Minutes-PC 1976/02/18 ~ ~ ~
Clty Ilall
1lnahr~m, Calif~rnia
„
~'('~1{llil!"V ~~'. ~~7)
R~~U1.l1R MECIIII~ OF THE AIl~IIFIN CITY PLANP~IIJf, COMMISSI~PI
REGULAR - A rec~ular meating ~f the ~nahFim Clty Pl~.~nin9 Commissic~n was called to
MEfTING - orcier hy Chalrman Farano at 1:1~ u.m, in the Councll Ch~mber~ a quorum
heln~ prPSent.
PRCSErIT - CHAIRMl1N: Fa~.inc~
- C(1MMISSI(1~IERS: darnes, Herl~st, Johns on, Kinc,~ Morley~ Tolar
ABSENT - COMMISSIn1iERS: None
I1LS(1 PRFSFh1T - Frank Lowry
Paul Singer
Jay Ti t~is
Annika Sant~ilah~li
Allan Daum
Patricla Scanlan
pec~~ty City Attcrncy
Traffic Engineer
Off ic.P Engincer
l.oning Sup~rvisor
A~~slstanl Zonin~ Supervisor
Planninc~ Commission Secretary
PLEDGE OF - Commissl~ner King led in the Pledge of Aile^,icnce to thc Flag of thr.
ALLE~IANCE Unit•ed States of America.
APPRO~fAL OF - Commissioner Johnsun offerad a motioi+~ seconded ~y Gommissioner Flerbst
TfIF. MINIITF.S and MdT101! Cl1RRIED, ch~t the minutea of the regular Plannincl Commission
meetin~s he1c1 on January 5 and 19, 1976~ be and hereby are approvec.',
as submitted.
Corr~missionEr Jolinson offered a moti~n~ secondecl hy Commlssloner Herbst
ancl M~TI0~1 CARRIED (Commissioner5 6arnes and Farano abstaining slnce
they were not present at the m~~~ing in question)~ that the minutes of
the Planniny Cortmissiori meetin~~ held on ~ebruary 2, 1~3~6~ be and h~ereby
arc approved, as submitted,
Commissioner Morley offer-r~i a rr~~i ion~ seconcicd by Comrnlssioner Tolar
and M~TIUI! CARRIED~ that th minutes of the Jotnt Meeting of the City
Councll and t'lanning Cammis,ion held on January 21~ ~97~~ be and hereby
are approved.
RkCLASSIFICATI~~I - COtITINUED READVERI'!SE~ PUBLIC N[ARING. MIIRIE A. ANDROU5, 1023
N~, 75-76-18 Fairway Drive, Oran~~e, Ca. 92~~6G (pwner); J/1CK S. DIIVIS, 1345 North
"'~- Grancl A~~enue~ Santa Ana~ Ca. 927~1 ~~~ent)~. Prop~rty de~crib~d as
VARIP,~iCE N0. 277') a re~tangularly-shaped parcel of lan~J comprised of two portions
_cparated by a prlvate drive~ consistir~g ;,f ap;roximately .;3 acre,
each porZlan haviny a frontage of a~'p,'~ximately lOG feet on the
souCh side of Lincoln Avenue, having maximurn depths of approxi.iately 16: feet, beir~g
tocated ap~roxlmately 73Q feet west of thc centerline of Dale Avenue, and fur~l~er
descrlbed as 2"5~ ancl 2£3E~!1 West Linc~'.n Avenue. Property presently classified CL
(:.OMMERCIAL~ LIMITEU) ZONE.
RECI.UE~TFD CIASS~FICATION: R~1-120~ (RE~lDEIIT~AL~ MULI'I~'i_E-FPMILYI I.ONE
REQUESTF.~ VAfc~AP~CE: WAIVrR OF (A) R[:QUIREMEN7 TNP,? ALL LOTS AdUT A PUBLIC ~TREET~
(B) MINIMU!1 FR(1N'f SETBACK N~JO (C) RE2UIRED SC'EEIIING TO
C~NSTRUf,T A 16-UN! ~ hFARTi~f.tlT COMPLEX.
ThE sub.iect petlt~on for reclassifilceti~ , was continued from Lhe Planning Cc~mmission
meeting of JanuarY 1~1, 1A76~ for advr sement of ~he subJect •:~riance; and both pet~tlans
were con•inued from the meetin~.; of F~ ~uary 2~ 1~7(,, tar Staff analysis af the submitted
revised plans.
Mr. C1 ifford Shinn. Cc1~l Seas~~ore (~rive, Ne~ypc;rt Beach~ indlcated his prese~ce in
oppositlon ~.~ th~• ,~bject petitions and, upon quest~~~ ln~ by Chairman Farano~ Fir. Shinn
w~ived the full readtng of the Staff Report.
7u-60
~
ns~~
~
MINU'f~S~ C17Y PLANNIN(; C0;IMISSIO~I~ February la~ 1976
iiECLA5SIFICA7ICN IJO. 75,_7~~,1A AND VARIANCF N0. 2777 (Continued)
/G-GI
Alehough the Staff Re~art Eo fhc Planning Commission date~l February lE;~ 197(~, was not read
at tha publ(c lie~irin~, sald Staff Rsport is referred to and m~de a part of the minutes.
Mr, Jack Davis~ the agent for th~ petlti~ncr~ appe~;eu before the Plannin~ Gommission ,~n~i
SCAtP.(I thr~t [he pro~~osecl builcling would be set hack a full 35 feet From the property llne
alon~ Llncoln Avenuc ~n<t that the re:qucsted walver of thc sett,ack requ(ren~ent only
pertalnecl to the pr~nos~:~l wall whlr,h was to bo bcrmed up to make the Niall a total of
approxlmately '/ f~rt hi~h ta mect thc sound-attPnuation re~uirements far thc proJect,
Mr. Shinn siated he I-~,i~~ cwned the fc~ur-acre parcel ta tf ~ s~uth of suGJect property for
tha p~~..t aPProxlm.~te ~ ~ 1> yea°s; that he l liced the proposal , hcw~ever, he w~is conc~rneJ
about the dr~in.~ne an~l whether the property ~~ould draln tc~ward Lin~ In~ since occasion~lly
h(s property was fl~o~~~~l durin~ heavy rains; that he ownecl the pr;vite ~roccess raad from
Lincaln Avonue which ~.~,is i~~~-fnot wlde e<isemunt h~.~t was presently pave~l as a 40-foot wlde
sr,reet; that `~P undersc~o<i the petitfoncr was not r.ontemplating widen(n~ ~he prlvate ro8d
but was plannin<~ t~ pl:nt two 1Q-foor. strl~s which were part of the casemenr property;
th~~t the street h~~l thc~ ~~tential nf becominc~ ~ mess in the ne~~r future; that the
petftloner was plannin~ t<~ r.nnstrur,t an attrar.tive project and intended to s~ll It and L•e
gone; that `'° waR mnlnly concerned that the petit(oner was not proposin~ to widen the
exlstinc~ ~riv~te strect ~t the pet(li~ncr's expense; that [hc str~et sh~uld be widenecl t~
the nri~inally rnntemplate~l wiclth, the snme as for other developers who were required L'o
wlclen strer.ts wh~n property was developed,
In rebuftal~ Mr. Devis statecl the a~phaltic area of a normal et: was 37. feet; that
presently there ~~is h3 feet of asphaltic area; and that was th n they were not
proposinn to wiu~~:~ the strcet.
TI1F PUBLIC H~ARIiiG W~S CLOSFD.
Chairman Farano questi~,n~d whe•~her ~t was s safe statement t~ ~<<'~me th~t the C~ty
Engineer'~ appraval of the draina~e~ regardless of the dire~~ion the street v~ould draln,
would not he to drain onto Mr. Shinn's property. Office Fngineer Jay 71t~:~ inciica~ed in
the aff(rm~tive~ and advised th.~t he had not seen a drai~~aye plan; however~ if rhe prese~,t
dralc;;~ge of the private drive was out to Llncoln~ the drainage of tne sub}ect property
ml~ht also bQ in that dl~ection,
In response to questioning by Commissianer Totar, both Mr. Davis and Mr. Shinn stated that
the width of the private clrive easemcnt was 6U feet.
In response to questic,ning by Comm(ssioner Kinn, Mr. Shinn stated he owned Che private
drive easer~ent and the subject pe~itioner haci •he ric~ht of !ngress and eg~ess over it.
Mr, Shinn further st~ted he was willinq to dedi ite the private str~et to the City; and
~',r, 71tus and Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry a<ivis~d tFat the street was nat presently
up to City standards. Mr, Titus e~aborated~ stati~.ig th~it the standard street width would
be ~-0 fe~t curb-to-curh, with ~~~- feet of rtght-of-way and standard curhs and ~~utters; and
that presently the street ha.i j~ fee: of pavement wiii; rolled curbs and g~tters on both
sides. Oiscussion E,~rsueo regarding the proposed plans which i~idicated the private drlve
narruwed to 4Q feet toward the northerly po~tion and aidened to 6~ feet beginnlny
approximately 't~ feet fr~m the northerly end of the street. Mr. Shlnn stated that with 3'L
families from the propased deUelopment, in addition to the 4F fenilies in h(s aNn
Jevelopment~ there would be a sa~~ety considera*.ion with resF~ect to the wi~lth of the street
since tha str~et was alrPady beinc~ used for parkinc~ ourposes; and that hP wantec the
petltianer to ,~ravicle a 60°foot wide street which would give the existing develo~ment more
exposure to Lincotn Avenu~ with a nice entry.
I~ response to questioning by Commission~r King~ Ass~stant Zoning Supervisor Allan Gaum
advised that the proposed building setbacks were based upon a 60-foot wide acce~s. Mr.
Shinn further state.l tf~at a full 60-fooC wide drive would proviae a safer anc! bet~`er
acc~ss `cr fire trucks, etc,
Commis~i~ner Johnson noted that he concurred with Nr. S~,inn's idea to have a nice ~aide
strect anci, al~hough the Qlanning Comr~ission want~~l Lo s~~~ the street improved~ it was not
for tha clocd of the existinq ~evelopn~ent sinc~ Mr. Shinn could improve tre streEt anytime
he want~d to. Mr. Shinn took exception~ stating th,;t if a variance was to be crar.ted for
the 5ubje,;t development which would have ingress and egress from a pr(vate road, th~~n
considerat(on shoul~~ be ~iven to the fact that, although the existing street was adequate
for the exlsting development, th~ petitioner was choosinc~ to have access over the private
street and It sh~ulcl be (mproved.
~,...~...~
~ ~ ~
MINUTGS~ CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIQN~ February l~l~ 1976
RECI.ASSIFICAIION N0. 75-76-f8 AND VARIANf.E N0. 7.777 ~Contlnued)
7G-62
Dlscusslon pursue~i renirdinc~ the wall which w~~s propos4<i to bG ~onstr~~cted in [h~ minfmum
front setback <~rea~ durinq -ahich Commissloner T~lor noteci that although the Code
prohlbited ,truckures In the setback area~ the suhJect wnll was to servF ~~s ~~ sound-
attc~nuati~n measure ~-n~t~ for that rens~n, was not a structure per se.
Commissloner Herbst nntcd that due to the Ilmited parking situ.ition~ there w~uld bc~ a
p~hlem wl~.h thr. ex(stin~ 3~-foot wide privata strcet anct he inqulred if Che Plannlnq
Cornm1551on ~•~ould ac~ree f.~ h~ivc ; fect of sldewalk and 5 feet ~f plantinc behind the
SIc~BWA~k w(th a-i~-faot w(de strcet. Ne fur[hr,r inquircd regirdin~~ kh~ necd tor and
placemcnt of fire hydrants in connect(vn wfth thc subJect <levelo(~ment; w' :reui ~~, Mr.
Titu3 advised that in some cases the ftre hydr~nts had been pl~ced behind the curbs and
that said placamcnt woulcf hc up to tlia Fire ChieP. Gommissioner ''erbst then noted that
since thQ subJect dev~lopment and the existing ~evelopment to the north were multlple-
family~ there wou!d be parkinc~ ~n the prtvaCe sCreet and sfdewelks would be necessary fn
order for thA people to reach thelr cars wlthout walkinc; In the street. Mr. D^;~. ag~eed
co pr~vide the siclewalks and plantinn as suggested by Commissloner Iler;~st.
~ommtssioner Herbst ~ffered a motion, Seconded by t;on~nissloner Tolar and MOTION Cl~RRIED~
tha: Che Anaheim City P1ar~nln~a C.~mml55lo~i does hcreby recomrrr:nd to ~he C1ty Coun~:(1 of tha
City of Anahelm th~t the subje~.t pro.ject 5e axempt frum the requirement to {.reparc an
envlro~manFal impact repart, purs~~nt t~ the provisions of the ~alifornia [nvirohment~:
Quallty Act.
Commissloner Herbst offcred a resolution and nx~ved For its pas~ac~e ancl adoptlon, that the
Anahetm Cfty Planning Cor~~nission does hereby racommencl tc~ the City Counc(1 of the ~ity of
Anaheim approv~il of Petitfon fior Reclassification No. 75-1~-~~ ~re~idvertisecl)~ subJect to
the stlpulatlon of the petitioner t~ widen thP priv~te drive access to a st.indard 40-foot
width with st?nd:~r~l c~.irbs and gutters~ and with 5'foot wlde slciewalks to be construGted
along tl~e curbs on both sides ~f lhe street and a 5'foot plantecl area provided behind said
s(dewalks tn the property line; -~d subJect t~ the Interdeparrmenta) Commfttee
racommenciatt~ns.
Chalrman Farano in~~aired if tl~e la~guage of the private drive easement document w~uld
permlt th~ developer t~ make the street improvement outlinecl in the foregoing resolutlor.;
whereupon~ ~1r. Shinn st~~ted that sa « d~~cument did not permit the stre~t improvement to be
made v~ithout the express F.:rmissian of tl~e owner of the easement; that tV,e easement was
prov(dad far roarlway purposes only and he~ as the ownec• of said easement, d~d not want any
portlon of it used for planted areas; and that he did not feel he sho~id qive up any part
of Lhe easement for the purpnses oT .aevcioping the subJect prope-ty.
~hai;^man Farano noted that it appeared the matter of the easement should ;roperly be lefC
up to the indivlciual parties to work aut; tliat the subject peti;ioner c~uld have his
attorney revlew the easement documenr. for determination as to whethe~ the petltioner had
any right to im~rove the e~sement; and that, therefare~ the street improvement v~ould be
left up to the two parties to resolve.
Thereupon~ Commissioner lierbst ~~ithdrsw thc foregoing resolution ancl offered Resolutlon
No. PC7G-?.5 and mavecl for i2s passage and adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does her•eby recomme~d tu the City Council of the City of Anaheim that Petiti~n
for Reclassification No. 75-7h-1f~ (readvertised) be approved suL~~~ct to the
Interdepartmental Committee recomnendatjons. (~ee Resolution Bo~7kl
On roll call, the forego(ng resoluCion was passed by the followinc~ vote:
AYES: C~MMiSSI~NERS: ~ARNES~ HEP,BST, JoHPISON, !CING~ MORLEY, TOLAR~ FARAPIO
NOF.S: COMMISSI(1~IERS: NONE
AB~E~~T: C~MMISSIO~IERS: NONF
Commisslonnr Flerbst offered Resolution N~. PC7G-26 and moved for it~ passage and adoption,
that the .,naheim City Planning Comr~ission does hereby grant Petition for Varlance No.
