Minutes-PC 1975/10/060~ C 0 MICRJFlLMING SERVICE INC.
~1 ~ ~'
City Nall
Anahelm, Callfur•n6a
Octc~ber 6, 1975
ADJOURNF.D Rf.C,IIL~R ME E71 NG bF TIIf A~IANE I M C I1'Y PLANN 1 Nt', C~MN I SS 1 f1P1
ADJOIIi~~rED ~ An .adJaurned rr.gular meoting ~f t1+r. MihFlm City F'I~nninci C~~mmisslon
RF.GIJLAR wAS c~~ll~d t~ orcler at 7:3~ P•~~• ~n Octc~ :r ~~~ 1~%5~ In t:hr_
MF.ETING Council Chamber. a quorum beinn rrescnl.
PRCSENT - Cf1AIRM~~1: Farino
~• COMMISSIO~ICI?S: Bar~~es, N~rbst~ Ktng. Morley, Tolar
ARSE~IT: - COMMISSIOPIF.RS: J~hnson
ALSO Pf;ES~IvT: - Frank L~wt';~
Malcolm Slaughter
Knowiton ~ernald
Annika Santalahtl
BI11 Young
Ronald C~ntreras
Coulter Hooker
Sybil SilvPrm;,n
Anyela Ramirez
Richard HI11
Lorralne Prend~rgast
Patrtcia Scanlar~
Doputy City ~ttorney
Deputy City Attorney
P,edeve{opment Ulrector
ZAning Supervisar
Assoclate Planner - Planning Departmen t
Redevelopment Plann(ng Supervlsor
Associate Planner - Redevelopment
Assoc(ate Planner - Redevelopment
Relocatlon Speclallst - Redevelopment
Planning A(de - Redevelopment
Redevelopment Cammisslon Secretary
P1annln9 Commisston Secretary
PLEUGE OF - Co~ ~issioner Mc~rley led ln the Pledge of Alleglance to the Flag of the
ALLEGIANCE Ur. _ed States of Amer(ca,
PUBLIC M~ETING ON THE PR~POSED EXPANSION OF REDEVELOPMFN7 PRQJECT ALPNA
Chairman Farano reviewed the respon sibility of the Planning Commisslon in the matter
~f selectin9 a proJect area and formulating a pre'Ilminary plan~ noting that the City
Councll had determined ~hat a redevelopment proJecC wrould bs established and that the
duty of the Planning Commission was to determinp t~~e baundartes of the proJect area;
that the Anahetm General Plan wa s being di~~layed to help clarify ~ome of the
questioris regarding zoning; that the mere fact that an area was in the redevelopment
proJect area did not mean that th~e land use would change~ however~ the redevelopment
and use of the land must conform to tFie designation shown on th~ Anahelm General Plan
-- for example, if the Patt Street a rea was shown on the General Plan fo~ fndurtrial
uses~ following adoption of a redevelopment plan when said area was redeveloped~ it
woul~! be with industrial uses; that. additlonally~ if the area south of Broadway was
redeveloped~ it would be according to che zones indlcated on the General Plan which
were mediurn density~ low density~ and low-medl~n density; that redeveloFmcnt did not
mean that homes woulcf he taken down ancl replaced with highrtse buildings~ however~
tfie homes located in the redevelopment area could be used to generate redevelopment
~unds to improve the area; that~ ?n his opinlon, it was good to be in a redevelopment
area because the streets~ alleys~ and gene~al living :~ivlronment could be improved
wdth redevelopment funds; that, howe ver, the matter o land use could change lf the
General Plan was changed; and that at the adJourned regular meeting of the Plann(ng
Commission on September 15~ 1975~ p~ople from the Patt Street area expressed the
feeling that Chey wanted to preserve their area in a manner simitar to Olvera Street.
to enhance Che valu~: of the area.
,n response to questtoning of ~t~airn~an Farano~ Mlss Ramona Re~eles~ 1031 Patt Street.
Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and stated it was nat the desire cr
the Patt Street area residents ~o make their area into an Olvara 5treet, but t'
consment in regard thereto had been made by another gentleman at that meeting (h,.
