The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1976/07/19~ \_J Clty Nall M~+helrn~ Caltfornia July 1~, ~~7~ REGULJIR ME F.T 1 ~~G 0~ THE ANAH[ I M C t TY PLANN I Nr, C011M I 5~ REGULAC ~r~~~~hYr~hPirman Jofinson~athlt3~Cptm.P~~nnhe~Caunc115Chamher.c~a,qunrum MEETI hp~ng present. PRESENT - CH~IRMA~~: Jolinson COMMISSIONFRS: Barnes, Kin~~ Morley, Tolar ABSENT - CQMM15510NCRS: Farano~ 1lerhst AL50 P RESENT - Fra~k Lowry Malcolm 5laughter 8111 Str~cker Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Coul±er Hooker Jack Lucey Patrtcia Scanlan Deputy Clty Attorney Dcputq Clty l~ttorney Assistant Tra'flc Enginecr Assistant Plar~ning Director-Z~ning Assistant Planner Ass(stant Planner Clvil Engineering Assistan~ Planning Ccxnmtsslon Secretary PLEDGE OF - Commis~ioner Tolar led in thc Pledge of Alleglance to ti~e Flag of tlie AL~EGlANCE Ur~lted States of Americ~. APPROVAL OF - Ccxnmiss~oner King ~ffered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and THE MINUT~S m~~~telsCofRthe reguiar5Planningaf,omrnlcslonemeetingiheldhJune,2l~h~q7~hc be and hereby are approved, ~~s suhmi ~~ ~~d. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FQR PLANNING COMMISSION pARTiCIPAT1~rl IN TNE REDIRFCTICIN OF THE R EDEVELOPMENT POLICY AND FINALI7.ATION OF THE ~OWNTOWN REDEVELOPt1ENT r~~AN Mayor W. J. "Bill" Tl~om appeared before ~haddressed9to«theSPlanning Cronxnlsseinhas folto~s: dated July 1~+, 197~. wlth supplements an "The City Councll/Redevelopment Agency met in a tolnt ~:.:sion with the Community Redevelopment Commission on Wednesday~ July 1~-, 1Q7h, to dlscuss the ~aork that wlil be entalled ln redirecting the redevelopment policy and finalizing the ciowntown Ftedevelopment °lan. In order to accompllsh this monumental task~ your partlcipation and input as wz11 as that of the general public is essential. Therefore~ I am respectfully reR~~est~^~ your cooperatlon in this endeavor, I and the other memhers of the C rninci~ reaiiza th~t your attendaacC~at~~5he~ Sfewenaremto movenaheacl5withnredevelopment~in theedo~ntownoh needs td be p area. For this reas~n, a series nf ineetings will be held every Tuesda~~ a~d Thursda•,~'nVthen9 at 7 o'clock p.m., be~t^ning ~~>>Y ~P~a~d ~lic,lihraryhr~~~hWeS~~~~oadway.~7fi~ multt-purpose room of the mair, Ana..~~~~ r~~ RedevelopmenC These meetings wt~l includ~ the Pl:nnin~"~~nisse~slon,~as'well as member~ of the Co+milsslon and ProJect Area Cornmlttee, gereral public. Hopefully, ar. the concl~~s~~n of these sertes of ineettngs~ a tonsens~~s plar for future deve{opment of .io~~rntown wi 1 i be presented for final adoption at a Joint public meeting with the City +'ouncil, Redevelopment Agency and Communtty Redevelopment Cortunisston. Your cooperation in this matter wiil be highly ap~reclated. Very truly ycsurs~ Clty of Anaheim 76-3z5 ~ • MI .1TE5, CITY PLl1NNING CQNMISSION~ .l.aly 19~ l~i7Ei ~~'"~~~' /s/W. J, "11iii" 7hnm~ M~yor" M~~yar Thom flmphr~~. ( zc~1 tli~t s 1 nce thr t Im~ that Lhe reci i rtct lon of thn d~wntnwn r~leve~lop- m~n t p 1 ar~ w.~s begun ~ the Counc I 1/Redeve 1 opment Agency hacl farmed a s tec~r 1 nci comm 1 t tee nnd lasc TUf.S(I~~y had a~iopted a ph.isln<1 ~1an or time schedule whlch woulci ner.d to he met in order to ac~~ler.~tc~ the rcdevr.lopment effort; that said schedule trvnlved tw~i meetfngs a week for' fuur wt°ks frc~m July 2~ through August 12, 1~7h; that the r~cilrcct(on rlacecl a b~.~rden nok only ~n the Ccxnmunity Redevel~~~ment Conxnission and Pro~ect Are~ Cc~mmlttee but also an the Plinnlny Commissl~m; that he ~~~7s appe~lln~ to the Plai+nir~l ~~~~`-'~~on m~mhers Por a1) ~f the support they r.oul~l lc,n~1 r.~ th~^ pr~gram AS the htghest prlc+rity Item th~t the ~gency I~ad, On behA 1 f of t he P 1 ann I n~ Comm I s s i ~n ~ C ha I rman Johnsan accep t~~i the reques t~c>r P 1 ann i nc1 Ccxnmission pa:'ticipatlon, n~ting that some of the Conttnlssloners may alreacf,~ have cnnxnit- ments for scxne of the meet(nq d.ites :~~itlln~<1~ howeve~, the re~uest was heing accepte~i with the s~erlousness with which it was delivered. Mayor Thom furthcr Indicated that the City Council was aware that It might be Imposslble to have the entlre Planning Commisslon present for all of the scheduled mer~tings~ ho~•~ever, any effort to insure that a quorum was present at the meetings wc~uld he a~propriate. Mayor Th~~m then ~~cknowl~~lge~1~ with appreclatlon~ the ~.ist cooperation extended by the Planning Cc>mmission to tlie Council Meml~ers. COND 1 T I ONAL USE - CQPIT I NUED PURL I C NEAR 1 N~ . EARL J, L I 7TLE, 3~+o~n v 1 a de Agua ~ San Juan PERh11T NQ. 1631 Capistrano~ Ca. ~2~75 (~~~ner); BERNAaD LECKIF.~ ~~e Wi lshire Boulevarcl, Los 1ingeles~ Ca. ~~n~3 and LQIIIS J. SAIICHFK~ ~~~52 Idaho Street~ Nuena Park~ Ca. 9~621 (llgents); requesting permisston t~ est:~hlish a PRF-scf~nn~ NURSERY on property dPscribed as a rectangularly-shapecl parcel of land cnnslstinn of approximately ~.i~ acre having a front~~ge of approximately ~5 feet on thE east side of Euclid Street~ having a maximum depth of aprroxlmately 1~5 feet, being locatecl approxi^ mately 39h feet north of Che centerl ine of Orangewocd Avenue. and further ~lescrihed as 2C5Q South Euclld Streer, Pr~rerty ~res~ntly cl~ssifled CO (C(1MMERCIAL, ~ll'PIf,F AND PROF[SSIONAL) ZON[. It wa~ noteci that the subJect petitlon was contiriued from the Pianning Commission mPetin~ of July 7, 1976, for Staff analysls of revlsed plans. One person ind',cated his presence in opposition to the suh]ect petition anci forthwith waived the full reading of the Staff Report ta tiie Planning Commiss'~n dated July 1Q~ 1976. on the hasis that he had read a copy of sald Staft Report. Mr. Lou(s Souchek, one of the agents for the petitloner, appearFU beFore the Planning Commisslon and stated efforts had been r~ade to comply with the clriveway requlrements for the subject praposal; arid that he was satisfled with th~ information contained in the Staff Report. Mr. Thoma~ Hilts, 16f10 Tanla Place~ Anaheim, appeared hefore the Planning C~~nmissiun and ~ Qquested ~hat the hours ~f operatlon for the pre-school be llmlted; that tiie petitioner was proposing to operate from 7:OQ a.m. to 7:~0 p.m, and he and the ~d)acent convalescent hospital owners were concerned ahout the nolse which might he gene;ated from thP use, ,pcially since elght or ten bedrooms at the hospital were irrnnedlately adjacent to the _~uJect property and also since homes were located immediately to the e~~st; that the adminlstrator of the hospital indicated that the appllcant had proposed hours of c,psration from 7:~~ a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and~ therefore~ it appeared that the hours of operation were vague; that the number of children, ages of the children~ number of teachers and parki~g spaces~ etc. ~ should be l imi ted and not left vague; that he was questi~ning whether the existing 6-foot high grapestake fence along the east property llne was safe for the pre- school children~ stnce all of the residences on Tonia Place had swimming pool~, ana a block wall would make the appllcation safer as well as t~ lessen the nolse; and tha*_ since a block wall was extsting along the northeriy property line abut:ing the convalescent hospital and the vacant land to the south, a block wall would not be out of order to the east. !n rebuttal~ Mr. Souchek stipulated that the hours of ~per~tl~,n would he limited t~ 7:nn a.m. to 5:3~ ~.m.; that there would be 25 to 2f. children cared for or the slte, sald ~umber being limlted by the stze of the rooms~ etc.; that he was willing to instail a E~- i~,~h hy 6-foot high cedar fence along the south property line; and thet his property would not ac.t~~ally abut the existing ~7rapestake fence on the east. ~ ~ NINUTES, CI1'Y PLANNING C~HMISSIQN~ July 1~, 1976 ~~~~3~7 C~NUITIQ~J/1l. USE f'F.f1M1T N0, lfi~l (Continued) '1'11E PUf1L I C Nt.~ N~ WA~ CI.~SEtI, C«+nmissloner Morley marle an ohserv~~tlon that ~~he adJacent convalescent hr,srit~l owne~ a iiarrc~w strtp af lAnd approxlm~~tely ~i fcet and q Inches wide along the r,nstPrly houn~l~iry nf r.he suhJect property. DlscuRSl~n folln~~ie~1~ durtn~ whlch CommisslonenATinqrthatulterw~ul~i whether the petiCl~ner haci <Jiscussecf the r.c~tutsltlon ~f said strlp~ he un~.isahle hy anyon~~ lf n~~c comhine~l with the~ suhject parce) or wlth thc pr+rcel owned ~'Y Mr, HI![s to the east~ that chllclr~n c:~uld get Into the area of tha vac~nnt strip whlch wr+s Ilkely tn collect dirt, ~iehris~ trash~ etc.; that he wus not In favor of IeAVfn~1 ihe strlp out ln the c~nsiderati~n of the suhject pro~osal; that~ althou~h hrt A~rer.rl wlth the prop~sal~ he wo~~lcl like tn request th~~ petltloner to discuss thc ecqulsitlon ~f thc s,tr~r- o~ land with the convalescent hospltal or offer some ~ther klnd AnngSn11~~PCfeNt ~~ ~anc1. connectlon with s~ic1 strip which wr+s c~prisel of approximat~ly Chalrman Johnson noked that alth~ugh he could foresee no prohlems wlth the proposal~ per se, in the subJect area he coul~l see prol•~lems wlth liaving fences on f~ur sldes of the approxlmately ~3~Q-square fooc s~rl~ ~f land. Commissloner Tofar noted that he wou1~1 not v~te agalnst the proJect~ per se, but he woul~i vote against leavl~9 the vacant strl~ nf lind. In responsc to questloning by Commissioner Morley~ Mr. Souchek confirmed that the strlp ~f land in question was separated frcxn the convalescent hospital hy a hlocl< w~ll. Mr. Soucheck further stated that he did not presently own •he ~uhJect nr~perCy hut was ln escrow. Commissloner Farano indicated t`~~t It was posstble that the h~spital did not know they owned the strip of land in qusstlon; wliereupon~ Mr. Souchecl< stated he was requesteci to obta(n an easement for sewers across said strlp. Commissloner Tolar nated that Mlr. Soucheck should relay the feeling5 of the Planninq Cammission to the owner of the prorerty as well as Che real estate broker that the SCrip of land was a negative factor in ap~~'oval of the pr•oposal; that~ for Mr, 5oucheck's information~ the Planning Commission had considered anather similar situatl~n involving a narrow strlp of adJacent land and the matter was resolved for a reasonat~le price ~nd not for the price originally sou;ht hy the owner of the strip. In response to questioning by Commissioner King~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised th~t the subJect property was surrounded by commercial development and no walls or fences enci~sin~ the proposed use would he required on that basis. Discusslon pursued regarding the enclosing of the suh)ect property~ during which Mr. Soucheck clarified that he was proposing tc construct a fence along the south side of the property only but would stlpulaCe to constructinu a fence across thoweverPrhe wouldcnotf the garage to keep the chfldren ~~ut nf th~ rear Y~fd~a~drownedeby thc hospital. stipulate to maintaining the ~-foot ~-inch strip Assistant Planner .loel Fick noted for the Planning Gommission that (f the strip of land in questlon was acquired by the subJect p~'~Perty owner, a b-foot high masonry wall would be required adJ~cent to the residential property whicn it would ahut to the east. In response to que~;tloning by Commissioner T;,'~r. ""r. Hilts stated that the hcxneowners in the area did r.ot ~~~..t~r having the strip of land in questlon being left vac~3nt~ etc.; that there w:•s alreaciy Froblem with you~g peop~e Jumping over the fence anc! into said area; that he had let t,;s own shr~bhery grow to approximately 1~ feet in hPight to d~scourage trespassing through his own property; and that his property was loc:tecl nn the south sicle of Tonta Place ahutting the suhJect property. Mr. L~wry advtsed that Mr. Hilts~ nwner of the ahuttinc~ pro~erty to the east of Thereupon, the strip of lancl in questi~n~ was also an eligible purchaser of saicl st~~ehase~fr~m,the Soucheck or Mr. Hilts could .~rohably acquire the strlp a~lversely or hy p hospital; Nr !'s stated he originally thought the strip of lar-d went all the heYw~ul~{h,e garage on 4• 'ect property and now that he knew it was Just a narrow strip, be interest.:~ acquiring tt. In response to questluning, Mr. Lowry advised 11r. Hilts that he c~uld call t!~e City Attorney's ~fflce on the followin~ day Information as to whet-+e' r`,r ,crip of lan~1 ~ would remaln cc~mmerciai or become resi .,.ial if Mr. Hilts purc~~ased it. ~ • ~ MIt~IJTLS, CITY PLANNIPl~, CQMPIISSION~ Jul~~ 19~ 19~1E> ~~~32F~ CQNI)ITIOt!!1L USF. PERM11' NQ, 1(~31 (Conttnued) Corxnissionnr T~l~r notr.d that ~'~ c~~tlnuAnce of the mntter for two wAeks so that Mr, Cr,ucheck <~n~l/or 11r~. Hllts c~uld ptirsue the mnttc+r of the vacant strlp of land shoand thot e,~use, Mr. Soucheck to lcise thc tr~nsaGtinn for purchase of the subJeet property, the general consensus cif the Plannin~ Commissl~n was to favor the pro,iec[ and to also try and resnlvh the m~tter nf the p~~tentin) landlocke<1 p~rcel which would pr~~bably be enclosod on f~ur slclos, cre.~tine~ a r~ituatlon which wou1~1 be detrimental to the pear.e~ lie,olth, s~fety .~ncl ~oneral wclfare of the communiky~ C~mml~slon~r Morley offcred a motlon~ scc~ncle~l by Cammissloner Klnq And MQTION Cl1RRIED (Commissloners FArano and Herhst bolnn absent). [hat the Anaheim Clty Planning Ccxrunisslon cJoes hereby reopen the p~it~lic h~arin~ a~~cf continuo c~nslderdtion of Petitlon for C~ndltlonnl Use Permit ~Jo, 1631 to the Plnnninq Conxntsslon meeting of Au9ust 2., 1976~ on the b~14 ~ S of the forc~~oi ng f i nc1 I n~~s . EIIVIRQHI1F~lT~L IMP~CT ~ RE~I)VFR71Sf_D PURLIC HEARI-JG. ESTAYf: OF AQ~LP~I J. SCIII~TTF., c/o l11An RF.POR.T ~I~. 17~ Talt, ~~15 South Flowcr StraeC~ Su(te ~(1Fi, Los Angeles~ C~. 9~~17 (O,~ner); TIIE WIIRMI~IRT~~1 C~MPIINY~ c/o Walter Coursen, 17Rf10 5ky Park RF.f,LASSIFiC~T~~tl Circlc~ Sutte 2~5~ Irvine~ Ca. 91.7~~7 ~~9~~t)• Property descrlbed ~~~~ ~~,_~~_~ as an lrregulnrly-shapeci parce) of land conslsting of approxlmetely - 17 acres l~cale~i s~uCheast of the southeast corner of Dal) Road Vl1RIANCE 1~~, 2~'1t~ ancl Sunkist Street, having <~pproxlmate fr~ntages of 17Q Feet on the s~uth sicle of aall Road nnd ~2~~ feet on the east side af Sunkist Street~ and ha~'ing a maximum depth of approximately 9~~ feet. 