2777, granttnc~ khe requested walver cf the requirement that all lo2s abut a public street
on the basis thit the Plannincl Commissior I~as prev!ously gr~nted similar requests wher, a
private street is providecf; grantin~ the r~c~~~e~teci waiver of the minimum f;onr, setback to
enable the d~veloper to constr-~ct a wall and berm to serve ^s a so~;nd-attenuation device,
tc protnct the living environment af the pro~osed residentiil use of the property; tnat
the requesttd walvar nf the required recr~ation area screeni~~ is withdrawn by the
petltioner on the basis of the revised a'~n~ which indlcate compliance ~~ith saie+ Code
requirement; satd approval beinct grar~ted subject ro the Interdepartr~rntal Commfttee
recnmmendatlons. (See Resolutton 4ook)
_.~~ ~7 ' ~~~
~ ~
MINU7F:S~ C17Y ~~LIINI~II~G COMMISSIO~I~ February 180 197~~ ~6'~3
RCCl.~SSIFICATION N0. 75-7~~-18 AND VARIANCE ~14. ?.7J7 (G~~ntl~ued)
On ro11 call ~ the for~~ioing resUlutl~n w~s pnsse~l hy the f~lic~w~~ c} v~~tc:
AYF.S: C(1MMISS1f1!IEP.S: BARNF.S~ NERIiST~ Jf~.INS()FI, KIN(',, MORLfY~ TQI.AR~ FAR~N~
N~ES: COMMISSI~~If.RS: NnNE
ABtiFtll': C0~1MI~SIniIERS: NO~IC•.
C~t11~ITif1~!!1L U,r - C~NTINU[:O PURLIC IIEAi ~~lG, 1.E0 rREEDMAfI, ~iGa South Roxbury Drlve~
P[RMIT P-0. 15~'i Bevcrly Nills, Ca. 9~212 (Qwrer); STEPII~H ELLIS~ P, 0. Rox 9~~99,
'~ Ai rpnrt St~ ~n ~ Los A~~9elps ~ Ca. ~G~Q9 (Age~~t) ; reques t i ng per-
missic,n t~ ~~TnRLI~~' .\ II~LISTOP on property descriheci as an
ir~egulr,rly-shapacl parcel of l~nd ~onsist(nc~ ~i approximately 4.7 acres located at
the southeast c~rner ~~f Narhor Boulev~rcl anci Freedman Way~ havln~ approxlm~te frantages
of ~~F'~ feet on the e~5t side ~f HarSur (~oul^vard and 51(` fcet on the south sidc of
Frer.dmar~ Way~ nn~l further des~rll~e~l ~s 17~~ 5outh Harbor poulevard. Propsrt~/ pr•esently
cl~ssifir;d ~R (C011MF.Rf,IAI. RFf,ftF~T10~1) znrie.
The sub~ecr pe.tltinn was cnntlr~~el from the Planning Comm~sslon meetinn of Febr•uary 2~
1~76, at the request of the petitionsr,
Two (~.er~ons fndlc.ited rhefr ~+esence in opposition to su'~jecC petition; anc1~ upon
questlonln:i by Chairman Faranu~ sai~f person~ 'ndic~ted they had received copies of the
Staff Rep~rt and wo~lcl~ therefore, walve th~: i~,~~l readin~ thereof,
N1Cho~i~h the St4ff Rerort to tlie Planninry Commission datec' Fshruiry 1~, 197~, was not read
d; the Nublic h~~rtnn, sai~J Sk.~f~ Report is referrcd to an~1 made a part of the minutes.
~'r. Ste.h~n Ellis, thc agent for the petitloner~ appeared before the Planniny Commission
a~d stated ren~rdin~ nolse th.it they hac~ received prell^~-nary ipproval for ~se of a
mt~fflin,~ devlce which would 1o:•rer the sound levels shown in *_he Staff Report by fj
decibeis; that they r~acf Jiscussed the noise pr~blerns with representatives of Melodyland
and rec~.lved approval fur a ch~~nge in the flight p~ttern which would avoi:l flYin~ over
Melodylancl property; tl~at ~he ne4~ fl iUht p~ttern woulcl fly ovar the freeway, a vaca~~t lot~
the tip of the Hyatt House Hotel ..,n~l t~an to tha lending pad: th~t departur~ would be over
the same fli~ht pattern ~n revers?, CF~~t there were no residences to be paased in the
flic~ht pattern wlthin the City; and t~at the Inter-Modal Transportaticn Committee had
given supporti~~e indications. Mr, E li~ reviewed the safety factors involvecl a~d the two
hel i copCer crashes wli i ch occurred i r the area, st~~* i ne~ thit mu~'. oood came out of the
crashes sinc° prlor t~ that time tl~~ commerciai helico~ter association was not under the
FAl1 rec~ulations ancl hellcopters liacl only to comply witn the manufacturers' sp^_cifications;
that the stan~ards wl~icl~ were subsequently daveloped by the FAA for heiicopters were
extremely strfngent an~i, as a comrwrcial airli,~e, his ships and operation would have to
adhere to those stancl~rds as a bare ~ninimum; that, due to the new standards, heltcopter
aviatlon was onz of the safest modes of transportation in the world; and that prior ;:o
beinh able to `ly the first helicopter to the proposed hellstop~ they would be req~,lred to
have investictatlon nf tha in~ress and egres~ and further approval by tfie Public Utilfties
Comm(ssion of tfe SCate of Callfornia.
Mr. Ron Mannin~, Op~rations Director of Melodyland Chri~:tian Cen~er, appeared b~fore the
Planntng Commiss~on i,i opposition and statecl his qualifi~-ation for spnaking on the subject
matter, belne~ i.~~at he had been a;~el icupter pi lnt for 2~i years (tncludin~~ service as a
hellcopter ~~ilot for the U. S. Marine Corps, for the Las Veges Police Department~ arj for
Huhhes Airciaft~ t~taling aFPraximately ~~00!1 hours flying tiine) and had served on the
Publlc Safety Committee of the Helicopter Assoclatlon of America for five years, etc.:
that Melody~lancl was opposed to tl~e subject helistop because of t.he nolse and safe~y
factors; that Melodyland harl not agreed ta or giver. author-zatlon for the alterrate flight
pattern outllnecl by Mr. Ellis; that ~f,e existing Melodylsncl facillty was ~urrounded by
glass do~rs which would intensify the hellco~ter noise; thaC the Melodyland facilities
were ut'llzed both day ind night throughout the y~ar and the approach pattern was such
that if anythin~ should happen there WOUId L1~ no place fnr the helicopter to go except
Into their bulldlrg; that for helicopters~ the mc~st dangerous aspects were take-off an~
landing, and the helc~ht veloclty envelope was Jangerous for both aspects; that the
orlglnsl flfctht patterr, prop~sed was over a service at~ti~n site and high voltage wlres;
that he h~d the impressi~n frnm Mr. Ellis' comments th~t the helic~pters to be used in the
pr~posed operaT~hn wer~ new alrcraft~ however, sald aircr~~~t w.is uttlized in the early
195~'s durlnn the Korean War and, although he did not wlsh t~ make any slams at the
al rcraf t, I t was n~t a brancl r~ew a i rcraf [ that woul d be usecl. Mr. M~nn i nc~ cont 1 nued by
stat(n9 regprcl(nn the fatailtles of the petrol°operate~i commerclal aircraft~ that he felt
th~ matte:r was belnct misrepresented; that a petrol helicopter operating ~ut ot another
~ !
7~;-G4
MIMUTfS~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSI~~N, FoF~ruary 1~. 1~17(~
COIJDITIONAL US~ PE~iHIT N0.^159~ (Contlnusd)
--~ re kllled
e qra hic l~~~t~~~~ I,a~ u f~t~~ill at~o ~ six ..l.; c; li whlrh 19 pnr~~ns wc
~n~', nRth~u~i ,~ c~mpnny opernt~c) n Yar~e f~ec:t ~~~~iel~(cnptr.rs ancl w~t nn~ nf the c,~~lest:
flrms w~th a f.~ntr+stlc malntennnr,o nro~r~n, the fat~~llty stlll occurre~l; that. although ~~
m~lntenflnc~ progr~mmi~ht be .~bc~ve reprench, hel icopt~rs were mc+chanlCel devlcts ~'nd
subJact Go fa~lure; that he h~~l nxp~rlenc~•d seven In~fllght emergencles and was~
th~refare, faml' l~r ~~ith whnt c:,uld happen; tha~ the suL)ect fi rm we~ relAtlvnly new and
even with the larqest marglns o` sa'ety and maintr_nance~ thcy would be in buslness t~ mAke
money and would increase thr.lr opercitiuns au~l~ ~hcrefo~•e, i~crea~e thclr chances of In-
flight emergoncles ~nd, sh~uld on emcrgency accur, hr. did not want It t.r, ocGUr over
Melodyland. Mr. f~lannin~ further cornn^nted rec~ardln~ the nolse fact~r,Istallna that
tremenrlous P.FPC!CLS WOUIc~ be created fru~ th~e rotor-wssh while a helice cr was appruachin,y
~nc1 taklnct off from the l~nciln~ pad; thaC he effects would be especla>>anllthAtiabau[,a5~
relatlonship to tt~c crl~s- d~ors ~~nd wlndows at the MRl~dylan~f faclllty;
of the nolse effects on the lmmedlate arca woul d he generatod during l'~~ko-ofP ~~nd lending.
Mr. Fred 4lork~ ai sn representin~ Melodyland Chr istian Center, appenreci b~fore lhc P~anning
Gommis^~ion In opQasitlnn and st~7ted Melodyland w~s presently ~nticipating consCruct(on of
a new 1!i-story lii ghrise buiidin~ on Its property anci tl~~ proposed hel itopter facll (ty
would be ti nuls~~nce to thelr operA[lon; anc~ that they were proposlnr~ tn construct tw•~
bul ldinqs south of thc r:xistinc~ bui lrJinq.
In rebuttal~ Mr, Lll is statec~ that he ~~!)reed wi th Mr. Manninc7 c~ncerning the dan,qers of
t~in hlgh ~ielocl ty envelope an<1, at leas'~ twice a year~ all of the pt lots were ~urves~ blie
the FAA on thel r abl 1 icy ro 1anc1 1~ the envelope of the high and law velocity
further stated tt-~a~ the pr~poseA area for take-off and lancting were ~ot~l iy saf~ by FAA
standards• that ~I~e subaect alrc,raft I~acl bsen trled and tested s-nce the 1~5~'s wi th many
ne~~ mocii fl r.at lon 5 t~ rw~kc them rnore safe; thtlt he was aware of the number of fatal
crashesY that they did nc,t m~lnt~in alrcraft tc~ atrline standards since the reyuirements
were sigrlflcant ly dlfferent and he did noC wish to imply th~t any alrcraft ~~a~f~toged,to
safe. t~owever, w Ithin the safety st~ndards set for tlie Fiellcopters, the 5-55 f~ P
be utlllzed wres rated among the safest. Mr. cllis cuncluded by skatine~ he would not mind
hav(ng a heliport ~n top of the 15-story bulld ing plann~cl b~ Melodylan~.
THE PUELI C f,~ ~~ : tlf, wns CLOSE~,
Chai rmah Farano inyui r~~J wi~at Hr. Li i ls' qua! : ficatiens were for speakfng on the subJect
of hellcopter~nciW~'1~c~~henhaMrtorn1downtengines of5hellcopterstandlpututhemeback together,
helicopter~,
a 1 thouc~h he was r.nt a he 1 1 copter merhan i c.
In response t~ questioninU by Chalrman Far•ano, Nr. Ellis clarif{ed that~ althougn the ~AA
had Jurls<ilctios~ over helic~pter alrcraft for a number of years, the standards had been
based on the op~rat(ng hours specified by che manufacturers of the parts ~~d the FAA had
rot developecl ~ tan~lards of their c~wn.
Commissioner lie rbst questionecl why the ~~ppl i eant hacl cho5en the subJect property for tne
helistop; wher~~upon~ Mr. C11(sstated the subJect location was not thelr first choice;
that their fir~t cholce was the Anaheim Convention C~nter and the(~ seconcl choice was the
An~hain member~~ofnthe~Ctity~Councll~wwhose`de~lsionWwas tha~nthe~hellportenot belineetther
cert
parkiny tot of those fac(litics.
Commissinner Herbst questioned the safety of landing withfn 6~ feet of adjacent hlgh power
lines; v+hereupon, Mr, Ellis stated the power 1`nes were atroac.hlnh~the landing~padeat anJ
the helicopters w~uld ~e at a height of about ~00 feet app 9
angle away frorn tt;e power l ines; and ehat during a heavy f~g ~ tliey wauld land at another
heliport.
Commissioner Jah~son noted that he dfd not have the capaci ty to determine whether the
proposed locat lon was safe or unaafe as a hellsYop; that from a standpolnt of land use~ he
did not feel that the subJect location was a proper place for a hellstop and he was not
abler~chtsQofsthe Mclody1an18opelrition~~ndtwouldadisturb the peacecand tranqu111Cy~ofnthat
the g
group of ci t i zans of Anah~ Im,
Cha i~ nian F~ra:~o ? nqu i rPd i f thc ~~pp1 1 cant w:~s g( vf ng any theughma 11 servl cc ~nsnal j ki nd of
o~aratlon other than Just transportation fcr pa~sengers,
packagPs and other carho~ etc, Mr. Ellis replied in the affirmattve~ statincl that such an
sdditlonal serv~~fromUthebtime theyfcould~talktabouthanyrkpndaofwcontraceQ~lhat.tlfytheYe
s t i l 1 a 1 on g~ay
~ ~
~~'~~
MI~IUTF.i~ CITY PLANNING COMt11SSl~tl~ fobru~~'Y ~~~ ~97~
COND171CNAL USf_P[RMIT N0, ~594 (Cantinued)
IIACI A'f~IAI) or ~ielivery sr.rvice, they would h.~ve to h.~v~ a~:P.~IIf,IB to mect the: hellc:spter
ko take the pACkiges~ etc., to the nex[ polnt of clisCr i butlnn, f,halrman 1~arano fur~herwas
nnted that slnce he h~~cl repre3ented transportatlon r.ompanies for ~~ g~~~c1 m+~ny years,
aware that the rate: Structur~ P~r p~ss~:~~n~rs would not he enou~h for' the ~~perAtlan tc~ be
ec.onoa~lcelly su~ces~ful,
In rosponsc ta questi<~nin~ by Comm(ssion~:r Herbst~ Mr. Plenninn inclicated he was not
oppose~ to hel lcopters as ~~ tyPe of publ lc tr.uispartat ion. stating that he was prpbably
the gr~atcat al ly ol' the hu~lnnss; that hellr.optPrs we re becoming safer as t ime went
alonq; tl~~it he hacl diseussed witl~ Mr, E11 fs the problerns whicli he felt existed~ and also
cllscussecl th~ pusslbi lity of locating the he1isCnp on a portlon oF the Melodyland property
eloser tn te~farPa`JlielWStop duelto~thc~cl~y~ancl~nle~htt ~se otfetFe~MelodylaniCfacilltynot the
proper p) iG
9n response to furt!~er q~.estloning hy ~ommissioner HPrbst, Mr, Cllls sk~Ced ther~ would ho
~rom cme to twe 1 ve f I 1 ghts per day 1 n connect i c,n w i th the proposed use.,
Chalrman Farano noted thit the proposal ~+rould vGry deflnitcly involve the h~alt,~i~at~ony
and we 1 fa re of thc c i t I zens of An~he I m; that tl~ 1 s was not the fl r's t t 1 me an app
for a hellcopter facility hadbeEn fEled v~~th the City; that, (n his opinlon~ there was no
w~y .hat thr, economies of the aircrafr. i~dustry~ whether Jet, helicopter or otherwise~
c~uld be economically successful by Just havfncl passenger serv(ce; that, th~refore~ he
would not votc fAVarat~ly ta Instal l any hel lst~p in Anaheim without seei~g a ten-year
praJectlon ~f the total propoeed operation, including the passenger ancl ather ty~e
aervices that iniclht be provldr,d over tlic first t~n-year psr(od; that addltional fac(litlas
were generally requi rerl to be able to handle the dis~ensing and routfng ~f cargo and the
Planning Commisslon should have ttie benefit of the t~~tal pr~posecl operation over the flrst
ten-year perioci in crcier tn make a sound decl sian.
