr~ a quorum
being pree~snt,
PRESENT -- ~:IiAIMtAN: Herbot
- COMMISSIUNERS: ~~uer~ FArano (who entered the meeting rit 2:12 p.m.),
.inq~ Mnrley~ Tular.
ABSL~N',. - COMMI5SIONERS: lohnaon
ALSO PRESENT - Ronnld 'fhompeo~i
Frank Lawry
Jay 'Titus
Charles Robc~rta
Mnika Santalahti.
Jack Judd
Dill Young
Patricia Scanlan
Uevelopment Sarvi.ces birecr.or
UepuCy Cit,y Att~orney
OfFice F.ngineer
Zoning Supor~ leur
Aseietant 7,oning Sup~rvisor
Civil Engineerin~ Aasial•ant
Asaociate Pl,anner.
(;ommisei~n SecreCary
PLEDG~ OF ° Cotmnisaioner Gauer led in lhe Pledge of Allegiance to tl~e FlRg of the
ALLEGIANCr United States of America.
APFROVAL Or -- Commissloner l~ing o`fered a motion, saconded by Commisaioner Gauer. and
THE MINUTF.S MOT'i0N CARRIL~D (~on~missionera Farano and .1ohn~on betng abaent) , to approve
t•he minutea of the meet.ing of hl~y 1''., 1975, sa submitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL II~AC'f - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAI~EIM HII.L3, IN~./TEXACO VENTURSS,
REPORT N0. 111 INC., c/o HorFt J. Schor, 380 '•uat~eita Nill.s Road, Anaheim, Ca.
~'~ 92807 (Owner) , ~roperty desc rlbed as : An ~ rregulorly-shapea
RECLASSIFICA_TION parcel of land consisting of P~>proximately 22 acres having
N0. 73--74-28 approximate trontages of 83~ feet on the east aide of Hiddez~
~ Canyon Road and 1580 £eet on the north stde of Avenida De
`lARIANCL~ r0. 2566 Santiugo, and heing located apprur.imately 500 feet aoutheast _rly
~ of the interaection of Serr.ano Avenue and HiddEn Csnyon Road.
TENTATICE MAP UF rraperty preaently classified RS-A-43,0~10 (RESIDENTIAL/
TKACT N0. 8520 AGKICULTURAL) Z~NE AND COUNTY OF ORI~NGB A1 ~G~;NE1tAL AGR'~CULTURA'L)
DISTRICT.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATI.ON: RS-IiS-22s0~0 (RrSIDENTLAL, SINGLI?•••Ft1MTLY HILLSIDE) ZONE
REQUESTEL~ VARIANCR: WATVF.R OF REQUIR~iENT 1'kIAT STNGLE-FAMILY RESIDEI3TIAL STRU:;TURES
REAR ON t,RTERIAL HIGHWAYS.
TENmATIVE TRACT REQU~3T: FNGT.NEER: WILLDAN ASSQCIATES, 125 3outti Claudina Street,
Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Suh3ec t property is proposed fcr
aubdivision into 18 RS-HS-22,000 lots.
The subJect petitiuns were cantinued from the meetings of December 10, 1973. January 7~
Marcn 18, April 29, and June 24, 1974~ at the r~queat of the petiCioner; from Augii4t 5,
];14, for readverti...e.ment tn include aciditional property; and from Septembei 16,
September 30, ].914, Febru~ry 3 and April 1k ~ 1975, at the request of. the petiCi ~ne; .
tio one indicated their preaence in oppositi~n to subj ~et petiti.una.
A1t~iouEh the Staff Report to the Planuing Comml.eaion dated May 28, 1975, was not read ar
the public hearing, it ig t~ferred to and made a oar t of the minutes.
75-253
~ ~ ~
Cit,y U.~11.
Anah~alm~ Ca1.lfurnir~
May 2d. ].975
RR(;ULAR MEETING OF THE ANA}lGxhR CI1'Y PLANNING COMMISST.UN
REc. ~.nR •- n regular meetiiig of. tha Annheim City T'lanning Commiaeian wne called to
M~h°fING ozder by Chairman Herbet at 1:3Q p.m. in the Cuunci.l Chamber. n quorum
being praeent.
PKI:SEN'~ - ~1iAI~tM~1N: Herber.
- CUMM:SSI:ONhRS: Gauer, Farana (who entered Che meet~Lng at 2:12 p.m.),
King~ Morley, To~ar.
pW~nNm - rnMMTSRTnNxRCc ,Tohneon
ALSO PRESENT -
RunnJ.d Thampson
Frank Lowry
Jay Titus
Charlea RoberCe
Annika Santalahti
Jack Juud
IIill Young
Patri~ia Scanlan
Developmenk Servlces Directar
Deputy Ci.ty Attorney
Off.icc~ Englneer
7.~ning Supervlsor
Aesietant Zoning Supervioo~r
Ci~•il Fngine~ring Aasistant
Aeeociate Planner
Commiaeion Secret~ry
PL~1)Gs OF - Cormnisaioner Gauer l~d :Ln tihe Pledge of Alleginnce to thc Flag of the
AI~LGGIANCE United Statea of Ameri.ca.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner King offered a moCion, secor-ded by Commis~i.oner Gauer and
THE MINUTES MOTION CARRIEA (Commissiontra Farano and Johnaon heing absent), to appro~e
the minutes of the meettng of May 1.2~ 1975, as submitted.
ENVIRONMEN'TAL IMr' ^r;T - CONTINUED PUBLIC HCARING. ANAH~IM tiILLS, INC. /TE}G+'..0 VENTORES,
REPORT N0. lll INC., c/o Horst J. Schor, 380 Anaheim ~illa Roady Anaheim, Ca.
~~ 92807 (Owner). Pt~perty described as: M irreg;~larly-ahaped
[tECLA53IFICATiON parcel of land consi:~~ing of ap~:ox imately 22 acres having
N0. 73--7~+-28 3pproximate fron~rsges of 830 feet an the eae` side of Nidden
~ Canyon Road and 1880 feet on the north side of tivenida De
VARIANGE NU. 2566 Sant•tago, and being located approximately 500 feet sat~ttieasterly
~ of the intersectiuu af Serrano Aveaue and ~:idden Canyon Fond.
TENTA'CTVE MAP AF Property presently classified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/
TRACT NO. 8520 AGRICULI'URAL) ZONE AND COUNTY OF ORANGE A1 (GEi ?RAI. AGRICULTURAL)
DISTRIGT.
RLQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RS-HS-22,000 (ItESILEN~IAL, SZNGLE-?AM7J,Y ~iILLSIDE) ZONE
R~QUESZED VAR.IAPICE: WAIVER OF REQ~IIREMENi 'i'HAT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIL`ENTIAL STRUCTURES
stEAR ON ARTERZAI. HIGHWAYS.
'TEN~'ATIVE TRACT REQUEST: F.NGINF~R: WI LLDAN ASSOCI.ATES, 7.25 South Claudina SCrePt,
Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Sub~ect propet'~y ia propoeed for
subdiviaion into 18 RS-HS-::2,OOJ lots.
'Phe aubject petitionr~ were ~ontinued from the meeCinga of December 1G, 1973, .?~ouary ?,
Marah 18~ Ap:31 29, and June 24, 1974, at the requeat cf the peti.tioner; from AuAuat 5,
1974, f or readvertiacment to include ad.-~tt~.onal properCy; and ~rom Szptember 16,
5~ptember 30, 1974, February 3 and A~.ril '+, 1975, at the requzet of the petitioner.
No one 1~-dic~ted their preaence in opposi~ion xo eubjecG petitions.
Although the Staff Kc~~rC t~ the Plarnin2 Commie~;ion dAted May 28, 1975, was not _ead at
the public hesring. it i~ referred tc and made a part of the minutes.
?5-253
~J
~
MINU'f[:S. CI'I'Y PI.ANNINC CODiMTSSI~N, May 28~ 1975
~
~
7S-^c54
F;NVJRQNMr;NTAL iDiPACT REPOKT ~10. 111, RECLASSIFICATION NQ, 73-74-28, VARIANCI; ~0. ?.56fi ANU
TLNTATIVL MJ-F l~f' 'iRACT N(1.._ &520 Continued ._~`.~._.__._~--_---•____ -- •--
Mr. .John M111..ick, Vic~ Preaident of Maheim Hill.e~ lnc.~ uppeared hefore the Planning
~.ommiasi,on and stat~ed the praposal wae the second phaea of n continuing estate Pr~grr+m ~~~
AnAheim Hille and ha wne preeent to anewer queatior~a r.egnrding the propos~l.
THC YUBLIC HEARIN(; WA.S CI.OSCD.
CcvmieAioner 'rolar inquirad about the grading which would be involved 1.n r.he proposed
devel~pment, ni~d Mr. Mi.l].l.ck stnt~ i Che grndi.ng would be in +eccordanc~ ~ai.tl~ [he new
Grbding Ordinfin~~a of the Ciry~ with the contoured m~ Chod br~ng uti~.ired to provt~le the
build~.ng pe~~1s: that the 452~000 cubic yards aE dirt indf.c l in th~~ E~.virunmental. Impact
ReporC No. 111 wc-s probably a shocking figur~ to the ~ Ibn~ .~g Conimienion, howevc~r~ that
tol•al inc].uded the grading for the propoaed reservoir I.n thc nub,~ect. area nnd the al•reete;
thc-C ttiere was n ne~d to proceed with tha reaervolr grading [u coincide with the gruding
for ttie RubJact development for ~~~~onomical and timing rene- ; and khat tl~ere would be a
fill h~lance betwe~~n the pro;{ects. Mr. Mi].l.ir.k f~~rther indicnted Chai. approximately 20X
of tlie Rz~uding wne for the reservoir and screets, and that appr~~ximately ]6b,000 cubic
yarde we~ on County property; and thal khe;~ did not intend to import or export dirt ~a u,.
froai othec a~~AS~ unl.ess they had lo remove rocke [a a landfill pro~er..t.
L- reaponce to queationing by Commiasioner Morley, Mr. Mi;.lick etatad '~c prc,poHrd homea
would be custom; that xhe time frame for completiun of the pro~ect was ~_untinAent upon the
completion of r.he reservoir approximntely June, 1976; that they would obviously get into a
pre-sales pra;;~ r,,,~, ; f problema regarding uvuilability of water were ree~~lv~~~i with the Rea1
Estate Cor,~mis3loner; that they had gauged n demand for the proposed r.y~e product snd the
homes would pr.obably ~ell ver.y rapidly; a that they were opt~miet+~~ that ttie economy
would be on Che upawing in thp near futu? also. Mr. Millick furthe.r att~ted Chey did noC
wiah to see a repeat of the situation with Rancho Califarnia, where cuatom homesitea were
immedintely purchaeed for real estate appreciation val.ues and the p;td~ ~rece not built on
for aeveral yearo; that t~~ey liad interust from several cusr_om builder:~ (Bob Solom~~~ and G.
L. Lewis, eCc.) and could seed the pro~ect ~~y bulldi~~g on IIppr.oximately 10~; ~f t,l~~ tots to
get constructiun going~ or they could s<~l.l the sites on a deed of purchuse plan ~~I~ureby if
the plans were not b~iilc on within a specified p~r.iod of time, then the lots would revert;
and thut the pra~ect woiil.d probahly be completed within three ye~ra. In reaponse to
quaF,tioriing by Commissiouer Tolar, Mr. Millic:• sCated thac if the ~ ut~ reverted back,
whe~:her or net Anaheim Hills would develop or resell the 1nCe would depend upon Che marlcet
at chat time; however, from the tenant deIDand at the prerten~ time, they anticipnted that
the lot~ would be built on im~ediately.
Mr. Millick entered into discussion with Ch+~irman Herbat regarding the atope l..idscaping
in the subJect tract, and Mr. Mi~iick indicated thai• unless the pru~ect was seeded wirh u
developer, then Anaheim Hills, Inc. would provide alcue land~:caping; that the landacaping
would be installed t~ preven*. having ko poot banda for a lo~;~ period of. time, however, he
did not wigh to n,o!ca a commitment in that respect nr. thie time since a determination had
not been made as to which direction they would take in their s~lea program. Comm'.~ei.oner
Tular noted that aume commitment regarding tt~e landacaping mi~,~t be easential to approving
the tract, whet•eupon. Mr. Milliclc indicated tha~ they wou3i compiy with the Grscling
Urdinance which included alope landscaping ~ndlor bonding therefor, etc.
Chairman Herbst inquired regarding the grades that a;~peared to go through aome of. the
1oCs, and Mr, Milllck stated in those cases khe terrain wae baing left natural; and,
furCher, that th= majority of the grading would occur wherr massive changes were being
made, i.e., the reservoir site~ etc. Mr. Millick clartfied thaC a man-made slope ran
through Lota and 4 and that slope was required to be plan'_ed since it exceeded 5 feet
vertical height.
Uffice Engineer Jay "'itus ad~iaed that the Grading Ordinar.ca requir~d extensive landscap-
ing of the sJ.opes tu .,e insLalled at the time the homes were bui.lr andr prior to that
time, bonda would be required in lieu af putting plants into the ground; and ehst at the
ti.me uf gradin~, ground c~v~+r or grass wa8 required on t~ie slopes.