'ropercy presently classiflecl RS-A-h3,Q00 (RE51f)EtlTIAL/Af,RICULiURl1L) ZQNF. REQUESTED CLASSIFiChT1~N: RM-4~~~'1 (R[SIDEtITIl1L~ MULTIPLE-F'AMILY) ZON[. REQU[STED Vl1RIANCE: WAIVFR OF (A) MlN111UM BI111_Dltl~ SITE AR[A PER DIJELLIIJG UNIT~ (B) MAXIMUM E3UILDItd~ f1EI~~t;T, (C) MAXIMUI~ WALL IiEIGFIT~ AND (D) MIPlIt1UM NUMB[R OF EtJCL~SED Pl1RKIN~ SPACES, TO COtISTRl1CT 212 CONDOMItlIUM DIJELLINGS. It was note~l ttiat the ~'etit(on for Reclassificatl~n No. 7h-77^2 was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 1976~ at the request of ~the petltloner in order to adverClse a variance in conJuncti~n therewith. It w~~s further noted that the petitioner was requesCing that the subJect items be furth~r continue~i to the Planning Commission meet(ng of August 1~~ 1976~ in order for the G~naral Plan Amendment No. 1~~~ on subJect property to be cansidered by the City Councll prio~ to Planning Cnmmission consideratlon of sub.ject petftions. Cammissioner Morley offered a motion~ secondecl by Commissioner ICIn~ ancl MO'fIOH CARRIED (Commissioners Farano and Nerbst being abse:nt). that the Anaheim City ,'anning Commission does hereby continue the public hearing and consideratior of Petitions ror Reclassi- ficatlon No. 7~~-77-' (readvertised) anci Variance No. 2~1-~ to the Planning Commission meeting of Auyust 1( 1~17~, ~s requestEd by the petitloner. ENVI R~NIIENTAL JA'1FS S, GRFCf RAYMOND G, S IMPSON~ ~MPACT - CONTIIJUED PURLIC HEARING, ~~r REPORT ~~~, 179 JOIiN S, FLlIOR~ AND ROBERI' 'v. SPUR~EQtJ~ c/o Cec(1 f,. Wright~ - 60 Plazs Square, Orange, Ca. 92666 (Owners); DEL PRADO COMPANY~ CQNDITIONAL USF 1?861 West Street, Garden Grove, Ca. 92~~~~~ and CECIL C. WRIf,HT~ PER111T ~~~. 1632 60 Pla~a Square~ Oran~e~ Ca. 9266G (Agents); requesting permission - to establish a 20~3-SPACE MOBILEaescribed asTanWirregular•lytJshaped STRUCTURAI. SETRACK on property parcel of lanci consisting of approximately 32.2 acres located nor~theasterly of the intersection of Cerrltos Avenue and Sunkist Street, having a frontage of approximately 983 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, and haviny a maximum depth of approxtmately 1335 feet. Property presently class(fied RS-A-~+3~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICU~TURAL) ZO~IE. It vras noted that the subject petit(on wa~ continued from the Planning Commisslon meeting of July 7~ i97~, a~ the request of the petit~nner. Ik was further noted that the petltioner was req~esting that the subject petition be continued an addltlonal four wesks to the Plannin~ C~mmission meeting of August 16~ 1976. Commissioner Morle;~ offered a mc~tion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTi~N CARRIED (Commissioriers Farano and Nerbst betng absent)~ that the Anaheim C~ty Planning Commiss(on doesPermltylJo~n1632Pto~theUP,annheyrCe^xnlssionnmeatingiof August 1,6, 1976anasC~equssted1by Us e the petltl<~ner. ~ ~ ~ 7~-32q MINUTF..S, C17Y PLAIJNING CbMMI"SION~ July 1~~ 1~a7~~ RECLA.".•SIFICATION - CQNTINUF~ PU01_IC HEIIRIN~. .1QH-1 V. AND HELF.N M. TNnMPSn!~, y62 AvcnlclA N0. 7' 17-3_ _ Sevilla, Lagun~a N(1Is~ Ca. '~?.F~.ri3 and f.11APr1l1~i C~LLF.r,F~ 3~3 North ~~lassell~ "" Oran~r., Ca. ~17.~~~~~~ ~~Wncrs); HESTER 11EVEL~PfqFNT C~.~ J. C. ~I~null.~s~ VARIANCE ~IO. 2R2'; P. 0. Dox 1.~~~~ Ihril Quall Streot~ Newport F)each~ Ca. ~2~f~~ (Agent). (~roperty descrlh~d ~~s an ~rregularly-shAped p.~rccl of l~nd consist(ng of approxlm~tely ~, i,~cres havln~ a frontage of ~r~pr~ximrtely ~"i~ fer.t on L h~+, n ~ r t h s lrfe ~f ~ran gewond Avenuc~ having a maximum ~t~pth of :+~~;.r~xlmately ~hn fcet, incl being locat~cl approxlmaCely ~~;~ feet e~~-st o f t h~- cent~r l ine o f I l A r b o r B o u l e va r d, P r ~ p e r t y pr•esently cl~SSlFlc~1 RS-A-43.~~~ (RCSI~FPITIAL/AGRIf,I1l.TIIRl1L) 7.QNF. REQUEStED CL~SSIFICATION: R~1-17.nn (RESIDFNTIAL~ MULTIPLF-F1INILY) 7.nr~F.. Rf:QUE'~1'Fb VAR111Nf,F.: WAIVfIt Q(' (A) MIIXINIIM BUILfIiN~ HFIrHT ~rID (A) R1?~UIRF~ SITF SCRFE:~lIH;~ T~ C~NSTRUCT /1 17f-UNiT APARTMENT C~MPIFX. It was noted that the suf.)e~t petiti~ns were :;ontinued from the Planr~ing f,ommisston meeting of Ju1Y 7. i`~7h~ ~t the re~uest of I~e retitioner ~n~l f~r revisec~ plans. No one indicoted thelr pr~~sence in opposlti~n tn suhJect petitlon. ;`~though the~ 5ta1f R~p~)I't to t'~e Planning f,o~~missior d~ted July ln~ 1~7~~ ~•~~'~5 not reacl at the pubilc heari~._„ s~~id Staff 2eport ts ref•rred to ~~nd ma~le a part of tt~e minutes. Assistant P1ar.ner Joel ' ~'< expl:~ined t'~e ~~~emorandum d~ted July 1~~ 1~7~. to the Plannincl Commissian fr•om the T.on~ng ~~Ivisc~n incllcai(ng Chat the Staff Report was in error since it inadver•t~..~t1y includecl y recanmenclatlan fnr apprcrval of an EIR negati~e declaration; and ihat paragraph 1) 5hould have read as fnllr.ws: "Ths rPView nf the requested a~uidelines the init:tal study as proposed by sta Yn arcordance wtth the City ~~f Anaheim r~~ the Requlrem+ents fnr ~n Environmenta', Imp~ct Report indic~ites an Fnvi;•onmental impact Report should be pre~~~red :~nd suFmitted for Chis proJect. 7his reeommen~l~tion is hasecl upon l.i~r ma~nitude of C~~e ptopose~i prolect :~nd urryn the nossihle cumulative effects ~f this ~~roJect taken t~gether :~ith othc~r exlsting and potentta) ian~1 uses in C1~is are~." ~qr. Jim ~ianullas~ the ~gent for the peYitloner~ appeared hefore the Planning Cammissi~n to answer questlons regardi~7g the ~~o~osa~. 7HE PI18L~~ "~+[ARlr~r, WAS CLOSE~. Cortrnisslo~er Tolar dlscussed the tnerlt5 c,f ths mAtter of ~n EIR document f~r the suhJect ;~ro}ect. no*.Ing for the record that he was opposed to deveiopers having t~ sp~end $25~~ t~ S5~~0 `c~r an E1R when such a document 4lAS totally !rrelevant in scxne cases; that in the subJect case, an EIR ~.~oul~i ,,p~roprietely a~ldress Itself tn the tra~fic ancf the increased populatl~~n whtch would have a poss?hle impact on the area~ and he had no qualms ahout that; ~nd th~t if It was necessary, he was prepared to offer a motfon tu grant an EIR nega[ive declar.itl~n for [he ~r~r~s~t prinr to any further discussl~n. Cexnmissioner Y,ing in~~tcated tie had several c;uestions concerning the traffic and density ~f r.he Pr'c>poShc which he wou1~1 l ike a~swered prlor to a motlon ori the FIR status. Mr. Dtck NcMi'It~n, representin~ the proposal~ appearecl before the Planning Commission and statPd they aisa ~`pit th~~t an [IR negatlve declaratlon was in order; and that~ on the basls of the left~turning lanes, arrows, etc.~ they did not feel thae the added density wc~uld create a trafflG probiem. In respcro se to ryuestioning by Comrnissloner King, Mr. McMillen stated that the proposed proJect would t~e for adults onlY. Chairman J~ohnson notecf that he was not aware af a pro]ect of the slze proposed wheretn the Plannln~ Cc~nmission had Ignored the rieed for an EIR~ alth~ugh he was not particularly i~tere.sted in ihe flara and fau~ia aspects of the environmental impact In this case; ancl that he a~reed with the widening of Orangewood except for the stgnalization. In response to questioning by Commissioner Rarnes~ Assistant Traffic Engineer BI11 Stracker ad~isr,d that the proJect would generate approximately A S trips per day per unit c~r about 1AQf1 trlps per ciay; that Oranqewood Avenue was a seconcSary hlghway and the trips gener~ted shot-ld not bc• a proh~em; h~wever. a signal would be equlred at Orangewood Avenue and ClementinP Street !^ the future. Mr. Stracker furtlier advised that Oranneaiood would br. a~ln-foot wide right-of-way, with ~~+ feet of travel ]anes; ~~rhereupon~ Ccxrnnlssloncr I(ln~ note~; that ttiere was n~ need~ in hls opinlon~ for an EtR document in conne:ctto~ with the suhject proposal. ~ ~ FI~NUTE5~ CI'~Y PI.P.PJNIN(', C~MMISSION~ July 19~ 1~7~ ~~'"33~ RECI.ASSIFIC11T10~J NU~-77-.~ ~~lU VAR111NCG NQ. 1(12S (Contlnuad) Corranlssloner Barne, notecf that the proJect would not hav,~ ~+n Impact nn th~ schools ln the a~~a since it w<wld be ol) r~dults. peputy City Att~rney Frnnl. Lowry noie<i th~t the City was recort~n-ending ihat dedlcatlon hr. made for the extensl~n ~f Cle.mentln~ Street~ since sald street wnuld eventu~~-lly ~oln w(th Clementine Street to thr, north At N.~tella Av~nuc. Commissioner Tolar oP}`ered n motlon~ seconded by Comm(ssloner Morley ~ind M~TInN CARRIF~ (Crxrimissloners F,irnnu And HerhsC being ahsent)~ that the Anaheim Clty f~t~nning Commission does h~reby r~~ommencl eo the Clty f,ouncll of the City of Anahelm thAt the~ suhiect i~mlecr. be exempt from the requlre~ment to ~re~~re an ~;nvironmental lmpact report~ ~ursuAnt to the prnvlslons of the Californla Envlrcmmental Quality A4t. Mr. Cralg Combs, the r~rchitect for the proposal~ App~ared hef~re the Planning Commisslon in response to questloning by Commissloner King and stated, concerning thr. trafffc cond(tlons discussPd ln p~+ragraph 15 of the Staff Report~ that the mPt~~r ~r.tr~nca tn the proposed pr~Ject was a dlvldecf tw~-way clriveway located near the mld~ile of the pr~perty al~~ng Oran9ewood Avenue~ salci entrince to align with Camino Street to the south; and that the seconcl entrance to the pro,~~ct was proposed along Clementine Street. Corr-missloner Tolar noted Chat t~ie drlveway on Clementtne Street sh~uld he widened to a total of ~~~ feet and have a median similar to the encrance on ~rangewo~d Avenue; whereup~n the petitioner stipulateci to redesigning tl,e ~lriveway on Clementlne Str~et to a configu~ati~~n similar to the entrancP pr~~~sed on Orangewoo~i Avenue. Mr, Stacker advise~l that th~ r~CIeSIq!1~ as stlpul~ted to~ w~uld he a much better situation for traff(c flow than the entranc~ shown an tl~e pians; and th~t the turnln9 radlus at the entrance ~n Clementine Street as shown on the plans was very small and shoulrl he lenrythened~ a1s~. Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC7t;-13h and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City uf /tnaheim that Petttion for Reclassificatlon No. 7~~-77-3 he anrr~~~~~ suh,Ject t~ the stipulation of the petitioner to videning the easterly entrance frcxn Clementine Street to 40 feet inclu~ing a raised median~ wlth the configuration of s~iri entr~n~P t~ be stmi?ar to the maln entrance on Orangewood Avenue and provlding ~n ~~3hMitte~1tto the Citj~"Traffic entering vehicles~ plans for sald redesigned entrance to he ) Engineer for approval prtor to the lssuance ~f building permiCs; and suhJect to the Interde~artmental Committ~e recommendati~ms. (See Resolution Book) On roli calf~ the foregoing resolution was passed hy the followina vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ JbNPISQ~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: C~MM I SS I f1NERS : FARAN~ ~ IiERBS7 it was noted that the requested varlance for waivers of the maximum huildtng height and required site screenir~ wPre no lor.ger requtred since the ad.~ace~t properties were approved by the Planning Commissi~n for development of other than single-family residential uses ithe~netltlonertwas~re.questingnthatjPetiti~~ f~R~~ariancettJoUn2~'15 h~s~s of tl~e f`oregoing, p terminated. Commissioner Ktng oriPreci a motion~ seconried by Commissloner Morley and M~TIf1N CARRIF•.D (C~xnmissioners Farano and Herbst heing ahsent), that the Anahelm City Plannin~ Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. ?.r'S on the basis of the foregoi~g f(ndings. RECLASSIFICATION - PuBLIC HEARIN~. TOM T. Arlo CH~RRY HInE~ 133~ Eas, ~ate'5~,~~~tEast PIO. 76°77.4 Anahelm, Ca. ~-28~i, (Qwners}; STATE-WIDE INVEST~RS INC. ~7th Street~ Long~ Beach~ Ca. 9~8~4 (Agent). Property descrjhed as VARIANCE N0. 2813 a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approximately 1.Q acre having a frontage of ~pproximately 11Q feet on the north side of Savanna 5treet, havinc! a inaximum ~epth of approxlmately 3R~ feet~ being lncar,ed approximately 5~~~ feet west of the centerline of Knott St~eet~ and further described as 353Q Savanna Street. Property presently classifled RS-A-43~~~n (RFS I DENT 1 AL/A~R I CIILTl1RAL) 7.ONf . REQUESTEn CLIISSIFICAT1~11: RM-12nn (RESlDFNTIAL, MULTIPLF-FAMILY) ZQNE. • ~ MIPIUTES~ CIT'Y PLl1N~IING COMMISSIf1N~ July 1~~ 1~1'J~ 7~''3;1 RfCLASSIFICATION P~O, 7~~-77-~~ n~~D VI1P1l1NCE N(1. 2~1~ (Contlnued) RFQUESTFD ~Il1RIA'Jf.F: Wl11VER OF A MAXIMIIM BUILnIN~ NF.I~NT~ (B) MI~l1~1~IM D157l1NCF FiF.TW[EN BU I l.(11 N~S ~!1fltl (C) R.'iQU I RF~ S I TE SCREFN 1 N~ ~ T~ C~NSTRIIf.' ~ 2-~-IINIT APAR7-1FMT C~MPLFX. Ap~roximately ten pers~ns 1n~11crtecl th~lr ~rr.sence in orposltion to the suhJect p~titlon and !`orthwlth walved thc full rc~~dfn9 of the SlafF Re~ort to the Plannlnc~ Commissl~n cl~te~1 July 19, 197~~, on the hasis that they h~d revicwed cn~ies nS' s~,me, ~lthough the 5Caff Report to the I'lannln9 Commissl~n was nnt re~ci at Che ~~,n~ ic F1°AI'I11<l~ said report ts referrecl to anrt m~de ~~ p~rt ~f the minutes. Hr, Dick f3owen~ representin~ th~ agent for tlie petltl~ner~ a~peared hePnre the Plannin~ Carnnisslon an~1 star.erl th~t they had in~dvertently falled to indicate the Fence on their plans indicatinh conformance with the site screen requlrements an~l~ theref~re, wPre requesting to withdraw the advertise~l walv~r ~f the requlr~d stCe sc.reeninc~; that he fclt th~ Cc~mmisst~,n woulcf finci th~t th~ suhJect area was t~jrninc~ more ~nd m~r~ townrd multipl~' fami ly r_oning an~t cfevelopment; and that f.he pr~pos.~l wc~uld meet the requtrements wltl~ CI1P. exception oF the maxlmum Gullcling helght ~~nd tl~e mtnimum distance hetwcen buildfngs. Mr, Bowen indicatad that there was an appa"ent error in the Staff Report (page 5a, paragraph 8) In that thr Fire [)eparrment did not require a 35-f~ot turning radlu, hut 27 feet; however~ the sanit~~tton trucks did re~,ulr~ the 2~-foot turning radius. Deputy Ctt~~ Attor~ey Frank Lowry advisecl that Mr, f3owen was correct. Nrs. Joan Tod~~ ,E,2~ Savanna Stree'., Anaheim~ ~•epresenting the ~~rea rrope:rty nwners and residents in opposltion~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and statecl she lived do~vn the street From the sub.Ject ~srop~:rty; that the 3ubJect property would he c~nstructed between two agricultural/residertla) homes; that the owners af one of the a~tj~ce~t h~mes had lived there since 192~~ and had built u,~ the home for retirement ~nd the sub]ect apartment complex would then ;ut their ~ro~erty hetween two apartmenc complexes wfilch wc,uld be an ur,livable situa+.lon because of the invasion of their privacy; that~ regarcling th~~ environmental impact, cne ~r~~pose~ ciev~lopment woulcl rrobably affect the traffic and the ~ansity in thr_ area, a~ well as the existing drainage prohlems in the area; that she had pictures of the drainag~ situation; .