The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/11/21City Hell Mshelm~ California November 21~ 1977 REG"'.AR MEETING OF ~HE ANAHEIM GITY PLAtiNIWG CONMISSION REGULAR • The rr.gular meetlnq of ttie Anah~im t;(ty Pla~ninc~ Commission was called MEE;ING tr orcler by Chairm~n Tolar at 1:30 p.m., Novembcr 21, 1`~J7~ in the Councll Ch~rr~ber, a quorum beinc~ present. PRESENT - GHAIRt1AN; lolar LGHI1f5510l7C1'S: Cbrnc.~ Hcrbst~ Ktn~ Cormnisstoner David arrived at 1:45 p.m. Coirrnissioner Linn errived at 3:00 P.m. AUSEri7 - COMMISS 10'JERS: Johns~n ALSA pRCSENT - Jack. Whttc Anni4.~~ Santalahtl Philllp Schwartr_e Jay Titus Paul Sin~~cr Ron Smiih Robert Herr J. J. 7ashir~ Editt~ ~iarris Deputy Ci ty Att~rne.y Asslstant Director f~r Zoning Assistant Oirectur far Planning Office Enaineer Traffic Enginccr Rs~ocl~te Plannc:r Givll ~~glneering Assistant AssiStant Pianner Plann(~-g Commissivn Secretary PLEUC~C OF - The PledgE: of A1legiancr tc the Flag of the United States of America was ALLfT,IANGE 1e~1 by Comn,i:sioner darrc~. APPRaVAL OF - Canmissioner King o~Fered a rnotion~ secanded by Cortmissioner i b Herbst and nt) b MINUTES f10T1c);~ GAP,RIED (Commissloners Dsvid~ ng e Li~n and Johnson , se a that the min'JtCS ~f thc mcetings af Qctober 26 and November 7, 1977, be approvcd as suUmitte~i. ITEM N0. 1 tIV 0.NTAL 1Mf'~ACT RCPORT N0. 2~7A CONTINUtO PUBLIC HEARING. To consider land use + ~ , desiynations and la~cl use alternatives far (a) 6ENEkAL ~.~iN AMEt~DMEtJT N0. 1 property Fronting Vermont Avenue~ east of tierbcr Boulevard and west of Lemon Strc:t~ (b) 29G acres located generally southeast of tne inte~section of Nohl F~anch Ra~ad and the Southcrn Californta Edison essement, (c) 90 acres east of the intersecti~n o;` (:anynn Kim Road and Serrano Avenue; and to consider an Open Space Element wh(ch identifies the public and prlvate open space and vacant areas of ten acres or mo~e within ths City ar~d its sphere~ af influPnce. Ron S~ith~ Assuciace Planner, explained General Plan M-endment No. 144 invotves three land use p~opo~ais anci this ltem had been coneinued frn+n the Octol~er 26th meettng for sdditiona1 envirnnmental impact data; that Exh~bit A had been recommended for approval fo~ Area 1~ Va nnont. east of Narhor~ at the October 26th meeting; that subsequent to that meeting~ additlonal informatio~ pertalning tq the environmental impact report had been provlded; that san.~e update to tt~e Open Space Element has been provided and that the Parks 77-754 MINUtES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 21, 1977 77~155 EIR NUS. 207A ANU 2078 AND GENERAL PLAN ~1MENDMENT N0. I~i4 (continu~d) and Recreat(on Commisslon h~~s revicwed the proJect; that a land use economic prof)le of the differont alternatives has been furnlshed; tliat. an cquestrlan nnd bikGway ~ap has also been includeci ,nd upclated ac~eage figures ln the cdnyon area for loca) parks~ nelghbarhood parks and communtty parks; Chat computeri~ed Informetlon pertaini~;g to the City's land uses has been {~rovided~ indicating huuse values upwards of 51~~0,040~ and Peul Singer, Tr~ffic Eng!neer~ has done a seudy ~n the alignment of the circulatlon system In the ca~yon ar~a. Phillip ~ettencourt, representlny ~n~t~elm N(lls~ Inc.~ stated the proJect has been revlewed by the Nil' an~J Canyon Municipal Advtsory Committee (H~CNAG) subsequent to the last meeting and tliat addltlanal t~gttrmny h~ss been provided for the er~vlronmenta) impact report. He indicated the princ.ipal reason for the continuance wos to resolve differences in the proQose~ circulation elerr~nts and tt~e cxisttny City anci Cou~~ty circulation pla~s. lies stated Mr. Horst Schor had rnet with the stAff ancl tlie pro~erty owners and would report on th~se n~eetings, Mr. E3ettencourt stated HACNAC had bcNn concerneJ abc~ut the comnPrclH1 land use propostd. He p~e5entea an aerfal photoyrapl~ of thc vic(nity of Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue wl~ich covereci about ~3~n acres and pointed out all the corn~nerclally des(gnated parcels In the Canyon General Plan includinq th~ request by Anahelm tlills~ Inc. Ho lndlcated Anahelm Nills~ Inc. did not feel adequate commercial facilities were being p~ov(ded Just to serve the normal conveniences. Ne stetecJ th~ proposed ccxnnercial site at the (ntersection of Monte Yiste Roed and Serrano Ave~~ue extended is ovcr one-helf mtle~ ar 2900 feet~ from the nearest approved ar existiny resi~ential locatio~. He painted out th(s question had not been a serious d(spute with NACMAC. Horsl Scho! of Anaheim Hills, I~c, indicatecf that following the October 26th meeting. iwo meetings had teken place: on~ r_onducted by C(ty staFf, which involved most of [he property owners~ Ana(ti.;im 111i1s and the City~ and that tl~e proposals~ as prNsented, were intensely revlewed by everyone prescnt. A secn~d mecting followed with City and County officials and property c~wners representing thc~ Bauer Ranct~, Wallace Ranch, Douglass Ra~ch, and Irvine Ranch. He stated tliat as a result of thc r-eetings, staff had t~een presented with three dacuments: ane beiny an agreement be Meen the Bauer Ranch representatives~ and the Oouglass Ranch represencatives ancf Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ indicatiny full dgreament with the proposed chanyes ta Lhe Circulat(on E'~menc as submitted. He tndicated !hey have a separate agreement with the owners o` the Hellace Ranch (ndicating general agreement with the circulation changes as proposed~ except for Monte Vista and Vista del Rlo. Ne stated that Irvine Ranch representatives indicated no ubJections to the changes in the Girculstion Element ~ut dld n~t sign the agreement because the roads do not impact the(r property. lie indlcated it was their feeling that with the full consent of the aroperty owne~s the proposed alignment cF~anges would affe~t, they beli~ved there is adequate evidenc~ to indicate these changes si~ould be made. Paul Singer~ Traffic Cngineer~ stated the meetings had been I~eld and, as a ~esult~ certatn ag~eements did come forth ta establish that most of the large property owners in the area are in accord. fie indicated that he felt from reading the agreements, they are (n accord with ths Weir Ganyon alignnx nt~ more or less~ and that a request has bee~ made for Che City to sCudy spectflc alignments~ but that the east/west roedwsys are not well addressed. He indicated tt appears that Serrano Avenue has been relocated further north and that Monte Vista has been rsalign~d. He stated that the concept~ as p~oposed~ is not impossible but that specific alignments veould have to be determined. Chai~man Tolar asked Mr. Singer how much thts p~oposed plan var(es from the proposed alignments whi~h currently exisC. i MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION~ Novomber 21~ 1g77 77-756 EIR t~OS. 20711 AND 20)B AND GENEiiAL PLAN AMENDMENT Nll. 144 (continucd) ----- - - Mr. Singe~ state~l that the fenera) Plan calls for Serrano Avenue to go east end west parellel to the ;r~eway~ and dI30 Monte VtstA to paraltel the freew~y~ and that the proposed plan shows d(rect routes Into Santa Ana Canyon Road extenslon which is really not providing the kind of clrculatlon tfie Clty is looking for. tle indiceted the Clty Is looking for fecll(t(es to parallel with Santn Ana Csnyon Road and this fs whe~es the City end Anahelm Hills~ Inc. a~e at odds. COMMISSIOtdf:R UAVid ENTEREU TV~C MEETING AT 1:A; P.M. Chairman Tolar asked wl~ere the roeds would connect the way the C(ty has proposed them~ and Mr. Stnger rnp~ted they would go all the way to Coel Canyon~ or alrr~st to the Rivers(cie County IiriL, and indlcated this is ~+ vPry long-term propasal. Mr. Schu- i~clicotecl h~ fel; they are providing an east/west aiiyr~mr,nt as shown on the map an~d -~::',ieved those oliqnn-encs fit the development p(ans of the prop:rty owners rnd arc bcttcr wit~i the tapc~grephy of tt~e ~re~~. He Indicated that tl~cy were qeneral tn nature at th~a t{me; that chcy had used av~~ilat>le topogrAphic dA~A and had consijered the topo~raphy wt~icl~ (s a factor and is yoing to dlctate rlignments (n thc canynn; t~~at mountalns And va{leys w(I1 prevent construction of ro~ds in certein areas. f1r, S(n9er ind(cate~ that the roads could be divertecl to head back and become para11P1 but chr.n they would be i~ tao close proximity. He Inclica[ed the present G~neral Plan shows ttiey ere wideiy s~aced and the proposed plan shows they would be toc~ clostly s~aced with Sartta An~ Canyon kodd. Concerniny the tprrain of the area~ hc stated the topo~raphy always makes it dtfficuit to build roads and that lie felt somc type of fac(Iity should be considered for east/west circul8tlon al~ng the high r(dgeline. Ghairman Toler ask~:u Mr. Slr~ger if fit hed altered hl~ recommencfation regardiny this proposed plan ar tlic curre~t circulation plan. Mr. Singer indicateel that iie felt satisfied with the present General Plan; that changPs would have to be made because tht~ Plan is general in scope~ and specific alignment studies would have to be undertaken [o determine the terratn constrictlons. Dr. Glory Ludwick indicatPd she c~wned a 5qb interest in the Dou~lass Ranch and wanted to presenk a study done by ihe County in 1972 and 19J3 on the alignment of Wetr Ca~yon Ro~d, She po(nted out /1lternates A and B af this plan as they crossecf the Douglass Rancn. She also indlcateJ the comparison between the County plan and the proposed plan. She stated she felt the Nelr Canyon Road alignment should be determined before a decision is made on this General Plan Amendment. Cheirman Tolar Indicated he was under the impression that Douylass Ranch rep~eser~tatives were in agreement with the proposed alignment, and D~. Ludwick rcplied that they are in conformance with the idea that WeI~ Canyon Road will be put through and thet there shauld be two east/west arterials, however~ they were not in conformance with the ltne as drawn and where it is going; that they are in conformance with the old study as done by the County and that the propos~d aliynment is not ex.act; that the County study is a result of detatled studies showing all the cuts and fills~ and a lot uf enginearing had gone into this plan~ and she felt the County had studied all the other alternatives. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Singer if he had looked at the County alignment~ and he ~eplie~ that he had not seen the detailed alignment but that he would study it. MINUTES. ANAFIEIM CIY1f PIANNING COMMISSION~ November zl~ 1917 EIa NOS. c07A AND 2078 Ah1D GENEaAL PLAN AMENOMCNT N0. 144 (continued) Chalrman Tolar osked Mr. Singer haw tha City's General County studies. Mr. Sir~ger replied it would be closer hes plannecl~ but that both would be acceptable. 