Cc~mmisslor.ar Tolar indicated that he was not con~arned abou[ the heavy landacapinq going
in right away, but that the ground covex would be appropriate For ex'oaion control; and
that he was concerned about the problema w~th the winter rye drying out and becoming a
fire hazard. Mr. Millick stated there were other type graeaes to be uaed; and ~hst in the
S.I.R. d~'~e.lopment ;Lake Summit} with alones ad~~cent to the resprvoir., thcy had ingtalled
some of tlie finb. ^*ouid cover at the time of the grading and~ with som~ waterinR, they
~ ~ ~
MIN.1'SE~, CITY PLANNtNC COFQ1I35ION, May ?.B~ 1975
75-255
EN'JIR~7NMENTAI. IMPACT KCPORT N0. 11I~ R1?CLASSIFT~~ATIU~ NU. 73-7b-28~ VARIANCE N0. 2566 ANll
fENTATTVE ASAP ~I~ 1'RACT N0, 8520 (Continued ,
now had euca.Lyptus trQea growi.ng. Comm:esiunec ~ing noCed that by rupeeting the I.ake
Surtuni.t etope planti.nG, the propoeal. woul.d benel'it from tt~c~ ~eautification i.n Chair ealea
pc~ogrum. l.n rasponse Co questloning by Gommieei ner Gauesr, Mt•. Millick etatad they hnd
eried to develo~~ u vai~ury of building pecl levels t:o al.low for ^~lit-•level ltotaaa c~nd,
ulso,if the proparty ownarb wuuCed Co have horsee, th:n the pocCiune of tti~: lote used for
thaL pur.poea cuuld be at different lavc~le than rhe homae themselves, c~mmi~~,i.or-eT Ganar
Chen questioned thcs diepusi.tion of the oak treea in the pro~ect, nnd Mc. Mil,.ick etat.ed
that thc lur~cs trees at the intare~ction of Hidden Ganyon itoad And Serrano Avenue were
being proaerved for khe equestxian center; Chrit uny Cr~os on ti roeervuir site w~~uld be
di.fficulG if not impoaelble to AHV~ beceuse of ttie mAesivu grH~ .ng; e~nd that ~ny ~.~•~es
remov.:d in the sub,j~ct Crnct would ~errainJ.y be replac~d in co~'ormailce wiCh the TrEe
Preservntion Ordinance.
Chairman Harbst noted that it ~aould Uehoov~ Anaheim HiY.is. Inc tu duvelop closely to the
new Gruding Ordicianr_~ Rinc~ the proposed develop~nent would expoae sald oi•dinarce ~o i.Ce
Cru~~ worth. Mr, Millick thon stated that Anaheim Hi.lls, Inc. fiad taken the iaitiative in
~--.-•....~.....~ ,.~ rh„ „A~, r.radina Ordinance and that they had re-eculpturQd
ti881etiTig wici~ ~iib ~.:.v..+..r..._.._ - - -••- --- -
soma oE the aceao a~.ong Serrano Avet~ue, etc.~ ln accordance with said ordinance and thc
improvement wes even gre~ter han they hed expected.
Commi.seiotiar Morley offered a motion~ seconded by Commtasionar King and MOTION CARRTEll
(Commiaaionere Farano and Johnson bei.ng absent), that Fnvironmental Impact Report No. 111,
suppl mienting master Ellt No. $0, hAVing been conai.dered thie data by the City Planning
Commiesicn and evidence, botti written and oral., having been presented to suppl.~ ent the
draft of EIR No. 111~ the City Planning Commiesion believes thaC eaid drafC ETR No. l.tl
does conform to the City and ~ ite Gutdelines and [he State of California Environmental
Quality Act and. based upon such infurmacion~ does hereby recommend to the City Council
Chai they certify aa.ld EiR No. 111 is in comp~iance with the Califor.iiia ~nvironmental
Quality Act.
CoTamissioner Morle,y offered Resolution No. PC75-107 and moved fot ite paseage rsnd adopti.on
to recommend to the City ~ouncil that Petition for. Reclar~sifi.cation No. `13-74-28 be
approved, au~~ect to condikions. (Sae Reaol~itlon Book)
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution ~vas pasged by the f~llowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER,
NOES: CUMMISS70NERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIG`1ER5: FARANO~
KING, MORLr~Y , TOLAR, siERBST
JOHNSON
Commi~aioner Morl~y offered Resoluti~n No. PC75-108 and moved ~r ite passage and adoption,
that Fetition for Variance No. 2566 be and hereby is grr~.ted, granting watvei of the
zequirement that s:ngle-family structures rear an arterial highways on the Uaofa that the
hillside topography a~~d large lot cizes juatify deviation~~rom the "flat-land" development
standards as deline:ited in ~he RS-HS-22,000 Zone; subiect to condxCione. (Se~e Resolution
Book)
On ro11 call, the foregoing resolution was pasaPd by the fol'owing vote:
A:ES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOG~: ~QMN[ISSIANERS: NONE
ABSEN'i: COMMISSIONERS: Fti}ZANO, JOHNSON
Commisaioner Morley offered a motion, aeconded by Commiasioner Gauer and MaTION CARRIED
(Commiss~oners Farano and Johnaon being ~sbsent), that TenCative [~4ap of Tract '~o. 8520 be
and hereby ia upproved, to construct an 18-lot, kS-HS-22,000 sub:iiviRion} sub~ect to the
following condltiona:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Nu. 8520 ia grnnted sUb.je~•t to the
approval of Reclassification No. 73-?4-28 and Variance No. 2566.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as mare than rne subdi.viaion, ~ach
aubdiviaion thereof ahall be eubmitted in tentative for~a for appro~al.
(3) That Rub~ecC property ehall ba served by underground utilitiea.
E
~ ~ ~
MINUTES CI'lY PLANNINC COt~ITS~IUN. Mrty 28~ 1975 75-256
ENVIRUNMFI~TAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 111~ KI:CLA3SIFICATION N0. 7.3-74-29, VAi~ ANCB N0. 256G ANll
'TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8520 ~ t('ont i nuad) _„
(4) 'ThaC a final tract m+~~~ of eub~ect px'operty ehell be eubwitted to and arproved by
tha City Counci.l and then be recorcled in the office a£ the Orange ~ounty Rer_ordeX.
(5) That atreet naa»s sha11 Ee approved by ~he City of Anaheim prior to uppro~~•=1 of
n final trr~cC map.
(6) Thr~C thN aubdiv~~ion c.ovenanCs~ conditi~na ac~~d rnfltricCions ehal] b z ~~ ~Lctad
to and approved by tho City Attorney's Offic• prioL t~ City Counctl appruval of
the final kraGt wap, and, further, Chat the npprnved covenante, condi.tiona and
r.estrict~tonR ehu1~ be recurded con~urrently wi.tt~ t'he final Cract map.
(7) Thnt prior r.~ filing tha final. tract map, the app ~~nt ahnll submit Co the City
Attorney fnr arpx'oval or denial n compleCe aynopsit~ oE the pr~poeed functio:iing
of the operatinR corF•oration inc:Luding, but not limited tu. th~ articles o£
incorporaCion~ bylaws, prop~sed methode of managemenC, bonding to insure main~
rQ.•AnrA of commnr. ~roperty Rnd buildi.ngs and such othzr information as the City
Attorney tnay desire to protect the City~ its citizens~ and tha purchayers uf the
project.
(E) That the uwner(s) of suU'ect property ahall pay to the Cicy of Ax~aheim the
npproprtate p~ark and recceation in-lieu feea ae determined to be appropriate by
the City Council~ said fees to be paid at the time th~~ building per.mit is issueJ.
(9) 'fl~:~t draingge of sai roperty bhall be disposed of i.n a manner eatielactozy ko
the City Engineer. , in the preparation ~.f cne site sufficient grriding is
required ta necessitate a grading p~rmit, no work ~n grading -~111 be permitted
between OcCober 15th and April 15th unless all required off-~ite ~'rair~age fa~,ili-
tiea have been insCalled and are ne:rative. Poeittve assurance shall be provided
the CiCy that such drai.nage faci'_i~.iee will be c~mpleted prior to October 15t1i.
Neceasary right-of-wsy for off-site druinage fr.cilitiea ahall be dedicated to
the City, or ..he City Counci2. at,a11 have initiated condemnation proceedings
ther~for (th~ coste of which ahall be borne by the developer) prior to the
cram~encemeizt oE ~radiag operations. 'fhe requited drainrsge facilities shall be
of a size and type suffi~iant t~ carry runnff waters originating from higher
properCies through eaid property to ultimaCe disposal as approved by the City
Rngineer. Said drainage facilitl^s ahall be the first item of conatruction and
sha71 be cumpleted and be functicaal throughout the tract and from the downstreFUn
boundary of th~ property to the ultimat~~ point of diepasal prior to the isauance
of any iinnl Uiiilding inepectiona or occupancy permita. Drainage diatricC
reimburaeme:~t agreementa may ba mane available Cu the developers of said property
;~pon their request.
(10) That grading, excavation and all other r_anstructian activities shall be conducted
in suct~ a manner eo as to minimize ehe possibility of any sllt origi.nating from
this proiect being carried into the Santa Ma River by atorm water originating
from or flow.ing thr.ough this proJect.
~11) T_tiat trash s~orage areas shall be provided in accordance with api'"ovad plana on
file with the office of the Birector of Public Works.
(12) That the minimum design apeed for Avenida De Santiago shall be 25 miles per
hour.
(13) That the alignment an~ terminal point ~f atorm drains shown on ehie tentr~tive
tract map ahall not be cansidered finai. Theae drains shall be subi~ec[ to
precise deai~;n conbiderations and approval of the City En~,ineer.
(14) If permanent atreet name eigna have not been inatalled, temparar~• strePC name
aigns shall be installeZ prior to any occupanc~.
(15) That prior to apptoval of the final tract map, the r~titioner shall. make aome
prov~sion. acceptable ta the City Council, for l~ud~caping and snai.ntenance of
all slopea within and/or created by the development af thia property; H31d
landacaping to be satisfact4rily maintained after completion of ~rading an.:
pr'.or to ieauance of building permits.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CAMMI£SION~ May 2$, 1~75
~
•
75-•257
F.NVIRANMF.NTAL IMPACT It~,PORT N0. 111, [tECLA3SIFICATION N0. 73-74-28~ VARIANCE N0. 2566 AND
'PENTATIVE MAY 0~' TRACT N0. 8520 ~or~tinued ~^_ ,.,~.._ ~~...-.._,
(lh) That tho propoaed 10-Foot riding and hiki.ng trail. ehall ba coneCructed or the
southeasterly eida of Aven•ida De Santiago~ and thaC said ridi.ng end hiking Crcil
ehall be mnintainer] by formulation of a maint~nunc~ dietrict.
(171 That the method oi rePl.dential mail delivery to nt1 lots within thi,~ tr~cr ehall
c~.msi.At af "curb~linE ielive.ry" defined as d~livery Co mail raeeptacl~~e lncnted
nt the curb line capable ~f being esrved by a r.nrrlar ~•f.thout dismounting fr~~
hid motor vet~icle,
;:18) That rhe f.l.e~~hreak(s) ehull be ~etructed subJact to the review and approval ~F
the Fire ("~ief .
CONAITIOtJAI~ USC - CON'fINUED PUBLI.C HEARING. ROBEkT HOSTETTER ANll WARREN C. PRQCTOR,
PF.ItMIT N0. 1517 413 South Brookhuret Streel. Anaheim, Ca. 92A01 (OwnerA); The
Colonial Manor Hulfway liousea~ Inc., Attn: F:anklin D. itose, 7Q3
:,; `ti:~am ~A. 92805 (ARent); requasting permieeion to
vor~ii Law.,-~, _,
ESTAIiLISH A BOARD ANL CAR~ FA.CILITY POR 'THG TIt~ATMENT OF ALCOHOLTCS on property descriheQ
ae: A rectangularty-shaped purcel of land consiaCing of approximately 7700 square faet
located nt rhe northwest ~orner of Wilhelmina Street and Lemon Streek, having approximate
frontages of 109 feet o thP nortti eid~ of Wi.lhelmina Skreet and 71 feet on the weR~ side
of Lemon SCreet. Property presently clasaified RM-1200 (R~SIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY)
7.GNF.
Sub~ect petl~:ion was cortl•inued fr~m thp meetinge o£ March 3, 197~, to allow the petitioner
time Co improve the property, and from May 12, 1975, for additicnal informaCion.
Na one indicated their presence in oppoe.itioi~ ;.o aubject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the ~lanning Commiaeion dateZ May 28, 19'15, was not read at
the public hearing, it ie referred to and made a part of the m;.nutes.
Mr. Robert liostetter, rhe property owner, appeared befora the Planning Commis4t~,n and
atated he had contacted the State Office o£ A.lcuh~lic Program Management and had confirmed
that khe prnnt funds being requested by Mr. Roae were forthcoming pending satisfaction of
some matt~rs related to the corporate organization and approv~l of the conditional use
permit by the City; and that, if the matters per~aining to Clie grant were clegred up
within the 3a days anticip~ted, he would suggeat a 60-day continuance be granted for the
public hearing on ttie conditional use permit.
Commiss~ottel 'Tolar notied that inasmuch ae it appeared substantial confirmation of the
grant funds had been received, Che Planning Commiasi.on cou7.d proceed at this mesting t~~
grant the conditional use pei'mit with a time limitation .for the completion of conditions
of approval; whereupon, Ueputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that Co~niasionQr To1ar's
sugges~.ion would be in order~ i£ the Planning Commission Ao deaired.