*.-~at they were presently having tr~uhles with the existfng apartment complex in the area wlth cars blocking driveways and having to he towed away and visitors drivir., down the street at breakneck speed; that the pi tures demon- strated that the water flowecl toward the end of the street; and that the l~t at the en~i of the street was ahout ", feet higher than the street. creating a situation where the water Just sat; that some of the people alon~~ ='~e subJect street had been lm~,rovlnc~ their properties and she haJ also been improving her property since she had felt secure until the sub)ect proposal was ma:fe for more a~artme~~ts in the area; that there also was not adequate fire equipment or manpower to service the suh]ect are:a in emergc~ncies~ as witnessed by a flre In which the house on the corner across the street frcxn her haci hurned to the ground; that they woulcl like to keep the remaining property in the area aqri- cultural if possible, with no more apar-tments~ although the nelghbors hacl not opp~secl the constructlon of the existing apartment~; that the ~lraina~e prohlem was the most serious obJectlon to the proposed proposal since approxtmately 2~ more cars would be washed in the street~ addiny to the water being collecCed at the end of the street; that the Clty ha~1 been contactecf regarding the drain~~ge sit~~ation and had proposed digging a ditch which would have created an even worse water prol,lem~ thereupon~ 11rs. Todd read the prefac(ng statement to a petition in opposition signed hy approxlmately 2?. property owners and residents in the ~rea~ and presented said ~etiti~n to the Planning Comm(ssion 5ecretar•y for the rec~rd. I~ rebuttal, Mr, Bowen stated that his flrm hacl tried to purchase the propPrty next c1~or but ths family had indir_~teci they wanted to hold ont~ it for a~~F~ile an~i then c~evelop it into apartments; that the property in the area was moving more toward m~re intensive uses; that an 8-lnch water line exi~te~1 for the suhJect pr~perty as well as a hydrant in the middle of the property frontage; that ~t the corner there was a~-inch water line; that the suhJect property abutted the fl~od control channel, however, he did not knov~ whether they could drain lnto it or not; that the house two doors to the east of suh)eCt p~o~Prty was being torn down~ which was further evidence that the area was changin~; that~ et today's prices, to butld an apartment house of any SI7.P. wouid he ex~ensivP; and that the pet?ttoners !,~d cooperated w;th the Planning Department Staff in suhmi*_tin~ the dr~-+win~s~ etc. THE PUBLIC HE~~RINr, WAS CLOSE~. Commissloner'~olar noted that~ tn his npinlon~ an environmental im~act ctocument ml~ht ans~aer many of the questi~ns bein~l raised, tn c~ntrast to the previous pr~)ect (iten~ Nn, ~~ of the agencla), sald proJect being loc~ted on a four-lane highway ver5us ~ nriv~te StrPet; • l J MINUT[S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI()N~ July IQ~ 197~ 7~-332 RFCLASSIFIC/1TIQN NQ 7~~~77'~- ~~~n VI11tIANCE N0. 2413 (Contlnued) that en EIR~~to discuss the dralnac~e Ixem In datall in relatlonshlp to r.he floocl c~ntr~l c:hannel~ etc.; and that he would noC vote in Fnvor of the pro)oct wlthout the beneflt of the EIR Informatlan. Mr. Bnwen Indicated that the cost ~f ~re:~aring a full F.IR was prohihitivc; that if the subJect pro)ect was requlred to hav~ an EIR~ then it w~u1d he tAntamount that each encl every i,roperty fn the area woul~~ also havr. to h~ve an EIR for any new development in this community; thnt he wauld suggest that the Clty StAff prepare an EIR realtzing the pllght of the paople at the r,nd of the street and the f~ct that A st~rm draln might br. required affect•ing the entire area; that he was serlously Inqulring whether the City could pr~pare its own EIR ln this case~ ad~lressing the traffic, dre+inage~ etc. Commissioner Tolar then noted th<it .~n ~IR ~muld answer al) of the qu,~stions ralsecl hy th~ opposicton and that he ~vould insist upon such a docum~nt. In responsr, tn questlonln,ry by Chalrman ,1oi~nson~ Mr. Lawry advised that the recommend~tton for an EIR ~egative declaratlon indlcated that the EIR RevleHr Committee Fc,und tha~ the applicant's questlonnalre dld not lnclicate that an EIR was required; ho~oever, the Planning Commisslon was not bound hy i.he recommendatlon of sald committee. Commisstoner E~arnes inqulred whether the City had conducted any studles of tlie drain<~ge problem in the subJer.t area; whereupon, Mr. Bowen request~d that a continuance of chc sul~Ject publlc hearing be grarited in order that they migtit look into the questions themselves and w1Ch City Staff; and that hc dld nat feel the question was one of density but one of a properly improved street. Chairman Johnson notecl that the suh_)ect street was under pressure presentlY sinc~ it had wide and narrow sectic,ns; however~ he was not prepared t~ ask tf~e City Staff to prepare ~~n EIR in the: petitioner's behalf. Mr. Bowen responded that they coul~i solve their rnvn specific prablems but the oppositi~n ~~as talking ahhut the end of the street. C~issioner Morley noted that he would talce exceptton tu the stat~menC made hy Mr. Bowe~ that densitiy was not a prohlem, slnce they were requesting a waiver of the ~1lstance between huildings tndicatiny that the ~roposal was overhuliding the property. Mrs. Todd tndicated that the residPnts and property owners in the ~rea which she represented were opposed to the pr~_jecr., perlod, Commissloncr King ofFered a motion~ seconded by Commiss(oner 1lorley and M~TI~N CARRiFn (Commisstoners Farano and Herhst being ahsent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reopen the publtc hearing ancl contlnue consldaration of Petition for Reclassificatl~n No. 7~-77-~F and Variance No. 2~313 to the Planning Commtssion meeting of August lu, i97~~ at thP request of the petitioner and for information regarding the envtronmental impact on the area. RECESS - At 3~~5 P•m., Chairman Johnson declared a recsss. RECONVENF - At 3~25 P.m.~ Chairman Johnson reconvened the meeting with Commissloners Farano and Herbst being ahsent. RECL!1551FICATION - PUBLIC hIFARING. ARTHIIR PRESCOTT~ Q7~5 ~.oftus Street~ FI MonYe, Ca, N0. 7f~-77-5 91731 ~nd CLARICE P. PRESCOTT~ 8~16 South Hilda~ Analieim, Ca. Q2p~h (Owners); JAtJ BERTHA~ 33~~2 Narina Vlsta Drive, Dana Point, Ca. 9?_E+?.~ (Agent); requesting that property described as a rectangularly- shap~d parcel of land consisting of approximatPl, ~.~ ~cre having a fronta9e of approxi- mately 12~ feet on the east side of Loara Street~ having a maxlmum depth of appr~ximately 300 feetO00n(RESIDENT'!AL/AGRIC1LTl!RAL)^7_ONEtt~LtheaRM~400Q (RESIDENTIAL~~~~-LTIPLEhFAMILY) RS-A-43, ZONE. Five persons indicated their presence in opposition to sub.Ject pettt0on~ and forthwith waived the full reading of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 14~ 1976~ on the basls that they had reviewed copl~s of same. h;~~nugh the Staff Report was not read at the puhlic hearing, sald report 1s referreci to and ma;le a part of the minutes. ~ ~ 7h-333 MINUTLS~ C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 19~ ~91~ R[CLASSIFICATION N0. 6-~ 77-5 tContinuPd) 83r~~ hefore the Pl~nning Commissi~n an~1 Ms. Jan Bertha, the agent for the ~etitloner~ apP stated the'~~hect~was consisten1t wlth the area t+ndAwoul~lmdefinltellymu~grade iti~ that the proposeu pr J Anaheim, a~peAred hefore tl~e P1Anning Cc~mmisslon Mr. Louis Pucclo. 15`1~ WPSt Lorane WeY~ 2~ near'~v ~roperty ~wners and resldents and presentect a petitlon signed by eP~r~r~mately In op{~ositlon to the subJect pr~p~s~~• FSr. Puccio statecf the blggest prohlem In the are~ appeared to be trHffic; that there were already t~ many Apnrtments In thP aren; that the subJect property w~s prescnCiy belnc~ used as a parkin~ lot for the ~xistln~ a~artments in the area and if it was devclohed~ ths parking situatlon ln the nale~hborhood would be worsaned; ti~at presently he c~ul~i not flnd a p~rking spece in front fi~ F1I5 hcx~~e ~~hen he ~ame home from w~rk; ~nd Chat his li~me was located on the corner of Lorane Way and i.oara Street. Mrs. Naria Borsal~ 7.235 South Loara Street, l~nah~c~im~ appoared hefere the Planning Canmisslon in opposit~lG mantswould he~fetrimen'talmto,th~lr~safetya And thatethedsingl~ic from the propased dev p fam(ly homes In the lmmedlate area were very nic~. In rebuttal~ Ms. Bertha stated slx hames were being proposed which wrni1~1 n~t increase the traffic ln the area signlficantly; that all o~ the pr~pase~l homes wo~ild have three M'~s bedrooms and two-c.ar garagPS; that the homes would be deluxe untts and thP nr~perty ideal for such a devc.lopment; tliat the petttloner wanted to use the suhJect prope~tY for more than a parking lot ancl although they could get as many as 1~ apartnent units on khe property~ they were proposing only six r.o conform with the nl^.e surr~unding area; that they had ~e~ustbnroblem;banclnthat she ildgnotrfeeldthatithetpr~lect woulcltcreaCe~any creating P problems for the netghborhood. TF~E PIIBLIC HEARIPIr, WAS CL~SFn. Commissioner King noted that in adciltton t~ two~car garages for each of the units~ four guest parE:ing spaces wPre proposed for the proJect. ~ommissl~ner Morley noted that the proposal~ wlth Wo~~~qnotthurt theVneiqhhnrhooduto any requir•enents and with more than adequate parkingo ~tyniflcant degree and hc was~ the~efore~ in favor of the pro.JeGt. Mr. Puccio stated that Lhe City ~f Anaheim sliould not allow the r.oning ~n tlie p~operty lo inkerfere wlth the11~~aseuarerfeet~forna~threetbedroomAhomehdldrnot`rePresentsprideeof,vP apartments~ since 9 ownership. Commissioner Tolar noted that~ whlie the existing development in the area could not he changed~'iood~SandPthatrthecproposalhwas probahly'the~lovestpdensity t~hat thehsubJect neighbo ~ property woutd ever en]oy. Chalrman Johnson noted thaX the Planning Commisslon was generally very resp~nsive t~ the citizens of the City, however~ there were usually more reasonahle grouncis for opposing new development than that presented at this hearing; and that the subJect property was abutted on tF~e north and south by RF1-12~0 development. In response to questioning by the Planning Commission~ Ms. Rertha stipulated that the petitioner would submit a letter requestin~I termination of Conditl~nal llse Permit No. 371 on the subJe~t property~ prtur ta City Council puhlic he~ring on tiie suh~ect reclassi^ ficatian application. Commissioner Kinc~ offered a motior;~ seconded by Commissioner Mo~1rY ~nPlanning Commisston (Commissioners F~rano ancl Flerbst being ahsent), that the Anahcim City does hereby recomme~e uirementitQ PrePare an environmentalnlmpacttrPport, pursuantptojthe be ex~mpx from th q provislons of the California Environmental Q~ality Act. I ~~tssioner King offered ~p5°~~ommissionPdoes,hereby rectom^~nd toStheSCity Council~of the that the Anaheim Clty Planning roved subJect to the City of Anaheim that Petltinn for Reclassification Na. 7F~77'S he app ~ st(pulation of the petitloner and subJect to the lnterde~.ar':mentA) Cornnittee recommenda- tions. (See Resolution SocKj ~ ~ MINIITES~ CITY PLANNING~~COMM~~S~~ontinucd)y~ 19~~ RECLASSIFICATIQN P~O. 7 77-~ ~~ On rol) call~ the foreg~ing resol~atlon was passecl hy th~ following v~t~: AYES: COMMISSI~MFRS: B~Rr1F5~ NoES: C~PIMISSI~NERS: NnNE AR~~E~IT: CQNM I SS ( ONERS : FARAPI~ ~ K I N~; ~ M~RLEY ~ T~1.11R ~ JOHNSn~~ HERRST 7~~-33~~ Ccxrxnl,sloner ~Cing offere~f a m~tl~n~ seconded by C~xnmissloner Morley nn~i M~'~I~N I;ARRIFn (Commisslonors Ferano and Hr.rhst hring nhsent)~ that thc llnahelm CICy Planninq ~anm1371~~n does hereby terminaLe all pr~cee~lings in connectfon with Conditlonal Il~c Per~it Na. the basls that thy petitloner stlpulAted L~n4Recl~sstPicatlon~NorP7~^77!5~ 5~~~ t~'rminn- tion prior to Cit Council public he~~rln~ COND I T I ONAL USE - PUBL I C HE11R I M~ . K& E3 f,Ft~TF.R l1P~D BECIiLER CORP. ~ 725 W~s t Anahe i m PERMIT M~. lfi3u Street~ Lonc~ Ber~ch~ Ca. Q~tZ13 (~wners); n~vin RORA~I~ 32~~ l'-evon - Circle~ Nunttngton tieach, Ca, 92f~~~q (~gent); requesttng permisslon for 0~~-SALF. LiR~~~-~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ALLF.Y on property descrihed as an irregularly-shapeci ~arcel of land c~nslsting of approximately 4.9 ~cres l~c~tr..~l at Che southwest corner of [~a11 Road ~nd KnQtt St.reet~ havin~ appr~ximate fronta~es of 11~ feet on the so~e~ as~12~1 South~K~nottnStreetfeel'roPertY presently cl~ssiPled1Cl.et~ and further descri (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEII) ZONE. notedethat`a~~letterehad~beennrecalvedrfromlthetAnahetmUlnlon HightSch~ol~lstrictt~~as opposition~ as follows: "July lh~ 1~17(, Planning Cornmission Clty of An~helm 2~t~ ~. Lincaln Avenup Anaheim, CA LIQIIQR LICEPlSE~ FER~11T N1~~3~~ The Anahelm Union High School bistrtct would like to protest the issuance of a llauor license for a bowling alley located at the SW corner of Ball and Knott~ permlt R1F3~~. The area in question is ~~d~acent to the Apc~llo Junior High School, 1301 S. Knott Avenue. Young pe~ple~ in large numbers~ w111 be passing near and i~i front of this l~~attor~ twice daily. We fePl that *_he granting of this llcense wuuld not be in the bes: interests of the students or thelr parents. /s/R. Kenton Wines Superintendent" Although the Staff Report t~ the Planning Commission dat~d July 1~, 1~7~, was not read at the public hearing, said Staff Repart is re.