Minutes-PC 1976/08/16•
~_; } l, y I la:l. l
~tiai~c+im, Cn11.1':~r~t~lu
~~i~,i ;t, l.(;, .l.~ll~;
fZB'.(rULAI~ NII~~1C1'II`1li Ol~' `I'tff~l AfIA1ll~1T~,1 UT'I'Y f'LiF1IJP~17:NU CUR~1M1,'„'LuN
tZI:GUI~n -• A reEn;'Lar meoting of the Aiielioirn City P].attni.ng Cumml~:~.tu~i wa~, o-..ll.od tu
M1~fi~llTl(3 urdor Ly l;hai.rtnaii Johr~:~on ~t :l;?i~ p.m. , un A~.~gunt .LG~ ].'1/G, tti Lhe CounCl.l
Chamber•, a q~ior~im beiiig p~•~~~oiit,
PR11;3?~Pl'1' - CHAlRM~N: John~on
COt~QviT:~;;TONEIZ;: 13arnAe, I'are~~to, FIc~r~~t, KirF'~ Morley, '1'o.lnr
~
AI3SPPPl' - CUMMI,~SIONI~;[il~: None
AI,;;~ T'It}iL`;(~Tl`l' -
i~ ratik Lowry
Pts~il ;~inger
Jay 'Pitus
Annilcn ,~antal4hti
Phil.lip 3chwartz
J'. Ta~hir~o
i e Lri oia f?na~~lan
Uoputy City Ati:urney
'1'ral'f.'~c I~;ne.lnoer
Off'ioe T;rigii~eer•
Assi^Lant Planni.tiG Diroctor-°~->nin~z
A~soci+ite I'].c~ruior
P,ssi~i,ftnt P7 anner
['le~uiin(r Commission ;;~oretary
PLI~;llGE Ur - Commiss'~oner Barnes led the I'ledge of Allegianoa to the b'lag ~f the Ur.i Led
AI,LEGIANCE 51;ates of' America.
APPROVA.L OF - Coaw~issioner King offered a motion, secouded by Cou~missiur.er Morley, and
TE~; yTTdUTFS 6".0`.~IM CARRIED (Commise,ionors Barnes and F'arano tiUS~;B.1I11C1g si.nce they wero
not preseni; at the meoi:.ing iil question )~ LY~9Lt the miz~utos of the Joint
City Counail~i'lanning l~oaunissl~n '+Vork ~iB95~OT1 held on reb-•uary 4, 1'~ IG, be
and heroby are ~ppr~oved, as e~-ibmitted.
Cotnmi~sioner King ~ffered a motiou, ~ec~.>nQed by C~>mmis~ionor Herb9t, and
MOTION CARI~TI,D (Commissioners Faranu and Herbst abe~tai.ni~i~ s.ince they wore
not present a,t the meoting in question ), that i.he minutes of the re6~ ~lar
Planning Commission meeting held oi~ Ju1y 1`~, 197F~, be e.nd her•eby aro approv4d,
as submii;ted.
VARIAiJCE N0. 2f311 - CONTINUED PUBL.ZC HEARITIU. TIiG UWFN COMPANY', 7UU Wi1130UeSoiil;htAtiaheim
Los Angele°, Ca. ~JQ017 (Owner); HARDTN OLDSMOBILL,
I3oulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 9~3~5 (~~ont); requostirig WANI!,1~ OF (A)
MpgZM(JM M1MB~R OF Ff~E-STAIQDING SIixNS, (B ) P~IAXIMUM S:iGN AFi~A, (C ) FERMIT'I'ED LOC~TION OF
FREE- STANDING SIGNS ~(D ) iviINIMUM DISTANC~ '3FT'ulrEN FRE'~~- S7'ANDIDIG ,~ICTN~ ~ ANll (E ) MAXIMUM ~IGPI
AREA WTTHIN `I'I-IE REQUIRED SETBACK, TO CON:~Tf~UC'i' F~T7 ADDT.T]:ONAL FftEE-STN~iDIT~G ,~IGN on property
de~cr•ibed as a reatangularly-shapod paroel of land oonsisting of approxiaiately L.1 ucras
having ~ frontRgo of approxi.mately 2F3U foot on the oas't side of Anaheim Duulovard, heving a
maximum dept,h of approximately 335 foot, bei.ng looated approximatel,~ 75U feot ~;outh of the
cen+erline of' $all Rosd, and f'ui•ther desaribed as 13U0 ~outh Anaheim Boulevard. Prooerty
presently classif ied ML (IrIDUSTRIAL, LIMI'PED )'LONE.
Deputy City At+,orney Fran~ '.~ov~ry advised ~hat at tho Plarining Qommission meeting held ori
August "L, 197~, a resolut: ^:1 1485 offered to t~pp-•ove the subject propo~al, '~owever, the vote
was 3 to 3 and the matter was continued tv tlii~ meeting for a fl~ll Commission.
Chairman Johnson ir~quirod if the petitiorier had any new evidenoe +o preseiit regardiiig tht~
proposal. Mr. Dennis H~rdin indicated in the negative.
Commiasi~~~ier Herbst offered Resolutinn No. PC16-152 and moved for its pas~age and adoption,
thet the Anaheim City Planning Com.;:i~sior: d~es hereby grant ~etition for Variance Nu. 2811,
grantirig all of the roquested waiver=~ in conneotion with ttie oonstruction of ar. additional
free-standing sign on the basi.s that the new siSn replace:~ a non-oonfurming sign whiah has
existed on the sub,}oot property for• a 9ubstantlnl period of time; that the to1;K1 sign area
proposed is approximataly 13 square ~eet more than tho sign area previously en,'~oyed by the
properi:y; that ttie pe~itior.er proposes to advertise two ~eparete and di~tlnct produ~ts (auto-
mobiles) and, therefore, i~equires two ~ign3; and that the extsting signs on the property hava
not bben detrim~n~tal to the area and the petitionei••ha~ removed the illegal sign:~ frum the
property and dec trated a desiro to improve tha property; said var•ianoe boing gran~ted subjject
to the Intordepar~mental Cnaunittee ro~ammendation3. (See C~esolutior~ I3ook)
76-3G~)
~
•
Jf~_37~.~
MTNIPI'Ii;;;, ANA-i[+TM CTTY l'I,AIJNTNCi COMMI;;;,TON, ~~t~r~.iet 1C~, I.'~i~~,
VAHIANCr N~). 2ti1'1 (Conlsi.nuod )
Comm~ssioner Kir~g ~ioted thnt th~ p-•opusud si~~ii:i w~~•o not, i}~o typ~ ~u~~.ie~7.7" ;~e~an ~tiLc~~iKi~~il~nd]-~i
Avemae, t,ut ware vory at~tra~~tive; aud t,hnL Lho ;~uU,jecC p~•~pai•1,y wn^ kc~pl, clc~ar; -- 6
3Pfltl~
CheirmRri Jotln~ n noted the~t he was uonac~rned ~bout ~.hd uthei~ driel.er~:ihip:, iri ttio arec~ w~~u
u~igh~- also wau. :~ign varianoes; h~~wover, tr~ ~ub,}eot, petit,1~~119C WC1:3 ap~,nrenL:Ly ~31mp1.;~
~ipdating :31gne whioh had been existin~; on ~ho p~~~perL.y for ~ume time.
C;ui~ ui:i~i unoi• l~'ai•ano nutod th~t approv;.1 of a va~'ianoe .3h~~~ild b~ U~s:~ed tipon h~sc~dsl-~ip; tilat i,liN
patitlori~t~ tiaJ iridicated prc~vic~.iyly tlic~t hl;~ l~i~~ines:, had N,i•owti i,u ~txch nn oxtent ttiat, l~~
noudod siEms Por adverti~ement a-id, theref.'ore, nu nc~~.~d:~l,i.~ wa~ bt~ing domon~tral,ed frr~m i,iiu
vir~wpuint of needtng Uusine~s; tha1; it would hu dif.i'io~i].t to roooncil.e ~:he sub,'~eo~~iee1,os~~
with th~ tll(SCIy ~~ther r~que=?ts that had boeii recoived i.ii 1,ho po3t: 1'oi• :3:lmilar :,ig . ,
c~~p~oially at i;he shopping oetiter:~ where til1dT'EI wa~ a m~icti greater hard3hip than th~~ :~~.~b,joct
E~ropo~a].; Lhat everyono knew thai: HOIlC~g ELUt~;nobile:~ wero bein~, :3old ai; tho sut~,lea6 ~looEtt;ton
d~ae t;a tlio dilfurent types ~~f. advertii:~in~ which Mi•. Har~din wt~:: ut:ili.zing; that he aE~roed witt~
Commiseionot• King *,hat the subjeat fe.cilitie.t wore well.-lcep~:, howavor, thA si.~~i:~ which had
}~eon romovod frc~m •the property were i17.ega:L and sh~ljld not t, giv~~n any cunsideration i.,~ thi.s
mcii;l;er; c~nd the~t no hardship wa:, being demunstrated within the reRl. meuning of the ;;ign Ordiri-
onco.
Commissioner Tolar r~oted •thai; ho a1.so agreo~l lhat the sub,ject £aailitic~s wero a aloan opc~ra-
tion; huwHVer•, the signs proposed wore in viu].ation of the '~gl`lnc~reaQeoi,hei~ vi:illFJ~~, n0i;
1'eel 1;here was any busine:;s in the City whiah wou7.d r~o1, liYe
pototitial ln terms of inoreased businosa or Qotivity; that t,he Hor~da bu~i.~~ess a't the yub,ieot
location had c~oc+lly grc•~un, as indioatajd bY Mr. Hardin, and for ~;tiat ^r~asoii he did not under~-
stand what the hardship was; that, in tiis opitiion, a very uilc.los.'~r•able preaedent w~~uld be set
if the subjact pi•oposal were granl;ed; thst he did noi; undbr•3tand how more sig-iin~3 wo~zld brin«
moro bu~i.nos:~ ~o the ~ub,joct location; and i;hat the Cii;y had ~ good ;lgn Qi•~linance and, to
grar.i: a v~rianoe without a hardship, w~>>.l]d be o diffioult task for lii.m to ~.indortake.
Commissi.orier~ Barries noted tha1, the petitioner~ had indicated tha~L fiond~ di.d not hc~ve a.~ip;ri
smalJ_ erio~igh ~;o :eplaoe ~the old sign and, ir~ lier ~pinion, it wa~ ~s ~hamo i;o a11ow oai• dealer~s
to violc~te +.h~ Sign Ordinanue on that basis.
Chairma~i Johrison mado an observat,ion that, if a mari w[is renewing an exis~irig sign, ho v~ould
not have to come before the Commission to do so, A~sistant Planning Dir~eci~or•-Zonir,g Annika
Santalah~i advised that if an i.llegal or non-conforming ~ign w~as talcen down and rebui].t, eto. ,
it would havo to aomo to the City For ~pproval.
Commissionor Farano noted that a Honda ~ign was presently mountod belcw tho Uldsmobile sign
or~~~ho sub,;ect property; the't, if granted, the reason would appear to bo based upon the
r•~presentatio~i that Honda did not `:~'.'° ~• 4ign or the appropriate size sign which could be
aonsolidated with the Gldsmobile sign; however, presently the ~~igning was cotisolid~~;ed, bu't
apparently the Honda sign was not as large as tvir. Hardin wanted it to be and so a separats
sign was Uoing requested.; and that if the City were to st~rt dealing with the sh~pping centez•
t~nants on i.t~e same kind of basis for signing, he Yalt thei•e would be serious resultant prob-
J.ems .
Ch~irmaii Juhnson notsd that he would find it dif'iiuult co vote ag~~.inst a man who was ti•yin~
to i.mprove his property and the City of Anaheiui.
Oii r•oll ca17., the foregoing r•esolution v~es passed by ~th~ folluwing vote:
pyES ; COtvII~I,ISSIOA'ERS : IiERBST. , KING, MIIRLEY , JOHi1S0IQ
IQOES: CONIIuIISSIONERS: BARN~S, FARANO, TOLAR
AIiSF~~1T: COI+RdI~SiONEF.S; ?~IONFL'
~
~
~
P~1TiJ1J'ii~;;;, nr~r~ti~,lM CI'L`Y PLf1JQNIN(} COMM7:~;;;!(JN ~~1i.~g~~s1, 1G ~ 1.~) /l~ !(~_:3 / l
,,,~, ~~, ~~~~,;,~~mT~z,rr, nnr~r.i~n rn~~niaTUr;_ ;t1;;~i'A'i'L UE' ADOL['H ~7. ;;CliIPL"1.'IC, c~u A.Laii
r~riv i i~~nv~vu•,~~ 4.... ~.,......,.
7. ,'+s
Ill~il'U(?'1' N~) - •---- --- -- -- ' r ~ ~ ~ :~i)U1.1
'Pc~li, , r',.1.5 ;~utti.tt l~':low ;,i,r~~e t, ;,u:l ~u tiUt, L~~s An ~e7 os Ca.
.
---- ((lwne~)~ TFIH; PJ(11tMTNU'l'ON C;OMP11Ml, u~o VJa].Let• Cuur•:j~n, 1.7f;ksi~ ,1ky 1'c~rk
TCA'('It)I;
I~1~l~,IJ1;;;~II' Cirole, ;~uito 7~~!~, Tz•vin~, Cu, ";~7~)7 (Ageiit), l'roport,y de.icril~~d
.
iu- / 1-Z
NU n:; ati irrogu:l.a~•:Ly-sl~~ttp~d pnroU7 ~7' l.ttnd oun:;i::ti.n~? c,l' a,~,pruxl.mntel.y
'
,
-. "'..~'~ ---- ]3a11 ftoucl
:l'7 n~sres loouted ;sc>~ithe~:i~, ul' tha ;~o~ithoa:it a~,l•nei• ~~i
V~ltIAiJCI~; N~1. :'ti.l4 ~snd ,lunkl~t Strci~t, hnvin;~ appi~ox.tmato fi~r~ni;nF;o:~ ~~f .LlU 1'~et o-i th~
'
;~unlci;;t,
~ouLll :;ide of 13e7.1. H~~n~l und 12~)U 1'~At ~~c~ !;tie c~u:;~~ 31de c,i
51;roat, and havir~~; u mnxim~~m de~~tl1 ~f' c~pp~.'~~xi.matol.y ~UU Yoot.
Pi~oport;~ preac~ni;ly c1a;~:iified ii;~••11-~:;,~.~~~ ~ ilU~~;1Ti)1~lIJ'~TAI,~AGIZ:[CUT11'ULtA1~)
7,Oh'!~;.
~i~C,t11!;;;'I'T~~D Ci~A;;SI'FICATI(1N: Ith!-•1UU~ (RT;7DI!1PJTIAL, IvfU1JI'IPI~!,-}~AMILY) LONE.
RECiU{!;S7'T!~D VARIANCL: F1AN1?It ~l~' (A; MINIMIJM 9'JILDIPdG :11'ild Afu~JA PI!~I~ DVJPL,L.LN(.'r UDIT'P, (13) t~tnxr.r~r~
BUT.LDTNG HFTGf-1T, (C ) MARIMUM WAI~Ta IiA;:[C,[1T, AND (D) MIIJIMIJM iJTJMi3E;1~ OF
L~'NCLOSED P/1RKINCr SPACli~i ~ TU C~N:~TRUC`I' T.12 COND:IMTNIUM ~IVf~L,LT.NG ;.
It wnr; notod t;h~zt the patiti.on f'or R~cltts:31.1 LCQ1;~.~~il No. 7G~ 77-2 wao-~ continued f.rom tho
Pt~nning Commi.~3~011 meatiing of July 7, 1`)7~~, ati the roquest of t11e petil;lo,lor in ordor to
adverl:ise a varianoo in oon,juncti~~n th~rewi.'~h; and from the meo+,ing of Ju.l,y ]'~, 197G, at
the ro7uosl, of the petitioner.
It was further noted that the petition~r' V,'tl3 req;~e^~ ~~~~ thc~t tha :~ub,'.eot items be furthor
oontinuod tio th~ Plannin~ Commission meet,ing of n,~ust 3i), 1~J7G, ln ordor for the General
Plan Ameridmont No, 1~0 on subje~t proporty t~ t,u coneidered by ttio City Cuunuil pr•ior• ~to
I'lamlitig Commission oonsider~e,tion of the sii' jc~ot it~ms.