THE PUfBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
it was noted that the Director of the Develop~ent Services Department had detet,.~.ined thaC
rhe proposed activity fell within the ~iefinition of Sec~ion 3.01, C1aes 1~ of tht~ i:iCy of
'lnaheim Guidelinea to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and w~~~, there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to L•ile an EIR.
Discusaion pureued r~~~arding the appro~ te time .limi~aCion which ehould be imposed in
counectiott with the granting of the aut~ect conditi ial use peAmit~ duriiig which Commiasioner
Tolar noted that if Che conditi~na of approval were not complied with wfthin 90 days~ then
Che conditional use permit mighr Se termiaaCed.
Thereupon. Commisa.'~ner Tolar offered Reo~lut}on Ho. PC75-1Q9 and ~c~ved for its passage
and adoption, t1:a~ Petikion for Canditicnal Use Permit t7o. 1517 be ~nd hereby is granted,
aubjer.t to the fol.:.owing can~liti.ona (,5ee Resalution Buok):
(1) That the existin~ 'tiructure ahall bs brought up to the minimuai etandar.d.es of the
City ~f Anaheim~ including the U~iform Buildir.g, Plumbing. Flectrical. Housin$,
Mechanical~ and Fire Co~iee~ as adopted by the City of rlnahaim,
~ ~ ~
MINUTE~~ CI1R P1.ANNING COMMIS3ION. May 28. 1975 75-258
CONDITIONAL USS P~KMIT NU. 1517 (ConCinusd)
(?.. Tltat the ~ub~~c[ pc~~erty ati~ll be dovc~loped substantially in accordc+Tice with
plans Mnd •peciticar~-ons on file with the City of Anahei.m mArked CxhLUit Noe. 1
throtigh 4
(3) Tl~at Condl.tion Noe. 1 and 2~ abovo-ment.ioned~ ehnJ.l be compli.ed with prior to
the coamdi~cament of tha ac~~vity euthorized under this re9oluCioci, or withln a
period of 90 dey~ from dnt~ ~:reof~ or euch further time as the 1'lanning
Commiepio~ ~uy gxant.
(4) That '.hie conditional u~e parmit is ~ranted sub~eck l•o a grant bQing awarded Uy
~he UfFice of Alcah~lic Pragram Mnnagement within the next 45 days~ fro~n date
hereof.
(5) That a Cime limitaL•iou of two yeare ahall be granted for the ~iso of subjqct
property and, upon writCen requeat by the petitioner, an additional period of
time may be, granCQd upan approval by the Planning Co-amieaion and/or City Council.
._ t_...,..,,,.,,, _l~~i.~rinn wnR naedad by the following vote:
Vil IU11 Layi~ i.~~a s.....p.. ..a
AYES: l;Ur4lISSIONERS: GAUER~ KINC, MORLEY. TOLAR, HERAST
NOES : COAR~IZSSIONERS : NONc~
ABSENT: CONII~tISSION~RS; FARANO~ JOHNSON
(Request foc axtension o~ r.ime for Canditional UsE Permit No. 1470 ~~ae considered at thi.s
puinC in the me~ .ing - soe pagee 269 and 270 ot tl~P~~ min~ites. )
VARIANCE N0. 2697 - CONTINUED FUBLIC HEARING. K~ B CTNTER, 725 Went Anaheim Street~
Long Deach, Ca. 9~313 (Owner); GOOD LUCK MAItKET, 1241 Sauth Knott
Street~ Anahe:lm. C:a. 928U4 (Agent); requesting WAIVFR OF (A) MA}CIMUM
A~GRFGATL~ SIGN AREA, (B) MAXIMUBC NUMBER OF SIGNS, (C) MINIMUM DIS'PANCE AE'TWEF;N SIGNS,
AND (A) MINIMUM. GROUND CLEA.RANCE OF SxGN, TO PERMTT 15 E7{ISTING FREE-STANDING SIGNS on
property describ~d as: M lrregulgrly-shaped parcel of land consiating of apprnximately
5 acres lacated at tke southweat corne~ of. Ball Road and Knott Street, huving approximate
frontages of 40 feet ~n the soath aide of Ball Road and 390 feet on rhe weat aid~ of Knott
Street, and further described as 1241 South Knott Street. Pxoperty pi~•:jencly class~fied
CL (C0244ERCIAL ~ LIMITED) 20NE ,.
The aub~ect ^etiti.on was continued from the Plaru~freg Commiasion me.eting of Msy 12, 1975,
in order that the petitioner could re-eva3.uate the :~igning of 3ub~ect property.
It was noted that the petitioner was requesting a further continuance Co the meeting ~f
J~ane y, 1975.
Commisaioner King offered ~ cnotion. seconded by Commisaioner Morley and MGiION CARRTED
(Commiseionera Fa'ano and Johnaon bein,g absent), that the public hearing and coneideration
of Yetition for Variance No. 2697 be and hereby ~s further continued to the meeting of
June 9~ 1975~ as reque~ted by the petitioner.
RECLd~.SSIFICATION - PU.KLIC HEARZNG, KQBERT S. BEASLEY, 1336 i3enedict Canyon Drive,
N0. 74-75~33 Sevetly Hilla~ Ca, 9021.G (Owner); P. .T. HALLMEYER, 1304 South riagnolta
Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92H04 (Agent). Property de~cribed aa: A
VARIANCE N0. 2704 rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consieting uf approximat~ly 0.44
acre having a frontage of approximately 83 feet on the north side of
Lanerose Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 234 feet~ being
lo~ated approximately 420 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue, and further 3ee-
cribod as 31~i3 West Laneroae DLSVe. Property presently classified RS-A-43,000 (P.ESIDENTIAL/
AGRICULTURAL) 'I.QNE.
Gne person inuicated his preaence in opposition to sub~ect petitiun.
COlRIISSIONER FARANO ENTEI~D TEIE MEETING AT 2:12 P.M.
Aesiatant Zoning Supervisor Annikr ~anCalahti read tne Staff Report to the Ylanning
Comaniseion daCed May 28, 1>7S~ anu said Staff Report is referred to as if se~ forth in
full in tne minutea.
~ ~ ~
MINUTE3~ CITY PL.ANNLNG COMMISSiON~ Mny 2£. 7975 75-259
REC_Lt±SBIFICATTON N0. 74-75-33 AND VARIANCE NC. 2704 (Cortinuod)
Mt. P. J. Hal.lme~er~ thu agont for the pr.opexty owner, nnd Mr. Will.inm H. Hockenberry. tt~e
architacC~ appeared before th~ Plnnnlrig Commieeion a d offored to anewer questlou~ x•eg~~rd-
ing th~. pr~poeal.
M~. Uavidson Coll~ne~ 1303 5outh rtaeteraon P.oad, appeared before the ?lanning Commiseion
ln ~~ppasition ko th~ sub~ect varianca and read fxum a prepared ~Catemant indicaLi~ig hi.~
oppoeition Por the following reaeons: 1) the available 1~~nd srea is not large enough tu
accommodatn aight familiQS and the neceseary psraphernalia Chat go with them, 2) tlie
gra~tinR oF eu~h a request ~ld be unfa'.r to ttie preceding apartmanr bu3ld~ra au~ -~t the
tlme the neighboring apaxtmeuts ware built~ baoi.aliy the eame vari~nce was requesked and
der,ied~ 3) the privacy of tlie single-family dwellinge acroes the erreet would bm oerioue~ly
impsired if a C~o-sr.ory complex ware al].owed to Lront on Laneroee Dr.ive~ 4) tho eize uf
the bui~dtog end appurtenant KtructurF~ n~ceesary to house eigtit unite would be enki.rely
incompst~lble with the exieting Lui~d..-~ge or. that street~ and 5) an eight-unit complex
vould creata an unbersrable Craffic pruble,n with ce~re parked on the street and r~o *oom for
vi~itore~ etc., tu park. Further, that he wae not againet aparemenCn ncraes the atreeC
from hie~~ but would like the eame restri.ctiona enforced which were appliad to thes existing
,,,....~„~..~...,. +., r-,p ArpA. narr.ic•~ia,rlv wiCl~ respect ta ~~siRht of buildings ena ~ff-ecxeet
~-•---~__.._ --- . .
parki~;g.
The Planning Comcntaeion entered into diacuesion wlth Mr. Col.llns regaraing paet px'acticea
of tl~c Coaomiaeion to grant the height variaace when ~~diacent to RS-A-43.9Q0 proporty~
during wh•Lch it was clarified that Che praper+•v immedl.ately adjacenC to the eub~ect ~rop-
drty on the weat was developed with a m~ltiple-ttimily~ two -etory dwellin~g camplex, and
said propsrty separatad the aub~ece property frow tne RS-A-43~OQ0 aoned property; ard,
further. Chat the two-etory portion of the sub~ect ~iev~lopment wa~ in exceds of 140 feet
from ths adjar_ent RS-7200 development to the ~u,.:~, and thet n~ wai.ver of the parking
requirement wae beinA requested. Mr. ~ollins ^_n revlewed Che plar.+~ anJ etated hie
~bjactione waul.d be withdrawn if the veloper was required to build ln accordance with
the submitted plane~, only. Thereupon~ Mr. Collina submittad hi• ~repared statement for
the record.
Mies SanCalaF~ti read a letter of oppoaition dr~ted Mny 20, 1975. fro~c Mc. Itoy C. Records,
1302 South Masteraon Street, and the sasie ~e referred to ne though eet forth in full in
th~ minutes. It was noted that Mr.. Records was oppoeing the height waiver and felt the
proparty might be overbuilt with thP eighC unita proposed~ and thet ha wae cancernd about
the parking being provided.
THE PIiBLIC I~EARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairn-aa Herbst noted that i£ Mr. Recorda hnd revi.ewed *.he propoaed plana~ then his
ob~ectione mi~ht have been overcame, alao.
Commiesioner King offered a motion, s~conded by Commiseiotter Tolar and MOTION CAItFi1ED
(Com~aisetoner Farxno sbstain~ng since he was not preaent for the entire public hearing,
a..d ^o!nmie~i~,ner Johnson *,e~ng absez~t), that the ~lanning Commission recommende to the
City Cuuncil that the aub~ect pro~ect be e~.empt from the requirement to prepare -n Environ-
mental Impact Report~ pursuant to the pr.ovlaions of the California Environmf ~ Qualit~
Act.
Commiesioner King ofiered Revolutian No. PC75-110 and woved for ite paeange an~ adopcion,
to re..ommend to the City Couricil that Peta.t~.oa for 'teclaseifica+Gio~. No. 74W75- 33 be
s,pproved, eub;ect to conditio:is, (3ee Resolut:~.on Beok)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutic+~ was pa~c~~.~ hy ~he following vote:
AYES: CQI~IISSIONERS: AUEk, KING, MORLEY, TOLA,R. KERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ,JONE
ABSENT: COAQ~iISSIONEP.S: JUHNSON
pBSTAIN: COY4MISSIONERS: FARANO
Commiseioner King offered Reaolution N0, P~75-111 and moved for ~te paseage end adopl•ian,
thsC petitian for Variax~cs N~. 2704 be and her.eby is granted, graYiting ~raiver of the
maacimum bcilding heighr. withi:. 150 feet of ~n agricuttural zonq on tt;e bxsis that the
eul.~ect prop~_ty is aeparated from the RS-A-43,000 :.or.e1 propesrt, to Che weet by a parce].
~ ~ ~
MINII'Pt;t;~ CI'fY Pi ANNTNG C~~IR~1ISSION, May 28, 1975 75-?.60
p!~:~:T.A;;SLFI'CA7'ION Nu. 74-75-33 AN~ VARIANCI's NO. 2704 (ConCinuad)
devc ~ u~~~~d with :~ a~ulti.plc -familv, two-atory dwelling complex end~ furCher, it was cl.ari-
fi~d that Che two-atory portio~~ ot Che eub~oct davelopment is in excase of 190 feet from
the ticl,jAr~YlC RS-7200 dev~lo7aaant t<~ the eouth; Chat the sub~ect property sha~.l be devel-
oped prec.-.Kely in accurdanc~r wi.~h ehe c~ubmitCed plana and Apecificatione; and eub~ect to
condiCians. (See Rasoluti~n Boak)
Un roll call~ tha foregoing reec.lution was paesed by the following vute:
AXLS: CUT41I3SIONERS: CAUER~ iCING~ MORLEY, TOLAIt, HERAST
NOES: COt~4tISSION~RS: NONF~
ABSI:NT: CONQ~tl.SSIONFRS: .TOl1NSON
aHSTAIt:: C(~MMI~SIONEFS: FARANO
CONDI.TI~`*~AL USE - PUBLIC HEARIhC. NIC~OLAS URSINI, 1338 Nor.th Podonia Avenue, Whittier,
YERMIT NU. 1536 Ca. 906~3 (~wner); FREA B. WORl~~ JR., Melodyland Christian Center,
l~~~ P, 0. iiox 60~0, Anz~haim, Ca. 92806 (Agent); r~queating permiasion to
ES'rAllr.~^il A(;YMNARTiTM ~n ~x^;.crty dc~cribed as: A LP~tA1~g11~ATlf~shaped
parr_el af land consleting ~f. appr~ximatoly 1.0 acre having a frontage of approximatel.y 150
fee~ on t.he north side of Kntella Avenue, having a maximiun depth of ctpproximately 300 teet,
and being located apNroximu ely 834 feet eaeC of the centerline of Nart~r Boulevard, ar_3
further dedcribed es 403 ar-d <<~5 West Katella Avenue. Property pregently ciaseLfied
RS-A-43,00~ (RPSIDLNTIAL/AG~tIC[ILTURAL) ZONE.