`erred to an~ madP a part of tlie minutes. Mr. Davl;i Horan~ the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission to answ~r qu~~stions regarding the proposal and, in rehut*_al to the letter Frcxn the schbo) dlstri~t~ he stated that bowlinq Centers were for chtldren as we11 bP fe~uest;tand thatol distrdcts had a tendency to suhmit letters in oppositinn to thts typ• the Aicoholic deverage Control Board aranted to grant the application sincP they could find no obJectlons. THE PUBI.IC HEARING WAS CL~SF.D. In response to questioning by the Planning Cornmission, Mr. Boran indicatecS the hours of operation would be from t~:d~ a.m. to 1:0~ a.m.; that the cacktall l~unge would he con- tained in a separate room away frr~m the howling alleys and said lounga r,omprlsed onyy ahcut 2:~ ~f th;~c~Bevera~erControl Boarlhhenera~lly,sawetohit~thatteverything~~~s,oPeratedr and the Alcoho 9 properly. r. ~ L` u ' S CITY PLANNIrI~ COMMISSI~N July t~-~ 197f, 7~-335 MINUI E ~ ~ ~ C(l~~nl~'IQ~Il1l. USF. PERMIT N0, 1G~4 (f.ontinued) s t t w stan~larcl proced~~rP fnr the Rchool a ~,`'c~nrn~ ~onr.r or ey note t at he agr~ed that lcoholic hevern~~ licenses ne~r schools; Fu~wever~ a~! of the bowlln~~ distrlct to oppose a alleys In Anahelm had cocktall 1~u~iges. It was noted that the Dlrector of Clie Planning Depar tmant harl d~terminr.d that the proposecl f the City ~f Anahelm 1 f ,~ctlvlty fell wlthln the deflnltinn of Soctlon 3.~1~ an fnvi ronmr:ntr~l f , o ,lass Im~act Report. ~ ~d ~vas~ thereforr. ~ or Guldel lnes to the Requl rcments categorically exempt from ~he requirement tn flle a~ F.IR. Ccxmnissloner Morley offere~i Resolutlon No. PG7~-13~ ancl moved for its ~ass~qe and n for P titt that the /lnahelm City Planning f.cxnmission adoption o e d~es herehy grant l ~ Condltt~na) Use Permit No. 163~~~ nn the basls that, h hi d l s althou~h the suhJect: ~roperty the on-sale liqu~r wlll not sch~~l g a nn locatecl adJacent to an elernent~ry schoo trlment~l impact on the school children In d ~ the area since ba.~rlin~ alley~ e have a typically liad c~cktatl lounacs and the pro~osed cocktall lounge is ~ sep~~r~~t~ rc~om Prom (See Ros~lutlon ditions . the howlin~ alley~ as 1nc11cated ~n the plans; and sub]ect to con Dook) ' On roll cali~ the foregoin~ resolutlon was passed by the f~lloa~ing vote: AYCS: C0~4MISSIf1NERS: 811RNF5~ K11JG, MGaIE.Y~ T~I.AR~ J~FI~ISl1r1 NOES : C~N.M I SS I QMERS : N~~~IF. qBSE~J i; C~MM ( SS I ~NERS : FARAPJO ~ HERRST CO~~DITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIN~. RAYiq~Nfl ~. I1ND ESTF.LLE K. SPEHAR~ Q13 Pal~ma Place~ PERMIT N0. 1h35 Fullerton, Ca, ~12h3~ (Owners); FRANK S. NEMSTRfET ANf~ f;G~RRF L. ~ BEAURERARb~ 294~i Sonora Road, Palm Springs~ Ca. 97.7.h7. (A,yents); rcquesting ~ermisslo~ Co C~MSTRI1f,T A M~T[L WITH WAIVER OF MAXIM~1~1 NUM~ER OF WALL SI~NS ~n property descriheci as an irregularly^shaped rarcel of land consisttng of approximately 3 acres located southeast and northeast of the s~uCheast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Hiyhway~ having approximate frontages of 17~ feet on thP south side of La Palma Avanue and 351 feet on the east slde of Imp~ri~l Hiclhway, ancl being located approximately 26~ feet east of the centerline of Imrertal High~'aY. Property nresently classifle~l CL(SC) (C~~4MERCIAI., LIMITED-SCENIC C~RRIn~R OVERLY) 7.~N[. dne person i~idicated her presence in oppasitlon to subJect petition ~nd f~,rthwith WAIVeA the full reading of the 5taff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 1~~ 1Q7~~ on the basis that said person h~d reviewed a co~y of saicf report. Although the Staff Report was not read at the puhlic hearing~ sald Staff Report is referrc:d to an:i made a part of the mtnutes. Mr. Wendell Veith, representing the agent for the petltloner, appearE~d hefnre the Planning Commisslon and stated that although they a~ere proposing only two signs, the Staff RPport indlcated four, said proposed signs bein9 one on the wall facing the freew~~y and one on La Palma Avenue. Assistant P;anning Director-Zonir,g Anr,ika Santalahti advised that the Staff Re~ort was written to lndicate four signs since siqn plans had not been suhmitted for revlc:w and the petitioner had incilcated one wa11 slgn woui~l not be adequate. Mr. Veith co~itinued by stating that because of the size and location of the stte they thought some freeway signing and signin~~ along La Palma Avenue wo!~ld he appro~rla~~; that they thought tt would be acceptahte ta h~a~e separate letters on the builciinq for the freeway signing; Chat regarding the trafflc circulation pattern, etc., they were askinq for the p~de~trian access to the east t~ the future ad.jacent restaurant; that he ha:l not be~n aware of a connecting driveway with the ad.jacent property to the east; that if the subJect property was limited t~ one access or La Palma Avenue~ the interior traffic would be gotng back and fnrth under the cano~,y by the proposed offlce; that he was lnterested to know whether they would be permitted to retain the proposed 1~~-foot parking spaces ~^ Were of the differenc~ in grades; that at the time they designed the suhJett proJect, they not a;~are that the property was l~catcd in Fire 7.one ~F and~ therefore~ they aroul~l be changing tlie roof materla) from shake to t+le; and that the exterior materiats wouid he st:icco wir.h rough-sawn wood~ etc. Hrs. M~ry Ql~ndorf. 1~1 La Paz~ Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commissi~n representing the oppositlon and SLACP.~ they wo~~ld like the City to limit the numher of motel facilities since there was not a nee~1 for a mc~tel tn the subJect area. Mrs. ~ ~ ~ MItIIITCS~ CITY PLntlNIN~ ~(1MMISSIQ~J~ July 19~ 197F~ 7~-33~~ C~NDiTInt~AL USG Pf:Rt11T N0. 1G;i5 (Cnntinued) Din~dorf revlewed thc~ names ~f mot~l~ I~c~~tcd within clnso rroxtmtty to the sub~ect Area and st~~tec1 th~~t ~Ince thls w~~s .~ rcln'Ively virgln ptece of property~ tli~ rr.slclcnts r+nd pr~perty owners ln the .~rei would lllc co s~r~ snmc archit~ceural cantrol r~thr,r thAn to have It cfevelo~ as smoll p~rc~ls wlth severa) cllFfr,rent uses such ~~g m~tels~ ~•estaur~~nts, serv(cQ stitl~~ns~ etc.; ancl that tha intent f~~r develc~pment shoulcl pr~tect the Scenic f,orridor. 5he questfonecl whether th•~ r~roposecl wall sign fncin~ the Pree~~Ay woulcl be lighted ~~nd further stated that althrnigh the property owners in the ~~+rea dld not wt~nt tc.~ see ahsoiutEly n~ developmont on the rr~perty they viewed thc pr~pr.rty ~~s a nice plece oP land with the opporUinlty to have a nlce development an<i not a plecemenl clevel~pment: whlch would be pcor lancl use; an~i tl~at trafftc was the r,i~]ur concern of the opposltion an~i If the p~ttern nP clevelopmetit uf v~~cant l~nd ln thr., area contlnuecl~ the tr~~fPlc would only get worse. In rehuttal~ Mr, Vclth st~~ted they wer~ proposing to havc fIOAt~II~I1C5 in thc overhang for tha w~~l) stc~ning; th~t t~e was led t~ helieve tha[ there wcre 25~~~~ reople In the canyon area to be served by tle propo~ed motc) and that the proposecl restaurant to thc Past would also henefit from thie proposal; th~~t he felt therc was ~ deflniCe nePC1 f~r the motel whlch would be convenlent to the fr~e~~ay and La Palma Ave~~u~ and~ thereby~ causlny very llttle surface traffic In the area. TNE: PUBLIC Hf/1Rly(; WAS CL~SFD. In response to questloning by Commissioner Darnes~ M~. Velth state~l thaC the proposed wall sign would give good identiflcation for thc motel~ with the wlde ~rchitectural lettering trimmed In hrown. Cortxntsslo~er Barnes then notecl thiat~ in her opini~n, the ~COnnSP.f) wall sign wis in extremely hacl taste. In response to questloning by Commissloner Morley~ ~11ss Santalahtl acivised that StaP~ was nat aware that the ~ign proposed ~n l.a Palma Avenuz was a monument sign and that the hlstory of the area was to :feny monument stgns; that In measurinq thP wall slgn area~ Staff preferrEd to measure the outsi~le edges of the word which, in this r.ise~ migh± excePd the 102 permi ed slg;: area. In response to questloning hy Commissloner M.ing~ Mr. Veith st~ted the two ~rop~sed drlve- w~ys were approxlmately F~~ i`;~cr. a~art. (:ha~rroan Johnson noted that he was incllned to support the proposal with two drivew~,ys on *_he basis lhat the suhJect property wa5 relatlvely large and there was no access from Imperial Ilighway and the development dici deserve Fase in getting i~1 and out of the proper •; however, 'ie was undecided concPrning the sig ~g for the development. Comn~issioner ~C , indicated concurrence with Chairman Johnson•s comment concerning the two driveways. Mr. Velth state~i the pPtltioner was aware that monument signs were not permitted in the Scenlc Corridor~ however~ tl~ey felt that one suc;h slgn in the front ~f the pro~erty to indicate tha entrance v~oulcl he in ~rder. Chalrman Johnson then noted that he was not satisfie:d w(th the sign restrictions in t`~e suhJect area which slmost pr~:cl~aded any huslness sig~~s; however~ he wou1~1 .~qree that the sign was a ~.ttle large; an~: that s~me monument signs had heen ~ienle~l in the area when approval wc.uld have been better for the area. 'Thereupon, Mr. Veith staCed they would he happy to resuhmit rlans ror• the signinc7 ~f the property. In response to the foregoing rllscussion of the Planning Comm(ssion~ llssistant Traffir Engineer Bill Stracker aclvised that the pr~posed driveways would have. to he a~proximately 25 fee*_ ap~rt In order to align with the adJacenf drivearays across L~ Palma Avenue; an~1 that 3~ to 3S`foot wide driveways would be acceptahle. In response to questioning by Commissi~ner Barnes, Mr. Veith sCated that they felt the combining of the drtveways to the east with the Keno's driveway ~•rou1~1 be n~rro~~tnq their access to ~ne drive~vay ancJ woulci make their circulation cilfficult. Miss Santalahti noted for the Planning Commissl~n that the Suhmttted ~lans also indicated a substandard landscape setback and unless the plans were revised to meet the requlrements~ the applic~tion would have to be readvertised for the additional walver. She further noted that compliance with the setback requtrement mihht change dimenslon~ of the parking spaces. Mr. George Beauregards one of the agPnts for the petitl~ner~ appet~red hefore the Pl~~nning Commission an~l stated he was one of the prtncipals lnvrlved in the proposal an~t they had ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLIINNING CQMMISSI(?N~ July 1Q~ 191h 7~~''~37 C~MDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. IF3~ (Cont(nued) stu ec t~su6 act Area c,~r scxne tim~ and were satYsPied that the site was suitnhle for the proposal nnd thot the cammunlty needr.d the facility; th~t thefr slgning needed to be large ln order to be seen Prcxn n dlstAnce ~~way; thHt tl~e suh)ect ~roperty was approxi~ mately 10~0 feet frc+m th~ froeway and wc~ulcl creAte ~ mtnor imp~ct Pr~m the freew~iy; th,~t, regarding tlie two d;iveways~ orlgin.~lly 2he property wAS a onn-owner slr.uAtton An~l lncluded the Keno's propr.rty~ however~ thp pru~erty now had twe~ owners and the recommen~lec~ change to the driv~wAys would he more confusirig to the ~verAll ciesign of the nro,lec:t. The Planning Commissl~n ~nt:~recf Int~ ~1lscusslon wlth the petitloners r~,y~+rc11nc1 the possl- btllty of approvtnq the usc wlth~ut thr, wiivers and the resuhmlttal ~f sl~n plans; whereupon~ Mtss Santal~htl a~~vised that it appeared approprl~~ate thac the slgns be considered along wlth the use lncl~ding any Itghting of the signs an~1 that the matter, if readvertysed~ caulcl b~ heard at the next Planning Camntsst~n meeting. In response to questloning by Commissloner Kin~~ Hr. Stracker further a~ivise~i that thc maln problem with the alignment of the ~lrive~•~ays was th~t if cars ha~i to cross La i'alma Avenue at an angl~e to the adJ~cent driveways, be serlous traffic pr~hlems wou1~1 result. Mr. Strackcr then advlscd that La Palma Avenue would have a pninted medlan which w~s the type easily violated. Commissioner t~arnes noted that the aligninc~ of the ~lrlveways wirh ad)a~ent driveways was a goocl idea, in her optnion~ especially in vtew oP thn trafPic volume in the area. Mr. Stracker added that If the ,~etitioners were willing to construr_t a c~ncrpte medlan in La Palma Avenue, that would he an acceptahle alternate t~ alt~nment af the drtveways. Commissioner 8arnes offr_red a m~tlon~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and M~TI~M CARRIED (Commissioners Ferano and Ilerhst heing ahsent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does herehy reopen the public hearing ~nd continue the conside~ation of Petitlon for Condit(onal Ilse Permit PJ~. 1G35 to the Planning Commisslan meettnc~ ~f August 2, 1~7~~, as requested by the petitioner and ~or reacivertisertsent f~r additional waivers. CONpITIQNAL USE - PUBLIC HEARI~I~. WILLIAM P. BRE~DFR AND EMM/1 S. RRE~n~R, 1~~?Q Rlcky~ PE4M~T N0. 163f, Anaheim~ Ca~ 9?~102 (Owners); ELMER S. CHILDS~ 41 Maui, Santa Ana, Ca. 92709 (Agent); requesting permission to construct an ~i~-IIPIIT ~~1~TEL on property descr)hed as a rectangularly-shaped p~rcel of land con- sisting of approximately 1,5 acres located at the ,iortheast carner of Katella Avenue and Easy 41ay~ having approximate frontages of 21(~ feet cn the north side af Katella Avenue and 299 feet on the east side uf Easy Way. Property presently classified Cr (f.~~1NFRCIl1L, GEIJERAL) 7.ONE. Ivo one in~icate~~ their presence in opp~sition tn subJect petition, Altf~ough the Staff Report to the Plannir.g Comr-ission dated July 1~~ 1Q7~, was not read at the public hearing~ ~aid Staff P,e~:ort is referred to and made a part o~ the minutes. Mr. Elmer Childs~ the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Planning C~mmission and stated tie was a general partner of ~ land company an~! had thei~ oam malntenance and and tralning department in Che City of Santa I'~na; that they catered to vacationers and offered from one clay to one week accommod~ttons; that they t.-ted t~ screen their people; that their rates were from $25 Co $35 per day; that they agrc:ed with ~:.ver thtng in the Staf~f Report and rosstbly the Interc'Apartmental Committee recartwnendation '~. 