Commtssloner E3arnes noted that, In t~er upinion, there was a neeJ for a hel i port in Anahelm
and tho only reason she ti;oulci not be votinc~ in Favur uf tf~e proposil was bPcause ef the
locatlon; that if the applicant couid f'inci a locatlon In the City wtiere they would not
have to wind (n ancf out around builc~ings and couid be a safer operaiion~ sFie would be in
favor of f t.
Commissianer Morley noted that he hoped Mr. EII is would pursue a better loeatic~n f~r the
proposal in the C i ty of Anahei R~.
Mr. E1) is stated they woulcl I~{.~: to flnd another location but had been uns ~ccessful thus
far; that they had also trled Disneyland in an effort to get. th~m to reope~ their
hellport; chat they Nere running out of desirable loc~tions for the helistop and they wer~
ape~h4°conmunjtyonsCommisslonertBarnes~su9gestedptl attMr. E111sdcontacttthatChamberiof~`e
in t
Cort~merce cor~cerning other locations.
Commi ss ioner Johnson offerad a mot 1 on ~ seconcied by Commi ss ioner King anci MOT I ON CARR t CD,
that the Anahelm Ci ty Planninc~ Commi~s ion dor,s hereby recommend to the Ci ty Counci l of the
City of Anaheim that *.he sub]~ct project be exempt from the requ lrEmen t t o pre pare an
envi ronmental impact reporl, pu~ suant to tl~e provi s i ons of the Cal i forn 1 a Envl r~mnental
Quality Act.
Commissioner Johnson offere~l Resolution Nc, PC76-27 and moved for lts passa~e and
adoption~ th~t the Anaheim Ci ty Planning Cammission does hereby deny Peti tion for
Conditlonal Use Pe:mlt No, 1~95 on the basis Chat the proposed locatton i s determined tc~
be tnappropriate for thc proposed use due to the proposed use being incompatible with the
surraunding land uses aitid bui 1Jings ancl due to the lack of sufficient rad lus for operating
safety in the imme~tlate arca of the proposec~ location. (See Resolution Rook)
On roll calt, the fore~oln~ resolutlon was ~,assed by the following vote:
AYES: COMh11SS1(1NERS: BARNES~ NERRST. JOHWSODI~ iGING, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ FARI1tJ0
NOES: COMMISSI~t+ERS: NOIIE
AE3SEPJ7: COMMISSIOPIERS: NONE
~ ~
February lt~~ 197t~ r~T~~
MIHUT~:~~ CITY P~IIN~IING COMMIS51QP1,
RECLIISSIF~C~T1~'f - nU!'L!C Hf.AR!~Jr, LlOY~ M. PIC~T~ 93~+~ Gllhcrt 5trect~ Anahelm~ Ca.
Nfl. 75-i(~-2~ ~ 9z~~~ ~~nerl; K. P. Jo11NSOr1~ 169~ W~St Crescent AvMnue, Anahelm,
~~. ~23~1 (.~gent): re~~u~stinct that properCy descrihed as a
rnctai.y~~~arly-shupe~! porcel of land c~n~lstin~ of approximatcly
p,~1 :~f~n located at the southe~st Co+'~c'f ef Greenac~e Avenue and Gf ihert Street ~ havfnc~
approxlmate front~iges oi~ 2>~ fcr.t ~n ~class1lftledifromftheeRS?Ar1~3A~~~`~~RESInFPlTIAL/t on
the cast s I cie ~t' f 1 ll~ert Street ~ bc r
AI~RICULTURl~L) ZONC: to the RM-}?~~ (RESI~I:IlTIAL~ MULTIPLf-FAMII.Y) ZOtIE.
No ~no indlcatecl thelr presence In opp:~sltion to aubJect petitian.
Although th~ Staff RepnSaidnStaffPReport`,Is~referred tot~nd~midc~'aYpurt ~~f7F~heWminu~esread
~~t the pub 1 1 c h~.ar I n~ ~
Mr. G~or~e W. Jeffers~ the ~irchitett for the develuper. anpeired before the Pl~nnincl
Commission and st~ted that they W~tib~t°andfenh~nceethe~su,bJect areat~n~ structures and
the new deve I oprnen t wou 1 d be c~mp
TI1E PU(1LIC HEARIPIG WAS CL!1SEU.
Commissic~ner Kin~ notecl that the proposal appeared to be Ideil at the subJect locatlon.
In response to yuest~onin~~~brecommend~tions~containedrinJthecStaff~Repo`rt,'~~~ revlewed th~e
Interdepartmental Committc
Commissloner King offered a m~tion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MQT!~F~ CARRIED~
that the An~~heim City Planning Commission does hereby recomrend t~ the Clty Council of the
City oF An~he.im that the s~ibJeursuanteto theeprolvisions cfethe9California~Environmental
environr~ent.il impact report, p
Quallty Act.
Commissioner Kin~ ofterecl Resolul•Ion Nn. Pf,16-23 and mnved for its passane and adoption~
that the Anaheim C~~Y~etitnongfC~ Reclas'sificat~lon No,r75~7f~P123 be approvecl~Csubject~tothe
City of Anahe(m th
the InCerdepartment~l Committec recomi~endit.tuns. (See Resolution Book)
On rol{ call, the forec~oing resolutic~n was Fassed by the following vote:
N;;:^; COMMISSI~NERS: BARPJ[S, HERBST~ J011NS011~ KING, MORLEY~ T~~LAR, FARANO
NO~S; COMMISSIOIdEKS: NONE
ABSENT: COMIII~~IQNFRS: NOP~E
CO~ID17tONAL USE - PUBLIC HEl1RiNG. CFIAPMAI! E TUSTIN AVENUE ASCaCl~~73~ ~~ner~nk V.
PE°.NIT N0. 1;~13 Trani , 1~5~ West Seventh Street~ San Pedro~ -
C1IRISTIAtI HUGENBIRY. b ASSOCIATES. 71a South NaPbor Boule:vard,
Anaheim~ Ca. 92g~5 (A9ent); requestinc; permission to ESTl1BLISFI A
RESTl1URA~IT~ MqTEL ANC COFFFE SHOP~ WITII WAIVER 0~ MAXIMUN BUILqI~l~i NE~GHT on property
describr.d as an irregularl~~-shaped parcel ~f land consisting of approxroximatel~II~~55
acres locatPd south of the Riverside Freeway~ having a frontage of app Y
feet on ttieP~GSt~r~ideresently'GlassifiedaRS-A~-~3n~0~ (RESIDGtJTIAL/AGRICULTURAL)tZ NE.
479 feet. P Y P
It was noted that one person was present at the publfc hearing to represent
:nunty Water District in oaposition ~o the subJect petiti~n anc1~ `orthwith~
reading o` tlie Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon was waived.
A1Chough the Staff Report to thP
read at the public hearing, said
minutes.
the Orange
the full
Planning Commission dated February 18~ 197~~ W~$ not
Staff Report !s refer~ed to and made a part ~~f the
Mr. Chrlstlan N~genbirk~ represc~t(ng the ac~ent for the petitloner~ appeared before the
p~anning Commission and, followin;l a revicw of the letter in oppositlon from the Orange
County Wat~r District~ he stated h.~ did not find any obJections to sal~~eetWas~~kdn9n
any event ''''^y would have to accept it; that the reason the Nroperty
the subJect proposal was due5teciall~rwaterga~d sewerellnesWithatr~theeStatenUepartment
utilltles to the property~ p Y
of Transpartatlor had indicatc~i co the property ~wner that the De~artmer.t was capable
of forcin9 ~nntheuneighb`orhoode oft$25FOOOWathat~theelevel~aofWthediandawesrateabout a
expensc ~
r~
L
~
MIPiU'fE:S~ CITY PLl1NNIP~G C~Mt•115SION, Frhruary lA~ 197~
CONDII'IONI~I USE PERMIT N0, l~iy3 (Contlnued)
7G-G~
lh-foot drop ancl tf~~y woul~f he working witli an englneer regardfncl the fllllr.r~~ Ptc.; th~t
they werc lookin~ for an lndicaticm fr~m the Planninc~ f.ommisslon ~is to whether a
comr,~erGlal center would be apPr~Prl,iCe ~~t the~ subJect lucatfon; that the ~re~~ had been sel
dside on tho A~tthelin Gener<~l Pl~n f~r ~ark land and thnt was anoth or reasan they were
agkin~ whether they sh~uld qo ~o the cxpense neces~ary t~~ mskc Ch e prnpcrty suit~ble for
devolopmen~; that they h~d beon cont~~c[e~l by partles S~ekln~ lacatlons for restaurants and
motcls, but becausc oF the rx(stin~ c~ndltion nf the prap,~rty, the petitioner had not
shc~wn it; and that the prc~perty owner was reluctant to mal.e Impravements to the prope:rty
without some indicatl~n from the Plannin~7 Commisslon concerninc~ potencia) developm~nt.
Ms. P~ula Martlnc~~ reprnsentinn the Orange County 4Jater Dlstrlct, appeared before the
Planiing Commission and revlewed the contents of the Water Dlstrict's letter dated
February 13~ 1~7h~ notlnn~ i~ p~~rt, that "...the parcel Is loCateci SOUtIt oF the Riverside
f'reea:ay on the east slcle of Tustln Avenue~ ari.J~~cent to Distrlct owiied property whith~ ~t
that point, is the Santa Ana Rlver. The parcel In question is cu rrently five feet lower
in el^vation l•han the San'.i Ana River levee which impo~m ds water used for conservatlon
Nurpo:~es and twenty fe~t l~r~er In r_levation from Tustln Avenue. For this reason~ thc
Distrlct was apprc,ache~I ~~t one time with a rec~uest for access from Tustin Avenue along the
District's malntenancc road. The owner was informa~l at thak time th~at thc heavy trafFic
such a rieveloprc~ent wo~i~d bring~ ls not comp~tible w(LF~ lhc Dlstricr's use and thc heavy
equipm~~nt the District employs. ~t is of concern to the District tha t all parties
unders+~.~nd oti~er arraneterients must be macle..."
In rebuttal~ Mr. Ho~enF.irk st~tecl they woulcl obt~ln engineer(nc; studles regarclinq the
mannsr in which the fill would he m~de to the property; and that they would be ut111zing
an acce:,s road on Tustin Avenue adJacent to the on and off-ramps from the Riverside
Freeway;. and would n~~t utill~e the access <late off the river pro pe~ty that the Llater
District presently owned.
T~1E PtIBLiC HEARIIdG WAS CL~SED.
Commissicmer Johnson noteci that if the petitianer did not intr_nci to utilize the access
point ove~r the Water District's property, the Water District sho uld not be bothered by the
propos~<1 development. Co~nmissioner Johnsan further noted that the petitioner should be
rnare specific regardinq the levelinq or filling of the property; whereupon, Mr. Flogenbirk
statpd th~ subject property was, to his knowledge, about 1-i fee t lower tf~an TuSttn Avenue
and the hackfill would he from Tustin easterly.
In respon!~e to questionin~ by Commissioner Morley~ Mr. Hoc~enbirk stated the dralnage would
run to the riv$r, and that they would be submitCing final specifiG plans on the project
for Planning Commission approval, said plans to ir~clude flonr plans an~l elevatfons.
f,omnissi~ner Tolar ~oted that the su~Ject property appeared to be a good locatlon 'Far the
proposal; that the problems of the property had been related to 2 large degr~e to the
freeway ~ystem and the Santa Ana River bed, which created hards hips for the petitfoner
b~;~e~~i his cnntrol; that~ however~ I~e woulcl not want to stay in a motel that close to the
freewaY; that~ if the petitioner could satisfy tl~e requlrements of the: Engineering and
6uilding Div~slons, the locatlan would not be objectionahle; an d tha't th~ land a~peared to
be restric~~c1 fo- some uses.
Commissionc~r Herbst noted that the ~ubject property had quite a hit of freeway exposure
and develoF~ment m~y be subJect to approval oi` the State Division of 411yhways, etc.
Commissio~e:r Nerbst then inqulred whether the petitioner was aware of the traffic signal
which woule~ be requlred t~ be constructed on Tustin Avenue at the polnt of access of the
subJe~-t prc~perty, with one-half ~f the cost to be borne by the petltianer; whereupon~ Mr.
Hoaent,irk ~•tated he woulci stipula`e to all of the Interdepartme.ntal Committee
recommendat.loris set forth in the Staff Report with the exception of the traffic slgnal
r.r~sts. Tra~fflc Enginecr Paul Singer adv(sed that. he did not believe ther-e could be a s~fe
wouldnhaventoebetobtainedpfrom5the,State tnwcannectionrwltlcconstruction ofathe signal
alsa.
Ch~lrman Faran~ no~e~i that he would not encourage the petitioner to apply for a sign
var(ance ir~ cannec~ion with development of iF~e subject property.
Comm~ssfonc:r H~rbst questioned the expense af providing utilities to the subJect property;
whercupan~ Of`ice Enqineer Jay~ Titus aclvised tliat the Irterdepartmental Commit*_ec
~ ~
HIFJUTES~ CITY PLAPINING COMMISSION~ F~sbruar~ 1fS~ 197~ 7~'-~'8
~OPIDITIOPJAL USF. PC.RM17 N0. 1593 ~C~ntinuecl)
rernmrnendetlon was th~~t the sewcr system t~ the property rem~in a private syster~ and, on
that h~sis~ the Clty woulrl not he burclened with m~inten~nce service t~ the property.
Commissloner 1lorley offerr.d ~~ m~tlon~ seconcled by Commissioner Y.in~ ~~n~i MOTIQ~•I CAttRI[D~
tha t the llnnhe 1 m C 1 ty P I ann { nc~ Commi ss i on cloes herehy recan,mend to the ~ i ty Counc i l of thC
Clty of Anahelm ti,~t the subject proJect be exempt from the r~~qulrement t~ rrepare; an
envlronment~l Impict re{~ort, pursuant to the pr~vis(ons ~f the Callf~rnia Envlr~nmental
Qufll I ty l1ct.
Commissl~ner Morley ofFcred Resolut( m No. Pf.76-2~ and rr~ved for its passa~e and adoptlon~
thaC the Anahslm Clty Planning Cvmmisslon does hei'eby grint Petitlon for Condltlonal llsc
Permit No. i~'~'1. gr~~ntln~ the requcsted wa~ver of the m~'tx(mum building heic~ht on the basts
that the ab~.~ttinn RS-A--i3~QOn zoned prope~ty to thc snuth is the Sant., Ana River and~
therefare, saici ~~~iver is cletcrmined t~ be insi~niflc~~nt; subJect to che Interdepartmental
Comm(ttee r•ac:ommencl~iions. (See Resolutlon eook)
On roll call~ tl~c forc~oin9 resolutlon was passed by the followina vote:
AYES : COt~MI SS I(1~lCRS : f3ARPl[S. HERBST. JQHNSOP! ~ KI WG ~ MORLEY ~ TOLAR ~ FIIRANO
P~Of-.S : Cn11~11 SS 1 ~IIE RS : N(~tlF
ABSEtJT: COt1M I SS I ~tlf RS : t~ONE
GOtIDITIQtl~L USE - PUFlLIC HEARIt~G. ALLl1~~ A, P~SPJ~R~ 1!123 N~rth Bristol, Santa Ana,
PtR141T N(1, lE,~~ Ca. 97.7~3 (Owner); At1I:LIA ACOST~~ 115 Jean(e Way~ An~heim, Ca.
92E~~~ (Agent); re~ucsting permission for ON-S11LF. LI~U~R IH AM
EXISTItdG RESTAURANT on praperty descrioe~l as a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of lan~1 c~nsistinq of approximitely 2.0 acres h~vin~ a frontage or
approximately 225 feet on the enst si~le of Guclld Street, having a maximum depth ~f
approximately 3~F~ f~~t, beinct loc~ted approximately 35~ feet s~uth of the centerline
of La Palma Aven~ie, and further described as 1~1~ North Euclid Street. Property
presently classiFied CL (C~PIMF.RCIAI.~ LiMiT[b) ZONE.