77-757 Plan ~~11 gnment conforms to thc in relatlonship ta what the Glty Dr. i.uclwick indiceted she would ~ot like to hsve the aflgnmr.nt of Weir Canyon Road and the last Itttle portions of Serrano Avenue scsteled unti) all people concarned have det~rmined whethcr these allynmenr;~ as previously done, are dcsirahle. She i,~dlceted the Douqlass aanch people were In ac~reen~ent wlLh tha yenerel(~ies of this plan and the plan as done by the County~ but Just wanted the Commissio~ to kr~aw that they did not aqrec with thls particular red line as si~~vn and that exact stuJies would probably move it more to the west. Mr. Schor indlcated it was not Anaheim Hllls~ inc,.'s contentlon th~t the document as shown be adopted by the Gommission~ but tliat they werH Aaklnq that the Commission edopt the general elignr~ nt. He in~Jtc.ated they believe specific studies sliould determine the Cxact location, TNC PUBLIC HEAftING W~S CLOSED. Mr. Singtr polnted ou[ thet tl~is partlcular document~ as presented by Dr. Ludwlck~ look~d quite dlfferent from the mep on the wall. Chairman Tolar polnted out that a General Plan study on this whole area had bee~ done for two years an~i now the Commission is revlewing it again with the circ~~lati~n elemcnts and that he felt this matter should I~ave been har~dled In Ma~ch. and at this poini in time he dld nat feel the Commission shoulJ entertain e long. lengthy meeting an this ttem. Commtssioner Herbst stated he fel[ the Commisston should cansiJer the two items separately. He felt the circulation~ as proposed~ was general hut that raeds will have to be put through there to serve the d~velopment in the canyon~ and agrced with Mr. Singer that you cannot have too many roads ~unniny into Santa Ana Canyon Roed and thet there probably wlll be some alternat~ roads and a~ cfevelopment occurs, it wi11 take care of that problem. ~ie referrcd tu the two items of tf~e General Plan Amendment~ the 90-acre site and the 29b-acre si[e~ and felt they should be dtscussed separaCely. Ron Smith pointed out the four exhib(ts for the 296-acre parce) tln~1 in~ilcated the Commission had lnitfated the Gencral Plan Amendment and instructed staff to prepare a serles of alternatives~ and that thase alter~atives shown are ~11 the Gcncral Pian legends wtth density ranges thbt could occur with everything from estate t~ low density. He pointed aut the Conmission is not bound to accept any one of thPse four alterr-tes. Regerdtny the 90-acre slte located east of the intersecti~n of Canyo~ Rlm Road and Serrano Aven~~e~ Mr. Smith pointed out a Lopographic map was used and five alternatives prepared, and explained those alternatives. Mr. Bettencourt stated that t~e t~ad nothiny to Pdd ~ta the dlscussion; that they hed submitted ample written material; that this was the first time a physical impact model had been used in pract(ce and does glve a cost/effective analysis and indicdtes the prlce that one might pay for one of thesG units; that the mvst cost/effective propasal on the 296- acre parcel woulci be 4000 dwel~ing units. He stated that Anahe(m Hills~ Inc. ts not against any of the plans submttted by the City scaff~ but are simply for thefr own plan and felt evidence presented indi~ates Cheir plan bcst serves the needs of the area. Chalrmen Tolar asked Mr. Bettencourt to indicate which exhibit as presented by the staff would be closest to .~hat they desi~e~ and Mr. Bettenc~urt replied that Exhibit A MINUTES~ ANAIlE1M CItY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 21~ 1977 77.758 EIR NOS. 207A AND 2078 AN~ GENERA~ PLAN AMENpMENT N0. 144 (continued) designatlnq htllsicie l~v-density a~d htllsidr mcdium-density for both ~Ites would best serve their needs. Ron Smith ~alnte~ out thr, present General Plan designates estate-density for the 9~-acre slte and lav-denslty for the 2~(,-ac~~ site, Chairm~n Tolar as~ecl Mr, 6ettencou~t lits feel(ngs if the 7g6-aLre parcel ts approved and the 90-dcre parcel (s denied, Mr. Dettencourt indlceted that they are re~ulated under the Planned Communlty D(strtct end that this waulcl ~egulate all tl~eir property at ance, and thot If they had been b~und by the estete-density nn tliis partlcular proJect~ thcy woulci have tAken a harder look et the otfier prnJect; Lh+1T th~~y h~~ve rrbre options ~vai lable wl th the ?.g(+-acre parcel . Chalrman Tolar asked why the request for a c~~an~e in the Generel Plan at this tin,~; tliet he could not for~see they were yoir~y ~c, Uc do(ng anythin,y with thcsc AfeDS in the near future and did not see the nr.cd far chanc~ing tfie General Plan at this t(mc, Mr. Bettencr~u~t indicatcd they were trying to salvage sometl~ing thcy lost In ihe Task Force proceedings and pointed out they had an approved Planned Community Zone for tlelr property with seven commercial sites iJentlfied in the entlre tanyon area Cd5[ of Monte Vista end Serrano goiny into the prur_ecdin~~s and only one when ic was over; thet there is 330o acres of es[a~e-density residential in ti~e entire car-yon~ a~d it is not real(sttc. Ct~airman Tolar pointed out thac a Genc~al Plan ts very c~enera) and that it has never stopped Annhetm N11is, Inc. or any other devel~per frcxn cominc~ in ond requesttng a dlf~erent zone. He pointed uut the Commissiun h:~s~ I~istorically, looked at ~very proJect on its own mer(t. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out~ regar~fing the 90-acre parcel, that their proposed xoning as contalned in the Planned Community text would not be consistent with the Genera) Plan. Jack White~ Deputy Llty Attorney~ pointed aut that tliis was carrect; that they would have to process both a Genera) Plan Amendment and a zone change. Mr. Bettencourt stated it secmed to be tf~e feel(ng that the General Plan should r(pen for a tlme~ but that it must be kept current wlth the market~ and that the area they have requested covers less than 3$ of the entire canyon a~ea. Chairman Talar stated he a9re~d the Commission has to look at change~ but he dId not feel they should go through a major General Plan change every six months and stated he did not see what is differe~t norv ±han six months ago. Mr. ~ettencourt stated that thelr plans had simply not been considered in all instanc~s by the Task Force and this was not a change from what they had proposed originally~ but si~ce the property interests themselves were outnumhered in the Task Force~ it w~s felt they wanted to get on with th~ General Plan for the area and look at amendments three t~mes a year. He felt it has b~en a legitimate~ responsible pe~iod of time for proposing an amandment of f(ne tuning that cavers less than 3~ of the canyon~ and pointed out that xhey should look at tht ultimate (rnpact of the density reduction of 50d untts in the autho~ized density. He felt if thls d~ta had been presented~ the Task Force might have adopted it, but they simpl~ could not look at all areas. He pointed out the only new land use Is the S~acre commercial iand use in the 9A-acre parcel. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novanber 21~ 1977 ~~'15g EIR NOS. 207A AND 2078 ANO GENEAAL PLlW AMEN~MENT N0. 144 (cantlnued) _.._.__ Ch~irman Tnler tndlcatcd tl~at was another thiny thet bothe~ed hlm about the plen, the 5- acre commerclel slte moves around. Ile Indtcated he was also cancernnd about circulation. Mr. Eiettencourt steted that to Anaheim Hiils~ InG. the !;-acre commercial site ts At the intersectlon of Ser~ano and Monte Vista. Commissioner barnes lndicated she would llke to clorify the decislon of the Task Force; tliat these *hings were noi pushed tl~rouyh at the last minute; that there was at~out three years of effort, discussi~ns and pla~ning which had gone into this actlon and that e certaln phllosophy I~ad becn edopted; and the ~eason there was no comrerclal was that most of the area wa~s zoned for low density or estate zoning and~ considertng that fact, wlth estato zoning there would be no need for comrnerclal sltes in those ~reas~ but naw Anaheim Htlls~ Inc. wants to change the density and that chanyes the complexion of the commerclal sitcs. Commissioner I~trbsc stated~ regAr~ling tFie 2~6-acre ~ercel which is zoned low density and would allow 0-~ units per acr~~ that all the r_omputations for tl-e EIa had bGen based on a total of 5~ Whicl~ he felt was a total I~accuracy and the nurnbers presented tn the EIR d(d not tcll the sto ry; that the top figure is > and the avcrage dengity In the ca~./on has bean '2.1; and that they are not reducing the amount ~f residents, iri reaiity~ and these figures do nut reflect the impact on trafffc~ sct~o~l cliildren~ etc. ond are almost dauble what they should be. Ne InJicated he would be in favor of chanying tne density of the 29~ acres ta 1.G units pe~ acre~ but would want some yuar~intee that the 296-acre parce) was going to wind up betng that anci felt tf~at in the futurc, after the overlay has been put o~ the property. it cauld cl~ange. Ne stac.e~J that if Anahe~m Hills~ Inc. wants this denslty. then It shoulel be a separate planned cornmunicy zone ac 1.G1 units to tt,e acre. Regarding th~ n~- commercial site fn the 90-acre parcel~ he felt it might be ~easonable for a corm~ercial site prnvidiny there was not ~ne at Nidden Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. Ne fe1L that Pach zoning actiar~ should be looked at individually and that is probably what Anaheim Nilis, Int, is doing right nvw with the 90-acre parcel; thac they are esking for an increase ~f zaninq therr. and for the 29E~ acres to remain low density (0-5). but when they increase the density on the ~0-acre parcel~ they need a Genera) Plan Amendrt-ent; and that they ore asktng for a I~iqher density on the 2~6 acres but they are also saying they are going to put 1ow density on it. tle asked Mr. BettencouPt his thouyl~ts regardin9 the 296-ecre parce) and the 1.61 unlts to the acre proposal. Mr. Bettencourt replied that in tliis instance that was the density proposed becau3e they pra~posed it as an amendment to [he planned cortm«nity zone and would involve a total of 146 single-family units and 331 multiple-family units~ a total of 477 units, or 1.61 units per acre. Commissioner ~lerbst suggested that tt~e Planniny Commission 5tipulate that thls part(cula~ area of 236 acres could only be deveioped at 1.61 units per acre regardless of what is built. Mr. BetCencourt indicated they have submitted e land use and zoning schedule and that 1.61 ~~nits is the gross basis of tlie entire property. He stated this was to give the Planning Commission assura~Ge in looking at the total planned community zone; should they approve ~ higher zone for the 90-acre parcel, it would more than offset the restrictions in land use on the other sid~. Ne pointed out they could not 1o anything further without approval; that a yrading plan has been completed and th~y would be in violation of the plannGd community if they exceeded the clwelling units per acre. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning~ painted out there is a difference between this Gmneral Plan Amendment and others in Anaheim Nills in that the Commission has MINUTES~ ~NAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 21~ 1477 7~~7~~ E I R~O~,., 207A AND 2078 AND GENFkAL PLAN AMENGMF~IT N0. 144 (cont i nued) always gotten a"PC" Planned Community zoning action at the same time and has seen the speciflc zones tt~at would implemen~ the ~ro~,osed densitles. If the Genara~ plan ts amondod at this time~ they will be submltting a"PC" petlti~n Including specific development xones ovor speclfic acreages. Commissioner Nerbst atated that he was looking for a quarantec that flve years after ailciwiny the multiple-family zonlr.