George Rauch); that the people would r:`her keep their homes an~i thcre wa~ no r~ason
for them to have to be rele:ated, a s lc.~y a~ there was nothing on the program as fa r
as the fut~. industria) development in the area; and that the people In the area
would deflnitely be in favor of f~.ip roving the resldentlat environmental of their
neighborhood.
Chalrman Farano then noted thax he had discusse:d w(th Ctty staff and at least one
City Counctl Member the possialllty of rezoning the entire Patt Street area to
residential on the Anaheim General Plan, sn that (n the case of redevelopment~ s~~id
area would nat be redeveloped diff e rently from thr. zoning designatCd on th~. Ger.eral
Plan or resldential.
~5-47~ ~
~ ~
~
MINU7FS~ CITY PLANNING CO!~IMISSION~ Ocl'~bcr 6~ 197> >'l~i77
REDEVF.LOPMENT PROJ[GT ALPHA (C~nt ( nued)
Miss Revcles sC~~ted the m~,Jorlcy of thr Pntt 5treet are~~ resldents we.~re li~ f~vor of
rcdevulo~+~~ent, but wr.rc not In fnva ~ of relocatl~n; thrte they werc (n frvor of
coaper~ting wlth the Clty ~ancl main[ainlr~~) ttielr h~mes ~~s Chey 5houl~l be r~ince they
dld nnt. w(sh to losc: thclr homc~ or be rcloc.ated.
Chalrman Farnno then nuted if therc were no objuct(rns from thc Planning Conrnisslon~
tl~c CI jy~eStdes1~n~~~~~~ forccthc t~apk~~Street~~nrea,on}t'~eAAnihelntGeneralhPlan trom
I ~n~f )
industrl~71 to resldenti.il.
Deputy City Attorney Frank lowry inqulred (f the resldentlal designatlon wrs to be
F~r multlple-family or sfn~l~e-family; vrhr_reup~n, Chafrm~n Farano Indicated th~t City
Startf should work with the peopl~ In the Patt Street arca t~ comc up wfth that typP
Informat(on.
Miss Reveles statad the people arould prefer Che area to be single-family residenti~~l;
whereupon~ Chalrman ~arano tndtcated that the peo~le should work with the City's
planning staff since the zoning should be reflective of what all c+f the people ln the
area wished; however~ in hls oplnion~ t'~~re was no reason for the properiy to be
zonecl industri~) lf It wa~ no'i to be developed in 'i'hat manner. Chairman Farano
further noted lhat if redevelopment dtd what the City wanted it to c1o~ there would be
definite Improvements to the subJect area.
Miss Reveles stated .n~ worked full ttme and would not hs available during the day
except on 5aturdays or Sundays to work rrith the City staff. Chairman Farana n~ted
that he wauld Ilke Miss Reveles and othz~ representative~ from ti~e ~ frustratingeSand
at the General Plan Amendment publ ic hearfng~ since lt was v~ery i-~^~
sometlmes non-productive t~ hold a public hearing wfth no one to respond e 1~
Favor or ac~ainst the proposal, Miss Reveles requested to be notified of tne publ(~
hearing and presented a malling ilst to the Secretary of the Pla~ning C~xn,nission for
not(fication of the hc:aring~ as follnws:
Mary Salazar~ 1016 Patt Street~ Anaheim 92801 (772-2~6£1)
Ray Savala, 1030 Patt Strec:t, Anaheim 92801
11r. Saturnino Muro c/~ 217 E ~ st la Palma~ Anaheim 92801 (for Mrs. Antor;~ L. Muro)
5. H. Cabral, 317 East Julia n a, Anahelm 92801
Jul i us Wi l l lams~ 1031 1Cem~- St ~eet o Anaheim q2801
Jer~nie Rodriquez, 1035 Patt S treet, Anaheim 92801
Miss Ramona Reveles~ 10~1 Patt Street, P.nahelm 92801 (53S"~+9~2)
Deputy City Attorney Ma.colm Sla ughter advised that the property owners of record In
the Patt Street area w.~uld also be notified concerning the General Plan Amendment
pubtic hearln9.