7, althougli they needed a little larger kitchen facil'ty than outlined. Mr. Edwln William Tell, the architect and a partner in co~nection with the suhJect proposal, appearecf before the Planning Commission and stated thet one of the problems they had was selecting and getting small kitctienette units as recortxnended by the City Staff; that when tfiev went out into tha cc~mmerciai market seeking these for units~ they found they were ei~~.,r foreign made and they could not get parts for them or that they wprc tnadequat~; theref~re, they were asking ta have a refrigeratcr poss~;,'y around ~ cub?c feet in size which was not much larger than recommended by Staff and they wouid also like to have a regular warming oven because they found that the tenants or yuests that came to them took in TV trays or dlnners~ frnzen foods~ etc., so reall~ and truly tnere was not baking or cooking or apple pie making~ hut ti was a simple matter that these units would suffice only for sn~ck.s; that in many cases~ familtes at nightttme would want to take in TV dinners ~nd warm 2hem; that these wou~d be very small units called "dr~p-ins" with burner tops that sat on pedestals ir. the cahinetry of the kitchen; that~ also in sup~lytng utensils which they did for this sort of aperatl~n (plates, etc.)~ the tenant•s were given a very small artiount of pans and no haking utensils; that truly it was a ma*_ter of convenlence for thelr people; that they had close to over 1~~~ indivtdual suites now in C.J ~ ~ ~ ~ M1~JU7F..S~ C1TY PLANNIPlG COMMISSION~ July 1~~ 1~11h 7~~'33~ CnNU1TI0NAL USF Pf:RP11T N0, 1h3G (Contlnuecl) operatlon in varlous erens and ln evnry case thay hed t~ ~s seme c~ma~nlence and It wns highly successful; that nlso becausc of the 1.ircier size r~friger~+tors they were ahle to dlspense wlth tlie lce mnchfnes r~nc~ hnvo the 1 en cuhes In thP rncxns~ whlch wos much m~re c~nvenlent for Chn guQSts; and that oth~erwise they were uery ho~py the rr~y the City Staff had rovlea~e~1 thelr prapo^al Mr. Tell furl•h~r gtuted that the pl~t ~>lin ha~1 hen.n cl~angerl at Che request of thr. City depertments; and thnt thoy were requestinn ta hive the op~~r- tunlty to have warming ovens an~f ~ cookinq top and a Ilttlr. larger r~frigerator, THF PUl3LIC fIEARIN~, W/~S CLOSEU. In r~sponse to questloning by Corn~nlssloner King~ Mr. TP11 st(pulnted that the trash anc l osure a~ea h~~d been rev l sed to l nd i r,atc comp l i ancP wi tli the requl rements . Assistant Tr~fflc Englneer dlll 5tr~cker a~~v ise~~ ~'~at revised plans had heen suhmttted this date lndicating compllance wlth the Traffic fnginaer's rec~rnmenciatlon an~i tha[ n~ acr,ess would be takFn fr~m the alley to the nnrth. In response to questioning by Commissloner M~r1~+y,"1r. Tell stated that ~,~) Frank~Lowr pruposed B~ units woulc'• have kitchenettes. lhr.reu~on, Deputy City Attor ,~ Y advlsed thae the policy ~f the Planntng Cortu~ issinn was ta limit th~~ ~ercenta~e of mote) units with k(tchenet!~ faciltties. Chalrmar~ Johnson In~llcated that the policy was to ker.p the onc-room apartments out of the City of ~an~~hetm, In response, Nr. Tr_11 indicated they llmited the tenancy of their guests S111CP. tF-~e units were not apartments; that generally the g~ests stayed from one to two weeks; nnd that they would be investing too much capttil in the proposed proJe~.:t to have it as a~~~rtments, Mr. I.owry further a~lvised that the Clty ordinance prohlbited a motel from renttn~ f~r more than one week at a time; an~l that larger yltchenette factlittes would create a serlous znntng enforcement problem for City Staff. Commissloner Morley notecl that he was not ready t~ g~ against the policy of tlie City at this time wlth ^espect to the numbe r of kltchenette unlts. Commissioner Tolar d(scussPd the remalning ~osslhility that access could be takPn from the alley to the north; whereupon, -1r. Tell sta ted that they would construct a hlock wall along the north property line with landsca,~ Tng canslsting of an apprnximately 3-f<~ot R- inch wlde greenbelt. Commissloner Tolar no ted thaC seme trees C~ I~reak up the expanse of the wall would be recnmmznded also; and tha t, in his ~pinion~ there was no problem with the proposPd locati~n fior tf~e mo2e1, 11r. T el) furtfier stated that they woulc! attempt to cover the wall to the north with vines and other growth. In response to questloning by Chairman Joh n son~ Mr. Tell stated tl,at to have units without kltchenettPS would completrly change their concept for development. In response to qu~stioning by Commisstoner Kin~, Hr. Tell stated the su!~_)ect praject was identical to their othar units; that tfiey wuuld not perniL. more than two-week stays since their investment was too large tn cater to permanent residents. ~hairman Johnson then 'nquired what would happen with the proJac t in the event it wa~ sold; whereupon~ hlr. 7e11 , ~ ' that they had never sold one of the ir motels end they hacl heen ln the business for ten , s. Chairman Johnson then suggeste ci that the other Planning Commisstoners review the location of the proposed motel which w as In the miclst of a neighhorhood of apa~Cment- type developm~nt. Mr. Lcwary further advise~l that there were four moteis with all kitchenettes ir, the City af Anaheim, to his knowledge, and all of them had caused zoning enforcement problems consfstently, In resp~nse, the petitione r stated that thelr motel known as "Execut(ve SuiCes" at 1$Q~ West Lincoln Avenue hacl no enforcement problems as far as they knew. A lady in the audience indicated that she thought the proposal was for entirely too many units and the petitioner would not bc able to properly maintain the place. In respunse, Mr. Tell stated they were presently opera t tng approximately 1000 s~ch units successfully and showing a profit. Commissioner Tolar inqui reci whetf~er the ki tchenet*e aspect of the proposal sh,~uld be extracted tc impose a time Iimit so that. If vlolatlons occurred, the establishment would have to convert to a limited percentaqe o f units with kitchenettes. Commissioner Morley noted ti~at if the pr~iect was allowad to be constructed with kitchenettes, they could not be taken away at a later date, in his opinion, Mr. Lowry ad~~ised that he concurr~d wfth Comnissioner Morlev's opinion. ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNI~lG C~MM!SSIc)N, July 1W, ly7E ~6^~39 CQIIUITIOHA~~USE PERMIT N0, 16:}G (Contlnued) Commissloner 1'olar then notcd th~~t thc City wnnted to aCtraGt t~urlsts ancl th~ motel was ~ goocl use conslderin~ tlie commorclnl d~velupment flroun~i It on~1 the praxlmity to Disn~)'land; thet he wnu{ d n~t l ike tn see tho pro.ject dQatroyed ~ecause of tFo other prob 1 ems in the araa; that hna of the thlnns thrt hnd made the City so successfu) wis in~~enui ty and, al th~~u~h the~ pol i cy to l iml t the percen tane of uni ts wi th kt tchenettes was ux~eel lcnt ~ tho subJ~cl pronoeal w~s a Sll~htly difforc~~ Idoa; that the proJect comp~recl iri a way with the reactlon whlcl~ was enco~~nternd in connoctlon with corduminlums nnd It was foun~ that mnny people llked to live !n r_onclaminlums; and on that basis, ho was In favor of the p rnpos a 1 . Corrmisslonar U~+rnes note~l that she would n~t vote for anythinq larcler thnn an (~-eubic foot refri ~erat~r. P1r. Tell then st~itc~l that thcy were unable to ohtaln thc sm~l l er units macla by domestic cump~nies ln tlie numhers needeJ and, additi~nal {y~ t.l~ey would hav~ problems gottinct tl~e p,~rts fc~r rep~~lr and mafntenance of foreign-macle units, Commissloner Kinq relter~ted a prevlous comment that the percentAge of units wlth kltchrnettes was made a policy In order to keep the pe;manr.nt resldents out of motels• In resp~nse to questioninc~ by Commissioner Tolar, Mr. Chilci~ stated thAt the longest tenancy i n thel r motel s had been one monCh; whereupon ~ Commi ss lonrr Tol ar took ~xcet~t lon Indlc~tin~ that h~id been the Clty's prohlem In the past; however, If the pet i ti~ner would ~tlpulate to limitin~ the tei~ancy to twoweaks he would be will(n~ to vote for t1~G pr~iect ~nd any vi c> 1 at i on w~ul ~ deem thr. cond i t lonal use perml t nul 1 and vol d. The pet 1 t i oner so stlpulated to the foregc~ing~ stating that they rented on a da{ly basfs with seven^day rates a~~a 1 1 ab 1 e, Commissioner Morley notecl thal' b~e:~iuse of the problems the City harl experienced in the past a~ith 1~~~ kitchenette units, he was not in favor of go(ng agalnst the policy. In resp~nse to ~urther questioning by Comniss ioner T~lar, the petltioner st i pulated that all sinninq would be in accordance with Code standards; that the kitchenette facil(ties woul d b~~ restri cted to ~ cubic fect maximum s i ze refrigerators, two-t~urner drop-In stoves with minimal size warming ovens, and sinks. Mr. Tell assurecl lhe Plannlnn Commission that the ovens would be very small and not large enough for cooking a turkey or anything of th~'~t nature. Comm?ssionPr Tolar offered a motlon, secorded by Cor~mission~r K.ing and MOTI ~II CARRIED (Comm(ssioners Farano and Nerhst being absent), that the Anahe(m Clty °lann in~7 Commission does hereby recommencl to t`~e C1 ty Counc(1 of the C) ty of Anahelm that the s ubJect proJect be exempt from the requi rement to prepare an envi ronmental (mpact report ~ P~~rsuant to the provls ions of the Cal i forn l a Fnv( ronmental Qual i ty Act. Commissioner Tolar offerecl Res~lutlon Nn. PC7E,-139 and moved for (ts passage and adoption, that the An~heim City Plannin~ fmm~ission does hereby grant Petition for Conditlonal Use Permit FJo, 163~~ on the basis tli.+t, altliough the policy ~f the Plannin~ Commission was to alicw a limited percent~ge of motel units to have kitchenettesy th~e petitioner Indicated that th•; past ancf future pol icy of their companY was to retain all th~ mote ls they construct and, furthermore, tliey cor~struct al 1 of tl~e motel unlts wi tl~ ki tct~enettes for the conve;,ience of the customers, ar~d tl~at tFiey haci constructecl one su~h motel in the City of Anaheim which was operatin~ successfully wltl~out zoninq violalior~s pertalning to tlie permanent occupancy ar length of tenancy; sub)ect to ttie st ipulations o` the pet itior.er pertafning to the two-week maximum accupancy of any one unit, signing~ trash storage areas. access from the atley to the north and the stipulations pertainln~ to t~ie size of the kitchenette facilities. (See R~solution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pa,~=d by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOhlERS: BARIIES, KiP~G, TO;.AR ~~OES : COMMi SS I O~JERS : h10RLEY ~ JOHr~Sn~~ ABS';lT: COMMISSIQNERS: FARAIlO~ N[RRST e ~ MItIUTGS, C17Y PLANIJING CQMPIISSI~N~ July 1~~ 1~l7~ ~6~3~~~ COPlUITIONAI. USE - PUDLIC ~~enair~~~, FREbCRICK Z. R~ITI.f•.R AIlD Ml1Uf~l~.~ Zlt'GLF.R~ 9~~9 $ar~ta NORTH Oftl1~JGE PC•RMI7 I~Q, 16?7 Monlcr+ ao~ilevarJ, Heverly flills~ Ca. 90?.12 ((~~ner~~); COlIN7Y ftFGlnr~Al. Or,CUPATION PRQGRAM~ ?.3f>0 Weqt La Palma Avenuc~ Mtihe~m, CA. 9?.^~l (Aqrnt); rcquesting permissfon fo~• AUTQ REPl11R ANU P111NTI~~G on property ~icscribed as a r4ctnn~_;,ilarly-~haped parcel of IAn~1 consl~ting of epproxfmately 3,1 acres locate~{ r,t the s~uthanst corner of MirAlomc+ Avenue ana Red Gum Streot~ havinn approximate frontactc~s of ?.95 fcct on Che ~outh slde of Mlraloma Avenue and 4G!i feet on the east sido of Recl Gum Street, nn~t further dsscrlbeJ as 12!3Q Red Gum Street. Pr~pcrty presently classifled ML (IHI~USTRI~L~ LIMITCD) 20t1E. No one IndlcAted thelr presence In ~ppositlon to subJect petitlon. Although t.he StafF Reporl to thc Planning Commission dated July 1~~ 197ti, was not read at the publlc hc.~irinc~, satcl St~+ff Report is referred t~ and made e pirt of the minutes. Mr. Gary Pearman, repres~ntin~ the aclent for the petitloner~ ap{~cared beforc thE Planning Commisgion and sCate~i the sub~ect proposal would be to operate four days a week dur~ng the su~~mer sch~~) Sfurther~~to oddetoathe~InformatlonQCOntalnecl in~therStaffeReportgbutnwouh~t he t~ad noth 1 nq answcr qucst~ons concerning the proposal. TIiF PURLIC H[ARItIG WAS CL~SE~. In respons~~ to questloninc~ by Cr,mmissit-ner King~ t1r. Pearman Indicated that a fence bercomYlet~lysenclosedrby~at6-font hinhnchalnlink fenceulnterwovenawith~redwoocirorucedarto P slats. It was noted that the Director of the Plannl~g bepartment had determined that. tho proposed activity fsll within the dc:finition of Section 3.~1~ Class 1, of che City uf AnAhelm Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefare~ categorically exempt fr~m the requlrement to fila an EIR, Commissioner King offereJ Resolutton P~o. PL76-1~~Q and moved for its passagP and ao~;.!lon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does heraby grant Petitlon fur CondiCional Use Permit No. 1637~ subject to the stipulation that the proposed autumobile repa~r and palnt(ng training facility shall be operated fivc :fays a week only; subJect to there being no outdoor repa(r or paintinct of automobiles on the sutjec~ praperty and that any outaoor storage shall be complete~y a~~c~osCU uy a 6-foot high clti~ inlink fence iiiterwoven with redwood or ceclar slar.s; and subJect to the InterdeparCmental Cortxnittee recommendatlons. (See Resolutton Book) On roll cali~ the foregotng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSI(1NERS: BARNES~ KING~ MORLEY~ TOI.AR~ JOHNSON lJnES : C~MMI SS ~ ONERS ; ~~Q~IE ABSENT: f,QMMISS10PlERS: FAMtlO, H[RDST VAitIANCE N0. 2"15 ' pUf~LiC HF.ARI~Ii,, MIPltJIF. B. DIERBERGER~ 1439 West Damon Avenue~ Anaheim~ Ca. 9?i3Q7 ~~hvner); JAMES L. DARISIC~ 2~~1 South la Paz Street~ Anaheim, Ca. 92`i~7 ~Agent) ; requesting IJAIVER OF MAXIMUM FENCshla~edrlTarcel~ofABandl, APJ ILLEGALLY CON57RUCTED FENCE on propcrty described ~s a rectanctularly- p P consisting of approximate{y 0.2 acre having a frontage of approximately 63 feet on the we~t~~i- side of Damon Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 123 feet, being locatc:d apP mately 1170 feet west of the centerline of Walnut Street, and further descrlbed as i439 West Damon Avenue. Property presently ciassified RS-7200 (,RESIDEPJ7'AL~ SINGLE-FAMlLY) ZONE. Approximately six persons indicated their presence in oppositi~n to subJect petition, and forthwith waived the fuil reading of the Staff Report to the Plannincl Cortm(ssion dated July 19~ 1976, on the basis that they had reviewed copies of same. Although the Staff Report was not read at the public hearing, said report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Jtmthat`hechadhbecometin~olved lntthe~subJectPapplicatlonebecauseaheiwasCpurchasin~and stated ~ ~ MINU7[S~ CITY PI..ANN~IJG COMMIS51UtJ, .luly 19~ 1~7h VARIANCF: N0. 