~ ~n the 236-acre site~ th~t there will be no more than 1.G1 units per acrs. Annika Santalaht) indicated she was assun~ing tt~at Anahelm Htlis~ Inc. wil) be coming in wlth reclassiflc.etlon requests to put speclfic zones on the property and that those xones would tle tt down. She stated a change in land use would take a new zonin,y action. Mr. Bettencourt Indicated that these requcs[s might have been pr~Gessed concurrently but, given the nature of the 90-acre parcel~ it was not tl~eir intentic~n to exceed ti~e gross dens(ty. He statad they would be locked ir w(th the zoning npproval and if he underst~~~ the Clty Attorney's information~ sf~ould any o~e area of that pldnned ccxnmunity exceed the newly-esteblished yross density, it would have to be offset sa there would be the assurance the whole packaye would be carrect. Jack Wh(te~ Deputy City Attorne~~~ indicated this ts yen~rally correct; that the density~ as a whole~ cannot exceeJ whatever is shown on the General Plan. Commissiona~ Herbst indicated c~nce~n because tf~ey are aJd(ng this to an existing planned community development whlch I~as an overall hlgher dens(ty than being requested. Annika Santalahti explained that this is not really being added to the ex(sting planned community today; this is only the General Plan and that there will be other parcels of land which wlll be constdered with zones over all specifit acreayes. htr. Bettencourt indlcatcd that the add(tion ta ttie existin,y Flannec! tnnnnunity zone wauld be another proceedln~; tliat this Is d forrrard look at what that action hould take; that because of the multiple tmpact of the development, thcy are being held ~esponsible for trafflc circulation way off their property; that there are still individual xoning proceedinga that will be d~ne. Chairman Tolar indicated he did not understand why this was being handled as a change to the General Plan and ~hy it was not with a specific plan and reclass~fication for the 29G- acre parcel. Anntka Santalahti pointed out that ths General Plan is approved eventually by the C(ty Council and if the Commisston were to approve this General Plan Amendment and several z~ntng actio~s and the Council dld not like it~ then it would be rtghr_ back to the Commission~ and it is the polity c~f the department that the General Plan An~ndment be processed first; that after the City Council takes accion, they can cwne back in with what they want to implement the zoning. Jack blhite polnked out that tecause of the Subdivlsion Map P~t. the Commission cannot legally approve any subdtvlsian that is not in conformance with the General Plan. Gommissioner King indicated he felt Mr. Bettencourt was offering a guarantee as suggested by Canmissloner He~bst. Commissioner Herbs~ .~ated that he was concerned that over a period of three to five years that there wou~.: be changes in their management personnel, changes in the Planning Commission~ changes i-~ the Ctty Council~ and that he was prepared to proceed wtth caution. MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ No vembe~ 2t. 1977 77•761 E I R NOS. 207A ANO 2078 IIND GENERAI PLAN AMENOMENT N0, 144 (cont i nued) Mr. 6ettencourt ac,~reed this wes a Icgltimate concarn; that Anahelm Nllls~ Inc. could have flled a plannud community amendment e~nd zone chenge f~~ the 19A-ecre parcel ~nd ssid~ "Trust us. we are going to be fullowing with e 296-acre parcel anJ It wlll be developed at ~~ 1.6 units per scre. He stated they wer~ esl:in,y tha, this be canslder~d co~currnntly wtth the 90•ecra parcel. He ststed the Commissfo n is belny asked to make a Genera) Plan determinatlon. not to adopt a pl~ i~d cummunity amendmcnt ond zontng unttl they make sure the denstty rcduction is yc~ing t~ orcur. Commissloner Kfng statcJ Mr. Hettencourt was trying to guarantee thls 1.6 unlts per ac~e on the overall pattern flnJ that it was beiny record~d here coday~ and asked how you dlsquallfy a yuerentee ln writiny. Mr. Bettencourt indicr~ted that if the Gen~ral PlanAm~ndment and zoning actlons are approved, th~:y cannot draq che i r feet on the other act (on because they ' ave a grad) ng plan dPVeloped for the 29G acres alr~acly and are prepAred [a proceed with both sinult~n~ously. Ch~atrman Tola~ indic~tr.d ~ic felt if the Gtnera) Plan is amerde~l as proposed on the 296- acre parcel ~ i t appears that I t dc~ea yu;;rantee the 1.61 uni ts per acre. Jack White steted that a deslgnatic~n ~ould be placed on the Gener~l Plan Amesndment that the density oiti those ac~es would be limited Lo l.i,l untts per gre • acre. He Indicated he sti 11 was uncertain as to wF~eth~r or not Mr. Bett~~ncourt would be i~~terested in the change on th~.~ ?.96-acra parcel if thc Clty werc tu clisapprove the Genera) Plan Amendment ~n the. ~10-acre parcel~ and whether or nut he sees these as belny i~revotably t(ed t~gether. Mr. White asked Mr. Hettenc.ourt if he woul~ still want a change on the 296-acre parcel lf he dld riot yet the change on the y0-acre ~arccl, and Mr. Bettencourt repl?ed that he would still want that chanye. Commissloner Herbst (ndicoted he was conce~ned about one of the things expressed by f1ACMAC and probably pasc mambers of the Task forcc in reyard t~ ~state density. and (ndicated he real i zed that tliere 1 s a lot of acreaye shavi ng i n the area; Lhat i t bothers h(m that none of the cstate density is bei~y develaped; chat Peralta Hills seems to be going t~head wlth their development but that Anaheim Nills~ In c, is not yQiny eheaJ; and that he was reluctant to break dc~wn any more estate density until I~e sees some developed. He asked Mr. Bettancourt why thls partit~~lar 90-acre parceldoes not lend itself to estate density. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out the financial impact of zpreading their partlcipailon In the cost of construction of the cwo hiliside arter(als, S errano Avenue and Monte Vista 5treet~ over such a la+ de~sity would be prohibitive. Ns point~d out estate density of 250 lots on Serrano Avenue along the ridgetop, 31 lots at the intersection of Fairmont Boulevard and Canyan Rim Road and the grading is nearing completion o~ those and there ls a te~rly gaod terrain difference involved~ and 34 estat~ lots in a final trac*_ map at the top of Hidden Canyvn Koad, however, Lhe Ctty of Orange Is reluctant to release their s~here of i nf 1 uence wh i ch has s topped the deve 1 opmen t of that a rea , Fle i nd i catcd they have 250 estate lots In inventory but in order to provide municipa) services, need t~ satisfy the City of Orange; that they have a General Plan Amend~~~ent before that body at the present time and have asked that they drop their claims. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out the intersecCion of Nidden Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue on the aerial photoyraph and the area he had referredto eariier with a final tract map. Ne indicatcsd tha roads have been paved for 34 estate lots in that area; that ihe tentative map has been prepared for this but the City of Orange clafms their historic sphere of influence. Ne indicated the site is remote and is yenerally over the ridgetop and it MI NUTES~ ANANE I M C I ~Y PLAHNING COMMI SS ION ~ Novnmber 21 ~ 19 77 J~-762 EIR NOS. 207A AND 2078 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT N0. 144 (continued) could be developed with n~inlmal ~radlnq, •nd indlcatcd a g uaranteed c~rcenbelt area end fe I t thi s was en 1 deal area for est~te lots. Commissloner HArbst asked lf the City of ara~ge ca~jld service thac area or would the Clty of An~hetm have ta servlce it~ an~ Mr, Dottencaurt re~lied that they can servlce the nrea but the co~.t Is p~ohlbillve to thelr own texpayers a~~d t~ Anaheim tl(lls~ Inc.; that they would havc ta drive thruugh the City of Anaheim to g~t to it~ but that they wanted to proscrve thelr claim on tf~at portlon of the Irvine Ranch. Commissioner Nerbst referrsd to the General Plan and a ~onslderable amount of estate density along Monte Vi~,ta, anJ hr. Bettencourt replied they have no deflnlte plans fo~ that erea at this tlmcs. Comm) ss I oner Herbs t i ndi ca ted he was concerned Cha~ ( f the ~0-acre parcel I s approved wi th iric,resaY~d Ju~~~ily lc~ l~w sn~J u~Jiu~n, willi suu~ ~uur~~r~idi, whal wuu1J 5[u(~ Anahaim II(lls~ Inc. frorn yradually coming (n foi morr. (ncreased density a~d wo~ndered (f this Just a foo[- in-the-Coar on thet partleular ri~gel(ne. Mr. ~ettencouri replied that he dld not think th(s was Improbablc, ylven tt~c tmpr~~vement costs af the arca. Ne indicated the proposed density •;nder their plan for this area w~uld 2.83 units p~r gross acre, which is not dramatlcally different from estate dcns(t•y for the arca. Me polnted out there are not enough el i te home buyers i n the seve~n wcste~n states to purcl~ase the number of estate hort~es already planned fcr thts area, He indtcated Anahei~n Hills, Inc, is trying ta respond tc the marketplace and fclt they are providiny a reasonAble ampunt of estate densi ty in the area on property best suf ted to do that. Cummissioner Herbst indicated he had no objzction to the elustering of houses and having more optn space and felt thet would pres~rvc the amenitfes of the erea~ but would have to be very careful that the ope~ space Is preserved. He was concerned that somewhere dawnstream c 1 uste r t ng ~f houses would be al lawed to creat~ the denst ty. Ne stated he fe 1 t this is where the open space zonc rn(ght be used as a tool for the Commisslon to say, "0~ ~y ~ bu t 1 d 1. 5 to 2.; un 1 t s per acre up there, but the bal ance mus t be I n an open space zone sa that in the future we havc that protectlon." He referred to the problem of providing public u[iltty services in the area. Mr. Beetencourt stated he felt this wa5 a legitimate conc~rn and indicated he felt Anaheim H i 1 ls ~ I nc. were the on ly praperty a+ner that has to show 1 out of every 4 acres encumbered for legal open spa~e easement. He pointed out they owe the County of Orange 504 acres of guaranteed open space; that this ts a legal separ:~ion from the rSohler Drive area and that dwe 1 1 ing un i cs may not appear in thc green areas as indicated on the map. Ile indlcated he thought these recorded ea~ements werc probably anc of the rcasons why they were more cautious and rr~re defensive about walking away from any land use entf tlements wh i ch they may have . Commissioner H~arbst refer~ed co the area fran Canyon Rim Rnad to Serrano Avcnue and the balance of the property which Is several hundred acres and (ndicated the bulk is for ope~ space and estate density. He stated that he would be in favor of attaching an open space zone when t t Is approved by the Ci ty Co~-+ci 1. He fel t th is vuas one way of guaranteei ng open spacQ In the future without a master plan for the ~rhole area. Mr. 9ettencpurt stated they do not 5how dwelling units in those a~eas reserved for County open space easments . Commissioner Herbst l,~dicated he was nnt talking about open space easements - he was talking about the ground left. He ind(caced they were ta lking about 1.6 units to the acre~ which means there nrouid be e lot of ground left available for somethi~g else. MI NUTES ~ I1NAN~ IM C ITY PLANN 1 NG COMMISS ION~ Novembar 21 ~ 1977 77-763 E I R NOS, Z41A AIiD 2018 ANO GENERAI. PLAN AMENDMENT Np. 144 (cont i nued) Clialrman Tolar stated that rathcr than discuss the d(fferent trede-offs~ the Commission should el ther approvc or deny th~ rrnposa) an the 296-ecre p~ercel. Commisslono~ Herbst Indlceted he a~r~ed but felt tl~at p~obably the 3Q~~cre percel request had been prematurc and fe 1 t be `~re a reduct i on I n dens ( ty I a yranted ~ he :voul d 1 1 ke ta see s piet~,re of the balence. Ne indtca:ed ha recognized the need for mixed housing in thls area a~d dld not Iike to see tt d~ne just a faM acres at a time, Ne (ndfcated he would 1( ke to take anochcr 1 ook at the estate dens i ty and i f there i s e need fc+r somc comme~clal~ he dia no[ went to see a red dot but wanted to pinp~(nt the locetion. Cortmisslaner Barnes indlcated she felt the problem was the Commisslon cltd not havr spacifit zoniny over certain areas; that this wss the flrst :ime they hed dealt wlth a large parcel. She stated this has been planned by Anahelm Hills~ Inc.