Loading...
Minutes-PC 1976/11/01--r r ~ ~•-7-'~^-----' ~ ~ C~ty N~11 Anaheim~ Callfornta Nove~~~b~ r 1, 19?6 ADJUURNED REGULAR MEETING OF TI1E ANANEIM CITY PI.A~~~~I~~G COMMISSION ADJOURNFD -!tn AdJour~ad re~ialar~;ct(r~~a af the Anahc:im Clty Planntng fommission REGULAR w,~s c.elled to order by Chalrman Johnson ~t 7r30 p.m. on huve~mber 1, MEFTING 1976, ir the Fremont Jr, Hinh School Auciltorlum~ 608 West Llncoln A'venue, A~ahelm~ a quorum being present. PRE.SENT - CHhI RMl1N: Johnson COMMISSIUNER5: Barnes~ F81'i3~Ge lierbst~ Kinc~~ Morley~ Tolar AlSO PRESENT- Ronald Thompson Norman Pr(est Knowlton Fernald F~ank Lowry Malcolm Slaughter Philltp Schwartze Bill Cunnfngham Coulter Hooker Patr(cia Scanlan Planning Ulrector Executive Director-Community Dcvelapment DlrecCo~--Communtty Dev~lopr~xnt Deputy Ci ty Attornc:y Deputy City Attorney Asststant Planning Directar-Planning Associate Plann~r Assistant Plann~.~ Planning Commfssion Seiret~~ry GENERAI. PLAN AMENOPIENT N0. 141 ~ To consider an amendment to the Anahe{m General Plan for the vicin(tics ref~rred Ca as Area 1- Center City EIJVIRONMENI'AL IMPACT kE~O~T N0. 188 and Area 11 - Orangewood Avenuc and Clementine Streei. In connr.ction with Area 1- Cent~r Clty~ Assoclake Planner Bill Cur~ningham reviewed the Staff Report Co the Flanning Corrn~i:ssion dn[rd Navember 1, 1976, and satd Staff Report is referred to and madc a part of the minutes. Mr, Murray Shirk~ owner of property at 132, 134 and 136 Morth Anahelrt~ Boulevard~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and stated he had been watting approximately 14 years for something to be done downtown and tf somethirig was n~t donc pretty soan there would be a law suit on the C(ty's hands because he was unable to make any money frorn hls property under thc present conditions; that If the radevelopment program would not be going forward~ the property owners w~uld like to know so that they could go about thrir business the way they would otherwtse; and that many property c~wners were gotng broke ~ecause of the in~~ectsian re~arding rerleve;apment. M~. Joseph l.;ppenfeid ap~eared before the Planning Commission and stated ha was the tenant of the property at 134 North Ana!ieim Baulevard snd operated a Jewish ThrOft Shop; that ever sinae he entered Into li(s leasP in September 1975~ he had ber.n heaPing about th~ Redevelopment ProJect Alpha; that ~~e had been wanting to do thtngs (nside the butldtn~ to make it more presentable for the sale of the items in his thrift shap~ by installing new fixtures and shelving~ taking out partitions, ecc.~ however~ In v(ew of thr propased rcdevelopment of Anaheim he had not done anything to irr~rove the store; :hat his chrift store presently looked like a Junk yard and he was not used to running a buWfness in tfils manner~ and it wes a shame and disqrace ~nd a reflection upon him and hiis abtlity as a businessman; and that until sorr~thing was actually done about the rednvelopment of Anaheim or t4 say IC would not hapQen~ he would b~ wafting since he did not w~nt to suend money until he knew whern he stx d. Mr. Lippenfeld c~ntlnued by stating that since this was the first ttme he had vlcwed the present prc~posal, he would hestitate to offer a sudden or hasty opinlon~ and the subJ~ct matter w~!is too importa~t to give haphazard approval or disapproval; and that he wanted Co make it clear that the City should do "s~meth~ng" and do it fast. Mr. Cunningham clarifled that it was im~~ortant for the citiz~ns to (ndict~te wheth~r they wanted r~development ~r nAe. Deputti~ City ~ttorney Frank Low ry added that the item before the Planning Commisslan at this publlc liearing was a Ganeral Plan amendment and was not a specific plan ~or redevnlopment of all or any of the Qroperties in Lha study ereas. )6-546 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAN;VIi!G CpMMIS510N~ Novcmbcr I~ 1976 76-547 GENERAL PI.AN AMENDMENT N0. 