2II15 (Continued) 7G-3h1 some property from Mrs. Dierberqer who was an elderty lady anci a portlal Invalid living alone; that the petitlonor h~~d a lot of vegetation on tl~e propr,rty lncluding ~lowers anJ frul t trees ~ etc. ~ an~i tiad ~~roF lems v+i th pr:oplo steal inq the frul t an~~1 5rebking brancthe off the treeg- etc,; th~at thr, petitl~nar hAd called on him in cunnectlon wlth having subject fenco constructecl an~l he had called out the contraet~h~~~he°hAd~talb ~hwithtalleof out M be locAto~ illene~ly And in the public rlght-of-way; four tli~ pcoplc ln the nei ~hborliood ~bouC ttie proposal and out of the 15 fami 1 les ~ only wdre oppoaeci, one of whom also felt th;~t a fence wa~ needed; that ev~ry time someone ceme on lier property~ the petitioner called out the pollce; that he icnew fOCauslnctdam~ages~tol~ r Iclcinn the frult and flowers~ etc „ 9 had bee~ on the subject p operty p whether Co grant or deny the the property; and Ci~e ou[come of the suhJect publiG hearing~ propc-sal~ would not influence whether he purchased the praviously mentionecf property or not. Mr. Ll~yc1 ~lmmons, 11~~~7 Darrx~n Avenue~ appearecl b~fore the Planning Comm(sslon (n onposition ~~n~l ~resented p(ctures of the sub)nct property and a letter ln oppositlun fram Mr. and Mrs. nuggles who resi<ied at 1437 Dam~n 4venue~ adJacent to the subJect property. Mr. Simm~ns stated that the chalnllnk fenc.e belong~d in an Industrial center and not ir~ a residantlal area; that h~ d(d not feel that much was being taken from the petitloner's yard and~ since theAt1r+~e kn~W1e~9ef~and tl~at~hegdldcrot~~eteinvolvednanymorecin,whathwas pal I ce o~~t tw I ce ~ t gol~g on at the subJect property. 7he referenced letter of opposition ~rom Mr. and Mrs. Ru99~es was read {nto the record~ as tollaws: "1~~37 Damon Ansheim, Callfornia July 12, 1 ~111~ Anahelm City Planning Commissfon P . 0. El~x 3222 Anaheim, Calli~ 92RQ3 Chairman: SubJezt: Variance 2315 This letter is to inform you that we oppose the vartance change. 7he fence as now constructed is unsightly for a residential area and makes it very difficult for passengers embarking from vehicles when parked in fence area. We feel the ~~arlance shnuld be denied and the fence be constructed to city code. Yours truly, /s/T. C. Ruggles /g/Virglnla Ruggles cc: Lloyd Slrr~ns°1 A lady from the a~havin~ atfence~hhowever~tthe subJect fencefwaseunsightlysfo~utle entire to the petitianer _ naig`iborhood and should not be so close to tlie street. TIiF PuBLIC HEARINr, wAS CL4SEO. Commizsioner Tolar ~e~eattthishpub~licehearinqthe fsnce was unsightly from I~Is revlew of the plctures present Dlscussion pursued regardhichtMr.sBarasicrindicatedtthatraa42-inch high fence wassn~~a 42- inch hl~h fenca~ during w including a persimman suitable to protect the trees and other vegetation on the property~ tree that Mrs. DierbGrger had purchased for approxlmately $100. It was resolved that the rl~ht~of-way was 9 feet from the curb to the property llne and the building setback was 1S s • MIPJUTES~ CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, July 19~ 197~ J~M3~i1 VARIANCE N0. 2~15 (Continued) foet from the property line and~ therefore~ ~he h-f~ot fence shoulcf bc a minfmum of ~~~ feet from the curb. Mr. Barisic reiteraCed thot some of the peoplc In the Area favored having the fencr.. Chalrman Johnson noted thAt the fence could not be any p~oror at this location ar~cl, knawing that the fence w~uld have to be pulled out~ he dld nor un~lerst~nd why the contractor Installed it in the flrst place; and that the nei~~h~~ors next door anci In the irtxnedlate are: had thc~ir proparty vnlues to cc~nsider. It was nc~ted that the Dlrec[or of the Planning Department had ~Ictcrmfned that Che proposed activicy Fsll wirhln thc definit(on of Sectlon 3•~1~ Cl:~ss 3~ of the CICy of Anaheim Guldellnes to the Requirements for an f.nvlronmental lmpact Report ancl was~ ther'eforo~ catogorfc»lly exempt from the requirement to flle an EIR. Commissloncr Morloy offered Resolutf~n No. PC76-lh) and moved for (ts passage and adop~lon~ that tlie An~helm CiCy Planninc~ Commisslon does herehy deny Pctitlon fo~ Varlance No. 2R15 on the basis that the P~annln9 Co~nmisslon concurred wlth tne ad~acent pr~~perty owners appearlnc~ in opposftion that the subJect fence was poarly located~ having been construGteci ln the s[reet side setback and the publlc right-of-way ad,l~cent Co Damon Avenue and thaL the fence material consisting of chainlink was not api.roprlate in the front yArd of lhe subJer.t residential neighborhood and the fence Is~ therefore, unslghtly; and furthermore, the lacation of the subJect fence is determined to be detrimental to the peace~ health~ safety ancl general welfare of the cltizens nf the Clty of Anahelm. (See Resolution Boo4) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~ollov~ing vote: AYES: COMMIS510"~ERS: BARNES~ KING, MQRLEY~ TOLAR~ JOt~NSOP! NQES: COMMISSION[RS: NONE AD5F.NT: COMMI SS I ~PIEP.S : FARAP~O ~ HERBST VARIANCE P~O. 2~26 ' PUBI_IC HEAP,ItJG. BRYAN INUUSTRI/1L PROPERTIES~ INC., 146 East Oi009Eastrpe Avenue~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92801 (Owner); HECTOR'S FURFlITUFiE, lNC., Orangethorpe Avenue~ Anahelm, Ca. 92801 (Agent); requesting WAIVFR OF PERMITTED USES, '"0 PERMIT TH[ RETAIL SALES OF FURNITURF. an property descrlbed as a rectangularly shaped parcel of land cansisting of approximately 1.2 acres having a frantage of approximately 193 f~and `urther descrlbed a~o99nEast~OrangethorpehAvenuea mPrapertyepresentlyPclasslfied ~7~ feet~ ML (lNDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) 7.ONE. No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subject petitlon. Altho~gh the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 19, 197h. Was not read at thP public hearing, said Staff Report is referred to ~~nd made a part of the minutes, Mr. Jerry Knudse~~ representincl tihe petltioner~ appeared before the Planning Commission to answer questlons regarding the proposal. 7NE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to questloning by Commissioner King, the petitioner stlpulated that they would prov55eman,be~mutua11y5sVaredQwithjthe ad]acent drivewryntatthepwe5teofesubJect~property. acce Y Chairman Johnson noted r.hat it might be presumptuous ~o think tfiat the adJacent driveway to the wost would always remain since sald adJacent property may bc ready for radevel- opment within a short perlod of time. COMMISSlO~IER TQLAR LCFT 7HE MEETIIlG TEMP~RARILY AT 5~32 P•M• Conmissioner King oft'ered a motinn~ seconded by Commisstaner Morley a~d M071~N CARRIED (Commissioners Fara~no~ Herbst and Tolar being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comnission does hereby recommend to the ~tty Council of the City of Anahetm that the SursuantptoJthe provisionsfafmtheeCaliforn anEnvlronmentalBQuality Actntal impact repart~ P ~ ~ 76-343 MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ Ju~Y 19, 197~ VARIA~~CE N,0.~282,6 (Contlnucd) C0~4111SSIONER T~IAR RE-[NTFR[D THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 5~3~ P~M• Gommissloner King offered Rnsolution No. PC76-lh2 and moved for its passage .~~d adoptlon~ that tiic Anahelm City Plennln<~ Comnisslon does heraby grent PoCitlon for Verlance No. 2U2G on the basls thaC lhe proposed retall use would be compatlble w~th thc surrouncling area and that the petit~oner stlpulated to provld~be mutuallc sharad withhthcuadJnt~~todrlvcway from Orangethorp~e Avenue ancl said accESS may ~ to tho west of the subJect prnperty~ ancl said access being sub,)ect to th~ approval of the City Lnginaer; and suhject to the Interdepartmental Commlttee recommenciatlons. (See Resc~lutlon Book) On roll cali~ thc foregotnq rnsolutlon was passed by the followinh vote: AYFS; C(1HPII~S1(1HERS: BARNFS, KIt~G. MQRLEY~ JOHNSON NQ[S : CQMMI SS I ~i~ERS : NONE Af1SEPIT : CQMMI SS I ~~I[RS : FARAt~Q ~ NERI~ST A3S7AIN: CQMMISSIONERS: T~LAR TENTATIVF. MI~P OF •~ DEVEL~PER: WILLIAM ORIVER~ 14421 Suffolk Street, We~trilnster~ Ca. TRACT N0. 89~5 92G83. ENGItJEER: ERVIN ENGIN[ERING, ~`9 ScansfstingVafwaPPrflx~" (REVISI(1N N0. 1) Los Angele~, Ca. 9~057• SubJect property~ mately 1h.3 acres having a frontaqe af approximately 2120 feet on hav(n a maximum depth of the east side of Anaheim Hills Road~ 9 approximate~y 9~~ fect~ and belnq located appraximately 922 f~et s~uth of the center- Ilne of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ is proposed for subdfvision into 31 RM-4Q00(SC) lots (?.5 ~'~its). Na one in~+icated thefr presence in opposition to the subject tr~ct map. Although the StaffStaf~rRetorthisPrefer~edCtomandimadeaaepartloflthelmtnutess not read at the meeting, sai P Mr. Fhlllip Bettencourt~ repr~sentina Anaheim Nills~ Inc.~ appeared before the Planning Commission andac~amad was aerevision ofra previously~approved tentative maport; ard that the gubJect tr P P.sslstont Planning D1recCor^Zaning Annika Santalahtl advised Che Pianning Comm~ssion that xhere had beeniL°WOUId be appropriate,thate if approvedstaiconditinn beaimposedesoUbhatta area and that trafls plan could be implemented in said area. Tfi ernupon~ Mr, 8~ttencourt stfpulated to comply with a conditlon requiring equestrtan trails in connection wtth the proposal. in response to guestioning by Commissloner King~ Mr. Bettencourt indicated that two specimen trees~wu~~`~com ly with the requirementscofnthejScenichCorrldorP~~~a1aYVZonemint~ however, they o P connection therewith. Discusslon p~~rsued c~ncerning Lot No, 25~ during whtch Commissioner Barnes indicated that satd lot appeared to be encroaching into the Four Corners Pipe Line Company easement~ noting tha4 the City was encourage~gesentingSErvin Engineertng~pthefengineerc~i~'artth~n trails plan. Mr. Jim McCarthy~ ? deve{oper~ appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the easement was granted to the Four Corners Pipe Llne Company and sald easesment could be encroached upon for access. Commissioner Barneasementrewher~upon~,,MIssPSantalahti indlcatedStheyLwouNd•not bci~t a fence across the ~ permltt~c~ to do so. In respon~~ to q~jesCioning by the Planning Commission, Miss Santalahtt advised that the ~roF~Sed small home concept was consistent in denstty with the existing development in the area. Mr. Botter,court expla(ned that the proposed density was 1.5 units per acrG~ with 9 acres of open space. It was noted that ractNNo.,8g055and~wasnce tifledlbyNtheBCityaC uncllnon'Januaryt6ed1976~ conJunctlon wtth T ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ July 19~ 197b 76-:i44 TENTATIVL MAP OF T MCT N0. 89o~ev~S~~N N0, 1~ ~Continucd) as being in compllance with the Californla Envfronmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. Commiss(nner Barnes affernd a motl~n~ scconded by Corrmtssloner htorl~y and MOTInN1o^erty~; (Commisslonar Tolar abstalning on the basis th~t lie Is lnter~stecl in adJulning p' p and Commissloners Farano and Nerbst bcing c~bsent), that thc llnahc+im Clty Planning Commission ~iocs hereby find that the proposed subdi~islon~ Logether wltYi lts desl~n ~nd Improvement~ Is consistent wlth the City of Anaheim General Plan~ pursuAnt: to Government Cnde Sectlon bh~~7'i.i and does, thereforc~ approve Tentat~ve Map of Trar.t Na. 8°Q5 (Rnvlslon No. 1) for 31 RM-~~400(SC) lots (25 units) suuJact ~ the followirg c~nditl~ns: 1, That a bond in an ~~mounc anci form satlsfactory to the Glty ofrPnai~e~gtg~~~ong posted with the Clt;~ to guarAntee the installatton of all engineering q the prlvate drives. e specimen tree plan or other 2, That prf~r to appr~val of the ftnal tract map, Informatic,n, acr.eptable to the Planninc~ Departrnent. shall be submltted to and approved by tha Planning DepaYtn~ent fn accordaYce with tlie provPsions af the "SC" ealedGto~tha~pr tonc-Over{ay. An declsion m~~cfe b the Planning De artment may bs app Planning Commisslon. 3. In accor~lance wi th the requt rements of Sectlon 1R.~?..~li] (~~rlalning ta the Inltlal .ala of residential I~omes (n [he City of A~ahe(m Plannin9 Area "D". the seller shall provi~ie each buyer with written Informat(on concerning the Anahelm General P1an and the Gxlsting zoning with(n 3~~ feet of the boundartes of subJect tract. 4. That shuuld thls subd(vision be developed as rnore than one subdivision~ each subdivislon thereof sh~ll be submitted in tentative ~orm for approval. 5, 7hat all l~ts within this tract shall be served by underground uttlitles. 6. That a finai tract map of subject property shall be suhmitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded fn tl~e office of the Orange Caunty Recorder. 7. That any proposed covenants, conditions and Mestrictions shall be submftted to and approvecf by the City Attorney's Office prior to C1`o"diti~ns anlr~estrlctionsfshall be tract map, ancl, further~ that the approved covenants~ recorded concurrently with the final tract map. ~Icant st~al) submiC to the City a, That prior to filing the final tract map, the app Attorney for ap~roval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed functloning of the operating corporation including, but not limlted to~ the articles of incorporation~ bylaws~ proposed methods of management, bonding to insure malntenance of common property and bufldings~ and such other informa~ion as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens~ and the purchasers of the project. 9. That drainage of said property shall be dispased of in a manner satlsfactory Co the City Engineer. If~ In the preparation of the site sufficlent grading is requlred to necessitate a ~radtna permit~ no wurk on grading will be permftted betkeen October 15th and April 15th unless all requtred off-site dralnaae facilities have been installed and are operative, Positive assurance shall be provided the City that suct~ dralnage facili- t(es will be completed prior to OctoUer 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage fac(lities shall be dedicated to the City~ or the City Councll shall have initiat~d ccndemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the cor~ttr~ncement of grading operations. The required drainage facllittes shall be of ~ siz~e and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originattng from hlgher properties through sa!d property to ultimate dtsposal as approved by the City Engineer, Satd drainage facilities shall be the first item af c~ns.truction and shal) be completed and be functiona) throughout the tract and from the dow~stream boundary of the property to tlie ultimate point of dispasal prior to the Issuance of any final building inspecti~ns or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement aoreements may be made available to the developers of sald property upon their request. 