~ and Task Force and the C i ty , and that the deve 1 upmen t Anaha I m 11 I 1 I s~ 1 nc. has come up w i th i s cnt i re 1 y different and now the General Plan f-as to bc chan~~ed ta flt the development. She fndic~tecl this was discussed fr,r three years and felt tt wuu1J nut br. resolved untll some sort of inethod is designed w~,r_reby the Commisslnn can spPCificaliy zone a particular area; and thae she d(d not thinl: they coul~ s~~er.IficAlly z~ne areas on thts large a bns(s. Annika Santalahtl polntPd out Che plannud conmunlty zone docs provi~le for thet; th~t the ordinance requlr~s s~~eclfic developrnent plans for every lncrement and it coulci be applled co a big acreage, Commissioner Barnes felt one probl~sn (s clicre is no mastPr plen for this area~ Just a general plar~ fo~ the entirc arca, Commissioner nerbst pointcd out his concern with the statement ln the EIR regarding a new element such as a Ilyht industrial park to be int*oduccd Into the Plan as an alternAte characteristic of thc: land usc. ~tr. ~cttcncourt •~'^d that this was not their proposai; that it wes in responsc to all t+~e alternatives that ~.~d have been dcveloped. He indieated they dld not want anyone saying a reyional commercial center is ~~roposed for that s i te; that tliey have enough troublc defendiny the 5~acre s i te. 'onxnissioner Herbst indicated he was stlll concerned ahout tl~e air current flow; that the EIR madc a statement that a lot of yrad(ny I~es been done and nothing has changed~ but that they heve reache:l the ~idyeline and he felt any maJor cuts in the canyon walis cauld change the ai r current and t:~e protectlon of certain areas, fie stated that Santa Ana C~nyo~ is a tunnel for Santana wi nds and tt~at any drastlc cuts cauld change the atr cu~rent flow through that canyo~ an~i should be looked at very carefully. Arini ka Santalah[1 statecl sh~ woul d l ike to clari fy one slateme~t rnade earl ter by Mr. Bettencourt In whicli he refePre~ to two previously approved plans. She indicated when Genera) Plan Amcndmcnt Nos. lI.3A and 123B we~e approved~ that both times planned community r~;ans had come in aiid that they eovered smaller incremants of the 4200 acres, and that the enti r~ 4200 ecres was ~lv~aps shawn wi th an overal 1 donsi t,~ for uti 1 I tles and other serv i ces wl~i ch exceeded thp pl anned commun i ty ereas. The speci f i cs of the ar~as outs ( de tl-e planned communlty ereas were ncver approved and they were just there for infarmational purposes; that the Commission has never approved anything on this piece of lend beforc. I t was noted r,hat Env! ronr~ental impact Report No. 207A was recommended for cert ( f i cat: ~n at the Octobtr 26~ 1977 rrw^-etiny. ACT10N: Ca~xnissioner iierl~st offered a motion~ seconded by Commissione~• King and HOTION ttl D(Gommissloners Jo~~nson a~d linn being absent), that Environmental Impact Report No. 2078 ~ wh i ch cov~ ~s th~4 add i t i on of two areas to the Anahe i m H I] 1 s P 1 anned Cortmun i ty 2one of General Plan Amen~iment No. 144~ having been considered this date by the Anahelm City Planniny Comm~ssion und evidence~ both written and oral, f~avl~g been presented to -~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO MMISSION~ November 21~ 19 77 77•764 EIR NOS. 207A AND 2~B AND GENEWIL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 144 (contlnued) suppleme~t Dreft EIR Mo. 2078, finds th~t sald EIR doas co nform to the Gity end St~te EIR Guidelinas and to the California Environmantal Quelity Act, and does hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify setd EIR is In conformsnce w~th the Californie Environmental Quality Act. COMMISSIONER LINN ARRIVEU !1T TNE MEETING AT 2:55 P•M~ ACTION: Commissioner Herbst affereJ Kesolution No. PC77-252 8^ ~~~ed for Its passege and a~optTon ~ that the Anahe 1 m C i ty P 1 ar,n i ng Commi ss lon edopt and reccxnmend to the C I ty Crwncll of the City of Anahelm a dupt(on of Anahelm General Plan Amendment No. 14~+~ Open Spece Element and Amendment to the Land Use Element~ recommdnding that Exhibit A modlfled with de nsity restriction over~l) (1.61 units per gross ec re) be adopted for Area II - Anaheim Nills area south uf Nohl Rancl~ Road, to desic~nate t~illslda low denstty (up to 5 dwelling untis per gross acrc) aJJoccnt to thc existin9 hillsi~le Inw density~ hill~ld~ medlum density (up to 16 dwelltny units por gr~ss acre) co ncentrat~d on the easterly portion of the site and ope~ space designated for the uniq ue~ natura) feetures of the land (narroa~r cenyons) and the area south of the Sadd~e Club; that no en+endrnent to the existing Generai Plan be made for Area I 1 I- Anaheim Hllls • 90 ac~es east of the {ntersectlon of Canyon Rlm Road and Serrano Avenuc; that the Gvals and Pollcles of Publlc Opcn Space and Exhlblts "Publlc Psrks and Recreetian" and "Trallway Corridors"; Goals and Policizs of Private Open Spacc and Exhlbit "Potenttal Pr{vate Open Sp ace"; and Goals and Pollcles of Vacant Land in Anahcim ano Exhlbit "Vacant Land Invento ~y" be adopted. On roll call~ the for~going resolution was passed by the f ollowing v~te: AYES: COMMISStONERS: BAftNCS, DAVID~ HERBST, hING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JU~~NSOt~ ABSTtiIN: GOMMISSIONERS: LINN (nol having been present fo ~ entlre hearing) I TEM N0. 2 , 0 TITLE td, CONTIMUED PUBLIC NEARIN G. To cnnsider an Open Space OPEN SPACE (OS) ZONE (OS) Zone as a means f o r implementing the obJectives of the Open Space Eleme ~t of the Anah~im General Plan. Subject llmendment to Title 1$ of the Anahelm Municlpal C ode was conttnued f~um the meetlny of October 26~ 1977 to be considered cotiJunct~~ely with General Plan Amendment No. i4~~. The staff rep~rt to the Planning Commtssion ciated Navernbe~ 21~ 1977 ~'as presPnted. ACTION: Cc~mmissioner Herbst offered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner 8arnes a~d MOTlON ~D (Commissianer Johnson belny absent and Commissioner Ltnn abstaining. having no; been present for the entire hearing)~ that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recammend to the City Counci) that amendment to Title 13~ Anaheim Municipal Code - Open Space (OS) Zone. be adopted. RECESS A ten-minute recess was cailed at 3:00 p.m. RECONVENE .+~ The meeting was reeonvened at 3:10 p.m. MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novemb~r 21~ 197J 7J-76~ I TEM NO . _3 I~T~11~NM~NTAI. IMPACT REPORT Np. ?1~, Pro~osPd widentn~ of ~rookhurst 5trect betwcen Katella Avenua and 8u11 Ro~d. Therc warc~ 1Z people IndlcAttny thclr inte~cst in subJect ttem~ ancf elthough the staff ~eport to the Planniiiy Conxnlssian dated November 21~ 19J) was not read at the publfc hear(ng~ It (s rafcrred to anJ mAJe a part of thc minutes. Chairman Tolar pointod out chat the Planiiing Cornm(ss(on is t~caring th(s item because af the env(ronment~-1 ir~pact rer>ort and tl~at they wi 1I not discuss what Is the best plan for the proposed strect wideniny; tt~at this will be rehearci at a Clty Council meetiny and the apinlons expressed wauld have a lot irx~re bearing therc. Eiob lierr~ C(vi 1 Enyineertny Assistant~ indicateei the proJecG would increase tf~e width of Uroc~kt~urst from fuur l~nes to six l~nes. In ad~fi[lon~ s(dewalks would be constructed~ railroad crossing yotes Installed at the Soutt~ern Pacif(c Rallroed c~ossing~ traffic. si~nels At the intersectfun of Urc-o{;hur;t Strcet ai~ci Corritas Avenue wou1J ~e Improvrd~ and a landscaped rned(an will bc provided and parking on hoth sidcs of the street. He indicated a bloc,k wal I ap~,roxim~~tcly b ~r ) fcet r~iqh wi 11 bc constructed to mf tigatc sAUnd. Ne stoCeJ the p~oJe:ct is necessary in order to acconmodAte increased traffic which would exceed the present capac(ty of Bruokhurst Street br_fore 19i35~ an~ he (n~icated the E I ft lias bcen rev i eweJ bv thc E I R Rev i ew Canmi t tce and i s nc~w be fo re tt~e P I ann i ng Canm(ssiun foi• r~cummendation. A1 Pri[chard stated he or~ns a business on Qrookhurst Street; thaC he was pressnt ta hear the Plannir~g Commission conxnen[s; that he d(d noc think che EIR is complete~ and that he waneed to make hls point because all the re~port covers is thc effect on the nelghborhood of the widening of the street; tf~at a certain number of ~racs will be removed and parking wtll be prvvided~ wliich is fir~c~ but it lcavcs out the point that those residents on Brookhurs[ Street are going to fi~ve a wall within 3 or ~~ fect of thetr front doer; that thsre is no n~cntian of the effect un the property values and no alternative solutlon to the problem. Ne in~lcated his impression fron~ the evaluation was that the recommendatton was based on the cost, and that he certainly had no objection with that; he lfked to see things done as cheaply as possible buc not at the expense of the relattvely fcw people affected by the p~opc~sed method ~f wideniny the streel. Chairman Tolar indicated that there is a canplete document which is Environmenta) Impact Report No. 210 and suygested that those interested property awners should revtew it; that it giv~s ~n-depth studias in relationship to everythiny that lias been done; and that he certalnly would be gtad io turn his copy over to any pr~perty owner. He indtcated that tf the EIR ls reconxnznded for approval~ and he thought i; did answer most of the questions~ that it will be discussed by the Cicy Council for a dec(sion on the best plan and how !t affects the people~ bui that the Planning Cort+mission coulcl not discuss fhase particular things; the only things they could discuss wou:d be whether or not the EIR does what it is suppc~sed to do. Jack White, Deputy Ctty Attorney~ stated that after reviewing the EIR~ if the property owners find concerns they can be expressed at the Clty Council hearing. Mr. Herr indicated he f~ad three extra copies and suygesced the properiy owners share these reports~ and indtcated if there was someone representing a group~ he would be happy to givo that persor~ a copy of the r~port. ACTION: Commissioner He~bst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissione~ King and MOTiON CA-~ED (Ccmmissioner Johnson being absent and Commis~ioner Barnes voting no), that the '~ )7•766 MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novambnr 21~ 1977 EIR N0. x10 (continued) Anahelm City Pla~ning Commisalon, after having Gonsider•ed Environmental Imp~ct Report No. 210 this dete and evtdence~ both written and oral~ having been presentecf to supplemn~t DraFt EIR Ne. 210~ f(nds that sald EIR does confo~m to the City a~d St+~te EIR Guideltnes and to the Californla Environm~ntal Quallty Act~ and does he~eby ~ecommend to the City Council Lhat they cerCify that said EIR is in conformance w(th thc Celifornla Envlr~nrnental Quality ACt. Commissloner Barnes indlcated her "~o" vote reflected her feel(ng thdt there wes one fact whlch waa not~eLhcu~roximitycofdtliedbl'ock wallthnSheffclt~that washt portent and~had not the straot an p been adequately covered. ITE1 t~0. ~ p~t~ ;,. NEARING. OMINER: ANAHEIM MEMORIA: HOSPITAL~ E I R N~GAT I VE DEGLAf~A7101~ ; IC N N0. - 8-26 1111 West La Palma Avenuc~ Anaheim~ CA 9'18U1. ONAL S ERM N0. 