Comn~issianer T~orley offered a motion, ~oconded by Commissioner Farano, and MOTI~TI CARRIED,
thnt the Anaheim CitY Plannin~ Commis5ior, does hereUy i'urthor oontiuue the pablic he~ring
and oonsider•~tioii of petitinns for Reciassifi.aation I~o. 76-77-2(Readve~~i;ised) and Variai~ce
No. 2814, and Environmontal Impsct Report No. 178, i:o the Planning Cumm ~sion mee+:ing oi'
Au~~.tst 3U, 1~~16, as requestsd b~ L-he petitionor•.
ENVIRONTrIGNTAL Ia1PACT - CON`PINUED PU~BLIC HLARJI~G. JANIES S. G[Z1:~GG, R~YMOPiD G, SI~~iP50r1,
kLPORT N0. 17~ JOHIC S. FLUOR AND ftUBERT D. SYURGEUN, c/o Ceoil C. Wt•i~ht,
-- 60 Pl.aza Squaro, Orange, Ca. ~266fi (Owners); Del Pradu Company,
COfJDITIONAL USE ].2861 West Street, Grsrdon Grcve, Ca. ~J264U, and CECIL C. l"' IGHT,
PERMTT N0. 1G3?. 6U Plaza Squsre, Oi•ange, C~, y2666 (1lgents); reque:,ting permi~sion
- ~to establish a 209-SFACE MUBILEHOtv1E PARK WITH NJANER OF MINIM[iM
STRUCTUt~L SETBACK or~ proporty desci•ibed as an irregul~srly-shaped
parcel of 1.arid consisting of npproximately 3'L.2 acres located northeasterly of the
interseotion of' Cerritos Avemxe and Sunki~t 5treet, having a fronCage of approximately 'I~3
feet on the east side of Sunkist Stree~: and having a maximum depth of ~pproximately 1335
feet. Propetty presently olassified RS-A-43,ODU (Eik~SIDk;NTIAL/AGRICULTUKI~L) ZONE.
It was noted i~rat the sub,'eut itoms were continued from the Planning Couuni.ssion meetings
of Ju1y 7 and l~a, 1976, at; the requost of the pei;itiocier.
It was fttrther noted that the petitioner was i~equesting that the suUject item~ be cont:irnxod
an additiona]. two weeks.
Commi~sioner Morle.y offe^ed a mo•tion, seaonded by Commissioner Farano ar:d M(7~ION CARRIED,
tha^ the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby f'urther oontinue the public hearing
and consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 179 and Conditional tJse Permit No.
7.632 to the Planning Commission meeting oP August 30, 1976, as requested by the pe+itioi:er•
~
~
„ ~ , , , , , ~ r> 1'+1C> 7G-3;'l.
MTtJU]1~~;,, nr~r~t~;,TM (.I1'Y E1~"NIN(3 COMP,~I;;;;7'Of1, A~~;~i;i~ L_ ~
lu?~CI.~A;~,;f:~':[CA'I'TOI~I - COrPP1.MJrD 1'U['LTO [II~IAFICNG. `I'c~M'(.'. n~vn ct~n~~I11~Y tii.pE~,, 1"1'{~~ }~;e:it C}~iLe
N0. 76-17-4 ;~treet, Anaheim, Ca. ~JfSL)~I. ~~)WClf31'7); S'iA'l9il-WIn}~~ TNVLl;t7''.?li;~~ LNC.,
"'- - ^ n3it I~,ast 1. ~Lh ,Il,r•~ot, I~otig I3unc;h, CK, ~r.)t~U~l (llgent ), I'ru~~ert,y
VA:iIANCi~~ N0. %!S]3 dec~oribod e:t H rc~r,t,~~i~;~.iltsi•7.y-she.p~ci par•uel of la~~d oon~+int,iri~{ oC
-~ npproximutoly ~l," ncro, ho,vi.i~g t~ i'r~~r~Lngo uf ttip{i~~oxirant,o:Ly ll.'~ 1'eoL
ort the no~~tti ~ide ot' ;;ct~r~i~na ;,t;red~, a mKximu~ depth ot' n~i~~t~oxlnu3t,c~:Ly
3ctU i'eet, beln~ 1.ocnted approxlmai;e7.y '~~~~ t~~~~t, wo:~t, uf th~ oentt~r'li~ie of' h:nutt ,ltreet culd
t'urtlier d~~cri-~ed n:~ 35;3`.~ Savar;na Stro~t. Yr~,E~u~•~,y 4~r~a:~ent:ly cl.n:;:iii'i.ed li;;_p_~3,U,~v
(ftl~lt~IUL;N'1'IAI,/A~3EiICUI11'i1RA1,) 'I,ONb;.
lu!;~?Ul~,;~l'Ell CLA:~,~IT'TCA'1'IUTJ : [~M-1?UU (t~i~;STDEtd`1'IAI,, Ml1UI':iP1~C-1~'AMII,Y ) ~ OTJI~;.
[~~!UP;'~ I'I~~D VARIANCI~ : WANL;Ii OF (A ) tdAX:[M1iD9 I3UILD.ING IILTGtPP ,(D ) PdINIMUM DT;;'1'Il~JC1I!, I31~"I'Wb7rIJ
F3UILd)IIJG;! ANU (C ~ Itli~:~1JI:lt}~~D :~I'~ll ;3CR}!IEPdIN(~, `TO ~JO~I:~'.L'CiUCT A 2k~-UNIT
AI'ARTtvU±,NT COMPI,FX.
It wa~ noi:ed L•hat ~the ~ub,joui: petitions were OOTl~].Il~lbd fc•um t,he Planr~iri~ C~uuni.:~r~i on m~,ei,i.rig
of Ju1y 1'J, 1~~76, for fui•thor infoi~m~~,lori co~lcer~uir.g dY•aino,go ~7•ar~es alonlT ;;ovrinnn ;~trc~~>t.
Appr•oxini~Le7.y 2t3 persons iridicatod i,t~oir• pr~rsriiloo in o~p~sition to s~~L, eoi, p~3l;itiun:~.
Assiatant Planning Direotor-7,onin~ An~~:i}:a Seintalcihti. rc~nd i,he Stafi Repoi•t t~~ the Plannin~r
Commissiori datod August 16, 1976, and ~a1d :~taff fteport i~~ roferred to as i.i' :~el; 1.'orth 9.n
f~~].l in 1',ho min~.ites.
Mr. Riohc~rd Bowen, the a~ent for the petit.ioner•, appoar•od bofor•e the Plarin9.n~ Commis~ion
r~iid r•eqt~osted i;hat ~zn adcitional 3()-day OOI1t111UQ~IlC9 be gr~,nted to ir~~~~~stiRai~e on tli~ own
ttie probl.ems whioh were trought out Uy the ~.reFi h~moowriars and residents at tho 1'lsnni-~~
Commi:>sior~ m~eting of July 19, 1`~7G. tul~•. Doweci wont ori to state that the developere had
discussod Ch~ additional i;rs.ffia whi.cb. would be generated by the pz•oposed pc•o,i~ct with
Tr~affic ~ngl.neer Paul Singer~ who esti.matAd the current ti•ips per day tv be GUO, witt~ un
estimated 240 trip~ por day ~.narease if i:he pr•oposed pro~iect wei,v constructed, aud the
street could handle up to 2,OOU i;rips p~r day ee~sily; that, regarding poliae problems in
t;he area, th~ Paliae Department ir~d~icated th~y had no sLatistical data readily a~iaileUlr•,
regarding such problems and did not cons'der i;his a problem are~; that an 8-inch fii•e
hydrani, existed in the middle o£ the prc~perty fi•oni:age snd , wi Lh ~;he prop~3ed 27-foot
tur~ning r•adius at the rear of the proporty, ~thec•e wore no problems witli ingress Piid agross
for e~nergency vehiales antiaipated; that the drainap,o of i;he site hsd beeii roviewed by
O.ffiae Engineor Jay Titus and this aou].d be handled by the Carbon Ci^~ok Flood Contro7.
Channel whioh bordored the northwest cornor oi' the property, however, said Channel oould
not resolve tho flood prublems that presented existed on Savarirla Street; thr~t thoy had
also contacted tho Or~rige County Flood Contro]. District and wes advised that di•aiiiirig
water~ rurioff into the Chr~nnel would bo a routine mattor requirin6 a dasign system appr~~ved
by thoir offioe and the City of Anaheim ici ordor to obtain a permit; t1ia~; tho paople in the
neighborhood who they had rontnoted saw no prob7.ems with re5pect to the propo:>ed pro,iect;
thut they had oonducted a survey of the 2i surroundirig .lots whioh icidicatod that there were
17 sin~le-Yamily residencos, ?_ ope~rtment oomplexes, 1 vacant 1ot, 1~bandunud hou:~e, 6
houses oi~ l.o~ts for salo, 1 or 2 lots being held t'ur development, and approximately 7 or 8
pr•operties whioh were maintaiYi~.ng horse~, with only 1 property boing an acre or• muc~e in
size; and that, to their knoK~ledge, there had boen no objections or petitions opposi.ng
the pro,iect from the i•esident,s on ?~4iriam Way (a total ef 11 houses ).
Mrs. Joan Todd, 362O 5avanna Strse+., Anaheim, representing the area praperty owners and
residents in oppo~ition, a~peared bofcro '~he Planning Commission and stated there was
some oppesition fr•om r~sidents on Miriam Way. DM. E3owen resporided that he had made a
cursory examination of tho petitions submitted in opposition and foun~l no signatures of
residents on t~iriam Way. Mrs. Todd then ~tated she did not approaah any of the res'_d~nts
on Miriam Way to sign 1;he potition in opposition sinoe the pauple on 5~vanna Street were
directly concerned with the project, and not h4iriam Way. Thereupon, ~drs. Todd submitted
an a.dditional page ~aontaining appr~oxi~nately 9 signatures ) to ~he pet•itiori in oppositiun
which was filed on July 19, 1976, and she read a letter from the adjacant propsrty owners
to the east, as iollows:
"Anaheim Flanning Commissior,
Our property '~oins the HidA property on the East.
At the last meeting, Mr. Bowen, represerting ~tate Wide Investors Tnc., made
the statemont that our ohildren were goin6 to develop our property. This is NOT
a si;atemerit of feat. '
When the Realty Company approached u~ aUout selli.rig, we told thom N0. Th].s
t~as besn our home for over 5U vears ar~d we had no inter.t~ion of chan~ing a1; this
late da';e.
~ ~
M1TIVPL~S ~ ANN~IM C]:TY PLANNIN(3 CCMMTSSION ~ 1lugust 1G, 1~7G 76-373
NB1C:J1S5TF2CATIUN N0. 7ti-77-4 ; VAR7ANC1~ N0. 2813 iContinued )
Wu also i;ald them K~hut our ohildren did a~ter w~ woro gone wou]d Le the-ir
dooision.
We might add that a:llowing Llie Hide pr•opc~rty fi,o develop irito e;~artu~enta
would hem ~xe in ori buth Aidee, oez~tainly not a ploa:~t~rli; pro:+pe~~t.
Since there ie so 11ti.le grevn bolt left in tha Co~inty, we would hope
ttie oommis.ion wi11 see f1~ to ellow ouz• littlo oomm~ir~ity to eay agriaultura
hnd dany the Petitioner the zonin~ ohaTi~e.
~s/ Ktohard A. Eleitshu~on
~s/ Mrs, R. A~ Heitahu~en"
Mrs. Todd oo~ tnued by statii~g thnt pormt~si~n would probaUly have to bo obl;ained from t}ie
Heitsh~isene ior tlle aubjeot p.•operty owner to oro~s over their property t,~ get to the f:Lood
oontrol ohannel; and that e reoent fire illue~c~atad the laak of. ootrtro]. fur traf'f'lo that
normall,y went to a fire 9oene. In i•~~aponso to quaetioning by Chairawn ;Tahnyon, aL s. Todd
alsr!fied that th~ fire mentioned at t`~e pre~vious meeting took pl.aoe about two yeare ago
and that einothor i'ire had taken plaoo ~j~~c~t ruoently; thot, regarding the draining aituata.on,
t;he proparty at the west end of the atroit was approxim+itely 3 feot higher than the street
c~nd the water usually stayed at that looe'.ion ir. small pools and, i~' lt oauld not be errgn~ed
to hctve tne wator travel aoroae the sub~eat property to the Ylood oontrol .~annel, an r.aaept-
Rble solution would not exist; and that, thez•o was wnter presently atanding in the stree+ to
tho point where mosquitoea were breeding.
In rebuttal, Mr. Bowan stated that the sub.eot propert.y c~butted the i'lood oontrol ohsnnel
at one point and the 3ub,jeot pr~operty oould drain to i~t, whioh the developera dosired to
do; that a worm farm presently exisi;ed on the ad,jaaont property to the ee,st; that the
reasons they wore able to obtein f.rom the property owners and reyidents along Savanna Street
for opposing the propo3al were based on the peaoe ~nd tranquility of the oul-do-sac street
and the ourrent abili+y of ttib re~idents to have hoi,se~ in the area; thet the City or~dinanoe
permitted equestrians on lots one aore or largez in size ir. the sub,jeo't area Rnd only one
property, to his lrnowledge, was ovar ons aoro; that he r~alized there v~as a graridfather
alause for amortir.,ation of the presently existing usea of tho surrounding propertios; and
that, in his opinion, the people were opposing the proposal for the wrong reasons and were
misinformed.
A gent]eman from the audienae indioatad that 1,here were 2 properties in the ar~a, in
addition to the subjeot property, ~vhiah werE c~ver one eoi•e in size.
Mrs. Todd further stated that the Cj•ty Counoil had informed the property owners 1n tY,e
area that they were proteoted by tha grendPather elause to heve horses ay long as tho
ownera at the ti.me of the ordinanoe si;i7.1 owned the property and wanted to keep horse3;
and that the weter runoff into the streets, aooording to oomplaini;s, w~s caused from aar-
washing, .lawn waterf.ng, eto.
TI~ PUBLIC I-IEARING WAS CL03L~D.
In responso to queationing b,V Chairman Johneon, Mr. Titu:; advised that ho did not know
speoificelly how muoh of the sub,jea't property abutted the acijacent. flood oontrol ohannel,
however, there was e point where it touahed and was probably suffiaiently wide to install
~~he necessary piping for the drainaga af tha subjeot property, and the matter would hav~ to
be verified and resolved prior to installing the drainaBe in Lhis manner.
In t~osponse to quostioning by Commissioner I~'arano, ldiss Santalahti advised 7,hat, although
the subjeat property was zoned agriaulturally, it hsd a General Plan designe~tion for
mult~ple-fawily and, if develoFed ln the future, it would be appropriatb for wuitiple-
family residential u~?i'ta.
Ttiereupon, Commissioner King aooepted, for the reaord, photographs :,ubmitted by Mrs. Todd
~f the reaent fire in the e~rea.
Commissioner To1ar made an ebservatior~ that there was obviously some transiL•ion to take
plaoe in the future in the sub,jeot area, bui; it appeared th~.t the problem uf drainage ahould
be resolved prior to ~ny further development, however, the proposel aould be appruved subjeat
to oonditione being met oonoerning tbe drainage; thst he would like to addres3 the park:ing
situation in the area whioh was very be.d; that he had looked at the idea of on-eite ~~eat
parking for e long time and soms guideli~,es should be formulated as a polioy or ordinanoe
in that rsspeot sin~e this aspeot of multiple-family units wss becoming more oY a problem;
that, in his opinion, the denaity of the proposed project with 43~ ooverage of th. sito
was very heavy, although apartments appeared t~ be the a~nropriate +.yp9 devalopment for th~
~
~
....