Mr. Sat~~rnino Muro, 217 East La Palma Avenue, Anahelm~ appeared before the Planning
Commission and questioned the va tue of his property in the area if tt were developed
residential versus industr3al. Chairman Farano noted that the property value as
residential would p~'obably be g r eater~ and Mr. Murn disagreed. Ccxnmisstoner Tolar
noted that une lot would have less value for fndustrtal development. but would have
much more value as a hornesit~e, s ince one lot wcwld not be big enough fc~r an industry.
Chalrman Farano noted that if the subject area was in the r•edevelopment area~ it
would b~ ellgible for re:levelopmen[ funds and that would incre~se the v71ue of the
property. Mr. Muro then que s tloned what would happen when the redevelopment funds
were exhausted, and Commissione r Tolar noted that the area would not be any worse off
than before,
Nr. Muro questiunzd whether t h e taxes would go up or down for the properties In the
redevelopment area; whereupon~ Radevelopment Girector Knowl~cn Fernaid advised that
the Tax Assessor assessed property based on Its use; that if the zc~ning changed and
the area was Improved, whetfie~ it was resldsnl:lal or industri~l would not matter~ but
the fact that it had improve d wauld increa!~e the taxes in either case; th~hatf the
property had lncreased value~ Tt a-ould be mor~: marketable and more salable;
people in thc ar~a should cleeide as a grou~a what they wante~1 tl~eir neighbarhood tc
end up being -- whether tliey wa nt it revitalized or to remain as it presentl~ was;
and that the community as a gra up should decide and not on a?ot-by-lot basis.
Ms. hSary Salazar~ 1016 Patt S t rPet, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commisston
and axpressed u~certainty conce rning the stat~llity of zon!ng in tfie City; whareupon~
Chairman Farano explalned the public hearincl processes for rec'.assifying property In
Ms. Salazar then
the City and assur~.:d her that ~ezan'ng could not be dune secretly.
quest(oned why the apartments were construcKed in back of her home and the pruperty
later zoned to lndustrlai. She further ques~tloned when the rezoning of the property
~ ~ ~
~11NUTES~ CI i'Y PLAI~IJING COMPI1SSIf1~~, Octobcr 6, 197~> >~~"~~~~
RF.OEVEiLOPMENT PROJ[CT ALPNA (Continited)
occurred. Mr. Lowry ~dvised that the IndustriAl dr,slgnatlon on the Anc~helm Ge!nera)
~'lt~n for thc propcrty tn q+ies[I~n was ap~~arently confuslnc~ to Ms. Salnr..ir~ .vnr1 that
the General Plan deslgnt~tlnn dld not .~lways refl~ct thr, cxisting uso of e c~lvr.n
pr~perty. Ch~.~~irmf~n Faranu addcd th~il Lhe F1<~nnln~ Commissl~n wfls willing [c~ cnnYicler
changing thc General Pl~n ~+esignatlon from indust~(nl to YC5ItIlntIF1I so thnS wh~n
redovelop~nesnt occurre~i ln thr, subJect aret~~ sold redevelr~pment would be !n thr. form
of reslden- I,il r~ir.hr.r than In~fustrial.
Ms. Salaz~~r then stated her home was I~robably not worth toc much to .~nyonr. but hrr
own fami ly; thaC t,iey wore I iving close to t he center of town and in ~~r, llnahr.lm
r.ommunity I:h~~t was not a barrto; that her ~elghborh~ocl consisteci of two stre~ts an~f
could br made a dr.cent plice to live; that t here ~iare many ~~reas In thF City Yhat
were uc~l~y; tf~al thev needed cooperation wi th rhe Clty concerning the malntenance af
the a~'~ys ~nd the w~ter that was draining i nt~ the all~eys from the factarles In thc
area; antl fi~at they were wllling to :ooper~~te in order to save their home5.
Ms. 5,~l~zar Indlcnted sl~e was still conc~rned th~t the zonir~g coul<I br.. ch~~ngcd any
timc and she ~:es uncertain as t^ whethe~ or not they sF~ould procepd to fix up th~ir
home; wlierP~.,pon, Mr. fernnld ~•eviewed the sug~estton of Chafrman Farano t~ hAVZ a
General Plan Amendmsnt whlch would preclu~ie Industrial development fr~m occurring
ando if the area remained in tfie proJeeC a~ea and was deslgnated for reslclentla)
develupment then the redevelapment arogram woul~' assist with the street ImprovemCnts~
etc.; andn further~ that lfie redevelopment p~an for tFie area wou?d of necessity have
to conForm to the General Plan ~ir_sfgnation.