141 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOl2T N0, 188 (Contlnued) Cnlonel Earl Rhoads~ 122 North Vine Street, Anoheim~ appeared before thc Planning Commission and stated he was cleftnltaly in agrcment with the presont proposai versus the preelous plan which would have aer~ed to make the City a tourist attractlon. Mr. Georg~ Lange~ representing the owners of the E1 Camino Dank bullding, etc.~ appeared before the Plann(ng Commisston and requested clariFfcation of the parking acreage in the Centesr Clty area~ wanting ta know whother o~-street p+~rking and commnrclal parking on prlvate ~roperty were lncluded in Gh~e calculations. In response~ Mr. Cunnir~gham advlsed thal' the park{ng acreage ciicl not ln-:lude on-street parking. Mr. LAnge r.ontfnued by statln~ that the; extsting downtawn parking was u~der-provided at tfie present time and was proposed by the ame~dment to be reduced frum 31 to 7.8 acres; and that he wished tu have clartflcbtien of the northern boundary r~f the redevelopment area whtch hn presurr~d was Cypross Streat. Mr. Lan~e questianed Che actual locatlon of parks in tlie redevelopment are~ since it appcared that some subst~~;tlal bulldtngs were ln the way~ I.e.~ the tclephon~e bullding. Mr, Cunningham advisesd that the General Plan axhibit was not a specific plan and that the park areas shown only appea~ed to be going throuqh buildings. Mr. Langc khan stated that if indeed the park areas were nut be exactly l~~ated as Indlcated on the plan~ the plan sh~uld be revised; that he was also obJecti~ig on behalf of his cltents to thG fact that s~me conmerclal property fn the drea of Clementfne Street, Fiirbor Boulevard and Brondway was being down-zonec to residentlal medium denslty; and that regarding the circulatlon alternatives and the wording "changed to correspon<1 to approximate current alignment," there should be a deffnite stand on what would happen wlth the strPets. Discussion pursued regarding the aarking area questian and hir. Cunningham clarified that there would be a loss of gross parking acres~ but not a loss of actu~~l parktng spaces. Mr. Henry V~ss, owner of the property at 328 a~d 350 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Comn(sslon and questioned the uses designated for the area of Helena Street b~tween Lincaln Aven~e and Pearson Park. !1r. Cunningham reiterated that the proposed G~neral Plan did not r~epresent a zoriing map. Mr. Cunntngham th~n reviewed the portlon of the Staff Rcport pertalniny ta Area II - Oran,yewood Avenue and Clementine Street, and noted the Clty Councll had taken no actlon ~n a port(on of a previous General Plan amendment lrivolving Che subJec:t property because o~ the uncPr•tainty of a location for a propos~d multi-modal transportr~tion center in Anaheim~ and the property owners were aclatn requesting a General Plan ame.ndm~ent~ although there was no conclusive action to datey on the Multi-hbrlal Transportation CentCr Study; and that the property ewner was re~uesting medium-density resldent(al land u~e on the property which w~uld eorrespond with RM-1200 zoning. Mr. Cunningham further noted that a 1eCter had been received from the Orange County Trarsit District relative to the study for a multl-modal t~ansportatto~ center location. Assistant P1annOng D1-•ector-Planning Phillip Schwartze n~oted that Uh1TA had funded a study to look at the south end of An~heim to determine whether a mulct-rr~dal transportation termtnal to handle ,all type5 ~f transportatlon was feasible to be located in the Anaheim area; that the study was nc,w completed~ indicat(ng that a termtnal was desirable~ neede~ and fea:~lble. alt'ho~gh ihere were some problems; that th~ Orange County Transit District was looking at all vacant pieces of land in and araund the Disneyland-Convention Center area~ lncluding the Convention Center parking loty Wonderbowl~ the land north of the property, the land south of the Conventlnn CenCer~ and the Anahelm Stadtum~ etc.; that there was a questlon as to tf~e feasibillty of devNloping