~
~
~
h1I1JlP['F;,~, ANAHP7M C'f'CY P1.J:NNTNG COtv4vII~~:;TON~ Augu~~t 1G, 1~~76 7G-37h
H1i;CI~A:~:~Tl~':CCATION N0. 7~~-77-A ; VAIiTANCi!, N0. 2.Ei1:3 (Continuo;l )
pr•uper~t•y; tllftt~ ft1~YlOll(jIl str~eei impi•uvoment;~ were being rey~i~:ated Ln oc~nc~eotion with tho
~;ro{iuned dovelupment, tho strout would still nc~1; bo a normal :~treet and, if niore mu.lt,iple-
fami'ly d~v~lupmont oooul~red in tha a-~da, thu dor.:iil,y wo~,~ld be n primc~ cionoerii ;;inoe he
dlcl iioL t'avor b].ocki.tlg iri Lhe existing r•esident,s ti t;}» ~r•ec~; and that, lf the r~~~uo:tted
v~++lve~• uf t,hc~ initiiniwn d.lstanuo betweon bui:Ldings wF~.: el.iminatEjd, c~:~ wol]. a~~ tho oi;her
wrilvor•:~, 4rid tho aen:~i.ty was lowered, i,ha pr~o,}ect wo~ild bo a muoh bAttor onA nl].eviatiiig
m~ioh of' tho Fear.3 oi' 1,he nei.~hhors.
Comnit: sioner Parana txoi,od thn,t thn petitionc~r hnd not .^,hnwn f+ hc~rdshi.p ici ,~Alatiuu,:,~.ip to
l.tlE3 ['d~jllHyLOI~ V(11'~8[106.
Tn ~~eb~ii,ta:l, Mr. I~uwen 3tftted thai; i;h~y wore u~~i, c~:~l:iug 1'ot• 31 ~.iuii,:; pvr ecre, l~ut £ur
`L~~.11. Pfi•, 3oweri oxplained that ttie 25-root driv~~wa,y nnd tY~H widt,h of' the c~~r•i•.i~lur•:,, v~,c:. ,
i~e:,~iltdd in some pi•obleme for thu maxl~cr~~~i devc~lc~pmoilt of tlio :;iti3,
Cu~nrnl~~l~~t;~-~ I'are~r.o i;hor noi:ed that ttie p~.~rpos~ o~' t,ho ~uae wa:~ tu metic~i,nii~ e~ ~;~~u~i livi<<~;
envii•oriment, for i;he citizeri~ ot' Atiatioim; t~nd tti~aC Uy ~~mplyint; wii;h tiie Code i•t~quiromer~t:~
i'o-• 4C,-foot minimum di~tiitice betwoeri buil.dirig~, the projeat- wo~_i1d pi•ou~bl.y be `i~?;~ 1es:~
dor~~e~
Tn rebuttul, Mr. BOWOTI explained tha+ l~e believed i;he neighUors two doors ~way had built
ttio same type pr~~,iect hs ~~!'op~~ser] with 12 or 15 foei', betv,~eon their buildings wheci they
sho~.~1d liave had ~U f'eot, and ~aid p~•o,}ect wa,:; CGT1St~~uctecl wi~hin the past few years; and
tnut he felt that he could justif.'y ~ hai•dship on tho basis that othors in the same area
wer•o en,'iuying ~ use of their• propdr~i;y whicti v.~ns Ueing denied to the prrpert,y in qtiestiuri.
Iti r•e.~pon~v Lo yuestioning by Chnirmari J'oht~son, ~Aiss Santa7.ghti advised that the neigi~l~oring
apar•ta~ent pro,jeot to tlie east we~:; deve:Loped wit.h only 15 dwelling units.
Commis:~ioti~r Barnes iloted that the :ianitai;i.on Division had indioated a need for a larger
t~ar•niTlg r•adius of 38 feet and not 27 feet s3 prapo~ed, whioh was aiiotiler indioel;3.on thai; the
proposal wo~_ild probably overb~:iild tho proporty.
Mr. Boweii Chen requested some guideline~~ from ~the Planning Commissi~,n r~egarding the n~.tmber•
of' units that wou]d be appropriate for i~ho site, eto. In response, Commis~ioner Herb~-t
noted ~!.~t the City had guidolinos in tho Code, particular].y for apartmerrt developwents
where taey abutted other pz~operties, and it wRS up tc the developars to do evei•yLhing
possible to protect a neighborhood; tha~; the ground work had boon laid for apartment-typo
develonment in the subject neighborho~~ sinoe some t~partments had already boen cons~ru~tod
acid the r.c~ighborhood should take i;hat int~, consideration to ob, eotively reviaw the projeat;
that, sinae the Goneral P7.an indicated tho sub,;eot property as appi•opriate for multi le-
fam' ly developme~it, it wt~s up to the Plann.in~ Commission to obi;airi the best possible develop-
meti6 of that type; that the proposal, as submit~ed, was very poorly dosignod and was t~o
heavy fer the propei•ty; that ~the ciraulation was a].,;o very poor; that {;he trash :;t,orage
ereus would have to be provided as required and tha turn around redilis would have to be
inrreased to accommudate the sani+ation •~ehioles, which would also oontrol some of the
donsit,y; that, because of the circulati~~i in tY~e area and the size of Savanns Street, tho
dc~tisity ellowed would have to be cor.trolled; and that ~tYie developer• would havo to plan tne
pr~o,ieo` to fit the guidelines of the City Code.
Mr~. Tioweii indioated ho would like to witlidraw Lho sub,jeot proposal, and discussion pursued
as to whether h4r. BowAn should withdr•aw or just restzbmit plans u::der ttie subjc~ct application
so thst e,dditionsl fees would not be requir•ed for filing.
COIv4v1T:>;IONER MORLEY I.,EFT Tf-IE COUNCIL CHA!vIIiER TEMPORARILY AT 2:30 P.M.
Cotnmia3ioner• Farano noted that he objected to devel~pers rur.~iing projects thrc~agh the
Planning Commission ~o tY~e Ci+.y's expense ~nd that of tYie community.
Mr. Bowen then indicated that Yi9 had spoken to the major:ity of the area residents but they
had not wnnted to meet with the developer• to tftlk about tho pr•o,iect.
Commissioner Faranc ihen noted that in some instances devo7.opers were not aware of the
requir•uments but i.t was pretty obvious tha+, the s~.'.,iect developer was awar•e and was r•unni~,g
the pro,'eo~t through to see how far it would get; that. if' a pro~ieot came through that ~Nas
sui.table Yor~ the proper~y and 'the neighborhood, there was a good chance that it would be
gi.ven favorable considoration; however, he was deficii,ely not in favor ot' the techniquo
being used.
~
~
LJ
~
~
M]:Nil'i'I!1,3, AN~fI1CTM CITY PLJ11JI1TNG COMML`~i~TON, l~~ip,u:~i; 1~~, 1'+!G 1~-375
lui;Cl,A.~:~II~ICA7'lOD1 ~JO. 7G-71-4; VAItTAt~lCI~1 Ni1. Itsl.i iCotiL:im.iFd)
Cominis:~io~~oi• Tolar nuted t;heti, h~ w~~~ iic~t r~uro the~•o wo~il~l bo 'L(i per:~on:~ prerient in u~,ponl.-
ttuil if the den~il.y for tha C19V9~.0{)R1Hllt wc~:i ~l.oworod; thc~t he had dr:ivon thro~~Rh thu aroa
~r~d notod that npproximately 6 prope~~ties were t' ~i~ ;;c~:1.o whlcli wa;~ iiidiu~itive c>i' trc~i~~lti.un.
'I'hereupo<<, Mr. I3awen r'eq~ie: '" l+~ c~nii,in~ianoe ui' the :;u~,;oat ii,en:s in ordor tu re~vi3o the
p7.c~ii:i. Ui.~ot~:;:~ion pur:~ue~l oonoercii~iq t,tle 11~1~J1'~)~)i'~Ctf~p .I.9I1KLI1 ~1' i;imo foi• tlin aontinuarico
and Mr, IIowen ~•eq~_~o:~te~. ~;U duy:~.
Cununi,~~~ ~ner To].ar uffered u motioii, seuoiided by Cutrunir,;;ionr~r Kirer that i,ho Au~hoim City
!'7.unni:1~ Cummi:,:~io~l does 1'~aroby r~o~>on ~he public hoat~ing c~nd cunLiiuie i~hc pc~ti t,icros f'or
[~ucla~:,~it'iuati.o-i No. 7G-7"1-4 and Vrar•l.ance Nu. Lf31:~ to t.ho Plaiining Comr.ii~:,lori meeting of
Octc:~Uer 1]., 1'J16, u:~ t~~q~~e~ted by 1:tiE~ ~ol;li,io~i~,~~. ~
Commis:oianer Herb~t ~.iYq«ired why tlie cl~•ain.<<ge pi•obl.em exi ~ted in the t~rea, and tvl~~. Titus
c.d'~!,::;;! *ti~~*- there wa' ~ lack of ourbs t~~id rrutitor~ duc~ i;o ~the lac~; of dediaati.c~n and, with
1',.i1.]. improvements, the dr~inagc~ would bo 1c~proved; and tna+. ~!,re~~, Curair~a~e) improvomor.l.::
wor•u r~ U~.idgetary oonsiderai;ion which he was noC pi•~pare,d to c:ominont oi'~. Mr. 'i'itu~~ further
adv,.sed that , as N[r.,. Todd had rel~i;sd , i;hor~o wou].d stil:L be a pc~oblem cit tho west end ot
;;nva~ii~ft ;,treet getti.ng t•he wa~;er ini;o tre f'loud aontral chEtnriol, }iowavar, a possible solirti<~ri
wa:s avallc~ble~
'I'he foregoing MCYI'ION CARIiI~D ~CO[ri[l11SS10T10T~ Moc•:Ley boin~ tempot•ar•ily abseiit).
Clialrman Johnson noted fur -the opposition that i'ur~har logal. notiao wauld not Ue mailed
t,o the ~d~iaoent property owners for tYio Octoboi• ].1, 1~:~6~ Y19QI~ing on ~,ho subject items.
C~NDITIONAL USE - READVERTI:~ED PUALIC fI}~aEtI~•1G. RAYMOND G. ATID E~'I'~LL,L; K.. SPFEiAR, 'J13 Paloma
PL~ft'~1IT N0. 1635 Plece ,~'ullerl;on, Ca. ~~~G35 (Ownor~ ); I'RANK ~. HEMSTIt~LT AND G~ORC=E L.
-- BL;AUREGARD, 2~48 Sonora E~oad, Palm ~pririgs, Ca. 92262 (Agent~); rc~quosting
permission to C~NSTRUCT A MOTliI~ WT_TH WAIVER Ol~' (A) MAXI~~IUM 't'dUMBEi~ OP WALL
~IGNS, (A) PERTdITTEL SIGNING AND (C) PfiOEIIIITTPID S7:GN LIGHTING on propoi•ty desoribed a;~ an
irregultsr•ly-sheped pRroel oi' land consi3ting of appz~oximately :l acre~ loceted southeast of'
the south~ast aorner of I.,~, Palma Avenue and Tmpez•ial. Highway, having approximate frontagas
of 176 f'eet on thA south side of La Palma Avenue and "351 fes1; oii the ea^t side of Imperial
;l~U;:•:•~;,~, and being loaated a~pr•oximn,i;ely 2GU fee+ east of the ;enterliiie of Impar•ial Highway~
Proper~y presentl olassified CL,(SC )(COP~AN~RCIAL, LItJSITFD - SCENIC CORftIDOR WERLAY? ZONE.
It was noted that the suUjeot potition wos cantinued Yrom tho Planning Commissian meo+ings
of Jtily .19, 1976, for revised p1aZ~ end to B,dvertise addi~tional ~~aiver•s perta9.ning to free-
standing ~igns and sign lighting in i,he Sconir, Ccrridor, and fi~o:n A•,xgixst 2, 1976, f~r th~
petitioner bo be present.
Two per~sons indiceted i;heir prosenoe in opposition +,o tne subject petition and forthwith
waived the full reading of the St~ff Repoc~t i~o 'the Planning Coaimissiori dated Augusi; i6, 1~76,
on the basis that thoy had roviewed a copy of same.
Although t~he Staff Report was not :~ead, said report is refar•red to and made a part of the
minutee.
Mr. W3nde11 Veith, represonting 'tha agent for the petitionAZ•, appe~red be:Core the Pl.anning
Commission and stated tht~~ the signing or. the sou•th side of i;he building nad been revised,
however, they were ::~All requesting tc h.ave the small mo:iument sign; ttiat tne plot ple~ had
bsen chqngad to indiaate the driveway align~ert end the landsoapi.r~g along Imperial, a:~
discussod at the previous meeting; and that they were also requestin~ to have lighting of
the wall sign faoir.g the freeway on the basis tYit~t they were propoying a 2d.-ho~~~r oparation
and the Code prohibited the lighting between the hours of midnight and ~~;3U a.n.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 Le Paz Street, Anqheim, President of the Santa Ana Canyori Improve:aer~t
Assuciation, appe~red before the Planning ror~mis~.ion in opposition and stated., regai•ding
envir~nmental impact z•eports (EIF','s) that only :~ of the 13 zoning petitions listed on tho
agende~ for the meeting this date required an EZR, 8 ha~i..g a negai;ive dealaration r~quest and
2 for categoraoal exemption from the requirement to file an EIR; that the A~sooiation hed been
ln aontaot with an environmental e.ttorney and was advi~~ed that there were some ground~ for
legal action avsilablo to the property owners in the ai~ea; and that the Assooia~r:~on was
respeotfully r•saommendiiig denial cf tho subjeat req~zost for EIR negative declaration.
Mrs. Dinndorf then reviewed the gro~,9rty in the area whioh was owned by the subject potitioner, II
noti.~ig i,hat an apartment complex, a r~~staurant, and a s~ipermarket, in addition to the pr•oposed
motel, were planned for the property an~ she inquii•ed what the remaining property owned by
~
~
M1:NU'CT~IS, ANAICliIiM CI'rY I'LI1t~fJINCi COAR~IT5:3TON~ A~lgu~t:, 1~.,, :1~~7G /F,_;j7E,
CONC)]:'110NAI, IJSli; PURt~Il'.t NU. 1~~35 (l onti~lued )
t;he pot,ii,lot~or wou.l~l bo dA~~elopad Qo, ~inti.ng tl t; an B;IR ahou,lcl he-v~ beon a~.iUmii;tod f'or
ttt~~ en~i~~o E~r•operty 30 1;ha1; it would ti~~i; t,e cie ~].~~ped pieoemeal.
Ii~ rc~al>oii:~o, Mr. 3pehRr :~1:c~~ed tLere wn" no renu~in:in~, proForisy tv ba prop~~n~jcl fc~ devolopmont
atid the ~3t~L,jec1; pr~~p~rty we:~ +,he 1e+;~t. ~~1' the pr•opt~r~ty ho uwt~od in i,he ac•ea whioli tind not;
alroady hoen rezoned, eto. , under ~dV9I~>~ICIBIIt }~r~,po:ia7.c,. Iii ro:~{>on;~o to ~ui~+liei~ q~loat~ioning
vy M~~,7. Clnndorf , Mr. Spc~har :stel.~~l that 1;he 1.U-r~ar~e pai•ool was alroady rezuiied and had a
dc~ve].opmon+, plan or~ it wt~laY: wauld i~lclti~lo a Hct1pY~'s s~ipec•mark~t, a Ska~,gs' dr•u~nt~~re, eto.
Co~cunis.}ionor Fare.no inquired if ~dra. Dinndurf' had ever dieou~:~ed i;he L'+;I[i matter with ths
City Ai;torney's offtao , and she an~wered in tha negativo , ststir.g i,he,t i;he at1~~,rney for h~i,
Mi~u~_ip wo~itd be oontaating :ieid offioc,. Conr.ni.o';lc>nor 1+'+~rano then r.oi;od that tho P]•anning
Oomn~iesioti, in hia opinion, would probah~`/ bo sympt~th~~io ~uith Mrs. Di!indoi'f'~ rocl~iest; thnt
:~oid r~y<<c.,i; appeared to be worthy of.' oori:~idoratinn and, for maximum ol.ficierioy and exped~.er.cy,
~•~~ildi, ~~ ~;~ ~omi„C t.~, thr~ p].anninK Cc,mmis~ii.on, tt~e C11;y Ati;crney's ofiioe sh~ul~~. be oontaotocl.