No one in~llcate~! their presence In oppositlon to subJecf petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 1£I~ 197(~~ was not read
aC the publfc liearln~, ~aid Staff Report is referred to and macie a part of the minutes.
Ms, A,nell~ Acost~i~ th~~ a~ent for Clie petitloner~ appeared before the Plannin~ Corrnnission
along with her in[~~r~~reter,, Ms. Lois Scharton. Ms. Scharton stateci Ms. Acosta was the
operator of tlie sub,ject restaurant and was requesting to have an on-sale liquor permit;
that the subject restaurant servecl Mexican fodd and it was important to be able to serve
beer and wine; that there were other establishments irxnediately adJacent to the subJect
restaurant with on-sale beer and wine privileges, as well a~ there being seve;icant9should
stores in the immediate area; and that on the basis of the foregoinclr the app
be granted a llcense to hsve an on-sale beer and wine license.
THE PUBLIC HE~RI~J'~ WAS ~LOSED.
In response to questinninq by Commissioner King, Ms. Scharton ohtalneci ~ ciariricatlon
from M5. Acosta that the subject request should be for on^sale beer and wine only ar~d not
hard 1(quor; and that said beverages would be sold in conJunction with the serving nf
meals only.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advfsed that the applicant was permitteci to reduce the
intensity of the application wlthout readvertisement of the public hearing.
It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department had deicrrninr.d tnat the proposed
activtty fell wlthi~ the de`tnition of Section 3•~1~ ~lass i, of tI~E City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requirements fn~ an Fnvironm~ntal lmpact Reporl• a~d was, therefo,•e~
categorically exempt from the requlrement to ftle an EIR.
Commis~ioner Nerbst offered Resolution No. PClb-3~ ~nd moved for its passage and adoUt(on~
that the Anahcim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petitian for Conditlonal Use
F~~~mit No. 1(~~0, in part, graneing tl~e proposed use for on~•sale beer and wine only, to be
sold in conJuncti~n with the servinc~ of ineals~ as stipulated to by the pet.itione,•, and
subJect tn the Interdepartment~l Committee recommendations. (See Resolution Hook)
~
~ ~
MIHUTC.S~ CITY t~LAN~llflr, C(1MMISSION, FebruorY ~~~ 1`.17~, 76-G9
CONDITIQNl1l. US~ P~:('.MIT N0, 1~~~~ (Contlnu~`~~~
On roll c~ll~ the foregoing resolutipn was passed by tiic following vote:
AYF.S: CQHMISSIONERS: (iARN~S, IIERI~ST~ IOIINSON~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ FR,Rl1N0
IJOGS: CQMMISSIOPICRS: ~lUNC
AR5fNT: C~~1MIS,SIO~IFftS; ~~~NF
E~IVIR(1NMCHTAL 1~11'11C"f - PUpLIG Hfl~RIIIG, A!~~~~~~~{ -{~~~_S~ INC., 3"~'~ Anahelm Hllls Road~
RFP~RT H~, I(~I ~\nnheim~ ~~• ~2S3Q7 ~~Wner); ~IEWP~RT C~)LI_AP(1RAT1'.'~, I~~C., h~~~,-A
~~orth ~~ewport poulevard~ ~IPwporc ~each~ Ca. 97.G(,3 (A~r.nt);
CQtlfllTl~tlnl. USF requcstlnc~ ~crmission to ESSARLISH A G-U~IIT M~bEL IIOMf. COMF'L.FX
PF.RMIr ~~n, 1~~~1 on proPerty describad as an 1 rrc~ularly-sliaped pa*cel of 1~n~1
~~ conslstinc~ ~f approximately 1~y ac-•es havlne~ a front~ne of
~~~~•~ximatr.ly Z•;~3 feet on the s~uth side of Serrano Avenue~
and belnn loc~ted .~pproxim~~te~Y 7''1~ feeti e~~sf: o~ th~ centerl ine of Nohl Ranch Road.
Property pres~ntly classifled RS-A-h3~p~0(5C) (RFSIDLI~~IAL/AGRICUI.7URAL-SCCI~IC CORRIUOR)
Z~1~Jf..
No Une ln~lcited their presence in opp~,itlon to subject petitlon.
Althouc~h the Staff Rep~~r to the Planning Com~issian d~ted February ~~~ 197~, was not read
at the publ ic licarln~, S;~Ic1 Staff Report is referred tp ancl made a part of the rninutes.
Mr. ~avlci E. Lorenzlni, i~eprPSentinc~ t!ie aclent for tl~e p~:titioner, appeared be~`ore tl~e
Plannin~ Commission to answe+r questions regardinq the Proposal.
THI? PUf1l.IC HEARItI~ WAS CLO~E~~•
In response t~ quest(ohin9 bY Commissioner Nerbst, Ass~stant Zoning SupPrvisor Allan Daum
advised that tlie propoga~ ~~~h~~ in conformance with the ~levelopment standards of the RS-5~~0
Zone. Mr. Daum further sircl~lE~sted t:har. the Planning Commfsslon m(ghC wish to req~est that
thE petiti~ner termin~~te (;or~c11[lon~il ~,e Permit tJo. 13~~8 Which was previously approved by
the City Council to P~~~bli5h a 1~~7~1ot, RS'~~~~ subdivision~ since s~id tonditional use
permit had been superseclecl f~y subseqUent yoning actions.
Thereupon, Mr. Lorer~iri! sr,ipulated to ter•minate Conditional Use Permit No. 13~~~~ as
outlineci by Mr. Daum.
It was noted that (:nvirvnmenta~ Impa~~ Report ~~o. lf,l was certified by th~ City Council of
the City of Anaheim on UeceMber 3~, 1915, and no chan9es to the develonment plans
considere.cl in saicl ~?IR were propesP~{ in connection with the subJect conditional use
permit; ~3ncl, thereforP~ r,o further ~~tion is deemed to be necessary at this time
cancernin~ the environme~~ta1 :m~act report.
Ccr~r~issioner f3arnes oFfered ResoluLion No. PC7G-31 and moveci for its passage and adaptlon,
t:hat the Rnaheim City p~ann~nc~ Corrnn}SSion does hereby grant Petit(on for Conciitional Use
PE.~r^'t Nn, 1~~l, subj~~ti to the InterJepartmental ~omrii~tee recommendations; and the
P 1 ann I nc~ Comm i ss i on does fu rther• recorrxnencl to the C i ty Counc i 1 of the C i ty of Anahe i m that
Conclltional Use Permit Na. ~3~~~ he terminated, as stipulatec~ to bY the petitioner. (See
Resolutton Dook)
On rol) call, the foregoin~ rr_solution was passed by tfie followin~ vote:
AYf•.S: C~MMISS!~PIF.P,g; (3~RIItS, HERftST~ Jc1f~tJSO~I, KIt~G~ Mf1RLEY, T~LAR~ FARl1~l~
Nc1ES : C~Mh1l SS I ONERS : N~t1E
ABS EtlT : CQM~1( SS I ~ilF 1~$ ; ~! ~~~E
~
~
MINUTES, C17Y PLD,NIJII~G COMNISSION, rebruary lf~~ 1~17~
)G- in
VARINICC N~. 277f - PURLIC II:.~RI'!~; R~RkRT L. WCT7!.f_P., 1;33^4 au~nn Vlsta~ Sar Clemunt~~
9 Ca.
' ~,~, q~(7) ((~+nor); 4. LARRY HR075C11. 3~: Eost Rtvercl~lc~ (lran e~
~~~f,!; (llgent); reques~inq WAIVER OF Pf.RMITTf'.D ACf,ESS~RY USES, TO
PERMiT AL'Tf1 RFP~IR I~I 1t1 EXI~TING SE'RVIf.F. STATIOtJ on prop~rty d~scrlbed as a rectangularly-
shnpr,rJ parcel uf ln~~l Or~51 Silnc~ of approxim~t~~1y r.~ ~icrc loc~itA~l .~t t.hr nnrthc~~st corncr
of Ele~ch Baulev~rd anc~ dall Ro.~d~ havinct approxi~,~ate fronta~~es of 1;0 fr.et on the ensL s.ide
of aeach doulevar:l an~l I~~~ f~nl on [he nortf•~ sirle of 4ai 1 1',oacl, an~i furthcr described as
q~l~ g~uth Re~ch noulev, 'd. Prop~rtY ~r~~scntly classiflnd CL (C~MH[Rf,lAl.. I.It11TI:D) Zfl!!C.
It was note~~ th~f the a•~ner of th:: suhJect propcrty h,~d s~ihmi[ted a wrltten request for 9
twa-t~reek concinu~~nce f~r t'~^_ pul>11c fiearinc~ on the subJect petikion to the P1Annine~
Commisslon rnectlnn nf M~-ch 1~ 1~17~~. It was further n~te:d that there ~,~~s n~ one present
~n the audlence ln connectlon witf~ the subJect petition.
Commissioner Morley offerr.d ~ motion~ sccc~nded hy Commissi~ner I:ing and MOTI~N CARRIl:I),
that the puhllc hearin~ ~:~~i .•,~nsider.~tf~m of Petltinn for Varlanc:e tJo. 277~~ be ~nd hereby
is contlnue<1 to the Plann.nq Commission meet(ng of March I, 1~7~~, ~s rec~uested by the
petftl~ner,
RECf5S - At 'i:3~ p.r~~., C,ha(rman Far~~no d`r.la-'ed a recess.
Rf_cntlvF~~F ~ At 3:~~~~ P•~~•~ ~i~~l~'r"~'~ ~~r~n~ rpcnnveneci t.he meetin~ with a1)
Plnnntnr Commissioners being present.
VAR111~dCE N0, 777~ - FUE~LIC HFARII~G, CNARI.ES F. BOTTOMLEY~ P. 0, Oox 79", ~•lestminster,
"`""""' Ca. 92~~~3 (~ner) ; R. E. ST[ISEI.~ 363~ 4~'est MacArthur ~oulevard,
Sulte ~tii'l~ Buildin~ 1~, `anta Ana, f.a. 9?.7~~~ ~Agent); reaupsting
blhl~iFf~ OF (/1) PERt11TTF.D L~CATI(1~1 APID (8) PLRMITTED SIGtIItJf,, T~ Co~ISTRUCT A CIi~Nr.,llt~~
C~PY ELF.CTR~IlIC Sl~tl on propert:y describeci as a rectangularly-shaped p~r~ei af land
consistinc~ of appr~ximately 0,7 acre lacated at the southwest c~rner ~!` Euclld Street
ancl Crescent Avenue, h~ivin~ ~~pror.imatc: °rontages ~f 295 feet on the west sidc: of
Euclid Street ancl 1~1'1 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue~ ancl further Jescrlbed
a., 555 ~Jorth [uclid Street. Prop~rty presently classified CO (COMMLRf,111L~ OFFICE AtlD
PR~FESSI~P~~L) ZONE.
Three persons !nciicated their p~esence in oppositlon to sub.iect petition anc1~ upon
questionin~ by Chairman Farano~ sald persons waived the f~~l readinn of the Staff Report
to the Planninc~ Commission.
111thou~h the Staff Reporai ~~Srt~efPReport~is~rneferred t~tandFinade~aypa1rt of7theWr~inu~es~eaa
at the public he~r(n~, s
Mr. L, L. Gill~ Manager of Kcyst~ne Savincjs and Loan at the subject locatlan, appeared
before the Plannin~ Commission .ind stited khat the proposed sign would help the re::ident~~
of the City of Anaheim by issuinct time and temperature and public information messages
pertaln(nc~ to civic grohpssif'ntW~ui~t~~ttf~cettheead]acentternoidencesninnt~he irPa`t ~ron
the sic~ning; and that t ,
Mr. Peter Nozero, 51) PJortf~ Fairhaven~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Pl~nning Commission in
oppnsition and stateci his obJection pertained Co the souCherly side ~f the proposed
signing which would affect his property which faced east on Falrhaven; and that his
property was alreacly affecte~. hy thf~ existin~ mess~ige sign on toF> o` the Cal Fed Buildin~.
In rebuttal, Mr. Gill st~Crd the sinn company had advised there v,ras a means of screenl-,g
the sign so that it woulcl n~t face Mr. Nozera's property; th~t i~ th^ subject type ~igning
was ob j ect i onab 1~~ then the Ca 1 Fecl Bu i 1 cl i ng siiou 1 cl not havc: been a 1 1 oweci to I~a~'a I t; asi<I
that the si~nin~ arould be designr_d in such a way that It would not ot~str~ct M,. N~zero's
property.
TNE PU6LIC HF.AP,IIIf W~S CL~SED.
In response t~ ~uestionin~ hy Commfssi~ncr Tolar~ Mr. ~~e~~ssP~esc~~` interestUta th~no
outsicle advertisinn and that only cfvic or community-ty~ _
general publlc, suc:h as ~irl scout orn~nizatlon messactes, etc.~ would bc cllsplayed; that
the messac~es 41AUI.1 be to promote civlc 9roups in Lhe community and wc,ulci ~ot involve
~ ~
7~-71
MIf~UTF.`~~ CITY PLANI~lNG C~MMISSI~N, Fchruary 113~ ~97~
vn~~in~~r,~ 11~. 277~ (ContlnueA)
Kaystone Savinns and l.o.~n; onct chat t~~c.y wuui~l ~~~~t scll :~dvcrtisin~ ~~n the si~~n [o thc
R~•naclway Depnrtment Store, `c+r I~~st~~ncc,
fommissioner Tol~~r tiicn n~te~l that he would r~ot vote in fav~r of off-sir.e advert(slna.
'~h~lrm~n ~ar<~no clar?fie~l th<~t If khe subJect. petition were ~cte~l ~i~on favorabiy~ therc
ec~uld b~ no vl:,ual intrusion fr~m the ~iqniny on tlie nearby residences, Ther~upon, Mr.
GI11 sCate~l Che; effects fmm Che sl~ninq w~.>'i1d ~c .~ud~menlal in nature; hc~wcveP~ he. would
ariri.e th~it the sic~n would be cicsi~~ncd s~ thaC il would not proJect to the~ west ~~nd~
th~~r~fore, w~u~c~ not b~ther tiie adJacent residences.
Iri response to Fur~her questioninn hy Chalrm~+n Farano, Mr. Boh Steisel, represpnting the
sl~n company, appeare~l hcf~re thc Plann~ncl Comnisslon and expiained thc design of [he
slanin~ whlch would h~~ve a hlock-Cype s~~nscrcen; th~t kh°_ slgning would be cantilevEred in
one directlon by the cylinders which mr:ide up the sic±n and would be ~ngle:cf towards tlie
parkfnc7 lot or to the plices of businesses and not the adJ~cent residences.
C~mmissloner Kinq Inqutre~l if tl7e pi•cpose~l s(c~nin~ was similt~r to the signing at the
Anaheim Conventlon Center, i~r. ~taiacl replled !n thc :if~irm~tiv^ and fu~thrr stated Lhat
the ur~.pose~~ si~~~~~ Woul~l have a 1~ghC dlmmer ~so thaC ~ht~nfnh~~wheYrtl (nhtbhulbs, in~thea5
low~ the 1inhts would also be I~v~ anci ~~i~~ t~~c.y uculd ~~! i~- . ..
sl~n(nn.
Commissicn~:r Ncrbst Inryulre~l why '~he sican w~s not desic~necl in a trlanyular shape. Mr.
Stelsel replied th.~t such ~~ sic~n would I~ave been cheaper, however~ the signing was
des~clned to hlend with the -~rchicecture of the subJect t~uilding and to conform to the
sh~ipe of the Fiulldin~. Mr. Ste~sel further st~~ted that the resirlents in the ~+rea would be
able tu see the si~n but would c~et n~ illurnln~tian from it.
Comr~lssi~mer Kinn q~iestioned the enforceability of the ofF-site advertislnct stipulations;
whereupon, Dep~~ty City AtCorn~y Frank Lowry aclvised l'hat if the peCitioner vlolated the
:onditi~ns ~f approval~ citations wo~.ild be issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Farano requcstecl c~ariflcation as to whether the residents in the ~re~ would see
no more and no less th.~n tl~e bulldinc~ Chey presecitly saw at the subject location;
whereupon~ Mr. Stelsel in~licated (n the affirmative and stated that wis the reason f~r the
p; ~~nseci h,e i ~ht c~f the s i~~n .