10. That grading, excavation and all other construction activlties shail be conducted in such a manner so as to minim(ze the possibility of any silt originating from this proJect being carried into the Santa Ar~a River by storm water orlginating from or flowing through this project. 11, That the owner(s) of subJeCt property shall pay to the Ctty of Anaheim the appropriate park and ~ecreatioi~ In-lleu fees as determined to be appropriate by ~he City Council, sald fees to be pa(d at the tlme the building permit is issued. 12, That ail structures constructed in subJect tract shall comply with the requlre- ments of Fire 2one 4, as requlred by the Anaheim City Fire Department. 13, That a firo fuel break shall be provided at the perimeter of the tract, as requlred by the Anaheim Clty Fire Department. ~ u 76-"s~5 MINUTE.S~ C17Y PIAN~~I~lf' COMMISSION~ July 19~ 1976 Tf.NTATIVE MlrP OF TRI1C'f N0. 8905 (REVISION N0, 1) (Cuntlnued) -14, 1'hat 3~•~foct rndius turn~•arour.d~ shall be pr~vided for fire and trash access~ ~s raquire~cl by the Anahelm Clty Flre and Publlc Works pepartments. ,S. That A parccl map shall be filed and recorded in the office of the County Recorrier prior to appr~val of the f(nal tract maP. 16. Thet the a~+ner(s) of subJer.[ property shall r.onditto~ally dedl;ate to the City of Anat~r.im iagMaster PlaneforsEquestr(an,Trnilss~as stipulated~to by the petitionerf 8 City of Anaha m PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMEIIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELQPMENT PRO,IECT ALPN_ A~ Ch,^„anges Assistant P1Anner C connection wiLh the PraJact Alpha~ sald recent raall~nment Ana Riv~r and east shown and described oulter Hooker• presented the changea which were considered necessary ~~ proposecl First Amendment to the Redevelapment Plan for Redevelopment changes Involving tha dele-lon of a paresl in conner_tlon with the of Miralama Avenue end alrso delettng certeln parcels souCh of tha Santa of Imperlal Highway to resolve a bQ4e ~e~eforrconsideratiflnanges being in dctall on Exhibtts A and B, P Commisslonar Kinc~ offer~d Rc~olutlon No, PC76-1l-3 and that the Anahelm Clty Planning Comnlssion does hGreby proposed First Amandmenk to tl~e Redevclopment Plan for does further recortxnend to thP Clty Councll of the City chr~nged and shown in Exhibits A and B attached hereto~ Regolution Book) moved for its passage and sdoptton, report on ccrtain change.s In the Redev~lopment ProJect Alpha and oF Ant+hefm thak the amendmont~ as be approved and adopted. (See On rol) call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ KINr,~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ JOHN~~N NOES: CnMMISSI0NER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOMERS; FARANO, HERBST GE5IGNATION OF A MEMdER OF TNE PLANNING COMM{SSION TO THE HOUSING ST MTEGY COIJSUL7ANT SELECTIOM COMMITTEE It was noted that a communicatior+ dated July 1-+, 1976o from the Housing Preservation Division of the Community Development Department had bean that a member oP the Planning Commisslon be deslgnated to ser~tP an the Consultant Selection Committee. Th~ referenced comnuntcation outlin~d the Housing Strategy program. and Neighborhood recelved requFSting Housing Strategy the obJectives of The Planning Commission generally c.oncurrSd~ecti n~ ommltteer andnthat~CommissianertMorley serve on the Hausi~g Stratagy Consultant t ' not be able to be desic~nated as Alternate. It was noted that Commis5loner Barnes may attend the committee meetings if held durir~ the day~ in which case Commisstoner Morley would represent the Planning Commission. r~ ~ ~ 7G-346 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt~~ July 19~ 1976 REPOR75 AND - 1'T~M NQ. 1 RECOMMEtIDl1TI~NS ARIA~~CC NQ. 2525 - Request for an extens(on of time - Property consisting of approximately ~~.5 acras loc:atcd southeast of Brookhurst Strect ,~ncl t•he Santn Ana Freeway, ancl zaned ML, It was noted that Che sub,Ject var(ance was granted to esta~lish a minl-warehousn wltf~ welver of th~ mtnimum requtreci number of parking spacos; that the opplicant ~W~~~~ea~' Desmond Ryan~ Prns(dent~ Ambassad~r InclusCrial Carp~ration) was reqiaesting a one-y extensinn of time for the subJect variance in order to fin~lize plans and complete fin~r~cing arrangemants In connection with development of the prope~ty; that the appllcant had recently acqulre+d ~Itle t~ tl~e property and had Indicate~l an Intent to re•;>~ot [he site ln anan~~thatLtwo prevl usfextensions~of~itlmeehedebCen~~~nted byAthetPlanninya11y feas ib le, Commission~ tha last to expire on July 23~ 1976. C~mmisstoner K{nq offered a motlon~ secondod by Comrnissloner Tolar and M~TION CARRIEU (Carnmissloners Farano ancf Herbst belnq ~bsent). that the Anahcim City Planning Commisslon does hereby ~r~nt a ane-year extensiun of time for ~a~~~'Cea~~'heing~subJect1Jtottheby the app11cant~ said ttmc extension to expire on July 23. condlWlan~t~g~~~minattonpafnsubstar~tialsconformanceewith prevlo~sly,apProvedePlanspn~ tor rev e I1'[M tJ~. 2 REQU~'- [S1' FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA71~~! - For a ~rading permit at ~i72 South Country HI11 Road, It was noted thaC an applit.,tion had been filed for a grading permit to construct a single-family resicl~nce at the subJect locatlon; that an eva~uatlon of the envlronmental impact of grading at this location was requireci under the provlsions of the Callfornla Environmental (l~~ality Act and the State EIR Guidelines because the proiect was located in the Scenic f.orridor ancl the slope of the land was at least 10$; and that a study of the proposed aradin~l by ~he Planning Departmert and the Engineeriny Dlvision Indlcat~d that it would have no significant environmental impact. Commissloner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Talar and MOT10N CARRIED (Cammissloners Farano ar~d Herbst being absent)~ that the Anaheim CitY Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council oF the City of Anahelm th~t the subJect proJect be exemptsfofmtheeCalifornianEnvironmentalaQual~ty~q~ntal impact repore, pursuant to the provision. ITEM N0. 3 RCQUEST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DEC UIRATION - For a gr•ading permit at 7630 Corto Road, ft was n~ted that an applfcation had been ftled for a grading permlt to construct a single-famlly residence at the subJer_t location; that an evaluation of the envlronmental lmpact ~f grading at this loca:~~n was required under the provislons oF the California Env(ronmental Qualt~y Act and the State EIR Guidellnes because t~nd~thatca study oftthein the Scenic Corridor and the slope of the land was at least 10$; proposed grading by the Planning Department ar.d tha Englneering Divisi~n indicated that it would have no si9nificant environmental im(~act. Commissloner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded bytha~thejAnaheimnCityd`'Iann~ingCCommis~slon (Commissioners Farano and Herbst being absent)~ does hereby recomme:nd to the City Council of the Ci;y of Anahe(m that the subJ~~ct proJect be exempt fram the requirement to prepars an envtronmental impact report, pursuant to the f h California Environmental Quality Act. provisions o t e ~ ~ MINU1'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 1J~ 1976 'J6-3~~7 ITEM N0. A E 1~. ~R EIR NEGATIVC DECI.ARATI~N - For tha imp~ovemen~ of E~aclid Streot Pr~m Che Riverside Freewey ta Le Palma Avenue. It was note~l tl~at the Enqlneering Dlvislon was propc~sing to reconstruct~ resurPar.e and lmprove Euclid Street frc,m the Rlverside Freeway to La Palmt~ Avenu~s~ including construc- tlon of a ne~w storm drnin from the Riversicle Freesway to Romneya Drtve; that there would b~ some reconstru~tton of the Fronthc~~oWOU,~ ~erioaadversolenvironnGntalrtfmpactt othartthan on a rns 1 d.,n t 1+~ 1 1 ot ; howcve r~ temporary inconveniericc during improvernent, etc. Commissloner T~1ar affered a motion~ secended by Commtsslonor Morley and MOTIOtJ CARRIEU (Coinnisstoners Farano nnd Nerhst betng abgent)~ that khe. Anehelm City Plrnning Commissfon does hareby recommand to the City CounCil of the Clty of Anaheim that tha sub,ject proJect be exempt from the rcqulrement to prepare an envlronm~ntat impact report~ pursuant ~o the provlslons ~f the Californ(a Environrnentat Quality Act. ADJOU~ RN~qEpIT - There being no furCher business to discuss~ Commisslon~r Morley o~ferc.d a motlan~ seconded by Commisslaner Barnes and M01'ION CARRIED (Commisstoners Farano and Ne~bst bning absent)~ thax the meeting be ad.)ourned to ?:00 p.m. on J~~ly 20, 1976~ In the multi-purpose room of the main Anah~im Publlc Library~ 5~~ W~st Broadway, for the purpose of having a Joint session with the Cummunity Reclevelopment C~rrxnission and tl~e ProJect Area Commtttee to formulate a consensus plan/recommenciatlon concerning the future reclevelopme~t of downtown Annhelm. The mecting ad)ourned at S:k9 P~~~ Respectfully submltted~ ~ ~C'.r.t~n..t~ Patricla B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim Clty Plannln~ Commission P3S:hm 0 R G 0 MIr,ROFII.MING SEFVICE, ~NL ~ • ~ ~ J01 N 1' CUh1h1tJN I 7Y+ftf:I~I:VI:LUPMI:NT f,OMM I ti5I 0'J ~_ PLl1NN I NG_ ('.QMM I:~S I OIJ ANU V~ROJGCI' ~RE~~ , , C'l1~IMi T1Cf: MEETING_lll; 1UL1_ 7;0 1,17~i~_«_%?~~.~wM_. -- -^~ ~~~~ .~ ------•--_.__ _ _ _- _ !_. pltESfNT: COMMUNITY R[DEVLL.O{~~1EN1' COMMISSIONERS: B,iy, Dinndc~rf, ~"ry~ Mendcz~ Morris, Mo~~, Oseid pRES LN1' : PL~1DlN I IJG C011t1 I SS I ON ~1CMD LRS : PRE•SENT: PROJff.T ARE.~ CUMMi'1'TE.E MEMBEItS Kinq, Joh~~sc>n, Tol~~r~ Barnes, Morlcy Urown, U~i`~hr~rc, Clark, Elchrodt, Erick~;on, Enyelbrecht~ i.ee~ Lind, Na~.~kirk, Payan~ Renncr, Sanchcz, Sko~kwell, Wc~rde; Woods PRkSEN"f ~ STAFI : 'The meclinc~ +~~~~ ~~~Il~~ t~ order at 7:00 P.M. I NTftODUCTORY R["MAFtI;S : Fcrnald, Contrer~s, Sl~uyhter, Hi11, Blurack, tfooker~ Prenclerg~~st, Forci Counci lman John Sr.. inouri.,Redevelopment ~~ enc _: ~ ntroductory remarks hy Counci lman Scyrnour ~n~luded thc follov~iny: Spacc~ f'ark not being seriously con,idcred ~t th(s time~ because the lanc~ t`or its use would have to be dc~nated, a faclor passibly un- acrept~~ble to ci liz~;n5. I t i s F~l ~nned to replace the tourist aspecx a. rede•~clop- ment with an emphasis on residentfal• With regard to Che lake, an e~~~i-'o`imenLUl amenity oF some kind is ncr..ded, as to whether this shoul~i be a park or a lake is up to the public to dacide• Items to be clecided at these mee:tings w~uld include deci~ion on the lakc and decision on r~alignment of Lincoln Doulevard. Such a realig~~mcnt may t~c necessary, but possibly nut as drastir, as shu~wn on Che. presc:nt cuncep tu~i 1 p 1 ai~ , nor as ~xpens i ve. Aga i n, emphas i s i s Co cht~nge f ro~n tour i s t orir_ntecl redevclopmcnt to rr.s:Jential~ with supportin!~ cor~unr.rcial devr_lopment for the re~idential areas. Fliyh density office space of some kind is still being can- sidered. It is importanL thaC "p~~~r1<=" bu~om~s the watch~•~ord; economics neecl to be considered, but peuplc: will corne bc~fore dollars. It is hoped that thesc meetings will bring ~ renewed energy and focalization of the direction of our efforts. It is hon;±d that the plan can bc~ adc.pted this Fall, with results being scen in the rc:sidential neighborhoocls by the first quarter of next yr:ar. James h;orris~ fliairman~_Comnunity Redevelopmen't Commission: Commissioncr Morris explained the position of the Communi~y Redeveloprnent Cornmission, which is char9ed with the responsibility of coming up with a consensus plan within 30 days; the Cammission does not adopl the p'.an, only recommends it ta the Agency; ir. must also be presented tc, the Planning Comrnission and be approved as the City General P1an and Redevelopment Pl~n. Mr. Morris commented that much is heard from people ~~ho are ayainst the plan, not from ~eople who are in favor of the presert concept of redevelopment; the Commission and all those meeking together h~re would like to hear from those wFio favor ideas which have been presented. For instancc, w+th regard to the lake, there are a lot of people in town w4~io think a lake would be an ideal situation. 7he Cumrnission is charged with designing a plan, and ~vould likc the public's assistance in this planning and desig~~. Glenn Johnson Chainn<~n_, Planninc7 Commission: Commissi~ner Johnsc~n spoke bricl'iy reg~rdiny the Planniny Coinmission's role in~the r'edevc~~pment {?lan, commentin~ that opportunities, and tc~ols ~•rcre available to niakc Anahriin a c~reat city and aC thc same time retain some small tcwn aspecls. Wi ? 1 iam Woods, Chai rn_J_ ~~~n, f'roject Arra Con~ni ttee: Mr. Woods spoke in regard to the yeneral PAC membe.r`hip as to Pra)ect Area representatiori, ~nd Che purposc uf thc Projcct Area Committee. Mr. W~ods ~ommented tha~ he I»s been astonished at the rc.~l I~ick of inFormat~on the citizens of Anaheim have regarding rede~elopment, but thar_ hc a~as encouraged by the number of pcopl~ present at this meetin~, and requestc:d all a~te~dees to continue attendin~ all future meeCings. After this series of mcetings is over-, i t is hoped LhaY ttic Project Ar~a Comini ttc.. w~ 11 have an of Ficc in the dnvrntown area~ w-th st~~Ff, avail.~ble arid convenient to c~tizens in the Project l~re~~ to alla~~ :_treatcr citizen participation in the redevelopment {~rocess. ~NtlOUNGEMENTS : Cc~mmissioner Marris, <is Gencral Chairm~n of che rnceting, announced that ~n attemr,t will be madc to adjourn all meetings no later than 10:00 P.M. ~.~ °~ ~,C~ ~,~wn-~.G~~;~~h ~ ,~ i~, ~y7~ C,~~!~~~ ~~~-~!` ~~~~,~~1 ~ • ~ ~ S1'~f'F' RF.V I l 11: Mr.+Kri~n~lt~~~~ (=r:rr~ld, Uirectc~r of ~~~~~ H~~clcv~~lo~~inent Str~ff, di~trihuC~•f coi~s~idcrablc docurnci~t~~ry int'orin:it.ioii to lh~~ rnem ,~•. ~nd co thu tltizcn ~~~-rc.icipan~.;~ and ~om- rn~~ntccl on thc variau, p1an5 c~utllnr.d. lli~:;••. 1~: one City Ur..ncral Pl~~r;, with u diTfcrent f~~~devalo{nnent Plan, and il i~: necr.ssary to arrivc at ,~ c~,inmon pl~'ui hef.wcen tfi~,~:c twa. 7~ic~ -~l~in~ ~~s sh~~+^rn arc qc •~r,il in n~turc, nut cletal !c•~I. It. is necus~.