Mr•~. Jur~ Hs1Z, 54~~ Tumbleweed, Ane,lieim, Preyidont oi' the Wastr•idge Homeuwnor~s A.~~~ciati. n,
appoared bofure Lhe P1.annina Commi~sion and ~~tai;ed they were opposed i;a tl~e propo~a]. wtiich
requlred a aotidii;ional tise per•mit; i:he~ti th~y cei~tainl,y di.a noi; need a mote7. or~ nighttime
lighi;inq of tlio sign ic~ the ~ oenio Corridor; thai; h~~r sup,g~sti~~n wculd be ior tho peti.tioner
to con~.aat CalTrans to inquire abo~:t a"lodg9.ne at~ead" si~n on ~ho f.rAOwQy, r+31~h~r thc~n hc~~~e
ligh+,ing of i,he sign; and the streets wer~ mighty btisy witho~~it tia~ing a motel in the Canyori
area. Sha reiterated that they were very muoh ag~sirisi, th~ conditional usa por~it and any
sign waivei~;a.
In robutcal, Mr•. Veith reiterai;ed the~t they felt ~there was a need f'~r ~the motel in tl~e
Canyon area; that othc~r more irrtonse utiu^= ho,d bean appr•oved in tho immediato ar~a and un
the ma,jor and socondary highways , and the looo,i;i.on wuuld Ue ~ho best , wi th no ~c.;aess being
neoessary f'rom the local strt~ets in tiho area; i,Y~at l:e was nct aware of all of' tho ooonomlo
f'actors; R21(1 "I:t1Flj%, regard.ing the exterior ',:uildir:g ma~terials end ooc~pli.anao with Pire Gone ~'.,
they wer•e pr•oposiiig tc~ have a tiile r~oof, exteri.or• stucco probably in beige torles, rou~rt~~-sc~wn
si,ained wood and wrougYit iron.
THG PUBLIC I-iEARING WAS CL~OSED.
Commi~sioner Barnes noted that she was also ~~,~,ucerned about th~ pieoemea7. devolop~ient oi the
property in the ares ~nd i;he environmental ~iaipacL repoi,ty; thRt the Planning Comtnission did
no~t ~enerally approve projoots unless they fe.lt thare had been suffiaient studY done on tho
items required in an EIA; t;llai; a comp].ote study had Ueen done regarding th~ tra~'fic 9.n the
sub,ject area, although it wa5 not for ceri~airi what the iaipaots v~oro going to be; that, it would
be difficult i;o require an EIR for a mote:l, on the basis that there wo~ild be no effeccs on i.he
sahools , ota. ; that meny sspeats of an i~'IR \V~>Ll~.(~ ~e '~utally worthless in aonnoct:ton with the
subjoct pruE~osal; and that the PlRnning Commission had tried ~o look at the entira piciure of
developmenl: in the area and study very di.ligently those ar~~ias oi coricern.
Cemmissioner Herbst notvd that he h~d no ar~ument against a moi;el in tha subjdct, area; ~Lh~st
the homeowners wero only looking at a portion oi' th9 problem; that the su`~ject p~°eperty was
ad~l~C9Tlt to the industrial area r~nd inooming guests who needed plaaes to stay could Ue suit-
ably accommodated with aooess to and t'r•om the ireeway; however, he did •~ot £e~vo:~ the propo~sl
for night lighting of the signing since i:he saU,jeut property was looated ir i,he Soonic
Corridor and, i'urthermore, t.he petitioner would undersi;and this reasoning iY he had beon
present when tihe Soenia Corridor Ordinance was considerad; tha+., in hiti opinion, if the mote7.
was not fillod by midnight, the lighting would not help after that time; that the P.lannin~
Commission was aware that tha interseotioii of La Palma Avenue and Imperiel HighwaS would be
heavily congested after all of. the property in the areo wes developed and tt~e conge~tion would
extend ~al.l the way to the mobilehome parl; on La Palma Avenue, so if the proper• median~ u!ere
ins~alJ.ad with left-turning ]•anes, eto. , going both ways into Loth of tha proposE.a. a: iveways,
the sub'oct pro,jecl; would be improved and the driveway could be relooe.ted to be more suitsble
to ttie Traff.io Engineer; and thst the lef~-turning medians would be advsntageous to the
eni;ire area in tiielping ~Y-e tra~'fio fl.uw tremendously. Com~nissioner Herbst then inquired if
the wall sign now conformed to ti~le sign require~:ants. In response, ~Fiss ~antalahti tsdvised
that only one wall sign was presently boing proposed, in addition to one free_gtanding sign,
:~eid freo-~tandin~ sign oeicig raquested by variance.
ineer Paul Singer reviewod
In response to qusstioning by the ^tanning Commission, Traffio Ei;g
the traffia congesi;ion in the sub,jeot area noting that tho traffia on La Palma Avenue wao
nlose to being wi.thin 5~ ~f' the deaign oapaoity and tha't sonie left turn modian.~ should be
installed to mitigate the oon~;est:toti; that preseni;ly tt~bre were four travel lanes with a
leit turil lane to Imperi~si Highway; and that; the stree~t width would n~~t be ohanged provided
all of the o~~-street pe.: kirig waa e1la~inated
~ ~
7f~~ 377
Mi ~~UTES ~ ANAl1E I M C I TY PLIINNI N~ COMMI S~ I ON ~ Auyus t i fi, 191~
CONDITfOtIAL USE PERIIIT N0, 1635 (~Untinued)
Mr. 5{~char req~~asted to hes abin t~ g i;~~snotiwork.t~ftheyrwouldreonstructtt~~~tr~'-ps~~t~c~lans.
med{ans presently and thcn, lf th t
~~~~,,~,Issioner Tol~r ko~i exc"inS°J,~ther{>resbntrtir~e,~~speclallynintvlev~tof allt~ofmthe.~ule1
be resolved with rAlscc
development th~t hod l~~ ,,sse~s~Ilnvalve~ll ren~~rc11 ~qAth~e• c.~n'struct(~n o1f~it,~e n~clla~s; ~
woulc1 liavc t~ contact t
wl~croupon~ Commissl~ner Tc~l~r notecl thot lF lie werc n buslnessm11~•i$pel er5naic~o~crui ver
would wrnt the best acces~ nossible an~1 Lh:it, r+s thn Inncil~rd.
what was raqui rec~ an~1 i f th~ lesse~s werc not wi l 1 ing to go ala ~~ wl ch the medlans, then
perhnps this Yi~s the wr~n~~ pl~ce tn have lhe imt~l , utc.
i{r, Volth r~vlewcd their stipu~att~in wl`ic11~n3s ai~~~1c at thP lnst Pl.+nnlnn Commiss(on
meeting t~ line up th~ driveways on t p
Comml~si~~n~sr Her:~st noted khnt the subJect ,~roperty was lnc~tec~ near the vast industrlRl
area an~1~ prlmai'1y, the inclustrial people wauld patrcinize khe motel~ and it wouid
ccxr~p I 1 n~ent L'hF ent i ra a~ is~.
Comnl as f uner Toi ar then n~ted that other than f~r a m~~t~l , he cll d not know of another usr.
for the subJect 3-~~rP Pdreel of land.
Mr. Spehar requested tu know hvw far the suqgested medians w"'-~c~stXCdlculatlonsthacl5not~,
cost estlmatecl for s~rrs; whereup~n~ Mr. Singer incllcateci th
ber.n made ~ and the r~edi an.rs~b, i~~ ~~XP Jrk locate~onl th~Nn~rth~s Idetofl Lat°alrma Aver uelY
boundary of t4ie exi.,t~nc~
Discusslon pur5ued renar~• ig thmissloner erbst~su9gestocl1dhat therme<lans :~e cemented
versus landscxped medtans. C~m
rather than lanclscaped, ai ~~'". Spehar indic~hteci that he wauld prefer the cement. M s5
~ F~* ralse~l landsc~ped medians especially stnce the
Santalahtl advised therP ~",~~ •'~ hP roc~
Trafflc Engineer• was recnvenuei;nand thatgthe~questilon~ fPwhethee~whe,med~ins~shouldubeect
property alonq La Palma
landscaped or cr:mce~D~ivis'~ion~ bShcefur*_hP-'h~~~~isrdPth~~,~tyPicallyf f zh~C~ityehadatak~n~
p,.r way Mainten~n Go~isslonor Tolar n~`ed that, In hls
~,~e1 ~; ~ mafrtPnance of inedian landscaping.
opinlon~ it was as economtc~l to instoll landseaping as it woulcl be to install cement or
asphalt on the raised medians.
Commt°sionar Tolar reound~edMr,~Veith,statedi theESign~wasrsohdesignedttn~order'thatt,ite
nne f~ot ~bove the gr
could be seen to direct vehiculardes~inned ~s pc.ssibleaand wastto Iprovidettdertt`icatlonas
also as stmply and aesthetically
from La Palma Avenue; anci that the sign could i.~e further upgracled if so requested by !he
Plan;iing Correnission.
C~mmiss(oner 7olar then~a~~inda ilrvi~e~cetciC,nrea~lly~lookecnnlcetwithntheirnmonumentthat
other a•eas such as Yor + ., f~~ever, the propased sign w~~s
slgning, ~~+hich he `~lt was in good taste; tn^
t not classi fy as a monument slgn; thaC, ~~
approxlmaCely one f~ot off the grcun<1 and mi,,,..
his opln(on~ the Scen'ic i.arridor Ord(nance diei not place a morit~Ut"notnfreenstandingh~
NI11 and C~nyan area and he liked the idea of rmnurient signing,
stgns~ fn the Scenic Corridor. Chairman Johnson concurred.
Commiss ioner Barne~ noted that she 1 i ked the .~ay tli~ wal l si ~n hacl been r~~iecfreenstandinq
and she que5tloned whether more than one wall signr~ould be requestec' if
sign was n~t approv~h~an'drnoVotheriwall~signs;athat tliey weretnotkdesirousnofshaving any
bu) ldiny faci ng so ~t
slgning that was no~t~eubetter chantaefree-~stan~iingsignp,tf~eynwn~~dmbeswillingttohmake
monument s ic~n woul
that change.
Commi ss 1 oner Ile rbs t'~~tieh~reverh~he'r c~ul d recommendn th~t Maas tudy be~ i n i t i atedn to amendd the
or the Siqn Ordinances, 'p S~ nin9 in the ScenEc C~~ridor to provide identification
Qrdinances to allaw munument-typ- 9
for the businnsses located in 5aid araa. ~~ee direetlve l~±er on in the minut~s.
e ~
MI~IUTES~ ANANEIM C1YY PLANNINf CO!1MISSION~ August 16~ 1976 76'3~a
C011DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1635 (Continued)
In response to questloning by Co~pils~hc~~~~~errl~andscepingndimehsl~,nsv~nd~,3tfott~berm.
revl sec~ ~1 Ans ~~s subml tted,
Commissioner herbst offared ~~ matlun~ se.canded by Cortmissloner Kln.~ ancl M01IQN CARRIfQ
(Commiss(oncr Morley belnq absant) ~ that the Anr~heim Clty Plrnning Comm(ssl~n does horaby
recommr.n.1 tc, the City Cauncil of thc City of ~nahelm thAt tl~e subJect proJect bc excmt~t
from the ~~Aqui rement t~ prepnra an envi ronmental Irr~oact rer~ort ~ pursuant to the pravls lons
of Cl~e Ca'I 1 fc~rn 1~i Cnvt ronmontal QuAI i ty l1ct.
Comml~s(oner Herbst ~'~fferod R~+solutir,n No. FC7h-153 nnJ rtnved for Its passage and
acloptlon. tl7nt the Anal~eim Clty Plannin~~ Commisslon ~loes hereby grnnt~ in part, Petltton
For Conditlonnl Use Permlt I~o, Ifi35r Slr~nting the request fur a motel at the suh;~ct
loc.~tion ~n~1 denying the requeste~~ w~tv~.rs pertalning to slgn~i~g; ~ubJect to the on-site
advertising (signinq) being In accordance with the re~lulr~tlans pertalninq to outdoor
adv~rtlsing ln the Sceni~: Cort'Idor Zone-Overlay; that ralsed me~llans shnli be Installed in
L~~ 1'alma Avenue from (mperl~l Hi ghway ~asterly to the westerly boundary of the existing
mobllnhome park located u~~ the nc:rt'~ ~ldc of La Pa1mA Avenue, as requlred by the City
Traffic Enc~lneer and In accor~lance with 5tand~~rc1 pl~~ns oncl speclficatlons on file ln the
office c,f khe Clty Engineer, and that sald rnecllans shall be either landscaped and provided
wi th permanPnt i rrigatlcm fecil i ti ~s in acco~dance wlth the requ) rements of thC Super-
intencient of Parkway Malntenance or~ if the wicith is minimAl~ r~y be cemnnrecl~ ~nd that a
bond~ a cer•tl f{cate ~f deposlt~ letter of cre<fit~ or cash~ In ar, amount and form
sattsfactory to the Ci ty of Anahelrn, shal 1 bA pasted wl tl~ the CI ty to gu rantee the
tnstallatlon ~f the above-mnntloned requi rement, anu Followi~ig the installst(on and
acceptanee, the C) ty of Anahalm shai l ass ume lhe respons ibi l i ty for malntenance of sai d
landscapinq; that the foregoing provision for r~ilsed meJians in La Palma Avenue ls
Justlfied on the basis that In the subJect area the petitianer uwns the properties
adJacent to both sfdes of La Palma Avenue and the pencling developmert of sald propert(es
wi ll ir~act the smo~th flow of vehicles unic~s vehlcular access to La Palma Avenue Is
properly control~ed providing for left turns, etc.; anJ subJect to the Interdepartmental
Commt t~~ee recommendat(ons. (5ee Resol ut ion aa~k)
On roll eill. the foregoing resolutlon was passed by L'h~ follawing vote:
AYES: c~~~r~ISSInNERS: UARNES, Fl1Mt10, HERBST, KI~~G~ TOLAR, J~HNS~~!
tJOF.S : COMf115S I OMERS : NONE
AdSENT : C014M1 SS IOIJFRS : ~40RLFY
REQUEST FOR STUDY OF SIG!I ORDINAFICE'. RELATIIJG 70 THE SCE~liC CORRIDQR~ TO PROVIDF FOR
GROUND-MnUtlTE D~ FREE-S7A~IDI~if S I ~riS. -
.Discussion S~~~th~elatedatolthe~~5cen~icSCo~ridorCtomperrnitcrn~num~nt-typetsic~nshtosracognize
Or~it nance
businesses (n the Scenic Corri dor.
Gorm~lss toner Barrzs indic~ted that the Santa Ana Canyon Genera) Flanning Task Force h~d
stuctted the suhJect matter over tt~e past six months anJ It would be her recomnendatia~~ at
this tfn~e tha~t if a stucly were undertaken, that it be conducted by thP City Planntng Staff
and not sent back to the Task Force. Commissioner Herbst added that Individuals from the
Task Farce might be a~ked to participate fn the formatlon of the recommendatlons.
Commiss Toner Herbst offered a mation~ seconded by Comm(ssloner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Corr,missloner Morley bein,y absent), th~t the Anaheim City Planning Ccxnmission does hereby
recomnend to the City Cou;~cll of the City of Anaheim that the Planning Department Staff be
ciirected to stu~ly tha Sl~n Ordtnance as it relates to the Scenic Cor•ridor~ to determ(ne
whether low-profile, ground-mounted. free-st~nding signs would he appropriate to pdvertt~e
ani~nfurtherrtx~regh onpreparehsign altrrUr.atives forepo3slble,amendmenltofhsaidnordinance.
RECESS - ~t 3: 35 P•m•~ Chairman Johnsan declared a recess.
RFCQVVEi!E - P; '.~+7 P,+n. , Chai rman J~hnson reconvened the meet i ng wi th
'-""-' Ccmnissioner Morley betng absant,
~ ~
MItJUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ August 16~ 1976 7~'379
RECLIISS ! f I CATI ~~l - CON1 I IIUF Q PUBLI C NEAaI NG. JAtIG W. I NCH ~ 90A Wes t B~y Aven un ~ Ncwport
~~p, ~(,-77~7 Beach~ Ce. ~2(~fiQ (Owner); DAIC L. INGRAM~ P. 0. Box 5`112~ E1 Monte CA,
-- 91734 (Aqent). Propc+~•ty described n!s r rectAngularly-shApe~d n.~~ol of
v~r~inr~c~ N(1._~~131 lancl consisti~~ of approxlmately 4,7 acres I~~din~ a fron!a~:~ of npproxl-
' rnrtety 3~a feot on the north ~+cle of Orangewood Av~nue~ having a
maximum depth oP approximetely 615 feet~ and beln9 ~Q~gantl~Pclassified
mately 310 feet edst of tha centcrline ot Harhor Boulevar<1. Property p Y
RS-~-h3 ~0~0 ( Rf S I DEtITI I1L/~GRI CI~LTURI,~) ZONE.