Mrs. Syl Szucsko~ 5~~1 Fa'rliaven~ Analieim~ appeared before the Planninn Commission in
opposition an~1 stated sre lived directly ~cross from the west side of the subject bank;
that she objected to t~~. flashinc off and on of the llghts; that it was her impression
that the sir~n would be ~huve tfie buildin~~ about G feet; that sl~e objected ta the Cal Fed
sign flashing off and .~n; t"at she did nol feel there was a nec,d for another time and
temper~ture sictn in t~,~ n~i!~hhorhood; that the flashing of the siqn would be in her
child's bfcirooM since her pr~perty w~~s ~ot protected by other buildings but a wide c~pen
space separatsd her ~~roperty from the subject property; and tfiat her f~ouse was just about
southwe~t of the car~ier of the sign an~1 the on and off flashin~ would 'ue more of a bother
to her than the sig~ itself w~~uld be.
Commissioner Johns~n noteci th7t Mrs. Szucsko had a good po~nt regarding the flashin~ of
the sign. Commissioner uarnes adde~i that ~ne of the reasons for tl~e ordinance prohibiting
flasl~lnq sir~ns wa~s because they bc~ti~erecl r'esi~iences; an~l thit it had been her experience
that such signs co~1d be seen farthe~ away tihan 3~~ feet and she wondered if there was
anyone present f;om Mariposa f'lacc:.
11r. Steisel c:>cp'lalnecl tliat all af their d(splays consisted of encased cylinders; that the
3~-watt lights were ap~+roximately 1/1'lOth the Int~nsity of a sealed beam on an automobile;
and that rhAy h~~d no intention of bot'~erinc~ any of the ad,jacent residences and, since he
1 ived In an area close to a revolving Sic~n~ he ur~:icr;tc~d tt~e i.~o~~e~~~~.
Cha(rman Farano inc~ulre~t If the applic~~nt wauld cansider amendinn the application fo ~
two-slded sic~n~ 5ince he dlcl not understand why ",Ceystone needed to have additlonal <<~ns
slnce the bank was i well-known institution ln tl~e area; that a two-siclecl sinn coulc~ be
restrlcted to ~uclid ancl Crescent; that it appeared the hank was tryinn to reach r_u~t~mer-;
from a c~l~tance uc~wn the street; and that he did not see how the bank would enl~~rge lts
buslne5s by havinc, a time .~nd teMperature sign,
~ ~
'Ju-7~
MIIIU7E~~ CITY PLANNING f,OMMI~SIiIN, Fe: r~ ~ry i8~ 197G
Vl1RIANC,:. N, 0. 27'l~ (Contfnued)
Mr. GI I1 st~~te~l tf1C`/ diel n~t wi5h r.r~ c~ian~c: t~li~ pi'~posnl to el irrlnate <'~ny portion of ~hG
sl~n.
h 1:~ 1~1 [hf~ s 1 n~~ f rom thc
Curm~lssionar Nor+ey nnteci thit If the pctft~~ner could ~ictuiliy s
adJacent res~t~lenr.es~ ~ncl not have c~~i~-'~i~r_ ~~idertisinrt~ he wo~ild he in favor ~,~ iC; and
that Che propuse~l type ~~f s i ~n i nn wt~~ ~~ br.[te: r type oF g i nn i nn for the C I ty,
Commissi~~ner Nerhst notecl th~it alth.i~~gh the lie~h~. coulcl be m,~nuf~cture~l In such ~~ way thnt
iC would be nenliqihle~ the a~~jacer~t: res(cJcnts would be hothnred by r.hr: of`f and on
f1~5hin~ 1(c~ht ~roM thelr livlnn r~~oms~ etc.; and that a twa-f~cecl sign r~ould he 1<.ss
~b)ect(cmable to th~~ resi~lents in the are.~.
~omm(ssioner T:+lar n~ted that~ in his oplnlon~ the: pr~posel was nnt thr. same as a flashing
lic~ht.
C'r~a ( rmin Far~no r~oled that by nc~t c11 rect i nci the ^! ~n tcw+ards the f reeway but :~t an ang le
tow<ircl Euclld Street an~f 1Jestm~nt, the rE~siclents in thc ~'~rt~ w~!u~d nc,t be be~hered by the
ll~h*_s nt al!.
r~..,;„t«~..~Pr Tnl~r YhHn nntc:d tliaT. he di~l i~at feel therc would be ~ny li~ht affecting the
~ wliereu on tii~- u,;os;t'cn 1~,11~:~ted t~e flashing
arlJacenk homes ~'rom the prop~.ed signin~; P , ~~
of the lights nn-I th^ in~:ensi~y was t;~e basis for their opnosltion.
Commiasi~ner Klnc~ requestecltir, Steisel to give an opin~on rec~ardinc~ che difference5
between flr~shin~ 'inhts and the proposal. Mr, Steisel repliYCl that a flashing light
intermtCt~~~~tly wen;: off and on anc~ th•~ proposal was for a chanc~ing Ilyht; that the
prop~sil ~•~as thc same type ,~f sign as the Convent(on Cer.ter si~n ~n Katella Avenue; that
rhe petit~~~ner was trying t~ pr~mote c(vic interest concernin~ t~tie ~irl scouCS~ etc., that
:eople wnnted to 4:n~w ahouC; an~1 that the proposel was nut a fl:~shing sign,
In response to question(ng by Commissioner Johnson, Mr, St~isel stated the change cycle
for ~:h~ messages was four seconds on and one secon:f off. C~immissioner Johnson made an
obs~~rvation that four seconds would be close to a flashin~ siqn.
in ~-esp~nse to questlonincl by Commissioner King~ Mr. Steisel st~ted tlie oFerating hours
•~~ ;he sic~n a~oulc! norm~l!y be unti 1 about 1~;3~ ~~ 11:00 p•m. and the 1 ight.s would be
-.n ; down ~utomatically at the end of that time.
r~mnissioner Tolar not~d that he did not wish to hurt the neighb~rhood by ~pQroving the
siqn; hoa~ever~ it w~uld be a good puhl(c service; that he h~d not viewed the Convention
„entc:r sign as being detrlmental t~ the citizens; that the subJcct bank was trying to
enha~ce t.he beauty ~n~1 aesthetlcs of the area and it would seem reasonahle th~t th~ bank
would not ~Nish to hurt the business that would con~e from the nei~hborhood because of the
op~osition; that Mr. Steisel was an authority on signs an~1 F,~ had indi~nnerr tHC~~ld~not be
be ~Irected toward Eucli~ and not towarci the residences and~ in '~at ,
deCr(ment~l to the are~,
Several of the Plannin~ Commissioners inrllcated that a hardship was noC evident in
connectlon with the proposal; Cl~airman Farano noted that beauty was in the eyes of the
belx~',er ancl, in hfs opinion~ it was n~t bea~ty to see a flashing sign from th~
re~ _ientt~~l properties.
Commissinner Morley noted that the sublect sign should riot be designated as a flashing
sipn.
Mr. Gill stated that the bacG: of the sic~n~ a~c! not the fronC of it, w~uld bc f~cin9 the
resiciential properrics; thnt the proposeci siqnin~ woiilcl nor be anywliere near as intensive
as the Cal Feci sinninn; that they were vrilling to cicsi~n tF~e si~n in such ~ manner thaC it
wo~id not bc obJectionable t~ the residents; an~i, the~c~iPon, Mr. Gill stipulated that the
design of the si~nin~ woul~{ incorporate placin~ the ~outlierly panel of tt~e prooosed slgn
at an approximately 7.~-de~ree an~le towar~J the east to eliminaCe any possible v(sual
intrusion on neirby residences. Mr. Gill further stated c.`~~y wanteci an aesthetically
pleasin~ sicln and to pravide the community witfi messacles the•~ would not other•wise receive
regardinct civic information.
Commissioner 7olar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissionr_r King and MOTiOtI CARRIE~,
th~r. the Anaheim City Planhinc~ Commission does herehy r^r,ommen.i to the City Council of the
~
~
MI IIU'f~S ~ C I TY PI.ANN 1 t~G f,QMM I SS I~tl ~ February 18, 197~~ 7G-73
VIIRIANf,E N0. 27'/~ (Contlnucd)
Clty of Anrtieim thac th~ subJect proJec:t be exempt Tr~r~~ t,~r_ requirement to prepare an
enviranmencal impact report~ ~~~rsuant t:o th~: nrovisio:~s of the Calif~rnla Environmental
Quallty ~ct,
Commissloncr Tolnr offere~l f~r~~lutic,n I~o, PC7~~'3?. and rn~'~ved for its p~sM1n~c and Adcotlon.
thnt thn Ar~aheir~ Clty Plnnnir~~ Conu~~ls 'on does hcrchy ~~r~nt Pr.tltl~n for Varlance Na. Zj7A~
~n p~~rt~ ~rantln~ lhc requeste~l walver of the perm(tte~1 l~c~tion t~~ permlt a"ch~in~ing
~apy~' c1r_ctronic si~n havin~ Jispliy p.~ncls ori~entc~l C~ thc n~rth~ snuth an~ er~st
dlrectl~ns; pro~~i-le~l, h~nyevr_r~ t hat t hc pc t i t ion c r s l i n ~ i l A t e d t ~ d e s i ~ n i nc~ s~tild s( gn ir~ a
manner which w~uld ne~t create nny vlsu~~l fntruslon t~ the fldJ~~cent residences to the
southwesC; that Che reque~te.~ walver o'` the permltted sfgnlnq Is determ inec l to be
unnecessary since the petitioner stipu'~ateel th~c no c-ff-site commercial advertisin~ Is
pro~osed ~~n<1 thr+t: only clvlc or community-type mess~nes of interest L'o the qeneral public
such as qtrl scout, hoy scout, and othe~r p~~~~i~ service gr~uns~ would he displc+yed; and~
furthermore~ tfiat the Plannin~ Comn,isslon does hereby cieterminc such civ;n<'°suhJectlltoYthe
type mess~ges wo~i1 ~1 not be cnns i rlereei as of F-s i te hus iness aclv~~•r I, in!~;
Interdep<~rtment~l Commlttec recommenclati~ns. (~ec Resolution dook)
On roll call~ the fore~cing resoluti~,~ was p~ssecl 6y the fo;low(n~ ~,ote:
AYFS: Cf1Mh11SS1~IIF.~S: HF.RRST~ J~FINS~N~ KINf,, M~RLEY~ TOL11R~ FARl1tJ(1
N~FS: C0~IMISS1i1NfRS; fiARNES
Af3SftlT: C~~IMISSI~~1cR5: ~l~~IE
VARI~t~CF N(1. ^.7"~~ - PUEiLIC H[ARItJG. PI1Ul. J. HUBBS~ 1~iQ West Valley Boulevard~ R(alto~
~A, ~237,<, A~dD D. RAYPIOFID Atll) ADA MAY WQLL~ 1?.9~5 Newport Koulevard,
Tustin~ Ca. 926`t~ (~wners); GEFARD F. WARDE~ 4332 East La Palma
Avenue~ An~heim, Ca. 9?.~~)f~ (Agent); renue~stinc~ W/11V[ft qF (A) Mit~IMUM L~NDSCAPIPIG~ ([~)
MP,XIMIIM WI1Ll. HFIGIIT~ (C) ENCR~A~IIME~lT OF L~U7D~QR USES~ (D) REQUIRF.D TRE<<{escrib~Ar,as a
(F) PERMiT7CD USES~ TO P~R-41T A LARGE EO_UIPMf;dT RFNTAI YARD on property
rectan~ularly~shapecl p~rcel of lancl consisring of approxiro~tely 2.3 acres located at
the sout'~west corncr of La Palma and Lakeview Avenues, hiaving approximate frontages of
24li feet on Cf~~ 5°`~resentl ~classifie 1 RSeAul+3~~~~'~SC)f(RES~qF.I TI~L/AGRICULT 1RALakeview
Avenue. Property p Y
SCFNif. C~RRIC~R1 7.f1~lE.
No one indic~te~1 thelr presencr_ in oppositiori to subJect petition.
Altf~ough the Staff Re{sort to the Plannin~ Commission dated February 1B~ ~97F, was not read
at the publlc he~rin~, sald Staff Report is rE+ferred to anci made a part of the minutes,
Mr. ferard F. War~ie~ th~ ~gen*_ for the petltloner, appeared before the Plannin~ Commission
and stated three parcels ~f ~and were involved in the subject application; that Mr. Woll
owned the two westerly parcels an~~ Mr, tluhbs owned the parcel abutting Lakeview; that Mr.
1J411 was currently in escrow t~ purchase the parcel from Mr, fiubbs for development along
with the other two parcels; th~~t iF dedicatiun were required along Lakeview, Mr. Hubbs'
parcel would have ahout 7 feet of usable land and P1r. Woll would be payin~ $~+~,~~~ for it;
that the proposa) was to construct zn equipMent rent~l yard which was much needer.l for the
Northeast Industri~l Are~; that Yhe owner of the industrial develo~.ment to theresently had
suhJect property were in favar of the propose~ ust:; that Mr. Nubi,s' property p
unsiqhtly buil<lings on it; that if the corner was not purr,hasec{ to be `~ethatpre ard(nththe
proposal~ tfiFn the property would be very difficulc to se 1 or develop; 9 9
Traffic Enni~ieer's recommenciat+~n to close the drivew.~y that was closest to the La Palma
Avenue and Lakeview Avenue intcrs~ction~ he would stipulate t~ providin~ a sign there for
right t~,ns only; and that renardincl the requestecl v~a(ver of the maximum wali height, a
high fence vras requlrecl to screen the yard and protect tfie rental equipment.
THF PUdllf, FIE~RIfI~ WAS CLOSED.
!n response to q~~estionin~ hy Corxnissinner hiorley~ Mr. 1Jarde state~l the baat and trailer
storage on the westerlymnst pa~cel was not a part of the subJect proFosal.
Commissioner Kin~ inquire~f wl~y the petitlonar was nnt witlin~ to plant the 35 trees
whtchrwould be~t~keMrwheneverrlakev(iiewhAvenlue waseW!~enFd andP,thereforea thef~rees'wouldt
have to be rern~ved at tl~at time.
In response *o questi~nin~ by Corrmissioner Johnson~ Mr. Warde st~ted that Che corner
parc~l was presently fi7 feet wide ~-~ncl~ hy ~1lowin9 10 feet of the wlcith to be taken for
ded(catfon for the wicieninct of Lakeview Ave~nue and allowing a 5~~fooz setback~ only 7 feet
~ ~
7G-7~i
MINUTGS~ CITY PLANNING C~~1111SSI~N~ Fehru~ry 1~~ 197t~
VARIANCC N0, 27IIp ~Gontinued)
of usable propcrtv wou1~1 rem~~in. Mr, 4lnr~le fiirthcr stat~.r1 t.hey wcre pr~~p~eln9 a 5~-tout
setback alon~~ L~~ PAIm~ Av~nue.
in response tn quastl~ning by Commissioner Ilert~s[, Mr, WArcle stnCed tf~e prapos~'~) w~~3 for ~
permanent f~cllity. Coirr~issf~ncr I;~rhst then n~t~d Lh~t the bull~lings could be set b~ck
~f) fe~t an~l [he s~thac4; .~~•en cnul~l be uCll ir.ed for customer and eniployee parkln~~ ete:.,
however, nn stru~:tures or st~~raqc of equlprtx~nt would be ~llowed in sal~l sef^itk ir~~tb~Mk•
Warde clarlfle<1 that they were proposing to consCruct only a fence in the ~ faot
~rea. Carnnl5slonar Nerhst ad~led th~~t he wculd ccnsidr.r' grantinn the proposal on a
temporary b~isis anly. Mr. Warde stated tl~ere woulcl L~e no polnt In payinc~ $~10,00~ for t~~e
properCy and not be abl~ t~~ use it tc~ adv~ynta~e; that the satbaclc area would probably
never be used f~r er~ployec parkinq; and that if thc w~ivers were not ~rante~!, khe
purchaser woulcl not buy the propert~.