the subJect property with a multtple-family residentlal pro~e~.t in the event that the property ':~ the north was chosen for the transportation center which would be for charter buses~ Greyhound Bus llnes~ Yellow Cab~ automoblles~ monoratl~ Orange County 7ransit Dlstrict ana airplanes~ etc.; that although some discusslon had been held concsrning heliports, he doubted that aviation wouid be one of the modes at the center; and that the (lrangc County 7ransit Oistrtct had requested thn City to hold offi on approvtng new uses of the lands tn quest(on~ pendiny the outcome of a phase two consult,~nt report. Mr. Dale L. Ingram~ P. 0. Box 5922~ El hbnte~ California~ represen~.ing Mrs. Jane inch, the owner of the 15-acre parcel in questton~ appeared before the Planntng Commission and revlerved the htstory of a Gencral Plan amendme:nt on the subJect proF~erty, stating thaC it had be~n interrupted by the DMJM P.spe~t and their devalnpment plan h,~d bcen continued for publ(c hn~ring unttl the GenerAl Plan matter could be bro~ght into llne wtth the proposal; that the resol~itton of incent t~ commerctal-recreation adopted by the City Council about ten years sgo had not helped the property owner, and since then the hotels and the motels in the area had gone highrise; that there had not been a m~srket for th~~ property over the _ . ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ Nov~nmber 1, 197('i GENERl1L i'LAN AMEMDMENT N0. 141 AND ENVI-'~NMENTAL IMPACT R~('ORT N0. 188 (Continued) 7h-~ 548 yea~rs Por C-R land uses and, therefore, w~s undeveloped; thet on bath sides of Harbor Bouioverd Ir. the t+re~ thcre worc multtple~t°Amlly ~esidentlal use~ Nhlch did not provlde housing ~or singles; that thA ent~rtainmcnt industry hired college-age people who were In most crses typical apartmont clwallers and th~~ir proposal wa~ to provide housing for sin~les; that the presPne ayricultural use cf tho land was temporary and the an~rnings from It dld nut support the cerrying cc~sts~ and ihe property could nox set dorm~nt; th+at~ to his knowledge~ slx locatlona had been con~icered in tl~e DMJM Report fo~ the r.ransportetlon center in the areaY of th~ Anahcim Stadlum and Lonventton Centur~ a~d the six sikes selected d~d not involve the sub)nCt property~ four being ln the Conventlon Center- Disneyland area woat oF H~rbar Boulcvdrd; that nu constderatton had been given to using the agriculturrl property to the north of the sub]cct prop~rty for the transportation cen~er; that e review of uses would indlcate that apnrtn~eiits ware very compatlble with the brea even tf tF~e ~transportation center~.~ere bullt to the north~ althaugh he wAS confldont the center would not be on that side of ilerbor Hr,alevi~rd; that the apartment dwellers would be the most llkely people to util(zc the transpo~tatton center for going to and fr~m work~ etc.; that the propsrty owner was havl~g difflculr.les t+nd r~as unable to develop thc property wlth the C-R use~ and the propo~al wa. a loglcai pattern for development; and that he would like the proposal to ~o forward to the Ctty Council and hope~ully the Trans~t Dlstrtct would confirm that they were not interested in elther the subJe~t property or the property to the immedia~e north f~r development of the transportatton cente r. Mrs. Murlel Landas, 421 West Orangewood Avenue~ Anaheim~ apperared berore the P~anning Commission and ur9ed a concluslon on the zontng of r.1,p subJect praperty ~Ince~ on the strength nf the dectsions of the Planning Commisstom m~d City Cc~uncll lASt summer they had placeJ their property In escrow and purchased another home~ and wcere le~`c "dangltng"; that from the inform~tion she could gathe~, the Transit Disl•rict was nat interested in the subJect area or property; that~ furtherrrqrey on the basis c~f the surrounding apartment proJects and tl~e same type dwellings prnposed~ it seen~ed th.aC the cansideratlon of the tran~portatton center had no bearing on the praposal. Mr. Schwartze reviewed the transportation center ~ackground and advlsed that the 4tudy which I~ad been referred to was funded by UMTA and the contract awarded to DMJM; that the Orange County Transit Uistric*. Board was ra:her unhappy with the 6htJM Rec,ort whlch was orlginally scheduled to be a two-phase study, and at the end ~f phase one~ th-e Orange County Transit District Board stated Xhey wanCed someone elae to do the study; and that phase one did nat study the Fug(shige property and it was d~termtned by the City Councfl that sald property might be studied in phase tv~o. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GLOSED. In response to questioning by the Planniny Commissinn~ Cammunity Gevelopment Dii~ector Knowiton Fernald advised that the proposed "Exhibit A" (Area () represented the ~~aJority consensus of what the p~ople in tl~e area wanted; that, basicaljy~ they could come up with ~s many pians as there were people i~ they wanted to completely satisfY everyone; ~hat many good tdeas had been provided by tF,e people for spectfiic plans which would be consldered subseq~iently; and that the proposal ve ry definitety represented a consens~~s of the input received at the etght ~~etings held with the City Council~ Planning Commissfnn and cttizens du~ing the months of July and A~gust~ 1976. In response to yuestioning by Commissioner Barnes, Mr. Cunningham advlsed that zoning for devetopment of the multi-nbdal transportation center would probably be RS-A-43~000. Mr. Schwartze added that the subJect property (Area 11) was not pres~ntly under consideratton as a locatio~ for the multi-modal transportation center. The Planning f.ommisston gei~orally concurred that the subJect property (Area li) should be allow~d to proceed with their development plans. Commissioner Farano made a general observatton that in cons(dering the Center City area~ the Clty had reached a polnt or positton where the peaple were not in ccmplete agreement or disagreement. f,ommisslone~ Farano offered a m.otlon. seccnded by Co~ntssloner Tolar and MOT10N CARRIED~ that Envlronmental Impact Report No. 1E38~ ht+ving been cons(de~ed thts date by the Anahelm City Planning C~mmisslon and evidence~ both wr(tten and oral~ having been presented to supplement sald draft EIR No, t88~ the Pfanning Gommtsslon believes that sald draft EIR N~. 16~ does conform to the Cisy and S:ate Guldeitnes and the State qf California ~ ~ MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, Nov~w~ber 1~ 1976 7~ "~~9 GENER/1L PI.AN AME11 UMEN7 NO . 141 AND ENV t RONM~NTAl. 1 M1f'ACT REPORT NA. 189 (Cont 1 niaed} ~...,.~ ~ . Envtronmentml Quallty Act and~ b~e~ed upon such tnformetla~~ does hereby reco~nd to the Clty Counzil that they carClfy sr~ld EiR No. 188 Is in can~liance wlth ssid Env~r~nmental Quallty Ac~.. Commissloner Ferano offered Resolution No. PC76-223 +end moved for Its pafsage and •doption~ that thc Annnelm City Plenning Commisslu~ doea hereby edope snd recammands to the :Ity Counci l af th~+ Ctty o} llnahelm adopttors oP Gener~l Pl~n Amendment No. lA1 ~ adapting "Exhibit A" fdr Araa I- fentnr Clty~ to accommodate the eurrene Anaheim Redevelopment Concept i'lan and adopting "Exhib(t a" for Area II,M Ora~gewood Avenun and Clementtne 5trnat, tA deslgnate medlum-dunstty resld~nklal land uae. (Se~ Re!~luttan Book) On roll call~ t.hc Porecaoing resolutton was passed by khe foilowing vote: AYES: COMMOSSIONERS: ~ARN~S~ FAR11N0, NERBST, KING~ MORL~Y~ TOLAR. JOriN50N NOES; COMMISSOANERSt NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ADJOURNMENT - There btling no further business to discuss~ C~~mmissianer He~hst ofAered a motton~ sncanded by Coaxnlss!oner Tolar and MOTION CARRIEUo that the maating be adJoui~ned. The mnettng adJuurned at 9t15 p.m. Respectfully submltted, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~9d~ Patricla 9. ~canlan~ Secretary Anahelm Clty Pianning Commission PBS:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFiLM{NG ~ERVICE, INC.