RCQUESTED CLASSI FICATION: RM-17.4~ (RI SIDENTIl1L~ MULTIPLf-fl1111LY) ZO~IE.
R[QUE~TED VAR I ~N~F ~ BUI LD I NGS ~ tT0 CONSTRUCTLAO 13~RUN ITNAPARTM~~ITI COMPLC;(TnNCE BE.TWEEN
It was noCescl th~t tl~c subJeck petitlons were continued from the Pl~nning Commisslon
meeCing oP August 7~ 1976~ at the requect c~f thc petittoner to rtx~~llfy the cJcvelopment
proposal.
No one inciicated thelr presence in opposit(on to subJect petftlons.
attth~~publlcShenrtng~,~said~StaPfPRepartQis~referred totandnmadetalpart9of~thesminutosad
Mr. Dale In~ram, the anont for the petitloner~ appeared before the P7anning C~mmtsslon and
prasented colored photographs af the subJect property and the surro~nding area~ statl.~g
that the reasons they werc requesting a zone chanc~e was ;:hat the taxes on the property had
increased substaritiatly and beyond any po~slble a~7ficult'ural value they mlgfit derive from
it: that tl~ere was no demand for commercial-recreatic~~~al urses in the immediate area and
they were, therefore~ raquesting RM-120Q zoning; that the adJacent properttes to the east
and south were devcsloped with multlple-famlly uses and there were no single-Family homes
contiguous to the siabJect property; that approval of the subJect request for rezoning
would be an exercise of good pl~~nln~ pract(ces; that the developmenc proposal was fn
conformance wi th the GenerAl Plar~ amenciment on the subJect property which was approved by
the Planning Commissian; that full ~n-site circula*.ion was provideci for heavy vehicles~
inc7udinq sanitatlon trucks; that two drivaways Nere propose;l on Orangewood Avenue and
there a~oulci be left turns In and out of the site on said sCre~t; that their easternmost
drivewau Ml3S Allgnecl with 3roden Street; that they were proposlnc~ a broad varlety of
apartment untts~ including bachelors, ane-bedrooms, two-beclroc~ms~ and two-bedrooms with
dens; Chat they were proposing a total of 24~ parking spaces~ i~cluding 109 open parking
spaces; that the unlts would have patios and balconles; that the 11-foot passagewaya
between the bullcl(ng5 were to he used for emergencies such as ftres , etc.~ and for th~
tenants to reach thetr park(ng spaces which were all lo4ate~+ within ~QO feet of the
respect(ve units; that the passageways would b~ roofed ai~d ~here wo~ld bs no windows
apenir,g into sald passaqeways; that their hardship~ in c:onnectlun with tF,~ passageways,
was based on ~he fact that wi thout tt~em the tenants woui d have to c~o al 1 the way around
the bu! 1 dings to get to thcl r par~ ing spaces ; that they wanted to of fer apartment uni ts to
singles, students, etc.~ and the availa~(lity of such apartments in the subJect arca would
help the younq people financtally; ,~nd that he fur~her understoad that both of the
requested waivers had been appr~~ed in the past f~r other da~elopments.
TIIE PUQLIC HEARIIIG WAS CL~SED.
In response to questtoning by C~mmissioner Ktng~ Mr. Ingr~~m presented a copy of the
assessor's map In~iicating that thP easterly ec1g~ ~f the subJect property was Just easterly
of the altgnmc~it of Broden Street and, therefore~ their proposed easterly drlveway on
Orangewood would almost squarely align with safd street.
In respo~sa to questlonln~ by Commissioner lierbst, Assistant PlannTng Dlrector-Zoning
Annika Santalahti dvised that interior passageways had been app~oved for other projects
In the Clty.
in response to further questioning by Commissione~ Herbst, Mr. Ing~am statc:l they planned
to fully enclose the subJect proJect wi:h ~~ 6-foot high masonry w~ll, Ca~mmissioner Nerbst
then noted that slnce the petitioner also owned the adJacen[ prope ~ty which mlgh*. ba
developed wi th commercial-recreati~~~al uses ~ the wa~ 1 srould be constructe~~ wi th the
sub]ect proJett.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY F'LANNING COMMISSION~ August 1G~ 197~
76- 3~~
RECL~~IGIITION N0. 7f,-77-7 AND VfRIANCE N0. 28 1 (Continued)
In re.ponse to qucstlonin!~ by Cammissfoner Farano. Mr. Ingrnm statecl thnt the roofs over
the Interlnr (~~1SS1nM.ldYS woul~l not ba solid but would bz lattice~l.
The Planning Corrxt~ission nc~ted that the ~lriwinys prasdnted In connectlon w~th the subJect
proposal werr. not cancluslv~. Comnissioner Herbst notc~l th~+t it wes important to view
nlevation plans for the prap~sal ond tt~at it ~~ppe~red the pral~ct w+~= to~ dansn ond too
tlc~htly plannect for tho proparty; anJ that the narruw, dnrlc p~ssr~~~ways were n~t
dflsirablt~ ospeelally for won~en c~rning from the rarkin9 loL at night, etc.
In response ~o q~iestloning by Chalrman .lohnson, Mr. Ingram 4tate~l that the Clty staFf hici
ryvlewe~l the proposed parlcing plen anci It ~~~s detern~ined th~ot thpre was ample turning
rodlus~ e~c. Commissl~ner Hetbst noted that 2he City staff qen~ rally workad wfth minimum
stnndards and could not requlr~ more than the urdlnancas; howevf~r~ the ~1evelopcrs were r,ok
held to minlmums but could have maximums which would make thelr praJects more pleasinq
rother than sli ekinn tn bnre minimums; an~1 th~~t~ in his opinion, the plot plans were very
paor and the ei rculation cou1~1 be far bestter.
Mr, tlaurice Jones~ Jr.~ the att~rney for the petitloner. appeared br.fore Che PIAnr~ing
Commisslon and indtcated that, (n hls apinl~n~ there was not a fatr publ~~ sincenheidid
cnnnectlon wi th the G~r~ral P1an amendment involvin9 the sub,ject property~
not recelve a notice ancl a~nsequently was not present to present his vlews and requests.
Deputy City llttorney Frank l.owry a~lviscd that the Gener~al Plan amendment had been acted
up~n b~~r the P1 anning Commissic~n and w3s presently out of the hands of sal~i body, hdwever~
that matter'1r~uJones requesteclecoplesCa~r~the minutes,~f therPlanninguCommisslon9publlc
Thereupon ~
hearing on the General Plan am~ndment.
Commissloner Tolar offerecl a natlon. seconded by C~mmissloner Herbst ancl MOTI011 CARRIED
(Commissloner Morley being abse~nt) ~ ta reopen the publ ic hearing arid contirue
conside(aCommissl~ntmeetlnqfof A~qust53~~c~`?7Gn for revised plans~riance Mo. 2~31 to the
Plannini
[1JVIRONMEHT11l IMPACT ~ PUB!_1C NE~RIN~~. WILLIAN WAGNER (TRl:S7[E) AND a01.LlC P. RAI"IS
~ TRUST!1R) ~ 53~ S~uth Shel lman ~ San Di mas , Ca. 91773; JONt! BOOTY ~
REPORT N0. 83 ~ ~a. 927~5 (Agent). Property des-
2h26 Pullman, ,N260, Santa Ana,
RECLASSIFICATI ~N cribed as Portions A and B consisting of two irregularly-shaped
NQ. JS-77-9 portions of 1 and comprisinc~ approximately 9.7. acres located at the
havin
northwest corner of l.incoln Avenue and bel Ai r Street, 9
VARIANCF. N0. 2`?3Z appror.imate frontages of 331 feet on the norr.h side of Lincoln Avenue
anci 2q~ feet on the west' side of Bel Air Street. ProperCy presently
COPIL~ITIOVAL USF. cl ass i fled RS-A-43 ~~d~ (RE51 DENTI AL/AGRI CUI.TURAI_) ZOME.
PERNIT N0. 16~t:i
RE~UESTED CL/1S- IF'ICATI~tJ: ZONE2(PORTI~tlDA)T~AL~ MULTIPLE-FAt11LY
RFQUFSTEC~ VA2t,~~tr.E: WAIVER OF (A) PFRf11TTED ENCROACHME~~TS INTO RE~UIRED YARU5~ (g) ~XlrjuM
BUILDiP~G HEIGHT. AND (C) MIPIIMU~t DISTAtlCE BFTWEEPI BIIILDIFlGS, 10
CQP~STRUf,T AN a~3-U~a IT APARTf1E-~T COM~'LEX (PORTIOt~ A) .
REQUESTED CO~dDITIQPlAL USE: BUILni~ ~TSAT~~W~pTHR~P~RTION'~g).FACILITY WITH WAIVER OF t41tJI~iUM
Approxlmately 3~ Persons indlcaced their presence in apposition to the subject petltions.
Assistant Planning Director-Zoning Annika Santalahti read the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission dated August 16, 1976~ and said Staff ReF ~'t ls referred to as if set forth in
full ln the minutes.
Commissioner Farano noted for the Planning Commission that the City staff had indicated in
the Staff Report that tha c~eneralized mitigating measures ouCl3ned ln the env(ronrt!ental
impact report document were not sufftciently speciflc and he was questloning whether the
Plannin~ Commissior would consider a continuance of the public hearing on tfiat basis; and
that, speci fically~ tl~e matter of the methane gas was not sufficiently dealt with ln the
EIR.
~ ~
MI NUTFS ~ f, I'TY Pf.AN~I I tIG COMM) CS 1 Q"I ~ 1lugus t 1(~ . 1976 7G- 3E1)
ENVI RQ~I11EP1'1'I1L i MP~CT REPORT N0. I R RCCLASS 1 FI CATION N0, 76-77-9' VARIIIP~CE N0, 2832 /1ND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 1h43 ~~~ntlnund~
Commissloner flarnes note~~ th~~t she fclt ihr,rc 4lF15 a much rnore scrlous problem with thc
mnthane qns than xhe f•.IR indicated ancl that she h,id serlo~is ~1~uhts ~~hether the problenr.;
could Ge mitl~iated.
Commi ss i nner -~e rbs t notf~cl thaC he dl d noC wink to sr.e any rmre res i dences on the refuse
site unless there w~~s snme auarantee that it would he entlrcly safe.
CONt11SSI~~If.R M~RL[Y RETUR~lf.ll T~ 1'Hf: MCf.TING AT h'3'~ ~'•~'•~
C,ommissloner Tol~r notecf that~ in his ~pinion, the Plannln~ Comirissi~n sh~uld conduct thc
public he~~rlnc! ~~t this t(me, ~~nci Commissloner Far~~no note~i th~~t ~n actl~n could not be
taken on the ~~r~pns~l if the EI(t was found to be ~feffclent and if the Plan~in~ Commiss(on
wanted IC correctecl.
F1r. Jahn Booty. thc ~~ent fnr thc petitl~~ncr, appe~ired hefor~ the Planninn Commission and
statcd thr~t t~ thoro~.i~h investl~~ti~n had been m.~de. Commissinnrr Far~~no noted that hc
preFerr~~1 tltiat .~11 of the necessary Informatl~n bc included In the FIR pric~r to tf~c public
hearina beln7 hcl~i. Comr~issfoner Nerbst n~ted that thc pcoplc ln thc audience had been
waltin~ for several hours for the sub~ect mat[er to bc hearJ, an~f Cc~mmissioner Farano
indlc~ted that, in his ~pinion, khe Pl~nnin~ Commfssion could not seriously consider and
act on the sub iect nrnp~~sal wi thout t~~e com~letc~l EI R.
Chairman Johns~n nc~tecl Ch,it an EIR documt:nt ger.erally put the Planninn Commission on
notice that therP w~re certain pr~blems in connecClon with a site, however~ he had not yet
reviewed an FIR which solved the prablems.
Tt~r.reupon, Co~ missioner Farano requested th~t a roll call voCe he taken to determine
whether the public hearin~ should Ise he~rd at this time, and the follc~wing vote was taken:
AYES: COHMIS51~!1CRS: IIERB5T, KIIIf,~ M~RLEY. TOLAR
N~[S : C(1MM1 S51 ~N[ PS : BARIJ[S, FnRArio, JnIU~.~ON
AHS[N7: CnM~~ISSI~~If.RS: NONE
Mr. ferald ~Jieoll~ the soils enqineer for the proposal, appeareci before the Plannin4
Commission and stateci they were presently workinc? with the Irvine Company in connection
with similar problem5; that the actual l~cation of the refuse site had been deflned by tl~e
20 borinc~s and also the extent and capabi 1 ities of the refuse fi 11 were determined; that a
m~p had heen ~re~~~^d uslnq the information fram the borin~s; ancl th~t prior to taking
part in the subsu, .~ace operation, they did a remote sensing invesiigation of other
problems an~i determined the fill limits. in respnnse to questioning by Comr~ii;sioner
Farano, Mr. ~Jicoll indicated that o~ly parts of the informati~m from the investigation
were inrluded in the F.IR; that with ade~ur ;: control n~easures beina taken prior to
construction, the sub.iect property r.ould supp~rt ~ hiqhrise bui lcling; that the ad,iacent
development prob~bly did ne~t have ade~uate cantrol measures as would be taken today; Chat
he was ~ware of the problems with the aci_jacent residences ancl t~ e type of construct.lon on
thit property wouid not be ailnwed on the siih.ject property because of the chances of
s~~t~lement and methane 9ases; that methane gas would not explorle but ~NOUId create flare
when expose~~ to air and could result in a l~ss of life, hawever, to his knawled~e, there
h2d been only I1 lossQS of life in thc Unite~l States to date from methane gas; that a
barrier needed to be constructe~i beta~een the adjacent residential property and the fill
area and the refuse c~~p sli~ul d be t~~ i cl;cr to keep water out so that beCter <fecompos i t ion
would occur.
Cc~mmissioner flerbst questioned the type of barrier to be cons'. ~ctec~ between the subjPCt
property and the single-family resi~lentiai property and Mr. Nicoll stated that ft would
depend on the final desian which had not been undertakPn yet~ however, it co~ild consist of
poly~thylene sheeting with perforated vers~~~ non-perfnrated pipe~ etc.; that wiCh yood
dralnage and a properly desianed system; they would be able to prevent any additionai ~as
he did
from escapin~ tcyward the existina residences; that toward the mc~bi lehc+me park site,
n~t see a reas~n for a barrier; that the,-e was much less danqer in a mobileliome park
especial ly i f there was ai r-conoi t' ~ninq and/or roof ventinct; tl~at they were proposinq a
20-foot sethack for th~ apartmer.t ..omplex from the refuse fill area and, if tha apartments
Nere to be located closer than that~ they would recommend that the refuse be removed; that
the refuse f(11 was no rmre than 35 feet deep; and that the barrier would enhance the
p r~,j ec t .
• ~
Mi'NUTfC3, r,ITY L'LANNINQ CONAAISu:ION ~ August 1G,19?6 7G-382
fCNV IRUN~~F;NTAI~ IMFACT Ii~PORT N0. 183 , E~OLA93TP'IOATION N0. 76- 71-9 , VAit2AN0IP N0. 2t137_ AND
CONUI'1'IONAL~ USD; E'9;RNlIT N0. 1643 (Oontinued ) I
In reyponye to further quee~tSoning by the Plenni.ng Oomcnievion, Mi~. Nioo11 etated thAt +.he
ga:~ oou~.d Ue oontr•~lled by a vex•~ety of moi~hoda whioli had been u~ed throuQhout L~es ~oaoyal
and ()c•ange Counties; nnd thdt it eppearad eaah time hn presented i~he aub,jeot typ p p
to planning oounmi::~:lone, it was se if it waa Lhe rirst i;ime they had ever been ounfrontod
wl.th ~~uah proPosels, however, tho snare c~i.tustion wde notua].ly not warranted. Mr. Niooll
s~atc~d that tl-oy were involved ii- th~ oonetruotion of several pro,joo1;a over~ former refune
9~.'tH3, t.e., Ranoho 3an Joaquin Cioll' Cou:•ae in thA City of Irvine, eto.