Mr. Don Carsun~ re~~ltor~ appe~+red bcfore the Planning Commisslon anrJ st~ted hc had sold
the two ~arcels to Mr, 11011 about a year ac~o and Mr. Wo11 wished to purchase tha corner
parcel~ even it the askinn price~ in or~ler to develop ft to~lether; and that he recognized
that the corner parcel h~d a lot of prohlems.
nFfi~p Fnnineer Jay Titus a~lvised re~nrcllnc~ the widenlnn ~f Lakeview Avenue~ that s~~ld
~.~. e~nr fo~r• th,t the exlstinc~ ri:~tit-
street was ~~ prim~ry hinhway with an uitim~~ce wiuu~ o~ .
~f-way was h~ fee*, on either side ~f the centerline; and that an addltiona) 13 feet ot
dedicatl~n on elther side was still requlreci,
Comrnissioner Johnson nc~teci Clir.it it ~~p~~red the c~wner o~ the property purchased it I.nowing
tlie City'S requirements and t-~at, in his op(ni~n, the propPrty owner shoulci not lean on
the City to qlvc. up the requirem~~nts imp~sed on others. Chairrnan Farano c~ncurrPd.
Commissioncr~ I~erbst n~ted tha*. the: Planning Comrtilssion should explore the possibil(ty of
grantin~l thc use of the prc,perty for a limitecl pcric,d of tim~ subject to rev~ew for
renewal, since Lakeview Avenue m~y not he widened to its ultimate wiclth for same time. He
suggested a five-year tlme limit, t~r. Warde responded that a time limitation for the
pr~posed use of the property woulcl be unacceptable.
Traffic Engineer Paul Sinc~er a~lvlsed that the rer_nnxnr.ndation pertainin~l to the closure of
the drlveway closest to the intersectlon of Lakev(ew Avenue and l.a Palma Aveni~•.: would also
satisfy the County ~oning Codc requirement that drlveN~ays stay 110 feet away from the
intersectlor
Commissioner flerbst offered a m~tion, seconded 'ny Commissioner King an.i HOTIOP! CARRIED~
that the Anaheim City ~lanning Commissior, does nereby recommend to the City Council of the
City of Anaheim tha; the subJect pr~,ject be exempt from the requirements to prepare ~
envlronment~l impact report, purs~~~nt to the provisions of the California EnvIronment~l
Qual(ty Act.
Canmissi~ner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC7b-33 and movecl for its passage and adoptlon~
that Che Anaheim City Planninn Commission does h~reby deny Petition for Variance No. 2%~30~
denying the waivers pertaining to the 5~'foot minlmum sethack r~quirements along Lakeview
Avr;nue on the basis that tl~e petitioner inclicated a time limitation impose~l on the
proposed use was unaccept~ble~ and the Plannln~ Comrnission determined that 2o grant the
waivers on a permanent basis would se;t an undesir~ble precedent for futiirE similar
requests in the canyon inclustrial area and, furthermore~ the petitioner did not
demonstrate th~t a har~lship would be created if said waivers were not granteci; and denying
th~ wai~ier pertaininn to permitted uses ~n the basis that the petitioner indicated the
proposal would not he pursued if t~~e waivers pertaining to the 5~-foot se:back
requirements a1on~ Lakeview Avenue ~~nre not granted on a permanent basis. (See Resolut(on
eook)
Qn rotl call~ the foregoinn resolu*.lon was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES : C~M11) SS 1(1tIEP,S: BARt1ES ~ HERRST ~ JONt15(~N ~ KI rIG ~ MORI.EY, FhRANQ
N~F.S : C011M1 SS I ~tIERS : TOLAR
ABSF.NT; C~MMI S51 ~t1f.RS: NQtJE
1
~` ~
MiNUTI"S~ CITY PU1t~P~l~lf CQMMISSIOy~ Fobruary 1~, 1976 7~-75
VIIP,IA~JCF N~, ?7`~1 - F'IIPLIC HEl1ftIN~, WILI.IS WALIt[I',~ 41~~ ~~orth Phllaclelphi.~~ An.ihelm~~'
-" --' ~~~, ~2^~!; (Cwncr); C. 11. 411LY~S, 513 Psrkwno~l Street, Anahcim.
~~^r~~ (q9~.~t); requesting WAIVCR OF (11) MItJ111UH FL~~R 11RE~, ~~)
t11 N 1 NUM YARn Df•.P711 ~~!~ (C) M I ~~ t NUh1 R[2U I RGl) PARY.I lir, ~ Y~ I;QIJS7RUC'f A 3-UN 1 T APIIRTMEPlT
4UIl.D1~l(; on pr~~erty e!~,sr.rihed ,:~s ,~ rect~ne~ularly-shapcd p~~~~el of land com;istin~ of
approxlMntely onr. acre havin~ a front~~~~~: ~f ~PRr~ximately ~~5 feet on thc cast si~le of
beln~ 1~>cated
Phil~~delph(~~ Str~cet~ h~~~~lnc+ ~ m~iximum de~~th nF aprroximaCely 110 fc~t,
approxfmotely 1'~5 fcet s~~uth of rhe centerline of SycamoPSentlyccl~ss~iflecltRMr17.~0
descrihed ~~s hln~ Plorth Phil~~~elpi~i~ Strcet. Pr~perty p
(RESI~EIITIAI., MULTIPLf.-F~MIL.Y) 7.0!!F,
Three pers~ns in~iic~ted their prnsenc~~ in ~pnositic~n to suhleck petiti~n ancl, upon
qucstionln~ by f.hnlrman F'ar~'+n~~ s~~icl persons VJaiVFG the ful! re~~ding ~f the Staff Report.
Althouryh thc Staff Renort t~ tlie Plannin~ Comniission d~ted Fehruary lf;~ 1~7G, was not read
at the publ ic he~rlnri, snt~1 StnPf Re~crl Is referred to ancl ma~lr_ a part of the minutes.
Mr. Clayton Wllks~ thc AgenC for the Petitioner, appearc~-~ before the Planning Commission
to answ~r questl~ns req~irding the oroposal,
Ms. Estelle Read~ 3~"~ East Sycamorc Street, Anaheim, appeared berore the Planning
Commisslon in opp~sition ~~n~l st•~tc~d cliat t~ mir.;mlze ~iving space any more than alr~ady
pel'R11LLeu uy ~i~uc 'viuS i^~1G"'•'•^; rh~t chr cnt1~~) SpCd~: object.lvely CAl1C8Yniny space S~11CC S~le
purch~~scd property which w~s built "minimfzing thi5 and t47nt anc,, as a result, she had
thrse ~arages which she cou1~1 not use and it was a good thinc~ that her car was Che same
color as the ~~r~~e; that she un~lerstood the petitioncr lntencled to rent the proposed
apartment to senlor citizr.ns, and she ~iid not believe senf~r clttzer~s would like two-story
apartments ~inless an elev~t~r was provided; and~ furttiermorc, she clid not understand h~w
the petitioner coulcl requPst so niany waivers ~ncl still have no environmen+:al impact.
Thereupon, Chiirman Far~no explalnc~l the requiramr:nts of the California Environmental
QLality Act.
Ms. Read continue~i by st<~tin~ shr_ visualfzed that eventu~~the Wrohosed ~mitsCwauld then
becominq a real(ty with plans for serior citizen housing~ P p
house famil!es with chilciren.
Mr. Mike Blancn appe~red bef~re tl~e i'lanning Cornmission in oppositl~n anc' stated he llved
next door to the subJect property; that presently tl~~% neic~hborhoud was very crowded in
every way anci yet tl'~e petitionc~ was requesting two-story develc~pment with waivers; that
the parkin~ situati~n in the neighborhood couid be considered critical anci everyone in the
neirhhorhood needed to cooperate in takinn advantage of the on-street parkl~~g so that
evPryone would hive ~ place t~ pirk;and that alth~ugh F;e likecl the idea that the property
miqht be improve~l~ tlie development should he in conformarce to the C~de requirements.
In rebutt~l, Mr, btiiks st~ted the proposal o-ras a nice plinc1f~h~~h~hereh~~Itr~oomtPor four
askin~ for (~'1~ shuire feet for three one-bedroom units; Y
parkinn sp~ces in the rear and one parking space in front.
T{{ f PURL I C I~E~RI ~IC WAS CLOSFD.
Commissioner Ilerbst suqaested revisin~a the praposal and huildin~ to standard size
apartrnents with 7~~ square feet minimum and one bachelor-type apartment with 1~?.~ square
feet, to help out with the parking requiremen~5.
Commissioner 7olar notecl that 7!~~-square-foot aparCments would er.co~!rage maxir~um usage of
the apartments, ~lthouc,h he vias not indicating he favored 6~0 square~~foot apartments; that
there a~^re ~stly cluplexes ln thC ~rea and tlie proposal for a tripler., with the exception
of the parking, w<~u~d b~ ar im~rovPment for the ar~e~:; tha: the size of the ap~rtments
would Iimit the number of people who rould occupy them; and thac the pa`1ti.;^~r mt~hr be
wfiling to stipu'ata to ~n aae limit:+tion which mlghX also help the problem.
Chalrman Faranc, noted that the p mposal was a reconstruction on a very small piece of
property and if the petitioner owned other prnperty ln tlie immeciiate nefe~hborhood~
apprc~val of the prQp~sal~ as submitted~ would set a prececlent; th~t, therefvre, the
reconstructian should be ln compliance with Code requirements; and that the _'ituation
prop~secl appeire~f to be wt~at tfie Coc1e was wr i tten tn protect a9a i nst.
~
~
MINU7CS~ CITY PI,ANNING COMMtSSION~ February 18~ 1976
~,1~t1ANCE NQ. 2741 (Continued)
76-7~~
Commlasl~ner Mbrley nutecl that the petitloner was tryir~<t lo ~verbuild on the sub)ect.
property; and th~t the ,ubject neiqhhorhood wea v~r•y c:ungested and furthei• conaestlon
sh~uld not be permltted.
Commisaloner Ja`~nson note<1 ttiat the butldln~ standord~i would ye required to be lowered
unlass thc currnnt Inflation hroke; and thnt he wuuld favor tlic propasal if the requlrad
parking sp~ces could be provtded,
~~Ir. Wtlks stated r.hat the lot wr~s 45 feet wide and by provi~in<~ 9-foot wiclr rarking
spaces~ they ~;ould provicle ~i total of 5 p~~rking space~c in tho rear.
Commissl~ner Nerhst inquired lf there ml~'t bcs a pos~ibility ~~'' elimineting the lot 11ne
oF the adJnining praperty which was alsn owned by the petitioner and thertby er~abling the
petltloner to meeC the Farlcln~ space requlrements.
Thereupon~ Mr. Willi:; Walker~ t`+e proper:/ owner ~~hu was present in tho zudlence.
indicatsd he wc>uld respactfully request a time extenslon in order to revisc the plans~ and
stateci he would try to have :,ald revOsed plans s~bmitt~=~d In time for consideration at ttie
Planning Commisslon meet(ng of March 1, 197~, s~~d othei^wise he would request a further
tlme extension.
Cortmissloner Morley offered <~ m~tion, seconded by Commisatoner Tolar~ and MOTION CARRIED~
to reopen the publtc hearinc~ and eontinue consideratioia o'F ^etition for Varlance No. 2781
to the Planning Commission meeting of March 1~ 1976~ as re~uesteci by tl~e petitto~~er.
VARIANCE N~. 27~2 - PU[iLIC HEARING. FIRST GHURCII OF CN~,IST SCIENTIST, ~!~ North Citron
Street~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92i05 (U^-ner); requesti~g WAIVFR OF MAXIMUM
NUMp ER AND AREA OF S I GPIS, TO PE RM I T TWO FREE-STAN!) I ~If, S I GNS ~n
property described as a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of l~~nd c~nststinc~ of approximately
1.4 acres located at the s~utlieast corner of Northgate La+ne anc! C1Cr~~n Street, having
approxlmate frontages of 375 feet on the south sidc of tJorthgate l.ane ancl 1-~0 feet on
the east side of Citron Street~ and further described as ~1Fi North ~itron Street.
Property presently classifSed RM-2-~00 and RM-1200 (RESIDFIJTI~L~ MUI.TIPLE-FAMILY) ZONES.
No une indlcate~ their presence in oppQSition to suh,ject petttton.
Although the Staff Report t~ the Planning Commission dated Februa~ry i~~ 1976, was not read
at the public hearing, sald Staff Report is referred to an~! m~ide a part of the minutes.
Mr. 8°.11 Dlodgett, President of the Board of the Firat Ghur~;h of Christ Scientlst~ tF~e
peCltioner, appeared before the Planning Commisslon and s*.at~ed that ti~e proposed signage
would provtde beCter identification for' the church and its services to the netghbarhood;
th~t one of the signs would bear the name of the church ~niy and was a monument-type stgn;
that they would stlpulate to relocating the praposed manumeni:••type si9n to eliminate any
visual abstructiors to vehicular traffic along Citron Street and Northgate Lane~ as set
forth in the Staff Report; [liat thp secon~l sign would serve C~ give information pertaining
to meeting times, sermon titles or messa9es, etc.; and that itie existing sign did not
~ffer flexibility as far as sl~owing the lesson ~r sermon5 tc, let the Peo~le know what was
gotng on inside ihe church.
THE PUBLIC HEARIN~ WAS CLOSFD.
In response to questi~ntng by Chairman Farano~ M~. Blod~et•t stated the lighting of ths
slgn would b~ inside and tr~nslucent.
Commiss~uner No~!ey n,~estt~ned the precedent tfiat may be s°t if the subject proposal were
granted~ as proposed.
The Plam~in~ ~ortm~ssian entered into dtscussion with the petitioner rngarding other church
signs in the City, and the size~ height and need "ror the proposed si~ns, durtn4 whicfi t1r.
Blodgett explained that the people complalned that they had trouble finding the subJact
church; that the peopl~ had difficuity reading the existing sign~ especially the elderly
people~ an~i the low~ monument-type sign wauld help th~C; that they were hoping that if the
1~sson and sermon titles were appeali~c~, the~~ would bring other PeOP~althoughaittw~uld bed
probably not utillze all nf the ~equested 5~ square feet of slgnage, felt would be the
a workable square footage; and that they had chosen s~gns whlch they
le~st affnnslve to the neighborhood.
~
~
-1~NUTESp CITY PLAMNiNG GbMMi5510Nr Fuarua~'y 1~r 1~~~>
VARIANCE ~~0. 2782 (Continued}
76-77
CatnmisStoner ~olnr natecl that the Plannl~iy Cnmmission rt~ight i~e more receptive to having ~
combined slgn :rlth n readerboard~ r,~Li~c+r than h~vtng Cwo signs ~s proposed~ whtch mlght
al~o l~e morn oconomlcal for kh~ church.
Comnlssinner Nerb,t notcd that if the ~•eaderboard stgn was in conformancn w(th thr Code
strnclards~ than he coulcf livc~ wltli ~ rn~nument sign on thQ ~round with no llghting.
A lady in the aucl{en~e indic~ted that shes had heen interestcc~ to krzow wher•e lhc propos~d
slgn3 would be located ~nd tlie hei~ht of the signs; and thot lier concerns lhare~f ht+d bten
answerucl to her satisfactlon.
Mr. Blodgett took exceptl~n to the InterdepArt~nnntal Committee recorm-endatlons portalning
to Installatlon ~f streer. lihhting and p~yment of fr.es ~n~ tree planting purpas~es;
wh~rRUpon~ Zoning Supei~viaor Annika Ssntalahxl advis:sd that the alternative of pAy~^7he~c
$2.00 per front fnot along the adlacPnt ~treots miqht ba approprlate in thls case.