It was noted thaC a letter dated May 23~ 1975. had been received from Mr. Fre3 E. Work, Jr.,
the agznt fur the reti.tioner, notifying the Planning Commisaicn of the petitioner's electiun
ta withdraw the sub~ect c.onditional. uae permit~
Commisaione~ King off~red a motiun, secondFd by Commiesionpr Mor?.ey and MOTION Ct~RRIED
(Co~mnisaic, .er Johnson being abseatt) , that tt-e Planning Cowmission does hprel~~~ a.:kn~•aledge
the petitioner's requeat to withdraw PetitiAn f,r Conditional Use Permit No, i536, ar~~ the
same ia hareby terminato..i,
CONDIT )NAL USE - YUBLIC HEAP.ING. WILLIAM C. WAGNER, 530 Sbel?~^..:n, T~l~at l.ovina, Ca.
PE:tMIT N0. 1537 y1790 (Owner); ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COZiPANY, P. 0. Box 226, Or~nR~,
Ca. 92666 (AgeuC); requesting permiaeion to ESTABZTSH A MOBILEHOt~
FARK WITH WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT 'THAT ALL PARCELS ~IAVE FRONTAGE ON A
,'UBLIC STREET on property described as: A rectangu~Arly-sha~~~d parcel of land consiating
or' approxi~astely 6.1 acrea located nor.t'~ and west ~~ Che corner of Lincoln Av~~ue and Be1
Air Street~ having a~aaximum width af approxamately 330 f~et and a maximum h of
approxima*.ely 800 feet, and being ~ocaCed approximat~~ii 530 feet north of ~enterlin~~
of Lincoln Avenue. I'roperty nresenr,ly classif~i..~~ ::~--A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/ACRICULTURP.L)
ZONE.
One peraon indic:ated their presei-ce in oppoeition to aubject petiCion.
Haaiatnnt Zon~ng Supervic~or Annika Santalahti read the SLaff Report to tha Planning
Commiss'.on dated May 28, ~975, and said Staff Repo~t ls recerred to as if aet forth in
full fn the minute~.
Mr. Jim Bret:nan, repr~aenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the P1$nni-ig
Commission t~ answer questiona regarding the ~ropasal,.
Cnai• m•ln .lerbst noted that b~ .ore ~he Planning Co~nmiesion could conelder the proposa~l
m~~ lehome park at the subject location~ the peCi.tioner ahould be required Co submit more
a-~ ~uste information to incl~tde a soi?.s engineer'e report, a repurt concerning the problemg
methane gao, and recommendlCione relative•to solving the problems inherent in the
development of. the subject propert.,~ in the macxnEr proposed. In response, Mr. Brennan
atated the petitioner was aware o` t"ne problems ~nd ~hat e intPnt waa to do the necessary
correctiv~ work, if Che ~onditional uRe peraiit were approved.
Commiseioner T~7ac noted thgr in addition to the techn~lcal reporta, he wae also coi.cerned
about the p~o~,oseu accesa~ which aas definitely not ~dequat.e; whereupon, Mr. Brennan
renueated a 30-•day :onti.nuance i.n order to obtain the fddttiot:al informatlon and make
nosaible moclificationa to the plans, etc.
~
.o..
~
MINUTL~S, CI'TY PLANNING COMMISSION. Mny 28, 1975
CONUITIONAL USC PERMIT N0. 1537 (Con~inuQd)
~
~
75-2b1
Commiseioner Farano noted that when the propoeal wae conaidared at ChQ end of 30 days, he
wauld be looking far clianges in tt-e plan~ to refl.cct the requiremente outlined in the
StaEf Report nnd that eol'ving the soils prob.iam wax not all thut n~eded to he corrected,
Me. Barbara Antocl, raprQeenting the Orange County Coneu~cer Affairs Office~ Huntington
Beach branch, appeared before the Planning Commiaeion aiid etated tt-at the aiib~ect matt.e,
was broughC to th~ir attention becauee of the mobilehome park that was approved by the
Cit•y to the weat o: the sub~ect proparty; that there wer~ approx'naCely 124 mobilehomee~ in
Cha ad~acent park wl~.ich wer~e i.a serious ~eopardy, and damagE had ..lraady occurred to thoea
homes; that thare were sanior citizene living in the ad~aceixt mobi.lehome park who had no
pl+~ce to move to; that the methane gas underneath thp exieting mobilehome park was wreck-
ing those hrnnes; ttiar Lha State had tur.ned tY~e complainta and laweuits in connection with
the exi.atin~ mo~ilehome park over t~~ L•he City, and thc~ Coneumer Affair~ OEfice found it
hard to believe that Che sub~ect pro»osal waA being coneidered.
In response to queationi.ng by Commie~,ioner Tolar, Me. Antaci atated the proble.me invoJ.vo.d
were very coaCly to cor.rect; t'nat the owr~er of tl:e exiating mobilehome par?; had a budget
of about $20U a nionth to adjuat the homes that were beiug snifted, u~-J tl-ai. was snl~,
enough to al•!gn a few homeA aC a time and by rhe time all the hotnes were Ad~ueted, lt wao
time to atart all over aga~.n wirh r1,c same proceduxer eince the ground had not settled and
the problema reoccur.r.ed .Lnuing basis; chat Toupe Engineering was presently work-
ing to try to reeolve C~. :m; that the people cou13 nut affora to walk away from
their homea; that ahe was ~m~+I.ying that the ownera of the property were not t:ying to
resolve the p:oblem; that the Ylanning Commi~;sion and City Coi~ncil were pxe~~iously warned
by tl~e Buildin~ Dlvt~ion IiTid khe Orange County Con3umer Affaira Office regarding the
problem~ however~ the exiating mobitehome park was appr~ ed anyway. She stated that the
mesaage ahe was preaently relaying was :3n sdditional warning not to approve the use.
Ma. Mtoci then requeste~: ~i~..~ when the sub~ect martei• came up in thP 30-day period, she
would like to be preHent at thaC tim~.
Commisaioner King offef:ed a motion, seconded by Co~..~nissioner Morley and MUTION CARRIED
(Commiesioner Jolinaon being a~Rent), to cont:lnue the public hearing and conaideration of
Condi.tiona? Use Permit Nc. ~537 to the meE:.ing of June 23, 1.975, Ha requeated by the
petitioner.
VARIANCE N0. 2701 - PUI3LIC HEARING. JOHN LLOYD AND ALICE n WATT, 546 Hazelwoad SCreet,
Anabeim, Ca. 92802 (Ownera); reque"r.i~ig WAI\IER OF MINIMUM SIDF YARD
T~ RETAIN AN EXi3TING HOUSE ADDITION on property described as: A
rectangularly-:.hapPd parcel of lar~d consisting Af approximately 0.16 acre ha~ring a front-
age o: appro~:imately 60 feet on the east. slde of Ha~el.wuod Streek, havi.ng a maximum depth
of approximately 121 feet, being lor,ated approximateZy 115 feet north of the centerline
of Elderwood A~c:~ue, and further deticxibed as 546 Hazelwood Street. PropPrty presently
classified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGI~E-FAI~ILY) IONE.
No one indicated Cheir presence in opposition ~o subject petition.
Although Che ~taff Report to the Planning C~mmission dated '4ay 28, 1975, was not read at
the public hearing, it ie referred t~ and made a part of t;~e minutes.
Mr. .Tohn Wa~*~ the petitior-er, appeared before the Planning Cou,mi~sion to answer quesL•ions
regarding L ~ propoeal.
THE P1JaLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to queaCioning by Commissioner Tolar, Mr. Watt state9 he purchased th~ sub~ect
prnperty in 1968 ~nd the sub~ect house addition was alre~ly or. the property; that he had
been required to ~~lcrease the ~lectrical amperage to comnlete the conatruction of a awim-
ming pool or, the properr.y and that was when Che City disco~~ered that the room addition was
i2.legal, sin•e the electr.ical meter was located inside said room addiCion. Mr. Watt
explained tha~ he received an electric bill and the meter wae usually read when Aomeone
was home to ].et the meter reader in or~ the meter reader lsft a card for thetn to flll out
and return for billing purpoaes. Mr. Watt further atated that he had purchased the home
through FHA and no queations were rei.sed at that t~ne regarding the room sdditior~.
~ ~ ~
i.INUTES~ CITY PLANNTNG COt4lI33ION, May 28, 1975 7S •?62
VARZ~+NC~ NQ. 2701 (Continued)
In reeponea ta questloning b5~ Chairoaan Herbst~ Mc Wal•t. etipulatad to relocat~.ng the
elsetrical earvice metAr from tbP liceide of the house e-ddition to an appr.oved exterior
locntion and Co apyly fnr appropriate building permite for tha work i.nvolved.
Ik wae noted that tlie lllrect~r of tht~ ,~avelopment Serv±ce~, Departmcsnt had dekermi.ned that
tha propoeed activity feli within the defir~ition af SQCtion 3.01~ ~,.laeo 5, of Che City of
Anaheim Guidelinee to Che Requi.rmneuty for an. Environmental ImpacC Rel~ort and wae, the:e-
fore~ catego~'ically exempt f.r.,m thu ~equ' ~~me~t t~ f11e ..n F.IR.
Co-maiasioner 'folar offared R~~eolution No. PC75-.112 and m~ved for. ite paseege and adu~,tion.
that PeCirioc~ For Varirsnce Nu. ~701 be nnd hereby ie grantad~ granting waiver of the
minimwn eide yard on Che basis that th~ eub,jact t~~usa addition was exieting when Che
proporty wae purchasecl und, L•lierefor~, a-~.t: :ship would Le cre~red if said waiver was nor
granted; eub~ect to the coudit~on that t~.c~ electrical aervice meter ahall be relocuced
from the inaide ~f ~he heuse addition to an approved exteriur location snd that appropriate
permlta ehall be 1pp21ed f~r ir~ connection there.with~ ae etipulated to Uy the per.iri~ner;
subject t~ conciitiaiic~. (Si;e R~solution Sook)
On roll ca11, Che foreguing resoluti~a waa pease~ by the f~~ll~wi~g vate:
AYES: COMMISSIONE1tS; FAItANO, ~AUi.R, KING, MORI.EY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMICSIONERS: NUN~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JGH~iSON
VARIANCE N0. 2.7U2 - PUBLIC HGARING. LEROY G. HARRISON, 156 Gra~t. Flace, Orange, Ca 9256$
(Own~r); LIONEL E. AABCOCK & SON, 1421 Eaat 28th St:eet, Signal ~1i11,
Ca. 90806 (Agent); requesting WAIV~R OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE A:.EA
PER DWELLLNG UNIT, (B) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (C) MINTMIJM SIDEYARD SETBACY,, (D) MTNIriIJM
RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREA, AND tE) MTNIMUM NUA'.BER P.ND TYI'~ OF PARKING SPA~ES, TO EXPt.ND AN
EXISTI~VG .l2-UNIT APARTMENT COMPI,EX TO 16 UNITS on Froperty ~lescribed as: A re~tnngularly-
ah~ped parcel of land conaiating nf approximately 0.3 acre l~avitig a ftoatage of approxi-
mately 7U feek on the south side of Adele Street, having a maximum dapth of approxtmately
182 feet, being located approximately 165 feet east of the centerlin.e of Lemon Stre~e, and
further described as 130 Wast Ad.:le Street. Property pr~sently classified 1tM-1200
(RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPI.E-F:~.*1I.T.Y) 7.ONE.
Four peraone indicated their preaenc~~ i..n opposition to sub~ect petirion.
Assiatant Zoning Superviaur Anni,~z~ 5an~alahti r.ead the Sta~f Report to the Planni.ng
Commission dated May 28, 1975, and said Staff Report is reS.erred to as if set forth in
full in the min~ute3.
Mr. Leroy Harrieon, the proFerty ow~ner, appeared before the Planning Commission and etated
he had purchased the sub~ect property about one year ago and the builditig was occupied by
aingle se~iior cii:izena who w~re draWing Sacial Securtty or wer.e disabled and Iivlu~ on
disability income; that th~ ~eople c~ere able to have some independance in thie type living
arrang~uent and this was also a very econumical way of. life; Chat he presentl~ had a
waiting lir~t of people wanting to move in; that most of the existing tenanCe did not have
a valid driver's license and, as a reault, there were only four nutonobiles wi~h the
twel.ve tenants; and that tt~e proposal would prov{de £our additional living q~sarters f~r
senior citizens who could ].ive a respectable way of li:e on limited meana.
Mr. Totn Casenzu~ repreRenting tha agent for the pe~itioner, appeared before tha Planning
C~mntieaion and stated there wae a d~finite need for tlie type houaing proposed! and that
the senior citizens could wa'lk to ahopping and eating placES without being crowded.
Mr. August Vil~ak~ 316 North Lemon Street, Anaheim, appeared before :he Planning Co-amissicn
in oppositioti to thp proposal on the basis that he did not want the two-story addition to
~iave ~i.nd~ws t.hxt would be oveY~looking hia property; and that there wa9 a parking problem
ia ehe area alreany.
Mra. August Viljak. 316 Nosth Lemon Street, Anaheim, appeased before the Planning Commission
in ~~apueiCion and state~i she did nor. know how many units cauld be built spon the sub~e^_t
property since it already h~d m~re uuita than were allowed; Chat there were also younger
pe~ple living in the sub~ecC aparcmente; that she lived right next door anJ wanted to
reta'n her privacy and for that reason ehe ob~ected to the prapoaed aideyard aetback snd
any win3owa t:dat might be p ~posed facing her praperty• She concluded by etating the
pro:oaed additi.onal unite wo~ild be too much for the subject pr~perty.