1 71 Subject property is ~ rec[angule~ly-shaped perhavln of land consisting of approxlmately 0,3 acre~ 9 a frontage of approxtn~ately 11G feet on the north side of Hermosa Drive~ iiaving a rnaximum depth uf approximately 104 fect~ bet~g located epproxlmately 4~-0 feetDr~veh ~Prop~rtynpresentlyfclasslfinedARSn720Qe(RESIUENTIAL~SSiNGLE-as 1133 and 1139 Hermosa Fl1MILY) ZONE. REQU~STEU CI.ASSIFICATION: CO (COMNERGIAL~ OFFICE ANU PROFESSIONAL) 20NE. RFQUES7ED CONDITIONAL USE: TO EXpAND AN EXISTING NOSPITAL. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to sub,ject petitton~ and although the steff reparti~o;5h~~ferreJnto a dimadenadPart ofvthc'minutes~77 was not read at the public hearing~ Randy Bosch~ Dan RoMelend b Associates, expiained the proposal is to expand the pa~k{ng lot af Anaheim Memurial~SH~aSextansion~v+1111meet~alleCodearequir1ementsaand provides~thetextraNe indlcated the prop P parking necessary. THE PUBIIC NEARIIJG WAS CLOSEU. Commissio~e~ Barnes asked Mr. Bosch if he was ar~are of the park(ng problems duc to the configuratlon of the parking. She axplained she had talkedd~fficulttto getdinuandsout ofe hospital and lt was *.he general consensus that lt was very spaces. Mr. Dosch raplied that they were aware of the problems and cl~anges have bee~ made to the plans. ACTION: Commissioner Ktng offered a mation. seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION GARRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent). that the Anaheim City Planning Canmisston has revlewed the sub}ect proposal to r~classify the zo~iny from RS-7?.00 (Rasidential~ Single- Fami13~) to ~~ ~Commercial, Office and Professionall to expand an existing hospital on approxim. 3 acres having a frontag~ of approximately 116 fect on the north side of Hermosa C aving a rr~ximum depth of approximately 104 feet, and being located approximata., '''~0 feet north of the centerllna of La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration frnm the requirement to prepare an envi~onmental impact ~epart on the oasis that there would be no significant i~dividual or cumulative adverse environmental impact dsethe subJectrprop~rtytfor commercia~leprofessionalnandtmedA ~heim General Plan des~ynate MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 110 1Q77 77-167 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. _7_7_'18-26_~N_D CONOITIOHAL USE PERMIT N0. Jensity residgntiel Innd uses canmcnsuretc wlth che propnsal; thet no sensitive envlro~rtwnte) Impacts are involved In the proposal; that the Initial SCudy submitted by the petitlonar tndicates no slgniftcant indivldual or cumulative edverse environmental tmpacts; ar~! tht+t the Neyativc Declaration substantlating the forc~,~oing °indings (s on flie ln the Clty of Anahetm Pl~nning Qepartment. ACTION: Commissio~er King offered Resolutlo~ No. ~C77-253 and moved for (ts passege and a~op fon~ that the Anahelrn Cicy Planntng Commtssion does hereby grant Petitlon for Reclasslfication No. 77~7~-26~ subJect to Interdepartmental Cortrilttee recommendations. On roll cali~ the foregoing r~esolution wa~ passed by the follow(n~ vote; AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: ~ARNES~ OAV10, l1ERHST~ KINC~ LINN~ TOLIIK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE At35ENT: COMMISSIONERS; JONNSON Commissloner King offered Resol~.~tlon No. PC77-2~~~ and moved for its nassage and adoption~ that the "naheim City Planniny Commissio~ does hereby grant Petitlon for Conditianal Use Permit No. 17/1, to permit expansion ~f an existtng hospital, subject to Interdep~rtmental C~mmittee recommendatlons. On roll call, tiie foregoiny resalutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMNISSIONERS; BARNES~ NOES: COMMISSIpNERS; NONE AdSENT: COMMISSfONERS: JONNSON ITEM N0. $ ~E~T~VE ~ECLARATION n orr No. 7 -7~-30 DAVIU, NERHST, KING, LINN~ TOLAR PUHLIC HEARING. OWNLR: CITY OF ANAHEIM~ 204 East tincoln Avenue, Anahelm~ CA ~2805. SubJect property, a rectangularly-shaped parcel oF land conststl~g of approxlmately 2.1 acres loca~ed at the southeast corner of aomneya Drive and Swan Street~ heving approxtmate frontages of G60 feet on the south side of Romneya Orive and ly6 feet on the west stde of Swan Strtet. Is Froposed for reclessif(cation from the RM-120U (RESIDE:HTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE to the CO (COMMERCIAL~ OFFILE AND PROFESSIONAL) ZQNE. There was no o~e tndicating their prese~c~ in oppositicm to subJeci request, and although the staff report to ihc Planning Commission dated November 21~ 1977 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred t~ and madc a parf. of the mfnutes. THE PUBLIC IiEARING WAS CLOSED. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for 2oning~ explained this petitton was initiated by the Rnaheim City Council and that subJect property~ located at the Southesast corner of Romneya Drive and Swan Street, has been leased to the Un(versity of Californ(a at Irvina, University of Medicine. ACTION: Commi~sioner Kin4 offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Davtd and MOTIOM CARRIED (Commisstoner Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Conmission has reviewed the subi~ct proposal to reclassify the zoning from RM-1200 (Residenttal~ Multiple-Family) to CU (Commercial~ Office and Professional) on approxima2ely 2.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Romneya Orive and Swan Street, hav(ng approximate frontages of 460 feet on the souti~ side of Romneya Drive and 196 feet on the west side of Swan Street; and does herebY approve the Negattve Oeclaration frvm the re~quirement to prepare an envtronmental impact report o~ the basis that there would be no siqntflcant individual or cumulativC ad:~erse enaironmental impact due to the aaproval of this Negative MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLA"NING CQ'1Mt5510N~ Nov~rrber 21~ 1977 77-7b8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. T7•7g~30 (contlnued) Declaraticx~ sinc~ the Anahein~ Ge~eral Plan designaCas the subJect praperty for commercial- professi~nal I~nd uses commensurate with the proposal; thot no sensitive e~vironmental lmpects are inv~ived in the proposal; lhat the Inttlal Study submitted by the petttloner lndicatos no signlflcent Individual or cumulative adversa envlronmencal Impacts; and that the Negatlve Declaretlon aubstantlatinq the foregolnq findtngs Is on flle fn the City of Aneheim Planning Despartment. ACTION: Canm-issioner King ofifered Resolution No. PC77-255 Arid moved for 1ts passege and a~c opt ~on ~ that the Anahe i rn C i ty P 1 a~in I ng Commi ss f on daes hereby g rant Pet I t i on far Reclesslficatlan No. 77-73-3U~ subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recamiendatlons. On rol) call~ the foreyoing resalutian was passed by thr following vote; AYC~: COM~115SIQ`lERS: 911RNE5, DAVID~ NERBST~ K,ING~ LINN~ TOL/+R NOCS: COMMISSIQI~ERS: ~IONE ABSENT; COMMI SS I ONERS : .IOIINSON ITEM N0. 6 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PU~LIC HEARING. OWNEtt; GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE . ~ I~~SURANCE CQ.~ 1501 Loc:ust Strcet~ St. Louis~ MO G31o3. AfENT: VELVET KIi1G1~TS DRUM b BUGLE CQRPS~ P. 0. liox 11391~ Sante A~a~ CA 92711. Petltioner requests perm(ssion co ESTABLISFi A PRIVATE CLU6 on property described as an irregularly- shaped parce) of land conststiny of approxlmately 11 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Sunkist Street, haviny app~oximate frontages of 380 feet on the south side of Carritos Avenue and 13Bp reet on the west side of Sunkist Street~ and further descrtbed as lal5-tt South Sunkist ~treet. Property presently classified ML fINUUSTRIAI. LIMITED) ZONC. There was no one indicatiny their presenz~ in op{x~sitlon to subJect request~ and although the staff report to the Planning Gornmission dated November 21, 1977 was not read at the public hearing~ it is ~eferred to and made a part of the minutes. Sheldcm S. Goodman~ Atto~ney for the Velvet Knight Drum b Buyle Corps~ indicated subJect request is to allow the petitioner to conduct ~~nyo gart-es; that they were forced to move because of redevelopmc~t. lic Indicated an err~r in the staff report; that bingo gamcs are typically canducted on Wednesday~ Friday and Sunday evenings from 6:30 p.m. to 1~:30 p.m. rather than Wednesday, Friday and Satu~day evenings. THE PUBLIC NEARI~IG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King asked Jack White~ Qeputy City Attorney, about the acti~n taktn by the Zoniny Enforcemer~t Officer referred to in the staff report~ and Mr. white rtplied that apparently thare was a complaint lodged against the petitioner. Mr. Goodman indtcated that the complainf was because the petitioner did not have a conditional use permlt but they were not aware they needed one. Jack White stated thaC testimony indicates the premises will be used prlma~lly for bingo game~ but that~ accarding to Code, it must be used for other purposes; that they must have a business office or some ~ther type of activity and want~ed to be sur~ th~e applicant was a~are of it~ and that he would have to comply with those conditions, as weli. Chairman Tolar stated it was his understanding that they wtshed to hold boostPr mecCings at the subject property~ and Mr. Goodman replied they da have booster meetings for the drum and bugle corps at this location. s MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 21~ 1977 7~-7G9 Elit CATEGORIGAL EXEMPTION-CIASS i ANU CONDITIONA4 USC PCRMIT N0. 17G6 (continued) Commissloner Ilerbst indicatod he felt Approval of tF~t~ condlttonal use permlt would be an Ontruston into the industria~ ereo. He felt this was a fdirly n av tndustriel devalopment along Sunklst and t~ alic~w a non-p~oflt organization to go tnto an induscrial zone ~Id not creotc a good Indust~ial ~nvironmant and fclt Ic would have ~ lang-ranye~ detrimenta) effact on the industrfal commun(ty. Mr. Goodman stated he would 1(ke to makc one polnt~ that this oryan(zation Is keeping abaut 125 boys uff the streQts ond xhat it ts difficult to find approprlatc facilitt~s. Commissioner Nerbst indicated he fiad no obJectlons to the boys but did obJect ta the hundreds of people playiny bingo and dld not feel tt was conducive to an tndustria) environment. Commissloner Ki~y pointed ouc individual letters from I~ of the neighbors~ indiceting this use (s not hinde~iny thcir business. Commtsslo~er Herbst pointeJ out that bingo has ,Just been approved in the City of Anahelm and (s growtng~ anJ felt it ~s opentng "Pand~ra's box" to allow (t in indus~rtal areas. Comm(ssioner kiarnes suyyested tf~e Commission put some so~t of time timit on the permit and if It does not work out~ then tt~e permit cbes not have to be conttnued. CooxnlsSioner Hnrbs[ was concerned that thls would set a precedent~ and c:unmfssloner Barnes Indicatnd she felt a precedenL has already been set and did not see •~t~z~ything wrong w(th this use an Wedncsay~ Friday and Su~~day cvenings from 6:30 to 10;?b; that most of the industrial areas have been vacent for a couple of hours at 6:3~% in ttie evening; and that there are no problems w(th parking. She stated if there is a problem afcer the permlt has been granted~ then the condteional use permit could be r~'+iewed. Commtss(oner Kiny suggested that a conJitlon be addeo to the ~pproval that the s~se Is subJect to revicw in one year. Co~missioner