Planning C~mmts~lon determin~d~ in their opinlen~ tt~.~t p~yment of street tree fa~s would
~ot ba approprlate becau5e thPre were •,o aarkways or• tree wells along the ~clJ~cent
strcets, and the sidewalks extend~sd to tfie c~~r{~s,
It was not•ed th~t thc Director of the Pianninq qepartrtsent hnd determined that the propo~ed
~~~~~.~ry fA11 wixhin the d~efinitir.n of Section 3.01~ Class 11~ af th~ City of Anahelm
Guidelfnes to the Requirements for an tnvironmcr~ial O~~~pac~ o~P~~t ~n;i ;,r~a~ thPrPf~re;
cataaortcally exempt from the rc:qulrement t~ f~1e an FIR.
Commissioner Herbst offered RASOlution No. PC76-3b and moved for its passagz 3nd adoption,
that the Anaheim City Plar.ning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Vgrlaiice No.
27f32, in part, ta permtt two signs consioting nf o~~ approximately 20-square fooC~ free-
stariding sign for the purpose o` displaying church r--~etin~ times, sermon titles~ etc.~ and
oRe monument-type slgn approximately 32 square feet in size~ for a total sign area of 52
square feet: ~ubJect to the stipulation ~f the petitloner to ~elocate the proposed
monument-type sign to ellminate any visual o6struction to v~hicular tr;ffic along Citron,
5trcet anci Northgate Lane; subJect to the det~rminatlon of the Planning Commission that
payment of street tree fees would not be approprlate because there are no parkways or tree
wells alonc~ Citron Street and Northgate Lane~ and the sidewalks extend to the curbs; and
the Plannin~ CQmmis~ton recommends that street lighting fees, i~ lieu of the installation
~f street liyhts by tfie petitioner~ be ar.cepted. {See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foregotng resolution was passed by the fallowtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSI~INERS: 9ARNES, HERBST~ JOHNSOt~~ KING, MORLEY~ T~LAR, fARANO
NCFS: COMMISSIONF.RS: NONE
ABSENT: ~OMMISSI~P~CRS: NONE
ENVIRb~3MENTAL IMPACT - DEVELOPER: GRITERION DEVELOPMEN7. IhC.~ 1772? Irvine Houlevard~
REPORT N0. 167 Sulte !!, Tustin~ Ca. 926Bo. ENGINEER: BkOWN, G~Ni:I!LEZ ~ SAI~IE,
INC.. 5~1 Nortih ~.oiden Circle DrfNe~ Sulte 200~ Santa Ana, Ca.
TEPITATIVE MAP UF 927~5• Subject property~ consisting of approx(maiely 16.1 acres
TMCT NOS. 9143 l~cated s~uthwest of t!~e intersecrion of Santa Ana Canyon R~ad
AND gli~-~ and Fairrr~nt soulevard, havinc~ a fronc,~e of approximately l.61
feet on the west slcie of Fatrmc~nt Bouievard, and having a maximum
depth of approxir~3tely 120Q feet, is propo~00(SC) ! tstandiTract
as follows: Tr?ct No. 91t~3 - 1; RS-HS-10~
No. 91t+4 - 26 RS-HS-10,000(SC) lots and 1 CL(SC) lot.
Fb one indi~ated their nresence in opp~?sition to the subJ~ct items.
~~~h~~~~h rtiP gt~s,' Kr.i.~-` ~~% the Planning Commisston dat~d February la~ 1976, was not read
at thP s~eet!rn, sa~d scaft Kat~~•-z +s referred to and m~cSe a part of the minutes.
Mr. Fra~k L. Fehse, Vice r:es~~..,~: :::` ~+'iter(o~ ~esvPlopment, ~ppeared before the Planning
Commisslon and exp:ai~:~~+ the proposal.
In response to questi~nir.~ by Cor~missioner hbr~r;: ?ar. Fe~~~~~ stated that approximaknlY 36
large trets woufd be removed in t{ee constructlun p~.:=-'eses, 1^.avi~~~ approximate!•; 12 trees
which were mainly eUCalyptus tre~s. Oeputy Cit; ..~cor~ey ~rank Loi~ry ~d:~'sed that the
~
n
LJ
MINUTfia, Cll~f PLAMWING COMMI5SION~ F~ebruary 18, 1~7~~
7G~78
ENV I R(~NMENTAL I MPA47 RCPORT NO 16 J AND TENTATI VE NAt' O F TRACT NOS, 9~ 43 AN~,~ k~+ ~Conc I r~ued)
City of Anahelm's ordlnance reqalred thet permisslun b~ granted by tho Ciiy Ccuncli
pr~or to remov~) of trees which wer~ listed as specim~^ s i~ sald or~ina~ice.
In responsc to questloning by the Pl~nning Commisslon. Z~~ning Supervisor Annika Sa~italaht)
advise~l that the onc lot clesic~natod in 7entatlve Trect No. 91~~4 as Cl. hacl nlready recolvPd
flnal re~dlnn of an urcilnance for the zone.
Officc Engineer J~~y Titus a~~vised that the submltted P1ons Inrllc+~te~l n maxlmum grade af
15~ on thr. streets; an~1 thnt tl~e City's policy was for a maximuin nrn~~~ of 12~ ~'~Ip~chadAnd
been held to quite stringently tn the pasK because of emergr,ncy vr.hlcle passag_~
on thn basis of tho t`oregoing, the Planning Ccamm1ssion mey wlsh to add a condltfon of
epproval requlring a mnximum stre~:t gr7da of 1?~.
Commisstoner hbrley o~(fcrca a motion~ seconded by Commi~sl~~~.or King gnd MOTION CARRIED
(Commissloner Johnson votinq "no"). that F.nvironmental lrnFac:t Report No. 16J~ having bacn
considered this date by the Anahelm Clty Pfanning C~mmisslon and ~vl~fence, hoth wrl~ten
ancl oral, havinn been presented to sup~ler.icnt sald dr aft EIR No. ~G7~ the ~lanning
Con~nisslon br,lieves that said clraft EIR No. 167 does eanform to the~ Ctty and State
Guldellnes ancl the St~te of California Environmental Quality Act an,~ base~~ upon such
information does hereby recommend to the City Councll that they cert(fy sald EIR No. 167
ls In compllance wfth s~ld Environmental Qualify Aet.
Cortantss(oner Norley offered a motion~ seconded by Co~xnissloner I(Ing z~d MOTION CP.RRiED
(Comn~issioner Johns~n v~ting "no")~ rhat the Anahelm Clty Planning Commis~ion does hereby
find that the proposc~l subdlvision~ together with Its desfgn and ImprovemenC~ is
ChesPlanni~iqiCommllsslonydoesethereforanapprove~Tentat~vePMopeof TractSNotI91~~361Fg3bJect~to
t
the following conclitions:
1. That ,hould this subd(vislon be developed as more than one subdivision, e~ch
subdtvision thereo` sha11 be submitted in tentative form ~or approva~~ ~~tilitles.
2. That all lots within this tract sliall be served by undergrou-..
3, That in accord~nce with Ctty Counci) policy. a 6-fooC opon de~orative wali ~hall
ba ccnstru~tecl on the top of slope on the east prape rty Ilne separatin~ Lot Nos. 1, 3, ~~
5, 7~ and Falrmont Boulevard. Reasonable landsr.apin g, including Irrigati~n facilities,.
shall be installed fn the uncemented portion of the arCeria) highway parkway the full
disxance ~f sa(d wall~ pl~ns for said landscapinc~ to be submitted t~ and subject ta the:
approval of the Superintendent of Parkway htaintenane~; and following installation and
att~ptance, the City of Anaheirr. shall assume the responsibility for malntenance af saicf
landscapin~.
4. That a final tr'act m~p of subject property sha11 be submitte~l to and approved I~y
the City Council ?r~d then be recorded i~ the Office ~f the Q~~nge Coun:y Recorder.
~ That any propose:i subdivision convenants~ condi tions~ and restrictions shall be
submltted to an~l appreved by the Ctty Attorney's Of f ice prior to City Council aFproval of
the final tt ~ct map anc1~ further~ that tl,e approved covenants, concli tions ~ and
restrictions ~hall be recorded concurrently with th e final tract nap.
6. That prEor to filing the final tract map~ t h~'aNpllcant^`Pa~functlonin~ ofeth~:~Y
Attc:rney for ~pprova i or den i~ i a comp 1 ete synops i s or C~~~• F~ ~F-- ~
operating corporatlon, '~cluding but r~ot limited to, the articles ~f incorporatlon,
bylaws, proposed metfu,ds cf manac~ement, bonding to insure malntenanaesire~tcmi protectc':he
and hulldine~s, an~l such other infarmation as the Ci ty pttorney may
City~ Its cltlzens, and the r~irchasers of the proJect.
7. That street n~mes sl'.all be appr~ved by the Clty of Anaheim prlor to approval ~~f a
final tract map.
8. That the owner(s) of subJect property shall pay to the Clty of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation i+i-lleu fees as deT_ermined to be approprtate by the City
G~uncil~ sald fees to be palcl at the time the build ing permit is issued.
y. 7hat drainage of subJect property shatl be disposed of In a manner that is
5atisfacto~y to the C1ty Engineer.
10. That the a~°~(5) of subJect property shal> pay approprfate dra(nage assessmr.nt
f%~s ~:o the City of Anaheim as dctermined by the Ci ty ~ngincer prlor to approval of ~~
final tract map.
11. If permanent stre~t n~me signs has nnt been installad, t~mporary street name s gna
shall be installed prior to any occupansy.
12. That the roof~ of all buildings constructe d withi~ .,ubject tract shall be of
noncombustlbte material as approved by the Cfty of Anaheim Fire Department.
13• That the graee of the stre~ts in this subd ivision shall not exceed a maximum of
12$. or as approved by the Clty Engi~eer.
~
I ~ ~
MIN~JT~S, CITY PLANIIINO COMMISSION~ Februsry 18• 1976
76-79
~NV c p,^NMENTAL .I MPACT_ REPORT f~0, Z 6Z AND~ AT~ ~,~~P ~F TRAC_ T NOS~ 9143 A_, ND 9. 144 (Cant I ~ued)
__...~.M._ - -
CrMmissioner Morlhy ~t"foreu n motfon~ seconded by Commissioner Ki ~q and MOTION CARRIED
(Comml~sloner Johnson voting "no"), that the Anah~+im City Pl~rining Commisslon daes hereby
~ ~d that the praposeJ subdlvltl~n. togAther with Its design and impruvement. le c:onst~tent
with the City'$ Genara) Plan~ purouant t~ Government Code SectOon 66473.52~ And the
Planning Cam,}'s~lAn does therefare approve Tentative Map of 7ract No. 9144~ subJe~ct tn the
following cond~t~ona:
1. Thet ahauld this ~ubdlvislon be developed as more thsn one subdivlalon~ aach
subdivision thoreof shal) be aubmltted In tentative ~'orm for ~pp roval.
2. That All lots wtthin this tr~ct ahall be served by underqround utlllttes.
;. That e f ir:nl tract mj+p ~f subJncl property shal l be submi tted to nnd aFproved by
the C 1 ty Counc 1 I an~i th~+n b~ recorded 1 n the+ Of f i c~ of the Orang~ County Recordor .
Q, Tha~t eny proposed subdlviston convennnt3~ conditlarts, and re+strictians shall be
submitted ta ancl approveci by thc City Attorney's Office prlor to City Councl) approval of
the fina) tract map and~ further~ *_hr~t the approved covenanta~ conditlons~ end
restrictlon~ shetl be re~arcldd concurrentty with the final tract m~~p.
5. That prtor to filing Che finat tract map~ the appllcant shall submit to the Clty
Attarney for approval or d~nlal a complete syno4~als of thc proposod functl~nin, oP Che
operatin~t corr~oration~ incl~~ding but nat limited to~ the artlcl ea of ti~corqoratlon~
bylaws, preposed morh~ds oPin~nagement~ bonding to insure maint~ nnnce ef comnon property
and builclings, anrl such other information as the City Atr.~rney rn.~y dosire tn protect the
City~ Its cltizens~ and the purchasera of xhe proJect.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anah~im prior to approval of a
fi nal tract map.
7, That the owner(s) of subJect property shall pay to Che !'ity of Anahelm the
appropriat8 park and recreatlon i~-lieu zs as detarmincd to b~ approprlate by the City
Counci l~ sald fees t~ be pald at the tins ~~~a bi+! ld(ng pcrml t i s Issued.
$. That drainage of subJect property shall be dtsposed of in a manner thet is
satisfacto~y to thn Ctty Engineer,
9. That the owner(s) of subJect pr~perty shal l~+c+y bppropr ~at~ dralnege assossment
fees to the City of Anaheim ~s determined by lhe City EnginePr prlor ko a~pro•~al of a
f1na1 tract m~p.
10. If permanant streek nan-e slgns havenot been installed. tert~orary street name signs
shall be installcd prior to eny occupancy.
it. That 4he roofs of all butldings construc*.ed within sub,ject tract shall be of
no~cnmbus tible materlal as approved by the C(ty of Anahc.im Fi~e Department.
1: . That the grade of the streets i n ti~ ~ o~uu~i Y ~~ ic,~~ ~P~a ~~ not exceed a maximum of
1~~, Qr as appro~ied by the City En.yineer.
COMhIISSlONER KING TE~iPORARIIY LEFT TNE COUNCIL CHP.i!!~ER AT 5:~+0 P.M.
~ ~
7G-80
MINIITE~~ CITY P~ANNING LOMNISSI(1N, Februery ltl, 1976
TFP~TATIVE MAP OF - DEVELt1PER: GRANT WARMINr~r~N 9UILDERS~ 1752 La~gley Avenue~
TRACT N~. 92~(~ Irvlne, Ca. 92~~~+• ENGINEER: KAUPP. LAWLER 6 ASSQCIl1TES~
3~n1 Redhlll Avenue~ 8uilding 2~ Suith 106~ Gosc+~ Mesa~ Ca.
h2G2~,. SubJect property, conslatlnh of approximatnly ~.25
acres locAteci eouthaasterly of Qu(rtane DrIvQ an<1 the S~A.V.I. Canal~ liavinh a
frontage °f °mum domth~of aaproxirtu+tolyh37~ ~G~tislis praposed~for~sub~llvtalon~
hmving a mAxl P
Inxo 13~ RS-72~n(SC) lots.
No ane Indicated thelr prr.sence ln opposltian to the subJect mekter,
A1Chough the Staff Report to the Plnnniny Cammisston dated Februery 1~~ 197~>~ Was ~ot read
at thc meatln~, sntcl Staff Repc+rt ~s refcrrcd to end mede a part ut the minu2os.
Mr. Taylo~ Grant~ repre~entin~ rhe developer, indicated hfs presenee to answer q:~estions
regardtny tlic proposal.
Zoning Supervisor Annika Sant++lahti clarifiecl that e~~ addltlonal cand(tion wcwld be
approprlate, in tt,c event the subJect tentattve map werc to be approved~ ~ald condition
b,tng "7hat Reclassiflcatlon N~. 72-73-4~~ reclassifying the subJect property to the RS-
~2Q~(SC) 2ono, ~hall be f~nal ~z~d~ prlor to r~cc,rd~~tlon of the fln~l tract map."
Commissioner Nerbst nffere~~ a motion~ ssconded by Commis~~toner Morley and MOTION GARRIED
(Commis~.;ioner King b~ing 'temporarlly absent)~ that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Comnlssion
does hereby recommencf to the City Council of the City of AnahPim thap the subgu~ntPto'the
be exempt from the requlrement to prepare an environmental im act re ort, p
provisio~s aP the Californla fnvironmental Quallty Act.