~ ~ ~
MTNUxES, CI'TY FLANNING COMMISSION~ May ~8, 1975
VARI/WCE N(!._ 2702 (Conta.nued)
75-263
Me. Bertha M. Addle. 127 Wept Cyprean 5tr.cet, Matioirq~ appeared before r.he Pl.nnning
Cammisnion in oppueitl.on and etated ehe xented out her guragew thaC fxc.ed the a].rdy in
back of th~ Hubject property. She questioned how closp tha propoeod addit:lon woul.d be co
thu al~ey and etated ehe ;~ould not li.ke to lose hur tc+nentn ec- a reeult of. tlie propoeal~
eioce the rent kron~ eaid garagAe wae her only incom~. T.n ranp~nsa~ Mla•~ Santalahti.
ad:~isad that ~he alley r~ferred to wae abandoned aiid wae now o~~~lvate all.ey, eince the
pzopcrty rev~r.tM~~ to tha property owners~ and thae there weA eome queAtion regardin~ the
~cddicior...l 10 ;ee~. thAt would ba needed on the north sida of the abandoned mxtey to pro-
vide an adaquate slley far access to th~ gar~lgae owned by Me. ~AddiA.
Lllksa<1Up~'.1~ the petltioner stipulated to radesigning the pr~posul to eliminate aiiy ~aindows
along Che weeterly property line.
TNF F'UBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSFU.
In responae to queAtioning by Commissioner King, tt~e petiti.oner atated lie wa3 uware thxC
L~~e all~:y ~~;,r~„~ s+ANr and weet at the. southerly end oF the eubject propert~' had been
abendoned by the City and that it was now a privute al.ley, and LhBt the p~vy~~+Ki a;.1a::cd
for rs 20-fo~t wide prlvate alley.
Commiasionar Gnuer nuted that if l•he subject proposal was approved and consCructed, nnd
the pro~~~~~ ~~y w~s e~•er. eo].d. it would not b.: legal in any r~ense of the word. Chair.mau
lierbgk ud~l~d that the pr~pogai to have SS unite per acre was in conili.ct wi~.i the Cicy'~
ordinan.;: which parmitted e waximum of. 35.2 un~ts pes acra; that, al~huugh he realized
seni.or citi~ens needed ~~aces to llve in the City, he dicl not think ehey should be
provided at CtIP. expense ~~f other praperty ~wnere; and that the property waa already
overdeveloped and the pr~posal would crowd it even more so.
The petitioner atated they co~ild reduce the propoeal to ha~re only two addilional uniCa and
increaae the par'~cinR, alttiovgh ~ny additiona]. par~:ing space.s would not be utilized aince
the people would be walking.
Chn'rman Her.bst noted that the petitioner waA r.equeating aix aubatanttal variances from
rhe Code and the otze of the property did not warrant expanaion.
~•,mmis~ioner King rscnlled Chat when the senior. citi.~ena propasal on Lemon Street (Variance
*o, `G637) was conaidered by Che P].anni.ng Commission, ~here was much con~ern ~bout the
~a~•king being pro•rided. Cc..~missioner Tolar theri .^.eted that consiatent with [he approval
~f the complex on Lemon Sereet, he did not eee any proble~-s with grantiug the waivera of
thP minimum recreational•-leisure area and the minimum r-uiaber and type of parking spaces,
as requPStpd.
Misa Sant~lahti reviewed the approval of Variance No. 2637 for the Planning Commission for
comparison with the sub3ect propoAal, and noted thnC 26 n~rking spaces or. 27% of the
requirement waR granted for Variance No. 2637.
Commission~:r Tolar no~ed that the proposa2 on I.em~ .l 5treet di~l not offer as much buil.ding
eite area, fl.oor are ., recreational-leisure :irer , and perhapa parking, ar~ was being
proposed on the sub~ect pr~perty ancl that th~ propusal would probably offer a better
living envi.ronment. Chaiz~~an Her'ost took er.ceptiou and noted that the Lemo~i Street pro~ect
was for fuur erorie~, with elevatora; Chat if the propoeal was for a aingle-story additior.,
it would be ~x better living environment, hawever, tne people would huve to walk up and
down th~ stairs and would also b~ living above garages; khat, additionally, the City would
have tto control over Che aubject developmenl i£ ir was conatructed and °~JPIICUSLly sold and
occupied b~r young maxried couplea, etc.; that granting *_he proposal would aet a•rery
~indesirabte prec~dent for future aimilur proposals within the Ci.ty~ which could become
wideapread. Commissioner Morley added thaC lt w~uld be difficult to actually compare the
su`.~ect propueal with the complex on Lemon Street since the Lemon Street pro~ect deaJ.t
wi.th in-nouae care for senior citizens and was also different in otl~er ~-~specta; and th;-:
55 uniCs per acre wae very extreme.
~ammisaioner Tolar then noCed that there wae a iteed 9.n do~antown Anaheim for seaior citizen
type ho~ging~ and that the Flanning Commiasion ehould act wi~h eom~ np*_imi~m; that the
petitioner was willing to atipulate to meiintaining privacy to the abuttin~ properties; and
thRt the CummissioC1~~88aonereMorle~~noted Chathaddingafour uniCSetou~n~ngub~ecLr~ro~e1Ly
dawn. Thereupo~,i, Y
~
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY Y1.ANNINQ CUMMISSION, Mny 28. 1.975
VAItLANCE N0. 2702 (Continued)
75-264
wae not an answer to Che problam. Chairman l'erbeC added that t}~e~ unly wHy tlie eubject
property could ba a~ded oRto wae Co go up becauep fihe Qroussd lovel was alxuady ovarbuilt;
that he cauld not compat~ ~.l~e eub;~ect px~poeal with the L~mon 3Creet pC'O~@CL'~ whnteoQVer;
eud that the eanior citiz~,ne at L•hR eub,jacC location ware baeicnlly on thei.r own and a.iHn
therg waA na j~UATfll4tpa thaC the o~cupants ~aould ramain ~eaior ~itiz~ne.
Thereupon, Co~ip~aiunar 'folnr noCad that he had mixnd omotione r~sgarding th~ propoeal
yince there wae n def.inite neod in ti~e (:ity for eenior cltizen typa ha~iai.ng; li~weve~:, the
:r,.^.wcr might be tn tinvA che propoac-l. r.ut dawn a littl~s in numbere ot' unite.
CommiHxi.oner Mc~rla~ nff.ered a motion, seconded by (:ommi,eei.aner. Kt.ng and MO'CIUN CNtkTEA
(Coa~mieaioner Johneon being abeent), that Che Plan~ning Coamii~slon rr.commende to the C1Cy
Councll that ttie aub~ect project be er.emnt ~rom the requiremo~t tc prepare an Environ-
mental Impnct RapnrC. p~t9uant to the provieiona of thE Cal.ifor.niR EnvironmenCal Q~iality
Acr.
Crnnmieaioner Morley off.ered Rec~olution iJo. P~75-113 c~nd u~oved for ite paseage and adoption~
that Patirion for Variance No. 2702 be and her~by ie deiii~d on the ba~is t1~uG r.he prupuaul
would ovorbui~ld the proparty and, therefare, be detrimenkal Co che durruunSl~~g p:<ypGitica;
and~ further~ that the proposal would not provlde ~ good living environment for the tenanta
who would occupy khe apartmot~t unite; that the granCing of ~he waivers w~u1d se[ an i~ndeair-
able prc~cedent for futurN eimilar reque3ta in ttie Ci.ty; tha.: ChEre nre no exc~ptioaul or
extraordinary circumKtances or conditions applicable to the property invol.vad or to tt~e
intended uee of tVie proparty L•hat do not apply genero.ll.y t~ the property or c'..~csA of use
in the eame vlcinity and z~~ne~ that Che request~d variance is not necess~ry for the
preservation ana enjuyme,nt of a subst~nttal propPrty right possessed by oti~er property in
the same vi.cinity and zone and denied tc. ':he property in question; and that the rPquested
variance will be mgteri~l.ly detrimental to r.he public welfare end in~urioue to the property
or imp.rovemente in eur.h vicinity and zone in which Che pruperty ie located. (See Resoluti.on
Bo~k)
~3n roll call. the futegoing resolution wae passed by the fo?.lowing vote:
AXES: COI~SISSIONERS: FARANO, GAU~R, KIP1G, M0~'tLEY, HrRBST
NOL5: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
AliSL~NT: COt~tISS10tiERS: ~0~1SON
RECBSS - At :3:15 p.m., Chairman Herbet declared a receas.
REGONVENE - At 3:25 p.m., Chair.~an Herbat rPCOnvened the meer.ing ~•rith
Commfysioner Johnson being absent.
VAItIANCE N0. 2703 - PUBI,IC kIEAItIN :. VASILE KELGMEN, 700 South Euclid Streat. Anaheim, Ca.
92802 (Qwner); requesting 41AIVER OF PERt1ITTED USES TO ~STABLISH A
PRINTING SHOP on property c;escribed as: A rectangularly-shapen parcel
of lanc' conaistiiig c>f approximately 6200 square feet laca~ed at the southeast corner of
Alomar Avenue and Euclid Street, having appraximate frontages of 100 feet on L-he souCh
side of A7.omar Avenue and 62 feet on the east aide of Eucltd Street~ and further described
as 700 South Euclid Street. ProperLy presently claeaified CO (CArII~3RCIAL, OFFICE AND
PROPESSIONAL) ZONE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petition.
Although the Staff Report ~o the Plxnning Commiasi~n dated May 28, 1975, was not read ak
the public hearing, it ia referred te siid mnde a part of the minutes.
Mr. V'asile Kelemen, th~~ petitionery appeared before the Planr::.:.d Corm~-isaion and stated he
had purchased the sub,ject property a few monthe ago in order ta be able *_u provide hia
customers with faeter de].iv0ry servicea on printing ordera, inar~much as he felt the build-
ing was appropriate ta house an offset printing presa.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D.
In reaponee to quseticning by ltie Planning Commisaion~ ti.e petition~r atated they wera
propoein~ t.o have e prfntfng press. a camera, a cutter and table. ete.~ aC the eubject
location. r-nd he etipu?.ated that the press would be approximakely the aize of a photo-
copying maehin~+ and wo.~ld generate nois~ not nuch etronger than a mimeograph duplicator.
~
..~..
~
KINUTHS~ CI11( PLANNINC COhL'`1I3SI4N~ M~ty 28~ 197~i
VARIANCE N0. 7.7U3 (Ccnttnued)
75-255
'~t~e petitiunar further atatod thaC ~~ff~ex printere ranged 1n niRe fram a mirocsogrr~ph
machine to AN big ae a room, a~id khnt the c~~~cter would have an approximately 20-inch lor.g
blads to handle u~ to 17-inch papur,
Comm~sNtonr:r King noted tliat t~e and Cominis~tonAr Morley had. checked thr,. eub~ect property
ln r.l~s fiNld nnd it appaared from a noise etandpolnt that Chere would bc no prublem eince
therc wns alxcady noisQ being gsnerated f.rom t:he h~avy t~~affic i.n Chr~ nrca and, additionally~
aa alley separn~ad ~thc: Hub.1c~~t property i'ram Che naighbo~ to tha endt ~~~d n d.:iveway and/or
gar.uge scpurated t~~e sub,ject prop~rty from tliN neighbor to the sou~h.
In resp ge t~ queatfoning by Commisei.oner Morlc~y. the petitioner titipulaCed to ramoval of
the ben.,~y shop eign that wuE~ exieting on the property.
UE~puty City Al[ornay Crank ~owry inquired if tha pQttCioner wae willing to terminatF.
Variance No. 2412, which was exieCing ~n Che aubiecl property for n wig ehop eitd beailty
ealon; whereupon, the petition~r etipulated to termi.nating eaz•1 Variance No. 2G72 as a
co.^.3ition of ~pprnyal nf Huh~ect neti.tian~ ~ince therc was no longer an inhent to proceed
with thaC u~e on Che propertp.
In respon~e to further quentionir~g by t:he 1'lanning Commiseion, the pe~i.tioner stipu.lated
Chat muat of the printing would he done off~premisea, except far amu11 quantttir.s of
offset printing (such as letCerheade and envelope~) which waul.d be do•ae on-aiCe for fASter
delivery to the cuytomere.
Coa~misaioner. Farnna then noted that it apPeured ~,ppropri.ate to limit the uae in oome
manner, and he questioned the adequacy of the huilding from the viewpoint of. the variaua
building codes; whereup4n, Aseistant ?oning Supervieor Annika SanCalahti adviaed that, in
1973, the building had underEone building per~it3 t:o meet the couunercial zone requi.remente.
Tt~e Planning Commis~+ion entered into di.scu~sion regardin~ thQ appropriate signing f.or the
propo:aed uae, during which Commiesioner To1ar noted Chat the Plannln$ Commi~ston had
grarited a m~ntunent-type ~ign for prop;~rty to the norCt- and Chat type af. yi.gn wou~d be
agreec-ble Co him at th eubject l~cation. Chairman tlerbet noted tr~at he wuuld also prefer
ehe monument-Lype s!gn to a wall slgn,
In responqe to questtonin$ b~ Staff, the Plannin~ Comni.ssion indicated Char the eub~ect
structure had been c~uf£icientl.y modified Co be classified aa a commercial buildin~ raCher
than a r.esi.dential building, eince it r.esembled a commera~al structure more than the
properl-y to the north which was gr~nted the monument-type sign and, ~urther, that the
subject pr.operty ahoul~l Ue uble to havc at least a sigt~ aca large ae the one to the nor.th.