~ry to dcterminc liu~~~ much kr.iffl~, bcariny c~~~~~~city lhc ra:;ds n~ecl tc~ h~~vc: thc morr t~ui I~I( ngs thcrc are, .~nJ the I~,rg~+r lh~~ hui 1 di nc;s ~[he I~rger tlic rur~ds nuc~l tc~ hc, thereforc we need t.o de[crminc what ,cale builciings are cle~sirecl. Mr. Fernnld c~lled attention to 4~lan outlines di~;{,layeci on Che w~ll, Che i'ive plans un the left being prop~~:ed ~lans un~lc~.r the new cc~ncept, with thc onr on thc right beinc~ th~ conceF~t plan as it is at present. 7he ffve~ pussiblc plans; arc based an kce{~ing thc rnad pattern a~. iC is. As wc~ get into the planninq procass we v~ill begin t~ reco~n i•r.r. th~t plann i n~; i s a ser 1 es of ec~mprnmi ses or t rade-of F~: . I n o~ ~Ier to preserve most of our residentl~l communities, this lraves less ltu-ici f~.~r cc~nimcrci:-1 cicvclc~pmc:nt, hut the c~~mmer ~al devclopment 1~ nceded fc~r tix rev~ nucs; the Icss i t J~~vc 1 c~~~mr_n L w 1 I 1 bc I~nd ther~ is fnr commerci..l developmc~~t, the morc hi~h dens y reyuired. In .~nswer to ~~ que'.tion frcmi citizen particip~nts, Mr. Fern:.~ld stakeel that r.hc peeple move.r is not "in" or "out" - it is sti 11 under c~.>nsideralian. Chai rman Morr i ~ •-~cn c.ommented yeneral ly wi th regtird to the presc~nt' rc~develoElrnent pl~in, a~hich w~~s developed based ~n rcpur[s and studies from consult~~nts and experts. 7he public is now being asked to study this mate~ial and corne up ~^~ikh their ideas also. Mr. Morris stated that we all must gtve a little in ordcr to com~ up wlth a conscnsus plan that will work; we h.~ve to develop something that outsid~ devclopers will Ue in!crested in. 'Phe plan must be ec;onomically viable in order ta succeed. PUBIIC COMMENT: General camments were made that the whole issue should be put to a public vote, not as to which redevelopment plan was want:ed~ but as to w~ether any redeveloE~ment was wanted. A res i dent o~ '5 y~=ars statr:d that srmeth i ng needs tu be donc i n dcr.~nt.~~wn An~heim, and presentcci ,, suggestion of using a heritage thcme, witt-~ n muscum or memorial in thc Spanish/Mexican th..me anct to develop dawntown An~heim under an "old town" Gerrnan Cherne. Mr. Ben Cuttcr remarked tha~ the dawntawn is not divided from the rest of the ciCy; all could help each othe.r. 1 am for the lake ~nd p~rk; wtiate~~er is best to do; thousands of hours have a;~eady bcen put in, make thc~ best use of these; make some- thing adaptable to everyboay, which will help the whole city; we must go forward; leC's do it; if rt~y buildiny needs to be torn do~n, do it, but do it the proper w~y; we necd a feasible pl~n; need a nirP rl~wntown; need to brinq peaple danntown; the City cuuld use more tar.es and mare employme~~t downtown. Anetlier citizen suggested that Staff shnuld be requested ta give a projection on which soui::es ti~e m~ney will come from, with a 10~ inflation figure to be in- cluded for every year. Ms. Jane Coolc commented that the 30 day period was very shorC and wo~ld seern hard to mcet, and askec~ about the new legislation ~~~hich will placc new strictures an redevelnpnient, as to wha[ alrerations it might reyuire in Anaheim's renavelopment plan; this new legislation gocs into ci'fect September 30th, ti•~hich is presum~bly why ~•re e~usC come up with a{~lan before then. If it wer~ possible to pian Ar~hcim's redevelupment tivithin the~e ~~e~•i strictures, it woul<f be helpEul t~ tiave this adclitional t~me. `1r. Fernald replied to the ~buve, stating tha` thc .i0 day sch~edule was wor4:ed out because Council wanted to proceed as rapidly as ~ossible. There is some addition<il l~yislature being finalized in Sacramento; ti•~e don't ~cnow which bills wil) bc approved, those which are approved will yo into ef~ovalJurt,aur plan before th~ ~~ant to ~~aaste our past effort, so we are tryiny for app end of the year. Another citizen commented that redevelopment plans have been around since 1959; uur time and our money is 6eing wasted; the Redevelopment Agency cannot ~.olve tli~ prnblem because they are the source of the problem. The business district in drxvntowr~ P.naheim is serving low incomc pcople, who are not complaining c,bout it. ~ ~ • ~ . 51'11f F RFV l fld; Mr. Y,nc~~~~lt~~~i Fcrnald, Director of lhc I~i~rJevclo~~ment St~~ff~ dlstribul~~ I r_on,i~' : ~ble d~curn~~nt~~r~y Informt~kiun to the members and to tho citizen ~~~~rticlp~~nt.•.;, ancl cr,in- rncntr+d on tho v~rious plans outlined. TY~erc is unc City Gcncr~l Pl..m, with a dlffera:nt Redevclopment Pl~~n, ~~~d it is ~ecessary to arrl•~c ~t a cornmon pla~~ hetween thesc lwe. Thr plins as shc7wn .irc gr.n~~r.il in n~~t.ure, not det.~l lr..d. If. is nr.cessary ~o datermina how much traffic bearing cap~icity thc raads nced to have; tha m~~re bui-dings there .~re, ~nd the l~~rgcr thc buildingt~~ thc larger thr ruaJs need to be, lherefore we necd to d~terminE~ whcit scAle bui Icling5 are desi red. Mr. Fernald called Attontion t~ ~lan ~utlinc5 dlspl~yud o~ thc w~1~, thc fivc plans c~n thc lefk being proposed plan5 under fhe new concept~ with the one on thr. righl being 11~~ concept plan ~~~ i t is ~l pre~ent. The. fiv~~ pvssible plans t+rc based on kee~~inc~ the ro~d pattern as it is. As wc get into the planning process 4ie ~~ill begin lo recognize th~~C planning ls <~ sericc; ot' comproinises ar crade-offs. In order to preservc most of our resfdential comn~~unities~ this leaves less l,ind for cammerci~~l development, but the commercial development is needed f~~r tax revenues; thr, less land there I~ for comm~:rci~l devclo~>ment, the more higf~ ciensity d~velopment will br. reyulred. In answer to a ques~~on from citizen p~rticipants, Mr. ~ernald stated tliat thc people mover is r~ot "in" or "out" - lt is still under consideration. Cha(rman Morris then commenled generally wilh regard to the present redevelopment plan. a~lilcl• was develo~ed k~ased or~ repurts and studles from consultants an4 expert~:. The publicls now beiiig asked to study this material ~nd come up witl~ their ide~s also. Mr, Morris stated thal we al~ must 9ive a lltt:l~ in order to come up wit:h a cunsensus plan t~~at will work; we have to develop something that outside developers will be interestad in. The pl~n must be economiGally viable in order to succeed. PUBLlC COMMENT: General camments ~vere made that tfie whole issue should be put to a public vote, not as towhich redevelopment plan was wanted, but as to whe:her any redevelopment v~~~s wanted. A resident of 25 Years star^.d that somethi~g needs to be done in downtown Anaheim, and presented a suggestion uf using a heritage theme, with ~ mu~eum or memorial fn the Spanish/Me~cican theme and to devel~p da+ntown Anaheim under an "old town" Germari theme . f1r. Sen Cuttcr remarked that the downtawn is not divided from tfie rESt of the city; all couldhelp each oth~er. 1 am for the lake and park; whatever is best to do; thousands of hcurs Itiave already been put in~ make the best use of these; make some- tl;~ng adaptable to everybody, which wi il lielp the whole city; we must go forward; let's do (r; ff my building needs to be torn ~awn, do it, but do it the proper way; we ~Eed a feasible plan; need a nice downtown; neec to bring people downtown; the City could use more taxes dnd more employm~nt downtown. Another citizen suggested that Staff sho~~ld be requested to give a projectian on which sources the money will come from, with a 10~ inflation figure to be in- cluded for every year. Ms. Jane Cook commented that the 30 ~tay period was very shorl and would seeR~ h~rd to meet,and asked about the new legislation which will place new strictures on redevelopment, as to wliat alterations it might require in Anaheim'~~ redevclopment plan; thss new legislation goes into effect 5eptember 3~th, ~•~hich is presumably why r~e r~ust come iip with a plan before then. If it were possible Co plan Anahcim'~~ redevelupment a~ithin these new strictures, i t wou1~1 be helpful to have this additional tir,~s. Mr. ~'ernald replied to the above, stating that thc 30 day schedule ~.as worked out because Council wanted to praceed as rapidty as possible. Ther.: is some additi~n~l legislature being finalized in Sacramento; we don't know which bills wiil be approved, those which are approved will go into effect January lst. We dc not want to waste our past effort, so we are trying for approval on our plan before the end ~~ the year. Anothercitizen commQnted that redevelopment pl~ns have been around ~ince 1959; our time and aur money is being wast~d; the Redevelopment Agsncy cannot solve th;: problembecause th~:y are the source of the problem. The business district ir. dov~ntown Anaheim is serving low incomr. peoplc~ who are net =er*~1?~~ir~o about it. ~ • ~ ~ ~ , l1 residc.nt of 50 y~er's commcr~ccd th~~t thrce or four chln95 ~~'~~ ~'-vidc+nt~ fi Lincoln is goin~ to be a thrc~ugh street ~ i l is luo narrc~w, 'fhe r,ypr.. af l>usinessc~s in dcr•~ntovan An~ih~~lm h~vr. nc~[ improved !`.n;ihefm much. 7hc+ ~~rca i~cluded in PruJ~ct Alph~~ ~, m~dc up of aldcr p~ople; thi y c~lcmrnt s.huuld be consl dered. We shaul,~ c1o ~comcthing; ~eopl~ are yctting frusirated; they doii't knav whot to <lu; thcr~~ is Coo much fndc~cision; wc nced to scc somelhiny donc. This rc~s(c1~nC thr.n wunt on to complimant SttiFf on thc rep<~rts ~~nd documenf.ation furnished ak thc~ mc~ling• p1r, Fred arown coirnnentcd that. this typc oi' mcating wc,uld be more su~~cessf~i~ If it. wcre conJucled in semint~r `~~~.hion, wilh thc peoplc to bc a part of' Clic plannin~ qroup; perhaps break up in ~n~ull grou~s at. mcetings, Mr. Pau) Kellcr said: threc grcat 1~,~' ~s havc happcneJ to Anah~im, Dfsncyland, t~ic C~~nvention Centcr .~nd the Star~;u~, - lhc fourth could be Che ftr.devclopment proiccc.. 41c need to redcvel~~p; if not, there will be a 1'urther deter(orak(on of good husinesses alr^..ady downlvwn. Mr•. Tom Cook sugyested khat ldeas which have alrcady been develaped shuuld ~e consiclcred fur.her, such 7s the plan drawn up by Andy Deneau a~d othcr citizens scmic time ayo. Tlie lasarium z~nd Space P~rk may be guod pro)ects in c~lher arr.as, p~rh~ps as an extension of ProJecC Alpha. We should restore buildings if econom- ic~illy feasible. If wc were to have ~ first-rate museum downtown - why not a ~~cople movcr? Mr. Gc:orge Koh 1enUerger : De~cri bes th e h i stori ca 1 backyraund of Anahelm and sug~ests an hisr.orical museum rather than a Space Mus~um and that Vi I laye Cr_nter ProJect be called Colony ~entcr Projecl instead. N~r. Robe~rt Law: ~ug~escs that new ci vic center/city hall could be symbol for the downr.a,~n and an anchor for redevclopment. Another cititen asked: why, after a year of monitoring, do~s City Council sudderly d~~cidc t~ r.hange tiorses iri midstrcam with regard Lo redevelu{~ment7 Is this the las t' i rne th i s wi 1 1 happen? We say wha t we fee 1~ we make a p 1 an , then pol i t i ca 1 winds chan~e ag~ii~, redeveiopment in Anaheim is politically motivated. Chairman Morris then called on members of the ' rious bodies to speak: Commis~ ioner Mass of the Corm~unity Redevelopment Commissian, eommented on previous remarks wi th regard ta po) i Ci cs, sta ting that i f redeveloprnent were riot based an pol i t i cs the c i t i zens wculd not I~ave the opportuni ty to t nf 1 uance i ts outcome; therefore, there are two sicies to th e question. Commissioner Din~idorf, of the Commur. ity Redevelopmcnt i~mmiss ion, stated that if we can lan~ the Viking spacecraft today, we can redevelaF da~ntu~.rn Anaheim; we have every opportunity and tool r.o d o so. Planning Cammission members,stated that they would preter to listen rather than to speak at this time. h1r. Gant Eichrodt, of the Prajeck Ar.~a Commit~~.:e. requested tF1at Che participants spECify hc~w they want redevelopment accomplished, rather th~n just saying lhat we must do s ~ething. Mr. Eichrodt requested citizens to meet with nternber; uF the Yroject Arf:a Commi ttee to discuss redevelopment; and cornmented ti,it unly i f' the c i t i zens become act i ve ~y i nterested i n redeve lopment w i 1 1 i L become exc i l i ng ko them. Mr. F•.ichrodi then m~ntioned hou~ing programs already in existence~n~ the arca, some of which cauld be broadened in scope through rcdFVelopmen[, cited types of low interest loans a~ai lable through the~e p~ojecrs. RECAP AND STAFF DIRECTION FOR NEXT MEE7ING: Chairman hlorris then stated that it was now necessary ko clirecl Staff on the pre~paratE~n of agenda and document~tian for the Thursday. July 22nd meeting. Mr. Fernal!~ then suggested~ i~i line with Mr. Eichrodl's comments regarding hous i ng pragrams , that ~~ t thc next meeC i nq the memhers and e i t i zcnry may ~•~ i sh to conce~i t ra tc on d i scuss i ons w i th re gard to hous i n~ and ne i yhborhood consr,rv~~ t i on systems. Chairman Morris Lhen requested Staff to Ni~eE~are :iucwuc:ntation For the July 22nd meecing ~~itli regard to rESidential development in the da~ntown area. ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ 1 !1 citizen khen commr.ntad in general rc~gardiny ~indepen~l~ indlviduol de:v~~lapmr,nt of dawntcr~n vs government or polltic~~l rndcvelupment. Chalrman Morris commented th~t I~a h~d bcen w~rkiny with rc:duve:lo~~merit In Anahelm fc,r thc: past 16 years~ walting Far peopln to takc c~n int~rest An~~ act independently; k~ul Ar~~helm is sllll g~iny cla~nhill. After taking a h~nd vote, Chalrm;in Morris then st aled that 1 t was thc can~ensus tht-t we should move ~~head wi th redcvolopment. Chairman Morris then suggested tf~~t all atkendcas encouruge i`rienrls tc~ alcr.nd future meetings, or request them to wriCe letters an~l ~dvisc thc Commlcsslon of khc i r i deas . M~ . Georgc Kolilenb~ryer cc~mmented lhat pcople did not respond l~o Che i'Irsl quc.~stionnalres sent ouc by Red~vel~pment becaus~ they were too "loadad". Wc clo need a face lifting in da~ntawn Anaheim; we want to be able ta walk Ja,vnt.own after dark and feel safc:. Motior~ was t~ien made to adJour~ the meeting ta 7:00 P.M., July 22, 1976, ~t thc samc locaCion. Mc:et i ng adJourned: 9: 1> P.M. Respeetfu) ly submi tted, . ~~.//Z~.~.y/ ~i ~~~~~~~.~~~ Helen Ford, Secretary Comnunity Redevelopment Commission Proj ect Area Commi ttce 0 R C 0 MICROFILMINa SE~VICE, INC