Ms. Salazar lhen stated the residents were under the impresslon that Patt Screet was
n~t to be used for truck traffic and the si gns wh(ch were posted on the street to
prohibit Patt Street from being used as a truck route vrere prob~bly "phonles"; that
there were polfce officers in the area who issued cfkations regularly to the trucks~
but when res(derits checked w(th the City tl~ey were t~ld that trucks were aliowed on
Patt Street; ~ind that the res(dents were st ill intere5ted in havtng a straight answer
regarding the zoning on the property and how it would be allowed to develop.
Chairman Farano reassured Ms. Salazar ti~at i t would be extremely d) fficult, If not
impossible, for any zoning action to take plaec in her Rtighborhood witl+out the
r~~eighb~rs withln 300 feet being notif i ed of the public Fiearings therefor. Mr,
Fernald added that through the redevelopment process, a new ru ite pattern for trucks
c~~ld be developed to take the trucks ou t of the restdential 3rea, Chairman Farano
tterated that the l~eneral Plan Amendment being discussed wauld make the zoning as
~rmanent as it was possible to do.
Comrnissioner Herbst added that if some ind ustrlalists came (n followl~g the change to
residential zoning and wanted to buy u p some of the property for industrtal
development~ they would have to come befo re the Planning Corimtssion and Clty Council
in a public hearin9 process to do so and n ot(ficatlon wouid be sent to all property
owners of record within 300 f~et of th~ affected property. Ms. Sala•r_ar indicated
concern that the property might be taken for industrlal development without the
Planning Commission's lcnowledge; where u pon. Commissioner Nerbst took exception~
not!ng that anyone could ask for a change in zoning at any time as an Amer•ican
privilege~ however~ they would still have to have a public hearing to givP the
neig~5ors an opportunity to oppose or favo r the proposal.
Mr. Larry King appeared b~fore the Planni ng Commission and stated he understood that
Miss Reveles was concerned about maki~ig improvements to her property~ and then havtng
the sftuatiun reversed; and~ he would , ther~fnre~ suggeat that lf ahe made
improvements to her property and later th e property was picked up for redevelopment,
that she be reimbursed for the improvements. In respor~se~ Chairman Farano advised
that the people tn the area would probabl y be cumpensated by the fact that the
property values would be changed if the p roperties we re improved.
Miss Reveles inquired if the people in the area ~ro ul•~ have something in writing to
state that the zone would not be chang ed back to industrial. Chalrman Farano
responded that such a document would be simtlar to a guarantee that someone would
Iive forever; however~ It would be extr emely difficult for xhe property to be
reclassified bac~: to Industriai a~itho ut the cansent of the area~ and atl of the
property owners witMln 3~~ feet of the af fected property would be notifled of any
public heartngs for reclasstfication of z4ning.
Miss Reveles staCed the restdents of t h e Patt Street area were trying to save their
area so that it woulcf not become an area slmilar to that acrass from La Palma Park;
that she did not understand why they ha d to walt for redevelopment Lo have the City
clean up the aileys in her area~ wF~en people from the newspapers had evPn
~ ~
~
75-47'.~
MINU1f.5, CITY PLAht11~4G Cf1MP11'.iS10N, Or.,tc~t~,r.r !i, 1~75
RF.D[Vf.I~NMENT PRUJFCT ALPHA (Cc~ntinucd)
photagrnplicci r~nd rpi:hl isi~ed picti~~ <•s ~f thc sltuatlcm; th~t th~ rc.lclr..nts hsrl hrr.n
scrc~~min~~ f~r Chc allcys t~ br, p~vc~l nn~l werc ~i~ttlnq im~rtlrnt: ahc>ut IC. Hlgs
nevelew contlnuecl by st.~llnq khr i~IPY I,ehlnd her h~me w~is 11kr ~ mu~lh~>Ie In 71.)u.~nn;
th~t tlie str~eet swec{~ryrs dlcl not come Inco the urr,n and the residents hac! to sweep
thcir own s[rcets; ~nd th~it she was living in thc snme town she was born In. In
r~sponse, Qeputy City ,1ttornry M~~Icom Sit,uc~ht:er advis~+d the;re werc many alleys in
the City which wcre In n::e~J of Irnprovement and. although th~re vrere funcls in the
budget fc~r s.~m~~ tFn~rp werr: noC en~~u~~h fu~~ds to Impravc thcm ~~11 at one tfine~ and the
City hnJ beerti irnprovin9 lh~ alleys thrc~u~hout the Clty a Ilttle at a tfrr~e; chac If
the Genarel Pl~n Pmendment wns c~rrfcd out, a5 was heing di~cusse:cl at thls mer.tlnc~
and the residentlil ~nnln~ ~nd rature of the area firmed up. then there ml~ht be
chAngea to the prloritles of the area5 which wcr~ to have ~Ileys Improved; and that
he was predicating his commc:nts on the assum~,tiun that Improvemenls t~ all~ys which
were ln iridustrf~l x~mes were not as high priority as far resldenti~~lly zoned areas.