Gommissior-er Herbst offtred a motfon~ seconded by Commissloner Tolar and MOTION f,ARR1ED
Commission
(Cortmiss loner King belnc~ t~mporart ly absert) ~ thaL the Anaheim C) ty Planni~~g
does hereby flnd that t`~e proposed subdivislon. ,qether with its deslnn and fmprovesment.
igdCthetPlenninitCommisslon`doesnhereby,approv~ Tentative~Mapno nTract'NoCC9206~6sulJect~
en 9
to tne following condltlons:
1. That Reclassification No. 72'13"48, reclassifying th~ subJect property to the {i'S -
720J(SC) Zone, ~hall be finalize~l, prior to recordatton of ttie flnal tr~+ct map.
'l. That should this subdlvision be developed as more than one subdivlsloi~ eac:h
subdtvislon thereof s'all he submttted tn tentative form for approval.
3, That all lots wi~hin r,hts tract shall be served by underground utilitiss.
4. T~iat a f' al tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Counc1 ~ncl the~ be recorde~d in the offic~ of the Orange County Recorder.
5. ?hat th~. covenants~ conditi~ns and restricttons shalt b~ submitted to and appan~ve d
by the C{ty Attorney's Office prlar to Clty Council approval of the final tract map.
further~ that the approved covenantsy conditlons and restrictions shall be recorded
concurrently w1;:h thc fina) tract map. the applicant 3ha11 submit to *_he City
6. That prior to filing the final tract map~
Attorney for approval or denl~l a compjete synopsis of the proposed functioning of Yhe
operating corporation including~ but not llmtted to~ the articles of incorporation,
bylaws, propos~d methads of management, bondtn3 to insure matr.tenance nf cortmon property
gnd buildings, and such other information as the City Attorney may des~r~ to protect tfi~
~ity~ its citizens, and the purc~~:+sers af the praJect.
7. That street names shall bc approvcd by tha City of Anaheim prlor to approval of .~
fti;al tract map.
8. That tr.e nwner~s) of sub]ect property shal) pay to the City of Anahelm the
approprir.to p~rk an~1 recreatl~n in-lieu fees as determined to be approprlate by thr. Cit~
Councll, said fers ea be pald at the time the build!ng permit is issucd.
9. That drainage of subJcct property shall bc disposed of in a manner that is
satlsfactory to the City Engineer.
10. 'fhat c~rading~ excavation and E?'. uther construction activlties shail be condue t ed
in sueh ~elnnncarrledgintomthemSantahAna~Rlv~„byYstormr~waterto iglnating~frommorhflowi~g
proJect 9
through this proJe~t.
11. If permanent street n~me signs h~ve not been installed, temporary street name
siyns shall be lnstalled prtor to any occupanc~. ro riate drr~ina~e assessme~ t
12. ThAt the ownerLs) of s.~bJect property shall pay app p
fees to the Ctty of /~nahetm~ as deterr+fned by the City Engineer prlor to approval of a
flnal tract map.
~ ~
76»81
MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION. February 18~ 1976
7ENTATIVE MAP OF TRA~„C7 NO;,,~9,2 ~(Continued)
13. Thet the location of the sidewalka In relation tu the ~xisting trees shall be
epproved by tho Supertntend~nt af Parkway Meint~nance.
14. That the rlght-of-way As r,~qulr~d for the future extenslon of Qulntana Drive. as
determfned by the City Engineer~ shnli be conditlonally dsdicated to the Clty of Anrheim.
Sald candit~on shall be based upon tha ~~ead~ as determined by the City af Anahaim~ for ttie
axtenslo~, oF ~;~ulntana Driv~.
15. That an Improvement bond sotlafactury to the Clty Attorney shall be posted wlth
the Clly of Anahelm for the futur~ constructlon oF Quintan~ Drivc through the limits of
subJect property.
16. Thet tlie raofs of all bulldings construcxed within subJect tract shall be oP
noncombust'~ble mnter•lal~ as appr~vecf by th~ Anahelm Ciky Fire Dapartment.
17. That the dnveloper ahall purchase thot portl~n of the ~.A.II.I. canal shewn as part
of Lot No. 13~ prl~r ko approval of tha ftnal tract map.
~
~
MIMJ'rlt~;;, CT'.l'Y P1~11Nf1:INC3 CUIJAAT,;;;TUfJ, T'ebt~,aa~ry 11+, 1'~7r,
7G-E~2
I~}TPOi~'1';; /1IJD - 1.'TL~M P10. 1.
it1CC064~SiC;JD ;~'IUIJ;~ I~1:E~ DI}?'~i~'rN1~1 UI~~CL,AIi~'1'.l'l)f,! ft1~;cJlJG1;3'i' - F'c~-• widc,i~l~i~, ~,f Linoo:ln Avoi~uu
""""-"'"-' o~t;it of Stnte Cc~'11nrT~~ ll~,ulc+ve.t•d.
It, wan nuted that tlic~ City of An[~ho1u; wau k~i~~~po.li.nEr, bo wi.don Lhc+ ::~>~.~i,li ;zide o1' LI2100.Lt1
Avenue oa~t ~~f Stote Collcge 33oii1evnrd Ca:• n diata-io~ of .»? 1'ec~~, ntid oon:~+.i•~.~ut t~ modian
in:lctnd ~Cc, improvo traffi.~ f7.~w in i,hc~ ar•~c+; thai; u rHV~9W uf t.}~~ ;i~~l~~,)ect pi~o.)ooi: wa~ con-
dua~ed by Lhe Aln~ineering and Plc~nntn~ p.ivi.~i.unr~ with a detarinl~~nt.i~~i~ !lu-t it, would roqul.ro
Lhe reniovfll of % Canury Tciland pinn ti•oea wl!lch wero pra:~en~.1y ;*,r~~winE! .I.n Lhy parl:way; thn~t
nfl;or ;31;reet H~i~iening, tlto p~~'''we~y W~iiilc~ U~ l~•i:j~iitnUle foi~ ;~nid 1.1•vu:~ und pe~sr trees would
bo planl,ed in tree w~ll:~ olon~r the ,~t.reet nt 45-foot tn~drvn].c3; e~rid th~tt t,he projeci; would
have t~o signifiostlt enviruuiuc~rita:l imp~~at.
Commi:,9loner Herbst offerr~d c motion, :~ooonded by Cor~vniaaioner '1'o]ar Ancl ldc7i'TON CARIt~D
(Commissi.oner King boin~ tem~ot~arily 4bser~t), thai, t;~e ~naheim Cit.;~ Plb.r~ni.ng Coc:unission
doo~ hereby rooommend to ~;he C:~ty Cou~~ioi1 oC the City uf Anahaim th+i1~ 1~ho ezub,}eci; px•o~eot
be exempt from the req~iiram9nts to proparo an environmental i[nps~t rnpor~t.
ITll~M N0. 'l
Elli NF,C~ATM~~ DECI.~IRA'PIOtv IZ1~~;UI?`~T - I'~r• a~;i•a:l'_::C, r~•+~~^ ~ i f~r n ~ ~,+., .,,,
Eldorado I,csne.
I~t was noted th~~t an appllc~tiori i'u~• a~,~•udzr.~ ~?Armit had boeii filad for f~ lots on r;ldor~do
I,ane and 'hat the npplioant was proposir~g to con~trtiiat a ningle-fnmi7.~ ~•~aidenoe; tnat ~n
evaluatiori of tho environmantal impuot of grc+diz~g at the 3ubjeot, looai.ion we,3 required undor
the provi~ions o.f the Califoz•nia ~nvironmentnl ~1~zality Aot E-I1C1 ',ho St~te LIk~ Guidellne ~
t,ecauso tho pro ject was looatecl in the Soenic Corridor; and thr~t u:3tudy of tha proposed
grading by the Engineering and Planning Division:s i.ndiaatod that i.t wo~ilcl have no significant
environmeni;al impaut.
Couuniesior.er~ Barnes offered a motion, :3oconded by Commis:~ioiie:~ Mur'icy e~nd h;OTION CARAILD
(Commissioner Kirig being temporaril,y e.b~ent), th~t the Anahei~n G.ity I'lc~r~n~n~; Commis~ion
does hereby recoinmend to ti119 Cit,y Counoil of i,he City of Ananeirn th~ti ttie subjeci. projoct
be exompt frum the req~.~irement to prepare ~n onvironmentnl impc-ct report, pursuan~; to the
provi~ion~ of tho Ca1i£orniu Environmeni;~sl Quality ~ct.
COIvIIviI ~SIUNER KING FiF:T[JN1ED TU TEiE COUNC'IL CHAMHrn AT 5:45 I'.M.
11~~,~ r1o. ~
ti'AR2ANCE N0. 1521 - Reque~t for determination of whether the propc~Ad
u:~e (used r.ac• lut) i~ authorized by said variance.
i i ~ho p'I Annine (~OfNi1~9ti'S Ctn ~R.'~.AC1 Pahr~is±r~ ~[~ ~~.c~~~ ~~~~~a rn,rASATlt~9C~ and
The StEiI'I t'te {,~ ~t• ~ ~0
made a pRrt of the ~ai•ZUtos.
It war~ notod thRt the subjc~at vari.anao g~•snted sales and servico of automohilos as an
addition to on existing faoility un the ed~aaeni: propei•ty to the north, said riorthorly
property having sinae been reZOned ta CL and developed with a aonvenienoa market.
The Planning ~ommissior. entered into disous~ion rege~rdin~z the proposPi, duri.ng which i;he
Planning Commission ger~ei•a11y oonoui•Y•ad ~thet the applicant sha11 bp r•equired to submit pl~r~
for tho propo~s~d use, including land~cepir~g plans, for P1er~ning Commission approv~l.
ADJOUftNi~IENT Thore beirig no Yurthar buainess to discuss, Com:nissioner Moi~ley offorod
a motion, seconded b;t Cc~au~~issioner Ba~rne~, and MOTION CARRIED, the,t tho
~9gtinR be ad.io~:rned to u;Ui) p.m. Lhi.: date i.n the Fuller'tui~ ^ooa: e.t ~1 "'
Anaheim Convc~nCion Center for n Joirrt Study :~e:~sion with the Communii;;
Recsvelopment Commi..~sion.
Th~ m9eting ad,~our~~od nt 5;5U p.m.
-,a~per,tfully ~uUmitted,
O • ~ "' ,t,,~,
Patrici~ B. Soanlan, Secretary
/WAFICZM CITY PLANNIN(~ COt~ISS70~1
~ ~
~I
JOINT STUUY SESSION ME~TING
PIANPliP~G COMMISSIOP~ ADID f.OMMUNII'Y ftECF_Vt1.OPMEN7 CUMMI5SION
February f8, 1976 - 8,uo f'.~t.
Pres~~nt:
Community f~edavelopmnnt I:onwnission:
Kenneth Cotlar
Glenn fry
Herbert Leo
hlanu~l Mendez
Jam~s Morris
J~~nG Oseid
S, Moss
Present:
°lanning Commisslon:
Floyd Farano
L~wis Herbst
Charlena Barne+s
Glen Johnson
Paul King
Richard Moriny
Redevelopmont Staff:
Knowlton Fernald
Malcolm Slaughter
Ron Contreras
Sybil Siivarman
Coulter Hooker
Rich~rd 4i11
Tom Blurock
Helen Ford
Abscnt:
Ha ,ld 7olar
~
~
The meeting was callea to order at 8:15 P.M. by Jamas Morris~ Chairman of
thE Community~Redevalopment~Commissi~ and Floyd Farano~ Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
Redevelopment Conceot Plan P~esentation
A s 1 1 de show out 1 1 n i ng tha R~deve 1 opment Cuncep t P 1 an wes. sh.av~m~ .~.u5.t. p.r.i o r to
Chs meating. It was requested that questlpns b~ held until after the pras~,~ta-
tion u~ a'1 ~thLr itans due to thc length of the agenda. •
. ~
Traffic Study - Wilbur Smith v_Associates
Ron Contreras ~eviewed the Wi llwr Smi.th .tr.aff.ic repart, di.scuss.i.ng..the four
alternete pl'ans; on the basis oP the analys(s which was part di the report~
Plan D was chosen, with C,hartres Street as ma,jar two way boule~~ard;
~itizen Partic'~aation and Comm~~nitv invol~iement Prdqram
Syb i 1 S i 1 yerman presented th i s porti on of the+ agenda,. .comment t nc~ .on. .the h i gh-
~iyh~s of citizen participatior and giving a swrmary ~f the cortenunity involvement
eff ort through 1975 to tha present.
This included: des~ription of the ProJect Area Committee, review of questionnaires
and surveys, slide presentations~ publications, meetings and work sessions, citizan
contact at the redevelapment offices and ether media, su~h as the ~ecent TV pr~gram
witl-~ Kno~~lton F'ernald participating. Sppcial comments were mad? on the new Alpha
UpdaCe newsletter and the Downtown Perception Questionnaire Repo~t.
Oppn Space Pr~~o".~ation
a silde sh~;w ria:, presented, showing detailed drawings of the proposed lake and
open space area and surroundiiig activities. alongside actual pictures of other
deve~opme~`s~ such as th~ river walk area iri San Antonio and the Space Canter
in Huntsv ~ e, Alab~rtia.
Costs and Ci~jectives
General cost figures were quoted by Mr. Fernald, Note was mad~ tt~at.$3 mi111on
would be the cost for a iak~ as opposed to $Z miliian for an open grass area.
,~
~ ~- -~ ~Yl.~c.-t-.~~.q
,! ~~~IcQ_ s~•s-- tL t-~.~~c~ r~ a,~~~ ,. ~,.. ~, ~.. 0.
`~''''~ r '~t~ (.~'f"~1 t .Ccr •y~ L7~- tt~. ~~~rl.. ~ ~~•_,.~ C~lr-i'x-,~c-~~-a-tt1 ~ l*aC1 /~)CL2 c'.-1. !,S ~ •'6 ~G .
~ ~ ~ ~
Note was Alsa made tl~ur d~velnpers wtll only pay $5 mtllf~r~ ta '?6 millior~ f~r
1,in~1 wFi~'~h w1~11 cc~st the age+ncy $40 mi 11 ion to aeyui ro. 1'otal ~_osts wi Chin •-• ~
thQ PrcJect Area were a+stimatod at $5Q million. L'stimatos wara then given on
addltional tax inccme which would result in latar yoars fram salas taxes, bed
laxos~ ctc.~ with a total ostimato of $750.000 yearly proJetked.
7F~e audtence was tfier~ asked to partlcipato ir~ the meeting by Askin~ questions
~nd dlscussing issues. There were many quastions and considere~ble~ discussion
resgarding the f'ollowing areas: the proposed l~ike, the senior ::itixc~ns' housing
prnJact~ property acqu~Siti~n, storm drain cocts~ owner pat•l•icipation, tax
Increment, down tlme fur marchants during rGdev~sloprrent~ etc. Mr. FAr~ald
was questioned as to what time would be needed tc come up wit.h cost figure~
Lhat would ba meaningful. Mr. Fernald anc~wered that a yenerai ovcrnll cast
analysis and production analysis should be roady within trics noxt ~0 days and
that it should be ready by the time all agancie~ meet together to consider the
redevelopment plan.
Commtssioner Morris noted that there will be nn <~ction taken ~t !:he meating
tonight~ the decision on the General Plan Amendment wlll be mads ~t th~ mge~ing
of February 24, 1976.
r di'ai-iv S ~a ~C~ :!'~~r r{,o r,~~rnn?n n'f t IlH comb i ned meet i ng W85 t<) ]E t ever`/G11C
I"1f. r •r- .
together Co f ind out what has been done, and thtlt h~: hope,d thi s wou i~~ i,e: ~.~~e
first of a serios of combined meetings.
The cha~rmen of both groups then ehtertained a moti~~n far adJournme.i~.
Commissioner Moss m~de a motion, secanded by .1ane Oseta, to ad,journ the
Community Redevelopment Commisston meeting, and Commissi~ner nin~ rnov~ed.
seconded by Commissioner Morley„ t~ adJ~urn the Planniny Commiss~un mee~ting.
M0710N CARRIED.
Meeting ad,journed; 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
~' ~~.~~_
Helen Ford
Secretary Pro Tem
U R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE. INf,