'L'he P].anning Commission furtlier ind3cated that plana for signing of. the subject property
would be requiz•ed to be submitted to the Develapment Services Departmene for revie.w and
approval, and the petitioner Av stipulated.
It was noted that the birector of the Ueve.lopment Ser~~ices DeparCment had deL-erminPd that
the proposed activity fell with:ln the definitian of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City o.`
Anaheim Guidelinee to the Requirements for an Environmpntal Impact Report and was, there-
fore, categorically exempt trom the requirement L•o file an EI?t.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC75-114 and ~noved £ur its passage and adoption,
that Yetltion for Jar.iance No. 2703 be and :~ereby is granted to establish n printing shop
in the CO 'l.one on the basis that tlie petitioner stipulated that most of the printing shall
be done afE-premises~ except foz snw 11 quantities oi offset printing (auch sa letterheads
and envelopes) which may be done on-aite for faster. delivery to Che cuetomers, and that
the pcinCing press ehall be approximately the size of a phokocopy machine and generate n~ise
not much strunger than a mimeogra•;h duplicator; sub~ect to plane being aubmit[ed for the
signing £or the proposed use~ sr~id siguing to be in conformance with the CO Zone standards,
on the basis that the Planning Commission determined the sub~ect etructure hae been suffi-
ciently modified to be cZassifi.ed r~s a commercial building rather than a residenCial
building, und that said plans ehall be reviewed az~d approved by tlie Developtnent Services
DepartmPnt~ e~s stipuJ.ated to by the p~titioner; subject to the petltioner submitting a
written request to te rinate Varian~e Nc. 2472 on the aub~ect property aad eub~ect to
conditiona. (See Reeolution Book)
Oo roll call, Che for~sgoing rQaolution wae paesed by the Foll.owi.n~ vote:
AXES: COMMISSLnNERS~ FARANO~ CAUEP., KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES : COl~A!ISSIONERS : NONE
EIBSENT: COMMISSIONEIiS; JUHNSON
~
~
MINI?TES. CT.TY P1.ANNINC COMMISSION, May 28, 1975
75-2fi6
AMI:NOMNN'C 'f0 TITLI' 1$. - T~ conAidar amo~lJmentd Co '1'itle ls-Zoning ('ode c,E Ghe Ana}~eim
ANAHF.IM NUNICIPAI, l,0'Dl: Municl.pal Cade pcrCnininp, to rogulntton af bueiness eckivi[ies
~ ~ limitad to pareonx l.8 yr..are of sge or old~~~.
No ~iia lndlcxteci tt~air pr~~eence i.n the r-~,c~ic.;nce tn cannection with ~fi~a prc~poaed Co~ie
amendmants.
Aesociate Plannc~r Dil.l ;oung prPa~nted the SCaff Re:port to the Planning CommJ.seiuc~ dPted
May 28, 1975~ and enid SCuff ReporC ie rc~Eerred tu and mHde a pnrC of ~he minutes,
I~r. Young noted tl-at the Plaiuiing CommieAian~ in conNi.dPri.ng Condltion~l Uxe i'crmit No.
1514 on M~rch ].7, 1975, reconunended to the City Council th~it an amendment to the AnahQ•lm
Munir.ipal Code be ini~iAted to reqtire all a,plicntions f~r mussagca and thernpy parlc,re~
modeling agenc'_es, photogrtiphy etuc'.i.oa and air~ilar uaes be p~:ocessed through the condiCtonal
use p~:rmit procedure~ rather th+~n permitt~d as a matter af ri.g:.t in any zone und n further.
am:.~r,~lmanC Co amend the age proviaion i.n ersid Code frqm 21 years of age Co 18 yearA of nge,
-;~ al].ow for co~krol through tl~e condi.tional uee pexmit procalurc of usea requirinp that
an age Lim1t be ~ffixed, 18 year~ of r~ge being CIl3 legr~l. adu1C age. He Eurttiez n~Ced Chat
the City Council, at their meeting of April 8, .1975~ canc:urred and so directed Chnt khe
amendment bc Prepared.
Deputy City Attorney Frank I.owr.y nd~~iaed th~t alttiough the propoaed amendment~e dtd not
axtend ae far as the Plunning Commisai.on had origine~ly auggented, it waa the opintion of
the Cit;~ Attorney~s Offlce that naid amendmente, as pr.oposed, were appropriate and wauld
be l~g~'.ly clefen~ible; nnd that in some rrspecto, said runendmenCa were more exCenei.ve than
requesced by the Plunning Commtaeion and City Counci.l.
Mr. Lowry explained thar. rherapy, for instance, was practiced by doctore of inedicine and
that they r~houl.d nol: be required to have u condiGionu.l u3e permi.t and, there£ore, the age
l.imitation criteria should be npplied for the regulation of the acti.vitlea in question, in
lieu of "binnket" reatrictione on all auch uses, :in oL~er to pr~vent undue hardahip on the
conducC of 1eg itimate activitiea of thr~t nature, ~dding to zoning case loads ancl, in the
City Attorney's opin:lon~ to avoid enacting legally-questionable oxdinances. Ile furtl-er
explained that although the standarde of all commercinl. zones presently cont~eined pr~-
viaions pertaining to the regulation of. business activitieR limited to persona 21 years of
uge or older, not only wa~ Che apscified age limit inconsietent with State laws pertaining
to the legal adult age~ but locations of referencea to such age restrictions were rslso in-
conaistently organized within the Zoning C~de; and, therefore, the proposed amendments
would lower the uge limitat~lon to persona lf3 years of a~e or older (the current legal
adult age) and would organize and star.dardize the location of said praviaions within
appropriate chapters of the L'ode, Co aid in the location of ~ucl~ provisi~ns. Mr. Lowry
continued by noting thar. in th~ recodification of the Zoning Code, csrtain uses specifically
liar.ed as permitted uses in the CO Zone and permitted by reference in ~+11 other commercial
zones, were inadvertentl.y omitted and, therefore, nonsubatantive "housekeeping" am2ndments
were also contained in the proposal..
Commieeiouer. Farano indicated some di.ssatisfaction with the pr~~posed amendment~ slnce he
wlahed to fur thet pursue the conditional use permit procedure ~o control the uaes in
question, and that he was particularly concerned about the. wotels with X-rated movies,
Chairman Herb st nuted that massage parlors~ fc>r instance, were legal. activitiea and he wae
just concerned about the location, ii cl.ose to a school, church, or other p].ace where
young people might become exposed.
T!iE PUB~IC HEARTNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissi~ner King offered Resolution No. PC75-115 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that the Planning Commission does i-ereby recommend to the City Council amendmenls to ChQ
Anaheim Munic ipal Code~ Title lf3-Zoning, pertaining to the regulation of business activi-
ties related to peraons 18 years of age or older, ae aet forth ~n "Exhibit A" which shall
be attached t o and made a part of this resolutinn. (See Resolution ~3ook)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed ~y the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, KING, MORL~Y; TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COI~IISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
Commissioner Tolar offered n motion, aeconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commisaioner Johneon being ahsent), that Staff be and hereby ia directed to proceed with
a atudy of t ne location of the exisCing unea, as mentioned above, in arder to detertnine
whether it is appropriate Co permit such uaes in c~rtain commercial zonES and require a
conditional uac permit in ather commercial zonea.
~ ~
MINUTL~8, CITY PLAI~NING CQMMT48IOH, Muy ?.8. 1975 75-267
RLQt1EST FOR EIIt - For a grading permie Eor singla-Pamily rasidance at
Ai~(3ATIY6 DECL,ARA'rION 2G5 3outh Peralta Hilla Uriv~s.
It wes n~ted thar, en appllcaCiot. for a grading peratit had been file3 P.ox con~txuction of. +
4ingla-fa-ui.iy ra~oidence ~t the sub~ect address; that an avaluatlon of cha anvironmenCal
1mpa~C of gxadin~ ar thla lacation wea raquired und~r the provisione of the Califoz~nia
Environm~ntnl QuR11Cy Act and the 3tate EIR Cuide].inee, A~nce the prc~,~ect wae located in
the 3cenic Carridor; and that a study of the pr.opooed grading by the Enginearing Diyleion
and rt~e Develorimdnt 3ervicea Department indicated it would have no eigni£icanC environ-
m~antal impsct.
Cammiseioner King ofEered a motion, secnnded by Co~m-iss ioner Tolur and M~IQN CARRIED
(Camwiseionar Johneon baiag absnnt), that the Planning Commission recomMende to ttie (:ity
Council that tlie eub,~ect pxo~e~t be exempt from the requirement tn prapare en Enwirozi-
mentr~l Impact Report~ pureuant ta th~ pr.ovisione of the California EnvironmenCal Quality
Ac t: .
REQUEST FOR EIR - For a grading permit £ur single-•family rec+idence and
NEGATTVE DECLAItATION Cannis caurt at 5140 Eask Cr~scent Drive.
It wae r-oted that an a~,pllcaCion for a grading parmit had been filed P~r construr_tion of a
einglo-£amily rae:.dence and tannis courr. at the sub~ecr addrese; ttiat an evaluation of the
environmental impect of grading at this location, was required under the provieions oE the
Callfornia Envirc,nnwntal Quality Act and the State EIR Guidelines becauAe ths prAlecC was
located iu the Sceiiic Coxrid~~+r; and that a atudy of r.he proposed grading by the Engineer-
ing Di.vision and tt~e Developmen t Servicea D~partment indicated it would have no aignificanC
environmental impP.ct.
CommisaionQZ King oi`f~red a motion~ eeconded by Commissioner Tolar and M(J'TION CARItI~D
(Commiseioner Johnscn being absenC), that the Planning Commiaeion rNCOmmende to the City
Council that the eubjecC pro~ect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report, purau~~nt to the provisiona of the Calif ~rnia Environmantal Quality Act.
~_~~1
~ ~ ~
MINUT~S, CI1Y PI.ANNING COMM'ISSION, May 28~ 1975 ?5-268
R~PORTS .AND - ITEM N0. 1
RSCQAIIdENi)ATIONS CUNDITIONAI. USE PERMTT N0, 297 - Re ~.iest to expand an ex•lArina
~' priva~e echool - ProperCy cnneieting ut approximaCely 9.3 acree~
having a Erontage of approximatel.y 110 feet on the west eide af
I3rookhur~t St~eat ~nd being locaked spproximr~teXy 990 feet soutti
of Che centerline of Ball Road~ and further descxibed as
1309 South Brookhuret SCroet.
Asr~i.stant 'Loning Supervisor Az~nika Santalahti presented th~ Staf f Report to the Planning
Commisaion dated May 2A~ 1975~ and ~atd Staff Report is raferred ko and m~de a pa:t of the
mi.nu[es. 3he not~d tl~nt Cnnditional Uso Fermit No. 297 was granted by the Gll•y Council on
September 25, 1962~ to purmit expansion of an exiating nuraery achool~ aub~~ct :o condi-
tione; that tt~~ appllcanC wae propos3ng a 1303-squr~re foot building addition to tho exiat-
ing achoul facility and wae requeaking clari~ication us to whether a new c~nditional use
permit etiou.ld ba processad to permit said expRt:eion.
Misr~ Sant~lahti. furCher noCed that, the Planning Commiesion should conAider (a) tlie £act
that the proj~oeed expatiaion amounted to 39X of the exist~ng floar opace; (b) the number of
children who can adeyuste]_y be nccowmociated 1t Che sub~ect facility; (c) the minimal of.f-
al•reet parkinR propoaed; (d) the propoaed setback from a reaidential zone which woLl,d
neceseitate a waiver from t;~e CL 'Lone eite development etandarde; and (ul LLa Cud~ rCquir~-
menr that a 6-foot block wall be provided a~jacent to ad~oining reaidenti~t zunes.
The Pl.annin~ Commiasion enCered inCo di.scuseion regarding the proposal, durinR which it
was genorul7_y agr~e~. ~hat additional waivera were Ueing requ~ated in the proposal and,
therefore~ as a l~gal r~quirement~ the mattez could only be considered at a public hear-
ing. Chairman HerUst noted that the people in the area should be awsre of the proposal.
Mr~ Karl Kocek, the properCy owner~ appeared before the PJ.anning Commisaion and atated
that he was L•he awner atid reeident of the ad~acent aingle-family residence and that~
additionall.y, he had a petition signed by the other ad~ar_ent property owners who were
concurri.ng in Che proposal. Thereupon, neputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that the
patition of concurrence could be submitted at the ~ime of the public hearing as evidence.
Commiasioner Farano offared a mo ti.on~ aeconded by Com.~niesinner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Conuniaeioner Johneon being absenC), thaC thc propoaed expansion does not fall within the
scope of khe Planning Commiasion's ariginal approval of Conditional Use Permit No, 297
and, therefore, a public t~euring will be required.
ITEM N0, 2
VARIANCF NO. 2349 (Parcel A) - Requesr. for exteci~ion of time
and approva 1 of use - Property conslsting of approximately
1.~ acrP lo cated st the southweat corner of Broadway and
Adams Street, and further described as 151~4 West Broadway
and develop ed with the "Pepper Tree Faire."