Chairm.n Farano sugges`.ed that the questions being raised concern(ng the alley
improvcments~ c!c.~ wou1d be further Inv~stigated by St~iff.
Miss Rcveles stated the resldents of the areH wer~~ willing to cooP~~~nstalledtlla
City~ but Lhey nceded some cooper~tion In return; and that sfie had Just
new fence around her pr~~perty a~d was trying to keep I~er homr, presentable~ along with
okhers in the area.
Mr. Slaughter revlewed some of the procedures whlch coulci be followed (n connactlon
with inclusion of property in a redevelopment area~ noling that owner participation
agreements wer~ available which could walve any rtght of the City to condemn property
durin~ the r,erlod of time that tfie ayreement was being carrled out.
Mr. Muro =tated the zoning of pruperty In r,ne Patt Strcet area was still not clear to
him~ and he Inquired if it was possible to hevr two zones lresidential and
industrl~~l) in the same area~ noting that the two types of development existed In the
subJect arc:~. In response, Chalrman Farano noted that the potential Genera! Plan
Amendment beinc~ discussed could possibly help that situation; however~ changing the
zoning designation for tlie enti~-e are? to residentlal would n~b"tme~he teXisting
industrial developme~~t wouid hav~ to move out immediately~
industrial develapment would become non-conforming uses and when the property ceased
to be used for in<.lustrial purposes, then it would have to be developeci resid~ntial in
nat~re. Mr. Ferriaid ~a.lded that a redevelopment pl,,n would he worked out wlth the
subJect community .
Mr. Fern~ald ad~ isc:d thar. important publ ic '^DUL Il? :11 gained from the publ ic
meetings hald by the Plannlr3 Commission and t~..~~ " r,ndarlesrand preliminary
etc. , an~ i t `iad bec~-~!e a~•^^+'Ent that some ~hanges
redevelc~~~mcnt i~ ~n shou'ic o c~ir: that he wo ~.i respectfu~ •st that the Planning
Commiss(on ~ake an actlon to :.e'ect som~ ,undarle~ fo~ tne Community Develupment
Staf` to wor!: wii'n. Fn'lowl~-q which St~ff vr:~,:'id be worki~g w?th the people in the
Patt Street area~ etc.~ to :e eossibly further changes concerning zoning that would
be consistent with the Ana~~Nim Ge~.ieral Plan~ with a more complete and well-developed
set ef boundar(es, (nc~udin~ :~n in-d~:pth plan for cireulation ta be brought before
the Planning Can,mission tvro ~r ~hree mor;ths from thls time.
Ci:airman Farano questicnc:d the Inclusiun oF property dtscussed by Mr. Chambers at the
public meeting held Sept°mber 15, 1975~ whereupon~ Mr. Fernald advised that the
referenced parcels north oF Lincoln near Su~I.Ist (across from Ralph's market) co~ild
be withdrawn frcvm the recommended boundaries; that additional areas discussed ~t the
meettng of the 15th may requlre further st:~dy for possible deletion from the
boundarles, some being lagical deletiuns. Chairman Farano recapped the changes to
the proposed amenJed boundaries~ noting that the onl; :.hanges th~is far concerned the
Patt Street area and the residential parcels on the n.~rth s!de of Lincoln west of
Sunkist Street.