Conunisaioner• King iiiquired it it would no1; hc~ve bean proper t,o :~tate the ~olutiori tu ~he
mdthane ga~ problema in i~he ~IR and Mr. NiooJ.7, i~tate~ in ttie ~fP.irmctitive.
Yr, ry~pon~e to questioning by the Planning Com~niaeion, Mr. Nio~~ll stated Lhai; the barrier
9y9t9R1 w~~uld be Yor better then witt~out a barrior ay~tem; that, in oonneetion wi.tYi £lare,
no development was prooosed over the rOPLIJ9 aiLe por ~e and that purtion of ~the proporty
would be left vaoant; that, without tY~e barrier, the gas would not e3oape tc, the ad~uining
propertie~ unless the ~ub,jeot property :~:~oeived a l~rge amoui~t of we,ter or if the void;3 were
grester allowing the gae t~ move; that methano gao travelled laterglly wi~h e good cap oTi i.t.;
and that the ad,jeoent mob~letiome park would atill experienco tho m~th~ne gesy 3ituatian, bi~+
there v.~ould bo no danger es ].ong as tl:e homes w~re vented.
ChairraBn Johnson i;hen noted the~'L it t-ppeareci ~that Lhe Plar~nind Comwission neede~l to soo a
mor~e oompret~en3lvo repurt indioating e+ll of ~Lhe information t~veilable in nrder to analyze
Commission might ask
the situation. Commiseioner Forano added thai;, although the Plannir~~~
ell of ttie questions neoes~ary to obtain Lhe nooes~tsry information ~ eveluate the subjeot
proPosal, suoh informa~tion wouid only be valid after ii~ had with~tood the exemination of the
City Staff v~ho had mor~ expert knuwledge in 3uoh matters anci, at this point, the petitioner
had not exhausted the knowlAdgo of some of i;he Pla,nning Commissioners or~ the matter.
Comroissioner Herb3t indioate~l that ti~ was not sure thst the s~zbjeot propert,y was ~ppr•opriate
for the proPosel; howover,the statdments made by Mr. Idiooll w3re adequate, ln his opinion,
to oonsidor the proposal at this time; and that i;he Planning Comm9.ssion could pass the
proposal on to the City Counoil, subjeot to o3rtai.n reoommeridai;ions per'taining to tho L~TR
documont.
Commissioner Bai•nes noted tt-at the P1e~nning Commissi~n had no definite knowledge whether the
~~+,hBne gas aould be eliminated in conneation wi.th the sub;jeot pr.oposal and suoh informe,tion
we~s a requirement to be i.naluded in the EIR for staff and Planning Commis9lon ~nalysis; that
~he was not eure that the sub,jeot property was appropristo for the proposal; and that if any
of the required items were not oovered in the EIR dooument, i~ would not bo acoeptable.
Commissioner Farano added ~that it was essential to lrnow that the rosidents in the subjeot
proj~ot would not have to go throu~;h what the people next door had to go through.
Commiysiuner• 'Polar no',;ed tttat , if the proposal would improve or alleviate the problems of
•tho adjacent :~esider.cs, he would be in !'avor of it and thet he did not feel that he wou7.d
know more aftor resding s more extei~sive report tr~n he knew already. Commissioner Farano
further notad that, prior to havin~r e full ETR, ~ would be unfair to aot on the propos~l
sinoe the developer may not be willing to do ~~~~~~t is aotually neoessary to make the projeat
livabl~; +snd that if taking the miti;;ating measures for i;he meth~ne gas was not ~"big degl"
then why had no one don3 anything about them previously.
tdlr. Booty stated that he understood ttiat ancther developer had made a proposal for the
subjeot site but wa9 not ~villing to spend the money to make it livat~e; however, they were
willing to spend the money.
~;,~,,,-~:~nioner Rqrnes noted thot, ~.f nothing else, the petitioner had oonvinced her to hsve an
open mind toward development ot' inn p:operty.
~. $ooty requested a two-week oontinuanoe in order to submit more environm,ntsl imr~ot
information pertaining to the subjeot devolopment. A gentleman from the audienoe requestecl
to reoeive d aopy of any edditional information so that the opposition could resoaroh it.
Commissioner Barnes ofYered a motion, senonded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commissbn does hereby reopen the publio heai•ing and aontinue
c~nsideratior. of Environment~l Impaot Report No. 183, Reolassifioation No. "l6-7%-9, Ve+rianoe
No, ZQ3? and Conditional Uae Permit No. 1643 to the P].anning Commiss~on meeting of
Augu3t 30, ly7u, for more envii•onmental impfsGt infor~tion, as r9quested by the peti+ioner.
~ ~
/t,-:383
MIMI'1'f85~ CI'1'Y C'I~APIIJINC} COMMI;3;~ION, AilGUST 1.6, 1~~'IG
E~C1.~~~~IFIC~TION - PUDLIO HPAR~NCi, T'IUINCI5 W. h11~1~IC7CC, DANKTO~AMh,V~~~ ~ LOANL,t1~1U11.{
N0. 76-77-1O 51;reet, Anahoi.m, Cs. 92ftU~ (Uw~ier)~ K~Y.
"" Beaoh Fiou:levard ~ W9gtI11~I1Jti~T~ , Ca. `~2(~t~3 (Agen t ) . [~~•o~,or•1~y deaoribed
VAtZI11NCi~ N0. 1833 aa a reotar-gulai•].y-~hei~~ed paruel of land ooi~3i~i,.lnF, of approxin3a~tely
~ U.H aore looc-Led ~it th~ 1101^~~1W93~ oorner of I~i.nuoln Avenu~ and Ia Plara,
having appr~x.ln~ste ft•Uil~;ago:~ of 245 foet on the n~~t~th 31de ~~f Llnoulti
Avanue and. 22U foet on the west :;i.do oY 1.~ Plaza. 1'roporty prc+3ent~t;; olassif'iod CL~
(CONQ~f~FGRUTAL~ l~IMl'.I'~D) 'I~UNI;.
~iI~(~UF;;;Tb;D CLAS3TI'ICATTON: RM-12U~.) (RT{SIDL;IVTT.AI,, MUU1'TPI,[;-F'AMI1,Y ) IONTf~.
IZl!,c1Ui~~3'PliD 'JAtl'IANCE: WAIVFR OF (~1) DdT.~IMIJM i3UILQ.CNG SI7.'Lr WTI71'I!, (D) MINI DETWLll NI~UIIDTNaSCK~
(C ) M'C~IIMUM ;~ID~ YARD ~F'CDACK, (D ) MINIMUM DI~TANOE ~
AIJD ~) RF+~QUIIII;;U f~CRb;pTIONAC,-?,}?I,^,UR~1 A(iT~~A, '1`() CONSTRUCT i'OUIZ FOUlZPIdCXL~S.
No one fndioated their pY'A~JHII<:e in oppo511;i~n to ~~~bjeai, petitions.
Alt,tioti~h tY~e Staff Rsaid~`~taff,lRopog+.T~i~gref~red.ito ~na~m~aeg~9~art~~f9the minute~.read a~l;
i;he p~iblic hearing, ~
~Al•• statadnthatpthe~wai.ver to9e]..1owr 6Gtlfoot~wid~rl.lotsawasaneae3~~~y9btt~theROthe~ w~ive~~ion
ond
ao~tld be uveroomo.
T[1~ PUBLIC HEAR7N(3 WAS CLO5ED.
Iii r~esporise ~to questioning by Coromissioner Herbst, Mr. Phelps stai;ad he ~Bathat he~wastie
had tho additional waiver3 until he reoeivod hi~: oopy oY i~ho Staff Repo: ,
minutely ~hort on all aooounts making bhe waivers neoos~e~z•y; c~nd the,t the pr•oposed t,Ilits
were idezitioal to others he hcsd CU:19'~T~uotod in the City.
r,o~nmissioner Herbst cioted tha~t t•ho pc•oposal oould be for three 7U-foot wide lots with ~ne
sido-on lot on Linooln, ro.thor thsr~ four 6U-fooi; wide lots, as propused.
Co~rcii.asioner Tolar noted thgt the petitioner shou''~i have reyuestod e oon~. iance prior to
this me~tirlg in order to revise the p].ans rather ~l~an aliowin~3 the item to bo heard at thi~
meeting.
Thereupon, Commissioner Tolar offered c~ motion, seconded by Commiss~an~he pubJ.icQhoaMingoBnd
CARRIrD, that the An~sheim City Plannin~ Commission does hereby reoper~
conti.iiue oonsidoration of Petiti.ons for Realassification No. 76-77-10 and Varie~noe Ido. 2833
to the Planning Commission mseting of August 30, 1976, for revised plans.
FECL&SST.FICATION - PUBLTC HEARITIC~. ROYAL C. AND LOUISE tJ[. J~~S~L. BARISIC,h4848tJ~akeview
N0. 76-77-17. Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. y28U4 (Owner~s);
Avenue, Suite 101, Xorba Linda, Ca. 926HC~ (Agent). Property desor~bed
VARIANCE N0. 'L834 ae e rectangularly-ehaped pai•oel o.f land consisting of two portions
• oomprieing approaimately 1..2 acres looated at the nor~hwest oorner of
Teranimar Drive and Western Avenue, having ~pproximate f.rontages uf
115 fe9t on the north side of Teranimar Di•ive ar.d 465 feet or.. t.he west side of. Western
Avenue, rnd further doscribed ~s 811 South Western P.venue. Propertg pre~ently olesyified
RS-A-43,OOU (RESIDENTIAL~AGRICULTURAL) ZONN;.
REQUESTED CLASSIFZCATION: F~NI-2~lUU (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMTLY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VAEtIANCE: ~B CKOFAND, (C )NM~AXIMUMIWALL I~IGHTwITOlH001STRUIIT OUftsDIIPLEXES.
Approximately 10 persons indicated their presenoe in o~position to subjeot peti'tions, and
forthwith wsived the full resdwng of the Staff Report to the Planning Con~mission dated
August '16, 1976, on tihe basis that they had reviewed oupie:> of same.
Although the Staff Report was not read ~t the publio hearing, said report is referrod to
and msde a part of the minutes.
Mr. James Barisia, the agent for the patitioner, appeared 'oefore the Planning C~mmissiar~
and stated hb had disaussed the proposel with the edjaoent land owners and understood that
there was some written opposition tc the subjeot proposal; that the petitioner woiild like to
roquest a aontin~xanoe on the basis that th:;y had not known about the opposition until late
Friday (August 13) and at wouldplike toeexplore~morepthoroughly vhatgthefneighborghmighthad
boen spoken to; thet they
~ ~
l6-3Ej4
MIMPI'E;~ CTTY PI:ANNINq C~!ldTSS'2')N, Augunt 16, 197G
RiCCLJ+SSIFICATTON IJC. 76-77-11 AND VAI~IANCH; N0. 2834 (Conl;lnued )
].ike to have o ior struoted on tho ;~ub~eat property; ond that they woul.cl 11ke to mdet with i,he
peo~,lo during the Rext ouuple of w~ek:- and prvbably r~vise the P~Kil~t•
D that
Commi.s~iuner Morlay offered a o~ot;ioYi, ~eooncled by CuRUni~~iuner King and MO'.rION CARR7L~ ~
tl~e Anaheim City F'lonning Commis:+i.on doe.~ horoby oontinue th~~ publio h~+aring and ac~~~3~tderr~tiun
ot P~t.ti:i.one for Iienle~sif~oation I~o. 7G- 17-11 and Varianoe No. 2E3:3~~ ti~ t~he E'l.c~nni~~g Commis3lon
meeting of Auguat 3U, 1~Jlu, ue req~ae:~l~ed by th~a peLltionbr.
CONDI`P:LONAL US~ - PUDI.,IC FN~AF,ING. :iTf1T'AC, ZNC., c/o SIi~~,I~ OIL COMPAI3Y~ KA: t'OWLL,L, P.O.
1'L~f~M7T IQO. 1641 Box 2G'158, San Qiego, Ca~ ~~212U (Uwnei•); reyuesting permi~:~ion to
F~rABLISH A ARNr-TIIROUC~H [~S'1'AURAMI' WTI'H WA111ICR OF' MINT~4UM NUMB}t~R ~~F'
PARKIN(3 SPACL~S ~~n property da;ior•lbod ae an irregularly-shaped pe,rael oi~
1.and oonsisting of approxia-ately U.3 aor•e looat~d at the northeaet oarner of' Lincolr~ ~~~onuo
a-id Rio Vist;a Street, hovitig approxiwate fronte~gos c~f 135 feot on the nori;h side of Linooli~
Avenucj °~denue.f ePro~ertyepresetitlyeo].a~sified~~CL (COt~uIDlRG2AL,=I.ZMI`1'~Da~ZUNEbed as 7E~11. Easi:
L~inooln P
Mr. Freeman Claus ~ 9I1 agont for tho petitioner, appegrc~d Uefore the Plsnning Oor~mi~siun and
stai,ecl that they wero prepasirig to deve].op a dr~~ ve-tkirough restRUi•ant on the s~.ib,ject E~roi~or•~Ly;
that they wou'ld abide by the reaommendatloii:~ contain~,d in the Staff Report, howovor, thoy di.d
need the number of parkin~ spaoe:~ proposed; that thc~ design of the propo9e,1 we~~.~ for maxl.mum
benefit of 1;Yie propec~ty for the operator; R~zd that they had done a nioe ,job with the land-
soap:ing i~o mske the pro,jeot attraot~ve.
THL PUBLIC I-I~AR~NG WAS CIAS~D.
In roWP~~nalosestuto~theiinterso'otien~ofJl~nooln Avemte4andoRioiVistatS~reete eooatedgon
drive y
[;io V~.sta Si~reet, wo~a].d bo olosed.
Iii response to further yuestioning by Chairmr~n Johnson, Mr. M. Miller, 2624-B Tustin
Avem~e, 3n agent for the petitionoc•oISP~o~orof their6businessnwasgdriveithroughIlendtthat
that at their preaent looation 50~'
tha business was aotuelly geared for drive-throtigh to Yeep the lot oleared.
Commissioner King noted that harkingbproblemshthereJeot shopping aent~i• parking lot many
times and had never observed p
Cummissioner King offered a motiori, seconded by Commissioner Morley aYid MOTSON CARRIED,
th~t tre Anaheim Ci~ty Planning Commission doas hereby reaommend i;o the CitY Counoil of the
City of Anaheim that t,ha aubject projeoi; be er.empt from the requirement i;o prepar•e an
environmental impact roport, pursvant to the provisions of the Cali.forni.a Environmental
Quelity Aot
Cominiss;~r~er Kir,g offei~ad Resolution No. PC76-154 and movod for i.ts passage and adoption,
that the Anahei^~ City Planning Commission does hereby grant petition for Cond3tional Usa
Pormit :Io. !.~r:, sub,jeot to the Interdep~:rtmental Ccmmittoe reaommc~ndatlons. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll oe~ll, the foregoing xesulktion wa~ passod by tY~e following vote:
AYh1S : CUI~R~dISSI0IJERS : BARNES , FARANO, I~RBST ~ KING, MORLEY ~ TOLAR ~ JOHIISON
NOES: CON~IS5IONER~. NONE
ABSENT: COD1~rQSSLONERS; NONE
. ~
76-385
M~M]`~'lilt3 ~ CITY PLAMJI'N(3 CQNflu1:ISSTUN ~ Auguet 16, 1976
~'' `° :CNC I' 0. Dox ].439 ~antd Ana, Ca.