navid asked if that would be acceptable to the petitioner. Commissioner King offered a resolutio~ for approval subJect to a o~e-year kerm~ subJect to review of the Planning Commission. Comnissioner Nerbst indtcated he felt he knew what effect somethinq like th(s would have on the tenants; that after a bustness gets going with its eight-hour-a-day shift, th~y want to put on a swing shlTt and then the employees cannot find a parking place. Commissioner Dayid asked Mr. Whlte if cond(tiona) use permits are irrevocable, and M~. Wh(te re.olied that conditions can hc, added or modified to protect the publtc welfare; that If there should be a substantial parking problem, then the Commission could make whatever modifications were necessary. Commisytoner Linn indicated he was also concerned about [he parking and that these r5 ~eighbors ere the current tenants and not the owners of the property; that if current tenants move out~ new tenants may be discouraged because they could only be allowed a one- shift bus(ness. Harvey Berish~ 177b West Sumac, Anaheim, state' he would like to point out that this operattun has been going on more than six mont~~s already and that some of the players wtre in the audience. He indicated renters in the indust~ial park were informed what was coming into the are~. He indlcated they had receiv~d Anaheim's Redeveiopment Agen~y's assistanca in relocating their operation and had eliminated Qarking problems. and they w ~ , MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ November 21~ 1977 77•774 EIR CATEGOi11CAl EXEMPTIQN-CLASS 1 ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1766 (continued) would be abin to functlon without any p~oblems to tf~elr nelyhbors. Ne indlcatad this Is not only ~ bingo hal) but ts a central place to do thelr businass and ts open from 8~30 e.m. to ;:00 p.m.~ five days a week~ with•a full-tlme secret+~ry and office manager. -ie stated they do liold booster club meetlnys and tliat the faci 1 ity is av~l l~able to o~her groups~ such as cerebral palsy for thelr tund-raising canaste games~ and that thQy offer It to any homeowners sssociations tn the area for e meeting hall. He Indic~ted thcy were va ry aware of th4 parking problems and had submitted maps to thr City Indi~eting other parktng at adJacent locations. He stated he was surprised to discover~ after being In operstinn for aeven nanths~ that they have been opc~ating illegally~ and asked thet the Commission allow them to contlnue th~ bingo games to support the drum and bugla corps and keep 2S0 kids Involved and off the streets. C1lzabe[h Jimenez~ 246 tatrd~ Anahcim~ lndicated the organizntion would be r~illing to make cert~in th?~t ~~y (~a~kin~ aracws thac should be reserved in the canter are not used. It was notcd that the Dlrector of the Planning Uepartment has determ(ned that the proposcd activity falls Nithin the deTinitlon of Sect(on 3.01~ Class 1, of the Clty of Anaheim Culdellnes to the Requirements for an Envl-~nmental Impact Report and is~ therefore~ categor(celly exampt from the requlrement to file An EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Ktny oFfered Resolution No. PG77-256 and rr~ved for its passage and a~optfon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comnission does hereby grant Petltion for Conditional Use Pcrmit No. 1766 for a one-ycar pertod, subJect to review by the Planning G~mmission for further axtensions of ttme; and subJect to petttloner's stipulat(o~ ta provide the necessary tollct fac(litles, wtth one toil~t compartment for each s+x to be designated for the handicapped and three drinking fountatns t~ be installed subject to Bullding Olv(sion approval; and subJect to Interdepartmental Cannittee recam~endat(ons. On roll call~ the foregolny resolution was passed by the f~liowing vate: AYES; COMNISSIONERSt SAKI~~S~ DAVID, KiNG~ LINN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST ABSENT; COMMfSS10NER5: JONNSON MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ Novembe~ 21~ 1977 7)-771 ITEM N0. E~ORICAI EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 PUBLIC HEAitING. OWNERS; FRED ANU QOkEEN CARFAGNINI, C NU N L U F. ERM NU. 7 J 12062 filuebell, Garden Grove~ cn y26~o. AGENTS: MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. SWANSON. 1~872 Ravenna Drive~ Yorba Llnda, CA 92GII6. Petitloner requests permission ta ESTA~LI5N A PR[:-SC1i001 on propr.rty describeci as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of Idnd consistlnq of ~pproxlmot~:ly 0.1 acre I~avfng a fronteye of appraximately 58 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet~ being located approxlmately 9G0 feec cest of tl~e centcrlinc of State College BoulevArd. and further described as 2207 East Llncoln Avenue. Property prese~itly cl~ssified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGIE-FAMILY) zON~. There wer~ two persnns indicated tt~eir presence in oppositi~n to subject petitlon~ and althouyh thc statf report to the Planntny Commission dated November 21~ 1977 was not read at the pubilc hcaring~ (t is retcrrcd to and made a part ~f the minut.es. J. J. Tashira read seve~ letters reccived in oppos(tlon fram Thelma Fry dated ~:ovembe~ 13~ i~'J7; 5hamma Enterpr(ses~ Inc. dated November 1~~ 1977; f~arry FI. ancf ;~ne N. McPhee dated November 16~ 1~77; Raymond W. 8urke dated November 16~ 1~)J; Roy N. payne datcd November 16~ 1977; Naom( Shira dated November 16, lyi7; and Jo~l C. and Mlldred A. Young dated November 16~ IyJJ. ThcSe letters are on file (n ttie Planniny Uepartment. Mary Swanson~ 1~3ti72 Ravenna Drive~ Yorba Llnda~ aqent f~r the petltloner, was present Lo answer any qucstions. Mrs. Barry McPhee, 3)~0 Eas~ Kirkwood~ Urange~ author of one o~ the le[ters ~ecelved in opposition~ state:d she wouid like ta add a couple of polnts: 1) regardtng the 6-foot chalnlink fence to be const.ructeJ across the front on Lincoln Avenue for a sound barrier. She did not feel this wuuld be sufficient, maybe a solid wall wc~uld break the sound. This was for a play ~rea adJoininy within l or j feet two of the offices ~n thelr property and felt tf~is would be a close concentration for a dentist or attorney wf~o might hAVe an offtce there; and l) she indicated concern tf~at perents woul~i be parklny t~ drop off their chlldren~ creating a traffic I,azard and asked that the Commission please consider chis request not vallcl, or to deny it. Mrs. Swanson stated she was in sympathy with the homeowners in this particular a~ea and reaitzed change is very hard for some people to take~ but she cc~ld not see how the laughter uf ch(Idren could annoy anyone and had no sympathy there. She indicated~ as far as trafftc was concerned gettiny into Qall Road and blocking traffic. as long as there was a drive-through alleyway sufficient for twc~-way traffic she d!d not see any problem. THE PUBLIC HCARING ~IAS CLOSEU. Chairman Tular asked ~1rs. Swanson her role and she indicated she would be conducting thc pre-school herself. Cortxntssioner King asked Paul Sireger~ Traffic Engineer, about the traffic problem and indicated he had noticed there was "n~ parking" signs posced on one side of Lincoln Avenue and asked if the north side of Lincaln stiould not be posted for no parking. Mr. 5inger replied that th~ City has been trying to remove parking alon~ Lincoin~ but there sre still quite a few residents on that street and parkin~ would havs to be matntained as much as Qossibie. Ne indicated that as properties change parking wtii be eliminated. Commissioner King indtcated he had walked along Lincoln and ttiat the traffic really moves fast in that location. MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CI'T'Y PLANNING COMhIISSIQN~ November 21, 1977 77-772 EIR CATEGO RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CONDtTIONAL USE RERMIT N0. 116] (continued) Chsirman 7olar tndicated he had IookeJ at the parcel ~nd recognized thet there are galnq to be aortK: chenyes And tl~at the homeowners recognize there are going to be: some changes along Llncoln~ but it would appear to I~im th~t tlie use of a nre-sGhoo) w(th the number of chtldren Involved would not be a sultable use for this property. Ile indicated he w~s co~cerned obout trafflc and that he was uneware of any conditlanAl use perm(ts ~rented for a use of thls type wt~ere access was an alleyway with dumping of trafflc into an alley and he did not fe~l thls loc,atiun on Lin~oln Avenue would be conducive to people plckiny up thel r chi lclren and dropp(n~ tl~em off li~ frant of the pre-schn~l ~ and tl~at people wl I1 take the least Ilne of resistance and it coulc~ creale some real problems. Ne tndicated he was (n sympathy wict~ the needs of Anaf~eim for tlits type of scl~ool end hoped tlie petittoner would b~ eble to finci a sui[able location. Ne lnuicated he felt tliis was a busy business !n terms of people cominci an~ yoln~~~ espectally at peak hours. Mrs. Swanson indicatcd th~re was an cxisting pre-schuol tYe;s[ on Lincoln an~i Chnt ~re- schools in the arc~a are overflowinq with chil~rcn anci tl~cre is a ~efintte need for this type of service, She felt the traffic was made up of parents who need a place to leave thelr children~ and asked if there were plans f~r the w(deninca of Lincoln Avonue. Jay T(tus~ Office Enyl-~eer, indicate.i tha[ Linc.oln Avenue would ultin~a[ely be widened but there are n~ plans at pres~nt for that wideninq~ and hc was not sure when it woulcJ take ptace. Commissloner Nerbst referred to C~-e Front-Un Study which h~~s been done fn connection with this particular block of tiouses a~id statecl Is was the ~~eneral consensus at that time that the use shuuld bc wnunercial-office, and the reason for that was that (t was probably the lowest use coaxnerclally~ traffic-wise~ anci would create the lowest arn~unt of incoming customers~ and tc+ interJec: a pre-schonl at this location woul~i not be conducive c~ commercisl-offlce use ari he felt ic would -,e negligent on the Planning Commission's part to al low tfi t s type of usF: i n tiie area ~ bnd refe rred to the ch i l dren who wou 1 d be screami ng and playing in the yard :~n-i ~iJ nut thinl: that would be conducive t~ the business next door~ and he couid not votc for 5cxr.ethiny like thls in this area. !t was noted that the D~reGtor of thc Planning U~partment h~s determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3•O1~ Class 1. of the Clty of Anaheim Guidelines to the Rtquirements for an Environmental impact Report and is, therefore. categorically exempt from tt~e requirement to ~ile an EIR. ACTION; Commissioner Linn offered Resolut6on No. PCJ7-25J and moved for (ts passage snd a~coptron~ that the Planninu Commission docs hereby deny Pctition for Condttional Use Permlt No. 1767 on thc basis that subjecc property Is located on Lincoln Avenue, sn arteria) tiiyhway, and is separated frcxn single-family residences by a publit alley and is. theref~re~ not suitable for tl~is type of use which would potentially cause a heavy impact on treff(c at peak h~urs~ creatin~ a hazard~ and would also detriment~liy impact the nearby residential us~s. Mrs. Swanson stated she would 1(ke to speak in defense of the children; that (t seems eve rybody is afraid of noise at a pre•schuol and indicated there would be only 10 to 12 children at a time play(ng in thc yard; and that it is a large area and nowhere else in M aheim cauld she find a pre-schoal witl~ an area tt~is large fc~r SO or 12 children to play in at one ticne. Chairman Tolar indiceted his suppart of the resolution of denial would not be because af Yhe children but bec~use af the traffic; that he felt this type of use would create trafftc congestion and he~ personally~ did not want to see that happen. He indicated he ~,.. ~. MINUTES. ANAh1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Novamber 21~ 1977 77~773 EIR CATEGORIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 176J (continued) drives prst yeveral pre•sct~cwls en~l that witl~ the parents dropping off thc ch(Id~en~ tl~ere is yulte an impact o~ trafflc around those schools duriny peok h~ours. Commissfonor UaNid indlcated he wanted the record ta 4how his was not a vote Agelnsc ri~ild~en but e specffic land use invalved. nn roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc»viny vote: AYES: COf1MISS10NERS: BAR~~ES~ UAVIU~ iiERBST~ K~NG~ LINN~ TOLAR NOE5: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOH~ISON Jack Wh(te~ Qep~ty City Attorncy~ prescnt Mrs. Swonson w(th a writ~Pn ri~ht to a~peA1 the Pl~nntng Ca~nmlSal~n~s decision witf~in .'