Mrs. George Ferguson, 31~ South 41est Street~ Anahetmp appeared before tf~e Planning
Commisslon and inquired if the four propertles located at 731 and 733 North Lemon
Street~ 208 South Clementine ~treet and 1?3 South Illinois Street were lncluded fn
the redevelopment plan; whereupon, Asaoctate Planner Coulter fiooker a~lvised that only
thae Lemon Street properties were o~tside the proposed boundartes. Mr, Fe~nald nated
that whatever happened to those properties inside the proposed boundaries in the
future would depend c-, the current zoning. Mrs. Ferguson inquired whether she wauld
be able to develop her own propertles inside the proposcd redevelapment boundaries,
and Mr. Fernald indicated that there wa~ no reason she could nut proceed with her own
plans at the present time~ as long as development was conststent with the zoning and
the General Plan; however, he was requesting that she corne into the Ctty officr ~n
discuss the optlons which may be avallable for the development of her property.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PL~NNOfIG (:OhIMI`.iSION~ OcCObe~r ~~, 197'.~ ~`'-1~~~
REDF:VELO~PM[~?T FROJECI AI.PHA (Cr~nt(~ucd)
Chulrman Faran~ noted thot Mrs. Fer9uson MIAS Interested In the pnssiblc rc~llr~c.tian
oF skrects in tho nrer- ~f hcr property; whereupon, Mrs. Eergui~m ~tated she w~s ~lso
(nterested to knuw lf she procce~Jed to clevelop hcr ~roperty n~d the wfdenln~ nf
tlroad~iay to the norlh Affrcr.ed her prc,perty, could the b~undarles bo reverted h.~c;k to
thc current allc~nment of Rroadway; whcrr.upon, Mr. Fernilcl acl~~lt.<~~1 th~t whcreas
following the adc~ptlon nf br>undarfes~ s.~ld boundaries c~uld he reciuce~l, they cnuld
not be anlarged, anrl t.l,e ~ubllc he7rin~ for thc fin~) <fe~ermin~tlon of silcl
boundarles was a few months ~~way.
Mr. Slaughter noted that he was Inte;~reting thc cornmr~nts being macfe to mean th~x
Staff was rCquesting the Plarining Commis,ic~n to establlsh .~ broad outline of ~rr.~~. to
be stuciled for I~tcr Incluslon In rhe preliminary ~lan wh(ch wo~ilcl be consiclered by
the Planning Commisslan, ancl thr_ Planning Cummisslon would not be recc~mmendiny the
baundarf~s at, this mcettng.
Mr. P~tcrson~ a rc~~ltor In thc~ Clty, appeared h~fore the Planning fommfssion and
staied the proJer.t ar~~ shoutd he conflned to its p~esently ~doptcd baundarlr.s; that
the downkown sliould be developed as ~ reglona{ shopptng ce:nter with two-thlyds of the
businass t~ be from local resicfents and one-third from tourlst tracle; that the Clty
dependod too much on tourist trade alone; that, in addltlon~ he would suc~gest that
the boundari~s extend to the north to Syc~morr_~ to the west to Cltron and then to Che
rallraads to thc south and east -- not for rec~evclopment~ but to have the addltlonal
~reas avallable if lt became desirable ta cxpand the ar~.~; tfiat~ in hls opinion~ thc
access roads to the downtown area were quite adequata; that by taking advantag~~ of
the railroa~ frontage on the south and east~ much of the redevelopment could be in
the nature of lndustry; and that he would sugyesk that reconsideration oS` the proJect
boundar(es only be to extencl to the areas he mentYoned abovc.
In response to questloning by Mr. Peterson~ Chalrman Farano advlsed that only ehe
residenttal propert(es whlch were desfgnated on the Anaheiin General Plan as
appropriate for commerclal development would be redeveloped with c~mmarcial uses; and
that the presently proposed Amenciment to the ProJect Area would tn all probability
not be enlargcd upon, but decreased In siz~.