CONDrf'IONAL U51, - PUJ3L'2C HF;ARINC3. DUNN [~ROP~Ki]3~~, •- • ~
PE;fiMT'P PJO. 1(y12 y27U2 (Owner); AM6;RICAN NATIONAL PROC'~R'I'II~S, INC•,P• ~• Dox 17U2%,
"' - Irvine, CA. ~~2713 (Agent); roque~ting permi.oeion to ffiSTADLISH A DRN~-
TkiROU(3H FUC~;TAURl1M' on propot~ty desor•ibed ~s:- n i•eotengularly-ol~aped
E,e~z~oa1 of land oonsiei;ing of aaproxiu~etoly U.6 e,ore h~ving a frontage c.~f npproximately 1~6
feet ~~n the weai; side of Magnolia Aver~ue, having a uu3xi~num depth of appr~.~ximately 9U Peat
And t~,iug l~aeted approximatoly 555 feot north of tY~o oeni,erli~le of Le~ Pa1ma Avenuo. l'i'~~porty
~re:~F~i~tly ala~~ifiAd ML (INDU' ~'RT111~~ LIl~1I'J'I1ll) 'LONT (Reso.lution d ~ntent ~o CL).
Co~u~~iostoner King noLed i;ha ha had n ,.iliot of lritereot,3C)~~dee~n8e(~vY ~nethathhemovnied
p~uniaipctil Codo 5eation ]..1.~• y~~u l'roverriinent Code Se~
th~t
Pacitic Lighting oommon ni,uc ariu Dtinn Yr•operi:ios wei~ohartp+by~~l~~lt~i6lr gt~ Lthte (`hairman ttiai,
pi.u~;?uant to ~the provi:~lune of the aLuvo C~~cl~.i, 1~~~ .va,~
he was withdrawing 1'rom the hesring in oonneu~.l~?n with Condi.ti.or~al U~e ['ermit No, 164'l (Item
No. 11 of the P7.ar~ning Co~-,mis!~ion Agendct~ ~.• ~l wuuld not tak~ p~rk in oither tho C~~~CLl:1J~.UC1
or tiho voting thereon, and thai~ he had ~iut di:~~~~a;;sec1 1%11'L9 mai;t~r witti ~t~y ~~~~~i~ud~' ~f t}l°
Plaruiing Commieqion. TI-I~Ei~UPON, COMM1:>SION~+]lZ I<TTIG I.EI~`1' `l'I~ COUNCSL CHAl~43iC1~ 'iEMI'ORAIZILY AT
5:45 P,M.
No on~ indiaated tlieir• presanae i.ri 0~)~OS~.~;~.ULl i,~ tlie suU,jr~u1; petiti.on.
Although tho Staff Rgg~r~t J~~ f~hk;~p~~'~Tli~~roferrodi{ o andbmadoga3part ~ ofc)tl e minuie~ ,re~-d e~~
the publio hearing,
Mr~. TQrry Tweedt, Vioo Presidont of Ameriasn IVational Pruporties, rno., +h~ agent for ttie
petitic~ner, appeared before the Planning Commi.3aion and ste~ted that they oould aee nothing
i:i the Staff Report whioh posed a~rob7.em~ for~'_eh~oPuire onl;snd thai; no variBnoes were bair.g
requested and they would meet the ar~kin p q
TEII~ PU3LIC HEARING PJAS CLOS~D.
Coaimissi~ner~ Morlsy questioned what happened i;o the beauti£u7. plan for development of i;he
sub~eot pro~erty whic:~ wes approved by the E'lanning Conunission some time priac•. In response ,
Mr. Ray Chermak, regre~er~ting Dunn Propertlos, Ina., appearecl before the Planning Commisslon
and stated that some time ago the Keno's and Don Jose's resteurants were approved on the
subjeat property and the idea of the thema strua~Lure was absndoned; th~i~ sinoe the property
was not developable os a theme park, they oame baak to the Planning Commission with the
i;hat the offioo bui.lding
oonaep~t whi.ah allowed davel.opment on an individual parr,el. baeis;
and Don Jose's was under oonstruo~Lion and the Keno's would be under oonstruotion very
shorelthrough~resteuranttbefoonsiderede andthatrthey+would~haveysomeepropertyglefg in thdhe
drlv ~
park for dovelopment :ln the future.
Coauni.s~ioner Morley noted that he was very dis~,ppointed about the way the subject property
wr~s developing. Commissionor Fa•r~no notod that so many times beautiful developments were
proposed whioh di.d not mai;oz•ie].ize ar~d it made him vory apprehensive that anybody WOIl~.C~ bfl
duing what they said they would du.
In response to questionitEi by Commissioner Farano, btr. Chermak s•tated that the offiae building
was looated to the wost of tlie proposea drive-through restaurant, and at the iriterseation of
ttie driveway.
~i.scussion pursued oonaerning ttie use of the property for a drive-through restauran~ whioh
~ight not be in keeping with the hi~her olassed development -- Don Jose's and Keno'~,
and the possibilii;y thet a servioe stai~ion might also be proposed on tt~e subjeot property,
as well as the appearance of 3t~•ip oomweroiel whioh wou].d be given to the subject property
it' the subjeat propu~al were granted. Mr. Chermak reassured the Planning Commission that
they were attempting to louate a finanoial institution on the oorner paroel.
Tn response to questioning by the Planning Commissicn, Assistant Planning Direotor-Zoning
Annika Santalahti advised tha't °rosalslwereha provedaon&pPe~proportyJforteaali~parael on-
formanoe and sinoe that time prop PP
Commissioner Tolar noi;ed thst 1~he suUjeot paroel was a key paroel, and Commissianer Farano
noted that the subject proposel weuld ahr~nge the ciraulation pattern of the ~n+iro8narthal~
areatinR ~ strip co-nmercial effeot for the remainder of the undeveloped proper~y;
the su~~,,eot proposal would make it extre~uely diffiou?.t to got a tenant f~r paroel "H."
Discussion ~ursued regarding the aoaess and ciroulat~~n for the entire park, during whioh
Mr. Cl~ermak indioated that all of tho paraels would be sold off. Commisaioner Herbst note~'
that ha did not agree with the sti•ip oommoroial impact; that the propo~al would out oPf the
acoess for the remainder of the park from NSe~gnolia Avenue; and that the intent of the original
design was an integrated shopping oenter.
• ~
MINUTF;~, CI'PY Yl,l1NNINC3 QOGMAIS~ION, 11ugu:~t 1G, .L'17(i
~(;-3t16
CONDITIONAi~ USIC 1'~RM7T N0. 16~12 (C__ o_„t1l;inued )
Mr. Chec•me-k mttide an aesua~ptloti ttiat tt-e T'lan~~!rg ~~»~'1~~s~lcn ~eewed tu bo ootioertied tti~t at
somo Puturo tlmo .•~ would be a~king fot• ndditior~esl dr•i.vow3y~ un Me~gtiolirs I+ve~~uu; l~~wdvei~,
hg 9j;g'~gd ~~19 hr~d ,}u3t turTied down H V~F3~l.d tenan~~ ~9~)Q~a:~~ O~~ fi~0Ut~3:3 probl~m:~. CUfOQl~98~~)T1GC
Herbst noted thai, w~~ the l~ int oi' oonuorn -- no ctooea~. Comtni33ioner raro-io noted t,hat i;he
tanant for paroal "H" would probably not fit lni;o the Kdneres' them~ of the pro~~o~ed
oeutar and the aooo:~~ prob7.em wou.ld beoome eo difY~o~alt th~~: the property would end ~ap e
smal.'. paroely of strip aoQUneraia:l proporty.
Commissioner Far•ano offer~ed a motion, ~eoondad 1,y Commi~aioner Herb^t and MOTI~N CAf2RI~D
(Commisaioner King beic~g temporarily ab~ent ), that the Anaheiu~ City Planni.ng Commiss~uri doe~
hereby reoc.~¢nend i~o tho Ctty Counoil of the City o~ Aiie-heim i:hat the sub,jo~t proje~ot bo
axempt from tho rc+quirement to prepare an environment,al :lmpaot repur~~t, pursuanl~ to the
provisi.on~ of 1;he Califc~rnia b;nvironmr~n~al Quality Aot.
Oomm3;~,sionsr Fareno offered a re~ol'1~~C~11 end moved for lt9 nassage end adopti.on, i~hat 1:ho
Anahei.m City Planning Commig~ion does hereby d~+ny potition tor Condii~.iona7. UsA Pormit No.
1E~42 un the basi~ that the plan i~ a suL•~tanti.al and ser'~.Oll9 dop~rture from the origina.l
conoept of devolopment for the sub, oot propor~,y and would areate t~ dlffio,zlt trtsffi.o pattern
for ingresb and eRreas, r~s well aa o; eating ~~ther he~rd:itlips for fubure use of tho land
whi.ah might result in the devoloproent of nbri.p commeroial usos bel;ween the nori;h and soutY:
boundaries of the ~ub,jeat pruperty; Rnd, f.urthermore, approval of t,he proposal would set c~n
undesirable preoedent for future similar requests on the sub,jeot propor~ty.
Commissionor Herbst incluired if the petiti.oner would 11ko i;he opportunii;y to rodbsign +ha
pi•oposal, sinoe it presently aonsti~tuted ~ a~~mplete dep~rture from 1;Y.o ori(31na1 philosuphy
of the shopping aenter. Commissioner Tolar noted that a redesigr~ of ~h~her~rivoways~ofathe
indicate some interior street dosign to kesp the tr~~,fic from a~~ossinp,
ad,jsaent paroela i;o get in and out. Commissioner I'erano noted that it was poasible the+t
strip oommeroial with smaller establ.ishrnents stxch as liquor storos, ole~ning e~taUlishments,
eto, , rather than largo onA:~ ~uoh e.s br~nks, wou'lci be appr~opriato for developmenl~ of t;he
propertW~sioonoernedeabouththe clrau7at;ion~ &TlCig'tYlf3~ hoewould not b~esir.ofe~vor~ofrdrivewaysgt
he too
overy 3U f6et along Magnolia Aven!io.
Thoreupon, Mr. Chermek requested a four-week oontinuanoe in order to revise the plans, as
disaussed, to provide for on-site ciraula~Lion.
Commissioner Faratio withdrew ~Lhe fore~oing r~3olution.
Commissioner Tole~r offerAd t~ motion, seaor,ded by ~oau~iissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIPID
(Cun~issianer King being temporarily absent), that the Anaheiua City Plsnning Comeiission
does hereby reopen i,he pub"lio heering and oonti.nue aonsofeSe~tember 13ti1976,fas requesteaa~
Use Permii; No. 1642 to ~Lhe P~_anning Cemmission meeting P
by the petitioner.
CO',1MI~SIOI~f~.R KING R~'.CURNED TO Tf-IE COUNCIL CHAI~ER AT 6;25 Y.M.
(' ?DITIONAL U:~~ - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT AND F~LEN DUI1rZ, 3026 West Be~ll Road, Anaheim,
I'L ,~T'I,i~~~ 1~4q ~g, 9ZgC~ (Owners); requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL
- - on property desoribed as an irregularly-shs~,ed parcel of ].and aonsisting
of approximately U.4 aoro hdving a frontage of approximAtely 132 feet on
tho south side of Ba11 Road, having a maximum depth of approximstoly 207 2'eet, being looated
aprroximately 400 feot west of the oenterlino of Beaoh Boulevar•d, and further desoribed ~s
30:~0 West Ball RoH' Property presently alaseified CL (CONIhSERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
No one i.ndioated thoir presence i.n oQposition to the subjeat pett~icn.
AlthouBliahhearir.g,RsaidtStaffi1Repo~rt~lisgrefe~redito endemadegaspart~ofythe minutas~ree~d at
rhe pu
Mr. Robert Dultz, the petitioner, appeared beYore the Planning Commission and stated thati
beoause of the mediaal nature of the buildinqs on the subjeut proPerty, he had pursued every
i.e. doctor':+ offioes, insuranoe
possibility of renting the property for mediaal use, ,
offioes, e+o, Mr, Dultt read from a letter wh~oh he had reoeived from a str~iottiral engineer
who at one i;ime wss Direntor of H.U.D. and thd Army Corps. of Engineers, indioating that the
gubjeot property ond area v~as suitable for e vetsrinary hoapital.
T(-IE PUBLIC I-I~ARING '~UAS CIl~SED.
~ ~
,l ~;- :~t~ 7
MTNUII~I~i~ CI'1`Y PI,APJN7Tlii I;OMbtISl1TUN~ Augt~[~i, 1G, 1.91t~
CONllTL'T~)IIAI~ l'SI~ 1"P~l1MI7' N0. 1f:A4 (Contitttted )
~~ r Mr. Dlxl.tz uLat;ed +,he r~asoii ttifly i~ad iiul,
In t•osronse to quesi;loninK by C~mu~i:~,~i~nor Ktng,
oon:~l,r•uoted thd E~-ic~ot high Q1ft90T1I•y wa'11, as rdyulrea9i.U1.1111noo1~hov1rgha4bow11-~g ~s1:l1oyr~~tloo
N~,, •)t;~;~, was beoe-u~e they were invo~tigating ttie p Y
tho ad,~aoeTit propert,y to the we~t; and that, ~txey tia~i beon workir~g oii that ltc~m :Cur• apE~i•oxi-
wat~ly lU mont;li~.
Cvmmissiorier Fe~r~.no noted that ~i~~rnet,l~ing should be dono +.~ c~ii;her o~n:~truo~ itic~ wa].' ,~uai, a
bond, or oomp.leto the nogor,ir~tion for' 1,I19 ~d~eoent propar'tY t~ the west.
ln roRpunae to questioiiing by Commi:+3loner To1or, MIr. Du1tz :+~ated thst tho proposed Yeoi.litie~
wo~xlci serve as n emall veteri.tiary alinia; that t;liei~e mi.ght be overnight oare ~~ooasionall.y, but
no boarding of auimals as 9L10Y3; and thet tho animal:~ would bR ~~'tfur~ther3stated~t,he~{onl.yfing
would be pravided, if neaessary, in th~ reoovo-•y roon~. 61r.
oppo~i.tion they might ha~~e ~'rom ~.he ad,Jaoen~l; propFli•ty owner~ ~rould bo if they propo:~od a
mezssa~e pnrlor or something of that riai;uro. Cummie;~ianer Tolar +Y~~~he~t0o,oh~iosVahouldabe
bowling u11ay were develuped on tho ad,}aner.t proper~',y to the wes~, P 1-
. a:lvided Uy a wall ~inoe a veterinsr,y hospitcsl and e bowling a11ey wore IlOt aompr~i~iblo t.isee•
Commi:~,~ioner Kj.ng noted i.hat, in his opinion, a wall would not be neaessarY on the west.
Pur~su+~nt +o iurther disoussion, Mr. Duli;z stipulated i;o oonstruating a G-fcot hi6h mar3or.ry
wa11 e,'long the westorly pruperty lino, or i~a pa,-+t a boizd ii~ an Rmount and form s~ti3faci,ory
to the City Attorne~'~ ~rfi.oo for tho consi;ruotion of' naid wa11; and that in ths eveni; thftt
a band should be pos~ted in 1i.ou of oonstruotin~ the wall. prioz~ to Yinal building snd zoriing
inepections, the bond shall beoorno due and tho wall con3truci;od wittlin one year of the date
of approval of i;hi~ oondii;ional use parmit, unles3 e~n extension of time shall he ~rantod by
i;he PlRnriing Commission.
I•t; w~zs no~tad that the Dir~ector of thA Planning Departaieni; had dotei•mined that the prupoaed
acti~~i.ty fell within the definition of Seoti~~n 3.U1, Cla.~s 1, of i:ho City of Anahoim Guidc~-
:Lino~ to tlie Requirements for an Envir~on.mori~t;al Impact Repori; and wes, therefure, aategorioally
exempt fr~om the rc~qui-remeni, to f'~le an EIR•
Commissioner King off.ered Rosolution No. I'C76-].55 and moved for its passsge and adoption,
that tYie Anaheim City Planning Comeiir~~ion doe3 her9by grant Petition for Cunditional Use
Permit N~. 1644, suk~,jeat to tne fore~o9.ng stipulstion of the petil•ioner pertc+i: ug to
the wa11 on the westez•ly propertV l.ine and subjeatto tho Interdepar•tmental Committee recom-
mendations. (See ftesolution Boolc)
Or. roli call, the forAgoing resol~xtion wRS yassed by tho following voi;e:
AYES: COIvIl~AISSIONERSr BAFtNES, FARANO, FiERBST, KING, MORL.~F'Y, TOLAR, JOHNSON
NOES: CONiMISSIONERS: NONE
ARSENT: COMMISSIUNER5: NONE
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. THF TOWN TOUR FUN BUS CUMPADiY, INi'., 3U4 Katella Way,
PERMZT N0. 1645 Anaheim, Ca. 92f302 (Owner); requesting oermission to ESTABLISH A BUS
-' TFRMINAI, on property dasaribed as a reotangularl.y-shapod parael of larid
oonsisting c~f approximately 0.5 acre havi.ng a frontage of approximately
52 feet on the wast side of Mou.r.tain View Avenue , hnvir,g a maximum ~lepth of approxima'tel.y
3h0 feotaesaribed~ast1825pNount~n~ViewOAvenue.sOPropertyhpresertly~classified1RS-A&h3,000
further
(E~ESTDL~'NTIAL~AGRICUIlPURAL) ZONE.