CONDITIONAL U~E PERMIT N0. 1.408 (Parcel B) - Request for exteneion
of time - Praperty consisting of approxi.mately 0.6 acre, locat.ed
at Che southeast curner of Broadway and Adams Street and developed
with an industrial building having a"Pepper Tree Faire" sign
painted on the west wall.
Aasistant Zouing S•ipervisor Ann ika Santalahti. reviewed the Staff F.eport to the Planning
Cowmisaion datea May 28, 1975, a~d aaid Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the
minutes. She noted that Va~~iance No. 2349 was granted Uy the Planning Commissian on April
1'1, 1972, for a period of une year siib~e.ct to r.eview to determine 3.ts compatibili.ty wiCh
the area and whether. the parking being provided was adequate, to establi~h a center for
the sale of handcrafted art ob,jecta and related werchandise, with food sales; that~ with
the exr,eption o£ Condition No. 3, the conditions of approval had been met; that nn com-
plainte regarding the actlvitfea of the "Pepper 'free Faire" had been received by Staff and
the existing parking appeared to be adequate; and that the applicant was requesting an
indef inite period of tlme be granted for said variance, and f urther that approval of plans
for a lunchrac>m with indoor and outdoor geating at the "Pepper Tree Faire" be granted.
Miss Santalahti further noted that Conditional Use Permit No. 1408 was granted by the
Planning Commiaeion on Ju1y 9, 1973~ for a period of one year with possible time exten-
siona, to establiah a billUoard exceeding the allowable area at other than an authoriced
location; thxt the billboard was pai.nted on the wa11 oi a building ~nd advertised the
"Pepper Tree Faize"; that the t ime limitation was establish~ed in order that the Plsnning
•
CJ
MINU'!'~S ~ CI'TY PLANNIN~ COA4tISSI(iN ~ Muy 2l3 ~ 1475
ITBI~ N0. 2 (Continuad)
~
~
75-269
Cnmmieeion could deCer~oi.ne whettaer Che billboard would hava an Kdverae effeet; and thae
the applicant wue requoNting that an lndefin.tCR period of time ba granCed for said
condi~ional use perm:lt.
Chaiccnan Herbst inquired xeK~x'ding tl~~ HN,alth Aaparrment raquireme,rite pertaining to toad
sales~ nnd Mise Santalehti note~i thaG the ~pplicant had indicatad Chat the Healtt~ DeparC-
caent wae ~ati.ofiad with th~ (~1'Op09AL. Ueputy Ctty Attorn~sy Frank Lowr~y advieed th~it if
the propoea~ met th~ food liandlin~ and ~aixikation requtr~.menta~ thpn ~he applicn»C would
bo enr.itled Co a licenee to aerve .food~ if~ the use wae granked by the Planning Comcnfsa•lon.
!n responae Co furthar questtouing by Chairm~n Nerbgt. Mt. Lowry adviaed that there had
be~n no police cepor.ka of any kind rQgarding Che "Yepper Trae Baire" operation~ to hia
knowledga.
'Che Ylunning Co~tesiun entered lnto diacuesion with SCoff regarding the prnposal ln
relatiunet~:lp tu Che pr.evioua fuod-servinR +~ctiviCies at the eub~ect locnkion, during which
ttie Planning Commiseion generally concurreci that the pruposed use and details were nor,
sim~.lar to any oCher approved usee of the ~~roperty and that the proposc~l i:o have a l.unch-
zoorn F~o+.~l ~l requlrp a public hearing.
Commisaioner Fnran~ offered a motion, seconded by Commisaloner Tolmr. and MOTIUN CARRIED
~Commiaeioner Johnaon beinE abaent), that the propoaed ].unchroom at ~tie subject ~ocati.on
doea not fall within the ecope of the Plann3.ng Commis~-ion'e arl~inal apprc~val of Variance
No. 2349 and that said propoeal wi1Z rey~ire r~n addl~ional public t~earing; and~ furCl~er.,
that the requeaC for extension of time £or 'Jarianr.e No. 2349 aliall. be co~s:.dered concux'-
rently at the time of said addiCional ~ubli~~ liearing.
The planning Commiaeian entered int~ discusFiion regarding an appr.opriate time er.tension
L•or Conditinnal Use Permit No. 1408~ during ~~hich Commisaion~r Faraao noted that it would
not be appropriate. in his opi;~ion, to make the aign permxnent which was authorized under
said conditl-on~l uae permit; and Commiasioner 'Polar noeed that if aparhments were con-
alruct~d in the area~ the si.~n might ceot 'bn appropriate at that time and, therefare, a
five-yPar ~xtenaion of time would be too ].on;g.
Commissioner Morley ofPered n motion, aecond~~d by Commiasioner Farano and MOTION CAR.RIED
(Commisai.oner Johnaon being abuent), that a t:wo-year extension uf time be and hereby is
granted for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1~.08, retroactire to July 9, 1y74, to eacpire on Muy
28, 1977, subject to review and consideration for. further extensi.ons of t2me, upon wzitten
requeat by the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 3
CUNPITT.ONAL USE PERMIT NU., 1470 - Request for extension of
time - Property consistinf; of approximately 0.8 acre locatec?
on the west side of Anahei.m Boulevard apgroxlmately 154 feet
north of the cenCerline ot' Vermont Avenue, and further
described aa 887 SouCh Anaheim Boulevard.
(This item was conaidered with Conditlona.l Uae F'ermit No. 1517 earlier i.n the meeting.)
The Staff ReporC to the Flanning Gommission dated May 28, 1975, was preaenCe~1 and made a
part af the minutes.
It wae noted that the applicant (Mr. Frank D. 12ose, Director of The Colonial Manor Halfway
Houses~Inc.) was requeating a six-month exCension of tlme for completion of conditiona
contained in Resoluti.on No. P~74-126, adupted in connecti.on with Conditional Use Permit
No. 1470; and Chat such an exteneion would allow time f~r receipt of a financial ~rrant
fro~: the Off ice of Alcoholic Program Management.
'lhe aubject requeat was cantinued from the Plsnning Commission meetings af February 19,
1~'lS, in order thar Sr.aff could abtain additional daCa relative to the conditior. of t.he
reaidential atructure, and £rom March 3, 1975, in order te provide some time for the
petitioner to obtain ~unde for the propoded use and~ thereby, be in a posit~on to comply
with the Code requirementa for the propoaed location, and that the petitioner ahould take
imaoediate s~eps to "clean-up" the facility.
u~ n
~ ~ ~
MLNUTF:S, CITY I'1»4NNTNG COh41I'iSION~ May 28~ 1Q75
ITlsM N0, 3 (ConCinuad)
75-7.7U
Mr. Frank D, Roen appoared baFore tha Plnnning Comwl.sei.on and etated thal• the financial
gr,int wae awarded by tbe Off:~Lce of Alcohol~.c PraRran~ Management; however~ thev had heen
unabl.e tu negotiate an axten»1on aP Cheir leaoe on che sub~ect property to meet Che
raquir.e~ents for ~af.d grant; and thaC h~ wae etill puT~suin~ the pc~aeibility of liaving tt~e
lease~ e:ctended.
nepuky C2ty AtCornay krenk I.owry advidad that he under.sxo~d ..lie applicant waa saeking a
i-ew location t'or Che eub~ect uAa, since tl-ere appeared t~ UP r~:~~a~ ineurmaun~[ab].e problems
related to the requiremente of che Fire M~xehal ai~d the property owi~er.
Chairtaan Herbet noted that th~ Ylanning Commissi~n cuuld not C~lex'ake allowi.ng kh~ paoplr•.
to live in Che exi~ting r~tructur~ at Che sub~ect location, eiuce lives were being en-
dangared; and that the Commlgoi~:+ should 86Cnti~.~Dll a definite and conc].usive time limitA-
tion regarding this application.
~ir. Rose confirmed that they werc nlso preaent].y ateking a new lacalion tor l•he sub~ecC
ueF and t•hat grant funds were uvi able when attd if thPy could obtKin n euttable l.ease for
Lhe uee; and that thay t~ad l>ecomQ m~re knowledgeable nbout the approprir~te procPduree to
TO.Liuw ~n a~.~ampl~:s!:ino telei.r mPana, howevar, it miAht be too late to do anything abouk
the 3uU~ect lo~at:ion.
Chairman Herbat nated thaC Che Planninb C.ommisaio~ was ii~ favor of thF use, however, the
strucCurea would have tu be made safe foz rh~ae peopl~~ who would be residing there; where-
upon, Mr. Rose atated he wishad to attempt Co further negotl.ate with ~t~e o~:b~ect properky
owner for An approprtate exten3lon of e~,eir. lease, especial.l.y aince the property had a lot
of land and was purticularly suitable for ttie uc~e.
The Planning Commiseion entered i.nto diacuasion wi.th Mr. RASe regurd•Lng satisfaction of
the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit, wt~ereupoti, Mr. Rose indi~ate~i
c.hat if they were aUle to obtain a sati&factory lease, then they would definitely be ahle
to obtain the grant funds to do the neceasary corrective work to ::l:e property and that
etnce they were more knowl~dgeable regarding applications for grant funds, that porC~o~i ~f
khe matter would not take as 1oz~g as previously experienced.
Commi:~sioner King reminded Mr. Rose that pri~r to any wozlc being done at the sub~ect
location, As well as the location on I.emon Srreet, rhe plans for said worlc should be
brought to t?~e Building Diviaion f.or review and ~pproval nnd they should not proceed unde:r
any circumatancea witliout fol:lowing that procedure.
Commissi.oner Mor.ley offered a motion, aecnnd~:d bq Commis:;ioner Tolar an3 MOTION CARR:LED
(Commiesionera Farano and Johnson being absent), that a 30-dxy extension of time be and
hereby is grunted for cor-pletian of the conditions of approval f:or Conditional Use Permit
No. 1470, said exCension of time to expire ari June 27, 15175.
ITEM N0. 4
VARIAIJCE N0. 2599 - Request for exten.aion of time -- Froperty
consisting of approximatel.y 1.4 acr~s, having a frontage of
approximr~tely 260 feet on the ncrthear~t aide of Anaheim
Boulevard, being located approximutely 200 £eet tiorCh of the
centerlina af Puc~fico Street, and fu~'ther describec'. aA
1922-30 South Anahai.m Boulevard,
The Staff Report tu the Planning Commisaion dated 2~iy 28, 1975, was presented and made a
part of the minutPa.
Commiasionex King noted that he and Cc~mmisaioner Morley had checked the sub,ject property
ln the field and they could confirm that it was kept nest and clean, and the spplicant was
apparently living up to Che conditi.ona of approval.
It was noted thae Variance No. 2599 was grunted by the Planning Commiaeion on Mr-y 13,
1974, to eatablieh an ~tuto leaeing agency on khe sub~ect property, eaid approval being
granted for a period of one year in order. to determine whether an adverse effect would
result from the granting of the Variance~ and sub~ect to review and con°ideration for
extenaion by the Planning Commission upon written request by the petiti.~,ier; that 5taff
~
....
~
^~
~
MINU'1'L:S, CITY ~'1.ANNING COMMISS70N, May 28~ 1975 75-2T1
I1'EM N~. 4 (Caiiti~iucd)
hrad inspected the sub;~ect pzoperty in the ficld fmd ttie ueN did not ~ppeer to be deCri•-
mental to the eubJect pruperty nor to have en adver~e t.mpact c,n th~ eurro+.inding l.etnd u~c~e;
Cl-et parki.ng w,~y adequnr.e tor the existin~, LndueCriiil ru~plex; thHt ttie cxiRting c~igning
was in nccurdu:ic,e wtth Code requir.ementg; ttiar *_he properCy appeared to be utilized in
acr.ordnnce with ehe conditione oP appzovRl of the ve-riunc~; und that thc flppl.ican~ wae
requasCi~g an indefi.nite extension oE tlrae be granted for Vnrlance Nr~. 255~9.
(:ommiseioner King of.fered u motion~ ~ecanded by Cocnmiasionrar 'folar and MO'I'1UN CAR1tIED
(Commi.esionet .lohneoti being absent) , ti~nt a two-yesr. extene~ian o[ time be nnd herPby ir~
~3ranted for ~ari.flnce No. 2599, eald exteneion ~f time Co be retroactive to t~lny 13, 1975
nnd ko expir~ on May I3~ 1977, siib~ect to riview nnd conaiderAtlon for f.ur.ther c~xten~~ione
of kime~ upon wri.tten request by Cl~e ~etitiuner.
ITEM N0. 5
kLACS AND BANNERS - City Council Yolicy adopted Muy 27, 1975.