Mr. Cllff Clauser~ owner of an automohile wrecking yard business located at the
southwest corne~• of Manchester Avenue and Sant~~ Ana Street~ appeared befure the
Planning Commfsslon tu inquire whether his busOness would he relacated and in what
mai~ner. Mr. Fernald advised that any relocating due to the red~velopment proces~
would be done on an individual ~asis and some financial assis:ance wauld pra~abl~.~ be
involved. Mr. Clauser then stated they did not w?~h to be relocated; however~ thay
were interested to have informatlon perta(ning to that poystbility. Mr. Fernald
advised that a redevelopment eommittee would be for~~+ed consisting of property owners,
buslnessmen~ etc.~ in the redevelopment area, and sald committee would determine what
they wuuld llke to happen tn the area; that, alChough the project was in the ; rhe
stages~ t`~ events would deFend largely on investors, and the decis(on~ .
property owner~ whether to Improv'e their own property. etc. In response to rurrher
questtoning by Mr. C`:~~ser, Mr. Fernald advised there was a poss(bllity that nothing
w~uld happen with Mr. Clauser's buslness~ however~ as a businessman~ Mr. Clauser had
a vested interest in the area and should closely monitor tl~e process to provide
input; and that no furti~er advice couid be tendered sinCC there were no definite
plans at this point in tirie for the property in questlon.
Mr. Clauser further stated that a speed center was being constructe~+ ~ oss the
street from hlm and he was curtous if the City would allov+ that business '?~y~~o
Chairman Farano noted that the oamers in questton wc~ulcl have an o4
participate in the planning processes.
It was noterf that there wcs no one in the a~~dience wh~ wisl~ed to provlde further
Input at the meeting.
CommissiAner He~bst offered a motion, seconded by Commtssloner King and MOTION
CARRlED (Commissloner Johnson being absent), that ~he Planning CoRanissfon does hereby
tentatively select Pruposed Alpha Amendment Exhlbit "D"~ said area to be for further
study by Staff to make deletlons and/or otlier changes as di~cussed by the Planning
Commisslon~ said changes t~ affect the Patt Street area and the residentlal
properties alonc~ rhe north ,ide of Lincoln Avenue~ west of Sunkisr. Street~ although
said changes shal{ not n~ecessariiy be limited tn the referenc~d propertles; and that
followln~ further study~ sald amended Exhibit "B" shall be submltted for Planntng
Corrxnisslon consideratlon and recammendation In connectlon with formulation of a
preliminary plan.
~
~
~
MIPlUTE.5~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Oct~bcr G~ 1975 75~481
The meeting adJou-•ned at 9:05 F~•~~~
Respe~:tfully submtttede
(~. i~.l.P.~/~ ~j~ ~~l~
~
Patricla B. Seanlan~ Se:cretary
Anahetm City Planntng Commfssion
RED[VEInNMENT PROJECT AIPNA (Cnntinuad)
Gc,mmis~loner Morlay ~ffered a motlan~ s~condeci b~/ Ccxnrn~ssioner King end M071QN
GARRIED (Commissloner .lahnaon belnc~ uhsent). that tho I'fannlnn Commission does hereby
dlrect Staff to study the Patt Strer.c area fvr tnitlntlon ~f i~ General P1An llmen~~rr~cnl
to consl~fer rcclasslflcakion of the propertles In sald ar~~n from Industrlnl to
residenttal ~oning; and lhnt Staff I~e and I~ereby is cllreGted tn work with the
pro~,erty owners andro~rlatets~aning'dcsignaLionstinrconnectloniwithhsald"Gens~•a) P1An
dctermine the app P
Amendment.
It was noted that the Gencral Pl~n Amtnciment for Che Pat:t Street +~ren woul~ t~ka
approximately six weeks ta process~ and thAt the materlal 1~or Plb~ning Commission
consider~tlnn In eonnecti~~ with the proposed e:xpanslon of RedevelUpmr.nt ProJect
Alpha and formulatlon of a pre~lmin~ry plan would prul~ably be scheduled (~
approximately two months.
ADJbURNh1ENT: ~ There be(ng no fi+rther bustness to discuss, the Planning
Commfssion generslly concurred that the meeting !,e ad.Journed.
PBS:se
..~