No one indioal,ed their presence in opposition to the subje~t pe~titior,.
AlthoughioY1heariff,RsaidtStaPfhP,eportnisgreferredito and madega9part~of9the m.lnutot.read at
thH pubi n8
~~r~ Mike Valen, the agent for the pe+•itioner, appeared before the Planr~ing Cou~ission and
~ steted they had been e~t the sub~ect looetior~ ior abou~t six yee~rs; that they had purohased the
subjeot pro~er'ty and proaeeded to u~e it for~ parking tndi^ buses; that Yie had coriversed wit;h
Mrs. Ceshdollar, the person who sub~cittod tha letter in opposition, and had indiosted thai;
an 8-foot high masonry wall would be aonstructed t~~ proteot thA resid~_its of the adjaoent
taob~.lehoma park; tha't they had tried ~o aid t~irs. Cashdollar to hei• •Hishes by not starting
the '.~U99g ao early in the day; that the bus operal;ion had expanded and was a vieble oompar~y
with 20 busea; that they now had a Tre~ilways t~erminal; and that buse~ were a neoas~ary
mode of transportation in this day and age.
~ ~
7C>-3Hf3
MTPdII'l'i15~ CITY L'IJINNIPi(3 CON~1IaS1:ON~ Augu;~~L 1ti, 7.'~7G
CCND.1''1'I~NAL U3P; PIilRMI7.' NO• ~.f~J ~COI1~~llllfld )
~P}m; PlIL1LIC I3CAli:L1VG WA ~ CLI~SGD.
Commi.:.i:,luitet• Perano t~oted that t}ie proper•i,y `Na`i ori~;icia7.l y approvod Lu hav9 a~i.nur~ repair
worlc and {~resetitly it Qppoa:~ed thttit ma,jor' onBj.no woc•k war~ boing u~~t~d~ioi~od. In re:~pon~~e,
~n~•, VU1F~n at,ated they he~d ao~ s bsok to the C'1a-in~ng Connnl.~~ion prior ~o thia timo l,o
itl(1L'99JF1 t,tl9 ini:en:~ii;y Uf tt19 I'A~lFl~t' WOCIS ~;() }J9 p6T'tOI'U19C~ OYl t~10 U11F9~ 9t tt11.9 Z.OCQ~~U11.
Cuuiml~sioner Farano made an ob:~orvetioz~ thai~, peihaps lt wc+s time to oonsi.der whether• the
sub,jeot looation was s~ i~ropr~.ai,o f~~i• tho ~ua oparni,:toii sinoe ori.giiially the propo~~l was
to havo the chRnging of t,lren and othor minor operstion3, and now they wore pr~~poai.ng Lo
do ma,7or overliaul.s; and that th~ origi.nn~. ~p-~rova]. for mt~lciton~rio~ ancl r~pnir work. did not
lnclude ma~or overhauls with t~ meahanic on duty. Tn response, Mr. Valen :itai;ed tho subject
property was ldeally situated +,o diapatoti ~U309 ve.r~y rapidly.
In t~osponse to yuoytioning Ly ~~~~i'JSi~nAr Mor:lu~, Mr• Va7.en ;ttated ~he :3ohedule for p~ving
i;tie oiitire proporty depetidod largely on eaotiomic fftcbors; that hc~ had not raalizod tha~; ~1J.
inol.udi.n 3treet
of tlie c~dditiunal condit;ions of ap[~rov~l would be r~quostod by th~ City, B
~.IApT•ovuments along MounLain View; 1;ha~L they hKd intendad tu improve tho property in phaso: ,
~~tarting ~ut with only about one-h~].f of th~~ property and eveni;ua.lly making a service garc~,~e
out of it a11. Ooinmi~~ioner Morley noted Lhat, unfor~L•unatol•Y, ~he potitioner he~d a dus~i;
problaui with the pi•~perty. Mr'• Va'len s~;sted tha~; they would probably pave i;he ba~l; pot•tion
very quickly.
Ttie definltion of a bu~ terminal wa~ dlsoussed, as set forth in the C~~de, and it wa~ iioted
that it way important to give it a dePinitlon.
Ccmmis:~ orier Iierbsi; noted that ii, appeared the bta~ i;er'minal was oreati.ng adversa 9I1V~T'OTl-
andtho questioned vhai;hwould be ~providedeinondditionf toklth~d8&foot higY;~u~asonryewadir4to;
proteot tho residents.
Commiss:~oner Tolar notad that thc~ suL•jeot property appeared to be conduoive to thu Uest
terminal use sinae it was in olosA proximi.ty to the froeway, etc., e~rid he would 68
i:hat ~t least 5 or 6 feet of landscgoin~ be provided adj~oent to the 8-foot high wall
1;o add buffer•ing for the ad,jaoent residents.
Commissioner Herbst thon noted that if the propez•ty was to be used for a bus torminal,
the buses wvuld have to stay at least 50 feet from tha we~ll adjaoent to the residential
property ar.d not 15 feet. In conauz•renoe, Comm:~ssio:zer I`arano noted tlzat the buses made
extre~oly loud naises for long periods of ~;ime dur•ing the sterting poriods and from a 50-
fooi; distanoe i;he.Y woro still very loud, in addiLion to thA fumes that were genorated.
In :esponse, Mr. Va1~n stated they would a~ti;empt ~to not start the buses so oarly in tho
mornin~s, however, t•hey would heve to meet their sahedulos.
Commisaioner Tolar~ noi;ed that in tlie past ~is years 1;he potitioner tie.d tried to get alon6
with the noighbors; tl:at he did n~t favor abandoning osedithemity at thi~ l~oation; -that,
for an example, everyone wanted ohurohes but they opp
Commissioner King noted that ~itlvplling of the area vrould noi; holn the dust problem and he
inquir•ed if the petitionei~ would oil in lieix of pe.ving whir,h would be more eaonomica:L.
Commissioner Morle;~ notod that he would like to see the pr~~perty p&v~dossibloeupuii,
Mr. Valen stipulated to paving the oroperty as soon as eoonomioally p
Disoussion pursued concerning the di.si;anoe whi.oh should be reqiiirod between the starting
of the engines and the adjaoent resi~ential property, and Commissioner Farano e:~plain 1
that the e'leotrioal starters whioh were reqtzired to start diesel engines were very noisy
and then the eng:.nes would run at very high rpm's to gei~ them to temperatures of ~sbout
1U00°, generally taking abou~~ 2U mintites bofore they were ready to leave.
Mr. Valen clarified that the old housb on the property would be demolished in the futuro.
He ouestioned the oondition r•equiring that ourbs, guttors, eto., ba installed along Mountain
Viow, noting that no ons on that street had installod said improvements. In response,
baen required to
Miss Santelahti advised that the property would have, at the very loast,
post e bond, although the improvemonts may r~ot havo been made. Offiae Fngineer Jay Titus
advised that one of the ad,'aoont properties 'N98 given a i;ime limit by the City Cuuncil to
oonstruct the street improvements on Mountain View.
Commissioner Fare~no offered a motion, seoonded by Commissioner Morley, and MOTION CI+CtRIID,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reo~~nmend to the City Counail of the
City of Anaheim that the suUjeot projeot be exempt from the requirement to propara an
environmental impaat report, pursuar,t to the provisions of the Californie Environmerital
Qua].f.ty &ut.
~
~
MINU'CLr~~~ CI'.CX 1'LJ-NNINC} COMMI~`.;TON, Aug~~:~L 1G, 1`17C~
7G-:.~H~~
r;iltJDIT.. JNAI~ USL i'b;RMZT N0. lC,~lS (Cont~in<«d,)
Cc>~~nii3:~ioner I'arano offered Ro~olnl;ion No. PC76-1~~6 r.~.nd moved for its pe~3sago and adoption,
that tlle Anaheim Cii;y Planning Coumii~3lon dodn hereby grrsnt Petition f<>r Cortditioiial U.~e
i~ornil.t No. 1C~15 , grant~.ng the PI'~~})~~OHCL expanaion of the oxistin~ bua teru-.i.ue]. f.'or a periocl
o~~ ~:~~,~~ year, ~ub,~doi~ 'to review ~nd oon~~deration a:~ tio whe~thor the uac~ h~s:~ Ueon d~Lt~imerital
i;o th~ aroe; sub,ieat tu the ~tipu:l~tion ~~ the ~9t~~~UT19C• 1;0 oonstruot an E3-fooi; hiQh mr~ncnry
wall a:long the W93'~6I•7.y proPerty line ad jc+odnt to the mobiletiomo P81'~ ~ Ju~,000Ct;tC'.L~11~Uwf ~7.ana
, F
wido, heavi.ly lgndsoapod buffat• ~trlp beiTig provided a.l.ong the we3tei•ly p p Y
for :~:~id 1r~ndsoaping to bo submil~,i;ed to the Pl.e~nning Depai•~tmont for aPpr~val; thai; tlio appz•c>x-
].mately ona-half of Ltie aub,jeot property to bH ~iyod for drivowe-y:~ ,~tor•aga , maintenanoe nnd
pnrking sreas ~hd~Y1 be paved, ~s soon as poq3lblo sinoe the saU,jeot uae is ourrently in
e;; istenoe , and the'~ the remaind~r of the proper ~y stitsl'~ i~a Prsved ag ~uon as e~.onomiaally
foasib].o, as stipulated to by the pe+..itioner; snd :~ubject to tho Interdepar•i;ment~:l Con¢nittoo
rooor~unendatione, (See Reso:lution Dook)
On roll oa11, the for~gotr.p reooluti.on was ~~f1J30CI U;J thc~ {'ollowing voi;e:
AY~1u : COI~.4ISSTC''.~I}+'RS : BAEZM~S ~ I~ ARATJO ~ Ei~RAS'1' , KING ~ ~~!OR1.1~;y ~ TOLAR ~ JQFIII.,UN
Npr,^, : COMMTSSZON~RS : NONP
AI3:;liT1T: COtuWIS ~STONERS: NONE
ConunissioneY• Farano noted ~thaL an 8-foot high masonry wall wc~s buing requj.red on the wester7.y
shou].dtbolimpr~vediby~poe4iblyopuptinglthe~~erminalout~ide~r some~kind ofr~p~rmanen~eroofpar~y
EiEPOC1'rS AND - I'I'EM N0. 1
RECJN4~NDATIONS GE~P~ A~D~T PRQC~DU:i~ - Poliay
It was noted that the subjeot matter was oontin~iod from the Planning Commissi.on meei~ing of
August 2, 1976, for further si;udy b~ the P.lanning Commissior~.
pssi::i,ani; Ylaniiing Director-Zoning Annika Santa].ah1:i presenied the Staff' Repo.~t to the
P1Rnnir:g Comr,ission dated Augu3t 16, 1976, and said report is retari~ed to and made a part
of ttie minute~. She noted thr~i~ +he sugges'ted prooeu~~re was to prevent having to oonti.nue
publia hearing items after they had boen advertised ~r'~ftroelsho~naurrently~withpGeneral
de~re?.ope: s from makii,~ dovelopment proposals on larg ~
Plan amendment3 and spending monsy on plany, eta., on thc~ assumption that tho Flanning
Commissiun and City Counoil would be epproving the General Plan amendmonts whioh wouid make
the developments acoopt~ble from a zoning standpoint.
Considerable discussion followed during whioh tha Plannin~ Commission ~renerally ~greed not
to take an aation on the sub,;ect u,~t+.er at this time.
Commisyioner H~rbst oYfered a motion, seaoncied by Coromissioner King and MdrION CARRIED,
that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commissiori does hereby table their co:isideration of the
proposed polioy establishing e~ General P1ari amendmeni prcoc~dure for aocepl,anae cf speoifia
zoning petitions.
ITEM N0. 2
REQUEST FOR EIR NF~ATTJE DECL~IRATION - I'or a grading permit at
461 Country Hill Road.
It wes noted that an appliaetion Ye d Ueen filed f~i• a grading permit to aonstrunt a single-
family residenoe at the subject address; that Qn e•~eluatiun of the environmental impsot of
grading a~; this looation wt+s reyuired under t;he provisions of tha Californie Environmental
auality Aot and the 5tai;e EIR Guidelines beoause the project was looated in tho Soetiio
Cor~he~p~anninheDepartmenttandlthe EngineeringtDtO~sioildindioatedtthat~ittwould~havednorading
by B
signifiaent environmental impaat.
Cooamissioner King offered a motion, ~econde~d by Commissior_er Farsno, end MOTIODi CARRIED,
that the Anaheim City Planning (;ommisalon does hereby rooommend to the City Counoil of the
City of Anaheim th~t the sub,Jeot pro,jeot be exompt from the requirement to prepare an
onvironmental impact renort, uu!•9uant to the provisiozis of the California Er.vironmental
~~uality Act.
~ ~
'/6..3yO
MINVIL;~~ CI'i'Y 1'LANNIN(~ CQlJ~.TSSZON~ Auguat 1~, :147G
F~A.i'UR'P~ AND RII1CObR~N17A'rI0i1S (Cunl,lnued )
T'i'~M N0. 3
DOPTI Or CONFL]:CT OI~' 1~JTICI~S`S ~~DI~
Uepnty City Attorney Fra~lc Low.ry nutod ]'or 'the P1a~nning Oomariest~n taa~ the Po1.ii;ioal
Rei'o~'~n Ao~L of 19?6 required tha~L said Couuni:>:~ion adopt it.r~ own Confliot of Intereat Code,
ap~,"~ionble {;o a7.1 ita membera; the.` the Ctty Ai;torney'c~ uffiae h~id prepared Exhihita "A"
and "D" setting foi•th the reoommc~nded Code; that to11ow1.ng Y1aYinxng Commisston adopl;iun, Haid
C~de wauld be aubmitted to the ~;ity Counoi]. for review and approval, ~:nd ~+vithin 30 days afic+c'
the oifeotivo de~te of tlle Code , the Planning Co~nmis3loii memUer:~ and d~~signeted employoes wi11
be required to subn~it statemonts of finRnoirsl intere~t to the Cii;y C1,Ark, and stsid statements
shal7. be kept on fil.e i.n the offioe uf the C11;y C1ork.
Conunisaioner Farano offc~red Resoltitior. No. PC76-157 and movod tor i.ts ~assage arid aduption,
that the Anotieim City Planning ''ommis3lon doos ]~oreby adont a Coniliot of Ini;erest Codo ,
applioable ~to the e~embers of said Com-nission, p~zrsuan+, to the Polil;ioal Reform Act of 1974 ,
as sot forth in ~xhibits "A" ~nd "B" ai;taohed tt,erei;o. (See HASOIu+ion Boolc)
~n ro11 oel] , the foregoing reaoJ.uti~n was p~ssded by tlie fallowing votat
pyES ; COIv4~AISSIONH;RS ; BARNFS ~ I'ARANO, HERBST ~ ICIfK] ~ MU~' 1+~,Y ~'1'OLAR ~ JOI~W ~UN
NO~S: CUDMdISSIONPKS: NONF
ADSFNT: CONAd2SSI0NGRS: NONE
fiDJOURNtv1~NT - There being no further business tu disauss, Commissionor Herbst offered
a motion, seoonded by Cowmis~ioner King, and MO'1'ION CARRIED, th~zt the
meeting be adj~•~.trned.
The meeting ~djournod a~L 7:~5 P•m•
ftespeotfully submitted,
Jdf~u~!
~~~~ n ~
Patrioia P. Soanlan, Seoro~cary
Anaheim Ci. ~y Plannin~ Com~aission
O R r, (! MIL'ROFILMING SERVIC~, INC.