.2 days. ITEM N0. d EIR (:AT'-EGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PUL~LIC HEARING. OWNER: ROBERT 41. AND KATNERINE M. MI . ~. NUGNART~ 216ii Viccorl~~ Anaheim~ CA 9280~-. AGENT: SISTtH LUGILLE BERNItR~ 1335 South Ashington Lane, M at~eim~ cn 92804. Petitioner requests permission to ESTA~LISH PHIVATE TUTORING SERVICES on proper;:y described as a rectangu~arly•shaped parce) of land consisting of approximately 51~0~ square feet having a frontage of appror(- mately 54 feet on the west siJe nf Ashinyt~n Lane~ haviny a maxirnum de~th af apprnximately 100 feet, being loca[ed approximately Ib5 feet north of the centerlire of Palats Road~ and further describcd as 1335 5outh Ashington Lane, Property presently classifted RS-5000 (RESIUENTIAL~ SII~GLE~FA.MILY) ZdNE. There were three persons Indl~ating their presence (n opposition co subJect petltlon~ and although the staff repurt to thc Planniny Gornmission dated November 21~ 19J7 was not read at the public he~riny~ it is referred tn and made a part of the m~nutes. J. J. Tasfiiro~ ~lssistant Planner, indicated twa letters werc rPCelved supporting the con~i(t(onal use permit, one lettcr beiny from Paul Newmar dated November 17, 1y77 and a ca n~ from Mr. and Mrs. Frieclman. He indicated there was a peCition submitted containing 18 siynatures in opposi[fon~ two opposed to any more than ten r,hildren. SubJect petition and lecters are on flle In the Planning Uepartment. Chairman Tolar pointed out that two of the signatures on the petition in opposition t~ad also sucrnitted lecters in favor af the pecition. Sister Lucllle Uernier, the agent for the pecit(oner~ stated she Cutors children and that this request is for tutoring services to be allqwed in her home at t335 South Ashington Lane. She indicated a correctiQn to thc staff report~ referring to the reference of a "rumpus room" w;~ich should read "rompus room." She stated that children come to her home for tutoring~ especially in tl~e f',ld of perception; that their parents drop them off and they are supervised at all tlrr~s and do ~ot go into the street, and that she had never seen a traffic Jam of any kind; and tl~at there had been a party at this location on Frtday with about 15 people in attenclance and felt tt~is may be what the neiyhbors were obJccting Co regarding the trafftc. She stated that the hours fo~ tuco~ing are from 9:00 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. and that a few children stay until 3:30 p.rn.; that the tutori~~ is done in three-hour sesslons with breaks according to the condition of the children. Chatrman 1'olar asked if there was anyone deslring to speak in opposition and there was no response. MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY I'IANNING COMMISSION~ November ~1~ 19'1 77-174 EIR C~TEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CUNDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. lib8 (conttnued) THE PU~LIC NtARING WAS CLOSCD. Chairman Tolar asked Sister uernier to clarify the numbe~ of chil~ren wlia wauld be tutored at onQ tlme• and sl~e indic.9ted there would never be morr. than 12. Chairmen 'olar asked her posit(on tn relationship to expanding ttils to a laryer number~ and she replled that she had just r~cen[ly clused a school and cild no[ intend co expAnd; that they offered help to some ~tudents on a smell basis but the~e wo~ld be no signs postecf and no childrer~ runninc~ ~round outsiJe. Cha(rman Tolar aslceci Sister 6ernie~ for her c«nments in relotionship to the approximately 10 ne(glibors who we~e opposea for thc reasons identified~ ttnd she replled that she fel[ these peuple had slgned a putition becausc they thougtit there was gotnn t~ be a school. Commiss(oner povid askecl ( f he understoo:l I~r.r remarL.s~ tl~at she wAS not see{:ing any rt~ore children~ and sh~: reN11eJ that she did not se~E: chilJren, that shc intencled io reduce the numbe r r+5 t( me c~oes on an J v~ou 1 d not be tak i ng any ncw s t uden ts . Commiss(oner Herbst aske~i, if this was not referr~d to as a schcnl~ what would shc call it~ and Sister liernier replicd IL is a tut~riny scrvice for cl~ildren wl~o have learnin3 difficulties; th~t they are ~eferrerl to her by ~rincipals~ teachers~ doctors, an~ parents who du not know where to turn~ t,ut she would not be opc~ating a school. Commissioner Nerbst inclicated tcacl~ing or tutoriny would appear to him to be some type of sct~o~l. Sister Bernier replied that she does not functien as a school; that a schooi must have permits ~nd follow State laws, e[c.~ an.f tiiac she had no intentlon of runnlnc~ a school. She sCated she th~ugtit tuLoring was permittecl in a private t~ome. Commissioner Linr- ask~d if this would be considered a cormercial venture~ and she replied that she was nat support~J by tt~e fees received from the children. She indicated she lives at the property; this is her hume and siie is working on a scholarship where people donate xa the scholarsf~ip f~~nd and the scholarship fund sponsors h~r. Chalrr~ar, Tolar indic~te~i that some decis(ons become very hard :o make~ similar to the previous petttio~ and this onc. He statcd that fie was swayed a great deal to the home occupancy use in r~lationship ta the number nf people opposed to it. Ne indicated that maybe the petitioner did not think th(s sounded fair, but the Commission h~s to look at this as a residential area; that he~ personally, did not see how it would hurt a great deal but~ by the same token~ Jid not kncyw if someone's ha~nework wa~ not done to convin~e the pe:ople ii was not golny to be a comm~rciaf ve~ture~ but that these people llve in the area and tiave establlshed their residences there anJ he must consider tl~is fact. He indicatad he does drive in this area ano tiac never noticed any maJor problem. lie indic~ted f~e f.blt the petitioner should have gone daor-to-door trying to convince the people that ~his could be a compatible use; that maybe the people who had signed the petition in opposition Jid not understand the services offered, and he did not know their reasons for signi~g the petitton but he must accept the petition on its own face value~ that 18 families on t.he street who own har~es in the area f~el it is going to be detrimental to the area~ anci he has ta consider that as weigF~ted material. Commtssioner 6arnes stated that after lookiny at the petltion, she felt those people were not opposed to the use itszlf but were requestiny a meeting to discuss the ~,etitic after normal worktng hours and felt a continuance would be in order to enable the p~titloner to discuss this with the neiyhbo~s and reach an understandinq. Chalrman Tolar indicated he was generally against continuances but in thi: ~P,se~ would suppa~t a continuance on the basis that Sister Bernier ag~eed to •_ ' ~r with the MINUTtS~ hNANEIM CITY PLAt~NING GOI~~~~~SION~ November 21, 1977 17~775 Ela CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONIIL USE PERMIT NU. 176E~ (contlnu~d) ne(yhbors end hold an ~ducatfAnal mecting. He indicatcd he would 1lke to knc~w the reaaons for c~ppo~itlo~ anJ if the n~ighbors wantcd a l~mit as r.o the number aP chlidren; he felt this was e key in this discussion. Sister 6ernler asked (f she wauld have to initiate ttie meexlnc~~ and Cha!rman Tolar polnted out that it would bc up tn her to yec toqether wlth thc n~tghbors end the Plonning Co~rxnisslon would not hnve a epresentative available ~t Cheir mer.ting; that they would giv: her a twcr week continuance for her ta try to resolve the(r dlfferencas~ meet wiCh the homeowners 1~ che Area~ ~incf report back to the Cortmission with thelr Input. Bob Nostett~r, realtor~ sp~roacl~ed tl~c poJlum nnd stated I~e felt this was a matter of misunderstandiny and fclt a cQnttnuance wauid be tl~e approprlate Ap{~rn~Gh. ACTIONs Commissloner Dsrnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION ~~U (Comrnissioner Johnsori beii~y absent)~ that consideration of the forcgoing Item be ~~nttnued to the reyulnr rneettng of ~he Plannin~ Cammission on Decemher ;~ 1~)7, tc enable ~he petiticm er to meet anJ discuss tr~., petition wlth the adJACent property own~rs and come to aome understanding, Chairmen Tolar indlcated t~ ttwse persuns att~.ndinca in opposttion that this continuance is to allow them to get tuyether an~ tha[ they st(11 have thie right to disayree, but meybe they could clear the air and suygested that tlie person responslble for the pet(tfon elarify it so that the CommiSSion knuws whether or not those people signlnc~ the petltton are agalnst ur i•., the pr~posal. Commissloner Llnn suggested that an explanaGian be provided why there Is a need for two teachers~ and Mr. Hostetter replicd tliat these lwo people Icased the property and lived together at this lucation. iTCM N0. 9 EIR CATEG~7RICAL EXEMPTI0~1-CLP~55 1 PUEiLIC NEARING. OW~IER: HOW~11E W. WEBERG~ 1360 East ON N L l~ E ERMI N0. ~ Maple~ Glendale~ CA 921~;. AGENT: PtARIE ALBERT, 21-A6 Mountain Ridye Dr(ve~ Fuller[on. CA 92G31. Petitioner ~eq~~ests permission for OP~-SALE BEER AN D NINE IN AN EXIS7ING DELICATESSfN on property described as a rcccangularly-shaped parce' af land consisciny af approximately 1.7 acres having a frun`~ge of approxlmately 180 f~.ei on the north side of Lincoln Avenue~ t,aving a maximum dep[h ~f approximately 430 feet, being locat$d ~pproximateiy 1;0 feet east of the centerline of Esst Streeti~ and further describe d as 1287-D East Li~coln Avenue. Property presently classificd CL (COMMERCIAI., LIMITED) ZON E. There was no one indicating their opp~sttion to subject ,.etition~ and although the ataff report to the Planning Co~nnissio~i dated November 21, 1y77 was nat read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and maJe a part of the minutes. Bob Albert~ ayent for the petitioner, indicated this establishmer.t serves hot sandwiches and that he desires to have on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with the food. THE. PUBLIC tIEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar asked F1r. Albert the Itours of operation~ and tie repl~ed that presently they are 11:00 a.m. to 5:OG p.rn. anJ that they are in the process of putting in a freezer/avet~ and then the hours will be 11:00 a.m. tu 10:00 p.rn. Chairman Tolar asked t~e petitioner to stipulate to those hours~ which h~ did. MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CI'~r PIANNING COMMISSIO~~, Novembo~ 21~ 1977 17-77b EIR CATCGORIGAI EXEMPTION-GLA55 1 AND CONDITIONAI USE PE~~h11T ~10. 