7.oning Sup-;rvisor c:liarles Robects noted for information only, Cliat the (:ity Council in
their meet inf.; on i~tuy 27 ~ 19'S, a3~ptQd s pelicy ~l~ni+.ng with the plucement of fla$a r~nd
bannera nt mo~lel home complexeH; that eaid policy woul.d allow two f].aga or bannera per
mudel uni~., or a maximum o£ 1Q fl~ge or banners per co~upl~:x; that said pulicy appl.ied to
mulCiple-Eamily ss well as si.ngle-family developmeoCs an~ included a height and time
limikaticn, w~th Che flags and banners to be flown only on weekenda and holidAys; that no
chat~ge, ~-~hatsoever, was made or directed to the Sign Ordlnance; that the palicy relaCed to
identificatlon at the model comple z Co attract peoplP; that flag5 and Uanners were
pxohibited in the FresenC Code and recent c~nforcemecit of the requiremente by Staff. had
hrou~ht the mutter to the attention of the Cit~ Council by a developer; and that SL•aff wa~3
directed to ~~udy the tutal issue for review and consideration b,y the City Counci.l at a
laCar ~iate.
tTEM N0, 6
REDEV~LOPA~NT PROJECT ARFA BETA
Assistant Development Services Director Charlea Robe~ts noted £or the Ylamzing Cummission
that at the City Coun~=it meetiitg of May 27, 1975, Mr. Claude Pomeroy had made a narrated
slide presentation regarding tbe public x~eJ.ation~ aspects af rede•~elopmen[; that the City
Council ha~. appeared to be quite impressed with th: presentation and Mayor Tho-n it-quired
of Staff what the ~lanning Commission'3 current thinking was regar.ding revis3on of the
proiect area boundaries f.or ltedevelopment ProJect Seta; that Stat•f tiad adviFed r.he Ma,yor
Chat the matter had not be?n considered E,ince the Work Session which was held on May 14,
].975, wich the communit:y, however, the Planning Commieaion wauld make a rer.ommendation to
the City Couiicii a3 30G'1 as po:~sible on that matter.
Chairman Herbat noted that the Plannin~s Commisaion was under rhe impreasion that the
presaure for Beta was oft, time~wise; wtiereupot~, Mr. Roberts noted that the July 1, 1975
target date previ~usl~~ considered wus to free~e l•he assessed property valuatior. within the
project area Be*a, however, it was e~ident that auch c- deadline could not poasibly be met
due. co the uncertainty of the bc~~mdaries ar thia poinC in time. Mr. Roberta further noted
tt~flt ik wa~ the Mayor's desire to s~•e Beta proceed as eoon as possible.
Cheirman Eierbst auggeated that ano~ner work sePSion be scheduled to for.m.,late dir~ction in
wh~ch to proceed, and noted. that {~r.~iox to the Flenning Commission mee.ting witt~ the com-
arunlty aga•ln. a preaentat~on shou;.d Ue prepared [o include visual ma~cerial.s; that the
Planniag Commission needed to gi~z specific direction to Staff for preparatinn of the
preaentation~ which would includ.: modela to demonatrate to tk-e people exactly how many
h~uses~ stre~te~ etc., would be involved in the corridors; that alternatlve mo3els might
demondlrate the expansion of. Al,~ha to include the corridors; and, in his opinion, the City
Coiincil was waitiitg for the Plr,nning Commiseion to make amended recommendakions regarding
the boundarieo for Beta.
Commieaioner Farano noted that: he hoped there was no inferrence of urgency with reapect to
Che City Council's wlsheA in t}te matter; that the P3anning Commisaion was unde'c the impres-
sion el~at they could proceed in keeping w:Lth good prackicea; that he was not sure to what
extent the Planning Commiesi.on could makP recommendations until the conaultant's report
~
~
~
~
M1NU'I'LS, .r,ITY P1.ANNIN~~ CUMMT.SSTON, May 18, 1975 7,-~7z
r.~TGM No. 6 (co~f.i.riuc:d)
and recommendation reg~rding A.lphA wc+re ~vailublc~ and er.udl.od, oin~:e the r.onrcnt.+ of Ram~
would be ia-p~rCane to know; and, therefore~ any •rFCO~raienda41on4 frc~m the I'].c~nn~ln~ Commi~:-
ei.on ~hould be f.oreKCalled on Ghat baaie. kle contin~~ed b~ euggeNCing that when lhc~
Pl.anning Co,nmiesJ.un makee any further recomm~md:-tionn ka the Ctty Councll, Haid recaimn~nda-
l•ions ehould be r~ccompanied by u con~ploto pA<:k~ge4 irtcludlnq recomcnend~stiona II,y to the
manner in which the prugrcun nhouJ.d he prea~nt~~'. to t.hc~ ~.iti.zgnca; khat the mann~:r nn~.1
mutariala p~~sented to the citizens tl~us far 1.£t HomeChing ko be dseired; nnd thnt poesibly
u~i unofficlul prn~ert nrei~ commi.ttee ar ad ho. ~itizer.ca group Ahould bP f~oz-~n~eci wl~ich w~.,,r.d
decide liow thQ program wc~a tu Ue pc~eenCed, i~~c].udAnR whn[ informat~on wa:a nec~.a~enry to bQ
relayed al1LI t`,e techniquee necedeary to clenrly nnd complQtely convey the px~ ~grum to ch.
community.
Commissiouer Gnuer noCed that :i pr.ojec~ area c~m;nitCr.e hnd heen formed for A1pha and thnC
there would also l,e a homeowiiera group formfd i~nder Che direction, o[ Mrs. Mary Dinnd~~rf
frum the Sanr~.a An~- Canyun TmNroveroent. Ae~soctnC~on, 'nc.
Chalnnan Herbet noted Chat iie w~oiild like Cn aee eowe w~rk being doiir.. witti re~pect to
prov:iding rhe ~Lnimal corridura that were needed ~or. A1i~hK. and a larQer corrido1• deve].-
aped if Che people bnck:i.ng up to the ~vrri.dor wiehed to nave it; that many alternat.ivea
d~.Rpa.3YE'.d on epecia.l maps, and not ;Juat o~:~ map ehowi;ig ~:vQrything, ehou.td be utili.zed in
the pr.ogrnm af detc:z~minin~, che bounduries ~nd d.irectfon f~c prQp~ration of the mape coulr,
be genc~rated s:id developecl through Flanning Comm:LsAion work seeaions wlth Staff on the
marrer,
Comm~s~lo~~er L'arano inquired as to wt-eti the con~ult~nt's preliminary repor.ts on A1phA were
for-:}icoming. Deputy City Attorney Malcolm 5laught•er xeplied thaC Co his underdtandi;ig the
preliminxry dr.ufts would be reaeivEd i.n Che~. next cuuple of: weeks. Commisaioner Far~no
sxpiAined thnt many times when the Comniasion pLalted towar.d de.adllnaso kt~ey ended ~ap
having t~~ repeat their efforts and, additionally; coc~ting the Caxpayers money; thnt he did
not feel uue step should be tak.:n reg:irding [ieta unlese and unCil r.he Comm.teaiun knew Eor.
sure where they were going; that he w~uld suggest that tne Planning Commiasion ~~end a
mensc-ge to tt~e City Cuuncil that no recommendatfons be required at this time, pendii-g
receipt ~nd study of the ,~relicuinary reports; and that the Planning Commission would
proceeG to formu].at~, plans aad recom~nendaCione as to how the pr~gram ahould F,e preaenr.ed
Co the ciCiaena~ .ncluding informat~.on as to the selection of ~.he Projpct Ar.•Pa Committee.
Commiasioner Farano further noted Chafi it apgeared the program was proc~ed~ng in a ver~
whimsical fashion; and that, in his opini.on, each portion of Che progrnm :.hould be acted
upon by the CiCy ::ouncil.
Mr. Sl~~uahter n~ted for the Planning Commiasion that the procedure bei.ng impZemented was
accor~ .ng to the strict guidelines aet forth by the law; that the City Coiincil had Acted
uporl statement of policy~ in which the Staff hud reconunended that 10 members of the
Pr~ . Are~ Coaenittee be elected by the property owners within the project area and the 5
r~"tij, r..ng members he Kelected by the City Council; and that all :.~embers of the committee
~ -~,;ul:•,~~ to meet the atatutory requirements, having a veated inCerest in the area.
mr,~ fi~--b~t then noted that the legal posaibility and financial burden should be
.. ,,r,a. r• cnns•lder ezcpanding tilpha to include the corridora; that other cities had
.•,~~it~ :aeir pro~ect ureas and Anaheim shoui_d be able to do so also; and ~hat he was
,~~~~:., rur every alternative available tu provide t~~~ necessary corridors. He referred
~ - recent expansion of the Clty Qf Santa Ana's redevelopment pro~ect area,
~~r. .'la~ghter advised that aome time ago qiiestione were raiaed regarding the poasibility
~_ ~xpanding Pro~ect Alpha and it was riecided to Leave it aloi-e in ita present form,
!rnough he did not know preciaely what legal problems might arise if th~~ Citv Council ~a3
~~~ re,open said project.
~'~mmissioner Tolar inquired if the six ma~or redevelopment pro~ects in the City of Long
;~~h, the least of which was costing appro•~imate].y ~6 millian, were being conetructed
wi:h redevelopment funda or through privatE enterpriae. Mr. Slaughter advined that unlesa
::ie building would be occupied by a public tenant, then the redevelopment funds could not
-e spent, ~,ice said funds cnuld not be used to build private structures, however, [he
redevelopm.:nt funde coul~ build aitea for private structures.
~
...~
~
~
~
!f]NU'TIs5~ CI.T`l 1'1.ANNING COhiMISSION~ May 28. 1975 15-273
L'1l:M N0. 6 (CuoCinui:d)
Coaw~esionar CAUer diecuesed o~-ae o£ the pr.oceedln~;s uf ineecings ~f the citlzene Ch~l hnd
nlxa~dy benn lield in whlr.h ballots hud been caeat for citi.^.en~ to esrve or~ the commitkee
for Alphf- and Eal.7.owi.ng the above in~ui.ry of Cominioaioner Tolor and Ghe responee khereto,
he nok9d that ~nmc: clari£icr.Ci.on wae apparently •need~d einc.o mrmbere o£ thc~ Hartfleld
family were preRent at th~ l~teet of euch mceCinga anJ wae eF ihe upinlotl thnC redeve'1-
op;nent funde w~~uld bc~ uaed to improve their buildinga within tt~4 pr.~j~ct are•~ nnd that
Chey would r~:Cain awnershi.p thereof; and that, in his opinion. Che propartq m~ty be acquired
by Cha City, cleared off, and eold bnck to the property ownec. Mr. Slaughter then cl.~ri-
fied thtt deaisions concerning acquiAiti.on, Ptc.~ had not yet beem m~dcs.
Commiseianer Farano poeed a hypothetical situation~ i.e., if he awned property wi.thin
Frojeck Alpha~ he could go to the Redevelopment A~ency with plnne and r~queec and receive
redevelopment funde Co improve hie property, and thnC he ~rould be aLle to retain legal
ownarehip in auid proparty. riz. Slaught~r advise~l thnt aofluming khaE: the auppused use of
the property compllad with the redevelopme.nt p1An, t.he pxoperCy owneX could conceivably
enter into an agre~ment aettl.ng fortc- ~•ighto and obllgaCions whereiu the Redevelo~:ment
Agency might oblig~ite itaeZ£ to spending mociey for.~ public impravemenCe adJacenr. to the
proparty~ atc,, howaver, the Agency might u].so rr_~trict the use uf the property tor a
certain period of time~ etc.~ under th~ wntract• or agrecmcnt; ~nd that thp Agency could
not make improvemente ka the building ltself, only public i.mpr~vementa.
Commiseionsr Farano made an ubaervation that the;re would be eome very definite advantages
to the individual property owners in the projecC area if they decided to redeve7op or Co
give their properCies a£RCe-lifting; how•~ver, tt~e citizena did ttot presently understand
the program and that wa~a the prime problem invol~~ed.
Thereupon~ Commiseioner Facano offered a motioii ehat the Plam~ing Commisaian docs t~ereby
convey to the City Council that an amen~~ed recc~wnsndation regarding Redevelopment Project
Beta sh~uld not be forthcaming from the Planning Cammiasior. until such time as the pre-
Ii~inary reporta from Che consultanCs regardl.nK Pro~ect Alpha have been received and
studied by thie Commisaion; that, :1-~ the -neantime, Che Commission will meet in work aeseiona
with Staff to dirpct and organize the furmulati~n of recommendations for pr~sentstion to
the Redevelopment Agency f~r adoption and util.izaC:Lon by City Staff in orientinE and
educating the C:ltizena of the City of Anat-eim, saicl recommendationa to include, but not be
limited t~, procedures for se~.ection uf the P~~o~ect Area Committee, communicaCion programs
to adequately and effectively inForm the commelnity, and maps and/or modela to demonstrate
poasible ~lternative plana or solutions for b~~undaries for ProjecC Beta and/or ex~anaion
of Alpha to pr.ovide adequaCe coxridora to ser~:e Project Alpha.
In reaponae to quesCioning by Commieaioner Gatier., Mr.. Slasghter confirmed tt~at the Redevelop-
ment Program could be atopped by the Ageucy at: any poinC in time, c~onaistent with any
financial obligations that might have been inr.:urred pr.ior to that time.
Thereupon~ Commieoioner Gauer seconded the fot•egoing motion and said MOTION CARRIED
(Commi.ssioners Morley and Tolar voting "no", and CommiF~eioner Johneon being absent).
Chairman Herbat suggested that a work session be acheduled for Wednesday~ .June 4~ 1975, at
7:00 p.m., in r.he Council Chamber and that the Redevelopment Department Staff be invited
to atCsnd to ~ain input for the preparation of the material being sougnt by the Planning
Commiaeion and as aet forth in the foregoing m,otion.
AD.IOUN.NMCNT - There being no further business tu di.acusa, Comm~iet~loner King
offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Farano and MA'TION
CARRIBD (Commieaioner Johnaon being abFtient), ta udjourn the
meeting to a Work Session on June 4, 1975, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Cnuncil Chamber.
The meeting ad~ourned at 4:45 p.m.
R.espectfully sub~niCted,
/~ ,
~ ~' . ~.~~.~.J
,~
Patricia B. Scanlgnti• Secr.etary
Az-aheim City Planning Cummisaion
PBS;hm