1769 (coritinued) Chalrman Tular (ndlcateJ his concern that if th ~ p~operty chanQos han<is tt~a use could become something olse~ anJ J~ck White~ Deputy Ci ty Atcarney, polnted out th~t if lt changos use, the~ the c~nJitiunal use pcrmtt Hi 1 1 bacome null ~+nd volci; tt~at tfils conditlona) us~ ~:~-rmit permlts only thfs parttcular use f'or on-sala I~ecr and win~ In cor~)unction wt th tlie ax(stlny Je) icetessen and that some~ne else could not tAke I t ovnr and tu~n IC Into a baer bor, It wes noteJ that Lhe Olrector uf the Plannlnc~ C ummisslon has d~termi~ed that the proposed activity falls wlthin thc definition of Section 3.01, ClasS 1, of thc City of Anahelm Guidelines to the kequirements for an Environment~l lmpact Report and Is~ thercfore~ categor i ca 1 1 y exempt f rcx~~ Lhe roqu i rernen t to f i 1 e an E 1 R. ACTION: CommisslUner Kiny ofFereci Resolution No, PG77-25~ and moveu for its pessage enci ad- opt~nn~ that the Anahcim City Planniny ~ommis sion does herCl~y yran[ Petltlon for Conditionai li~e Permil No, 17G7~ subjec.t co tl~e p~titlone~•'s stf~ulation thac the hours of operaticm wlll be from 11;OQ A.m. to IA:Ob p.m. and subJect t~ a one-year period for revlew by tlie Ptanniny Commfssion for further e~ctensions of time, On roll call~ the for~yoing resolut(on was pass eJ by thc~ following vote: AYC5: CUMMI SS I ONERS: 4ARtJE5, D11V I U, HERBST ~ KI NG ~ L I tIN ~ TOLAR NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AaSENT: COMMISS;ONERS: JUNNSOt~ ITCM NQ. 10 E~ECLA-tATI~~~ PUdLIC NEARING. LEON~ MOLLY AND WiLL1AM LYQN~ ND 0 A U RMI N0. 1770 3E~~, San Iilguel Drive~ Newport Beach, CA 92663. "- AGENT : tDWARD ~1kCKt3ART1! ~ P. 0. 9ax J~ Corona ~ Cl1 31 JZO , Petitioner requests permission to ESTABLISI~ A DRIV~-T1IROUGN RESTAURAtdT on property described as an irre_yul~+rly-shAped parcel of land consistiny of approximat~ly 0.7 acre haviny approxlme~e fro~tages of 100 feat on tlie nortfi side~ of Ba~ll Road~ 162 fect on the south side of Bruce Street' and 241 feet on the east side of Roanne StrNet. and further described as 2429 Nest Ball Road. Property presently clessified ~L (COMMERCIAL~ IIMITED; ZONE. There Nas one person indicating lnterest in s ubJect petition~ and altt~ough the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Novemb~r ;I~ 1971 was not read at the pubiic hearing~ it ls referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. David Jameson~ partner of the agent, inJ(cated he was present to answer any questlons. Cathy Co~rigan~ 908 South Druce Street. Anahci m, read a letter dated November 17, 1977. s igned by Mr. a~~d Mrs. Pete~ W. Hami ~ 1, 917 South 6ruce Street~ Hr. and Mrs. Larr;~ Alcock, 921 South tiruce Street~ and Mr. and Mrs. Warre n Corrlgan~ 90~; ~outh Bruce Street~ indicating thetr deslre for A block wall not l~ss than 6 feet in height alony the north side of sald property and also a block wall no t less than 4 feet on each side of said property, enclosing the parcel on three ~ides to insure the safety and walfare of the childrRn in the residential area~ to prevent e xcessive~ unregulated traffic~ to Jiminish accesstbility to the site by small childran as an attractive nuisance~ to enhance the beauty of existing properties and encourage th ase who build in the future to do the samc~ to insure separattor of commerctal b~~?idings srd residential~ and for tne better prctection of Mr. Lyon's establishment. Mr. Jameson indiceted this praperty is zoned R-3 ac~oss Bruce Street and a portion of Roanne and contnerciai on the front across the str~et. He indicated the requirement by the ~ .. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO-1MISS ION~ Novomber 21 ~ 1977 77-777 EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION ANU CONDITIONAL USL PERMIT N0. 1~70 (continuc~i) --__..~... ._~~_. Clty nf 8 5~foot landscaped barrier~ a~J t~ils h+~s bee~ shoNn on Ro~nn~ and O~uce Str•eets. He indicAted that it Is pass(ble a blockwell could be buflt as an alternate to the landscaped barr(er but did not think a w~ll would be approprlat.c on the sid~ property 1(nes es thay abut parking areas. Ti1E PUBI.iC HEARING WAS CLOSCD. Chsi ~n~an Tolar indtcatecl his concern rPyardiny the circuletian and felt e fence would be of sa-~e usC on thc north s(de of the: property and (ndicated thet while the property is zoned R-3~ (t is ad)ecent to ve~y low dnnsity res identia) and to dump traff i c onto Bruce St~eet~ which Is all reeldantlal except for a small ~-ortlon on the north side~ would not be good planning. Hn indi~at~d he was not sure about the cf rculation element and fe) t a better plen could have besn drawr~. t1r. JameSUn indiceted tliae ~irculatf~n liad been discussed with Paul Singer~ Trsffic Engi ne~r, and that some ~hanges had baen rewrrxnended. Commiss loner Nerbst referred to Nr. S i nger's r~ccxnmendation that p.arkfny spacas 2~+ and 25 ~v~re not usable~ and hSr. Jameson repl i ed that those had been deleteJ but that tl~ey stI ll exceeded park i ny requi rernen ts . CortKnl ss ioner 9arnes asked i f there was a blc-ck v+a 1 1 ac the r~ar of McDona 1 d' s on the north side, a~d Mr. Jameson replied that chcre was perirneter landscapiny on the north, a curb wi th landscaping. Ne i ndicateJ thei r property s~~rounds McDonald's on two s ides and that the i r property cioes not ~o to Bruce St reet~ ComR:issioner darnes asked what was di rectly east af McDonald's, and Mr, Jameson repl (ed that it Is a 7-Eleven Market to tl-e east an~i to if~e nurth a mecifcal bu(Idiny~ and thst a park ing lot abuts the propos~d park 1 n_y lot. Chat rman Tular indicated he felt soine type of de~se landscapinc~ ar a curb should be pravided to preve,it traffic `rom going through~ as suggested by Mrs. Corrigan. Mr. Jam~eson indicated he was ayreFabl. to a block wall alony 8ruce Streei a~d indicated (t waul d bc siml la~ to tiie existiny w; : l oF bei gc s l umpstone. .!. J. Tashiro~ Assistant Planner, stated t~-at th~ p~titioner would have tv maintain a 15- foat setbeck. Chai rman Tolar indicated he would war.t the ~lock wal l to be the same lielghi as Hefner's wal 1 and at the san~e setbac~ En orcler to provide a uni form wal l. Ccxrrnissloner ~arnes suygested that a~-foot fence be stipulated. ACTION: Commissioner king offered a rnotion. seeonded by Commissioner 1lerbst and MOTlON CARRIED (Gonmissloner ~ol~nson beiny absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Co~mission has reviewed zhe praposa) to permit a drtve-ttirough restaurant on a parce) of la~d consisttny of app~oximately 0.7 acres haviny approximate frontages of 100 feet on the north slde of Ba l l Road ~ 162 feet on the south s i de of Bruce S treet ~ and 241 feet Qn the east s i de of Roanne Street; and does hereby approve the Ne9ative Declar~tian from the reQuirement to pr~pare an environmental impact report on th~ basis that there would be no slgnificant individual or cumulative adverse envi ~onmental impact due to the approval of tnis Negative Qeciaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general corm~ertial land uses commensurate wi th the proposal; that no sensit(ve envi ronmental impacts are inv~lved tn the proposal; that the Initial S*.udy submitted by the petittoner ~. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMIS5IQ~~, NOVerr-her 21~ 1q77 77"778 EIR ~IEGATIVE DECLAfu1TI0N AND CONDiTIONAL USf. PERMIT N0. 1770 (continued) ~_ - indicetes no significent individual or cumutative adverse environmencal impects; and that the Negetive Docl+ration substantlat{ng the foreyoing fl~dtngs Is on file In the Clty oE AnahQim Planning Dapartme~t. ACTION: Ccxnmis~ionar King offered Re~olution No. PC77-25'~ end moved for Its passaqe snd ad~ optT~n~ that the Anehetm CI ty Planning Commi ss ion does tiarcby ~rant Petl tlon for Condltlonal Use Perml~ t~o. 1770~ subJe.t to petitioner's stlpul~^tl~n to prnvide a cancrete block wsll along tlin north prop~rty llne along 6~uce Street. whfch separates the subJect property and the reslJ~ntial Jevelupment to the north~ sald wall to be tho seme helght and at the same setback from Bruco Street as the exlsting wal l on tt~e adjacent property to the east; that the above-mentloneri wal l st~all b~ a r~~inimum of 5 feet hiph end that ++ landscape,d plant~r protected with a G-Inct~ curb shal 1 be provld~d on the nurtherly approxlmatQly 94 feet of the C85~ proporty ltne to prohiblt vehicular access to adjetent property t~ the easl. 0~ roll cell~ thc foroyoinq resolution was passe~i by tlie following v~lC: AYES: COMMISSIO~~ERS: BARI~CS~ ~AVID~ IiERIIST~ KING~ LINN~ TOLAR N0~5: COMMISSIONER5: NONE AtiSEN1': GOMM15510NEaS: JOIII~SON ITEM N0. 11 E I R NEGA IV~ DEGLAMTION PUE~L I C NEARI NG, OWNER: ALVI N D. AND ESTNER M. ~~~U~~~NO. 17J2 PENIiALL~ 1200 North liarbnr Boulevard~ Anaheim, ~ CA ~2801. ACEIIT: TORRE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY~ 1 101 Dove St reet ~ Sut te 240~ Newpart Bcach ~ CA 926G0. Pet(tlonr.r roquests permission for UN-SALE BEER AND NINE IN A PROPQSED SEMI- ENCLOSED RESTAURAt~T ul TI~ WAI V~R OF REQUI REO TREE SCREE~1 I ~~f, on property descr 1 bed as a rectangularly sf~ap~d parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.~ acre having a frontage of aaproximately 135 feet on the east slde af Euclid Street~ having a max(mum depth of approximately 181 fect, ~nd beiny located approximately 140 feet nor•th of the tenterline of Orange Avenue. Fraperty pre~+ently classifieci CL (LOMMERCIAL~ IIMITEO) ZO~IE. There was no one indicatiny their presence in opposftian to subJect pecitlon, and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Novembe~ 21~ 197! was nat read at the public heari~y~ it is referred [o and made a part of the minutes. Richard Sthoff~ representing Straw Hat Restaurant Corporatlon~ was present to answer any quesi(ons. TI~E PUE3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissloner Kiny asked the petltioner to refer to Items 1f, and 17 of the staff report pertalning to che tree screening and the 20-fo, t wide~ landscaped buffer strip. M~. Schoff stat~ed that the plans indicate there would be parking along there and that he not(ced in the staff report it is lndicated parking is allowed along the area with the provision that somc landscaping be provided. He stated there wnuld be a G-foot r!all along the back property Ilne. Commissioner King osked if tha wooden fence on the south portion of the property adJacent to the rest~urant next doar would be re~ovated or left as fs~ and Mr. Schoff replied that at this ttme they did not have any plans regarding that but would like to remove it. M I ~~UTE S, ANl1HE I M G I TY PLANN I NG COMhI I SS I ON ~ Novembor 21 . 1977 77-779 EIR NEGATIVC DECIARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t~0. I772 (contl~usd) Comm) s sloner Ki r, g~ske~l ~ t f they romoved tha wooden fencc whet woul d th~y rep lece 1 t wl th ~ and Mr. Schoff ~epl ied that since the~o ts cannorcia' property (the Burger Kinc~) next donr, they would not expecC to replace il but would landscepe Chat area. Corm~tsslan~r Flerbst referred to the single-famliy dwelll~q on the e+~st side ~f th~ prope~ty nnd askeJ what would be dcveloped adJacent to tf~at elley~ ~nd Mr. Schoff replted that would he a 1Andscaped aro~. Commisslonar Herbst statcd t~c felt that e landsceped eree should be ~xtendccl along the full 14ngth of thc huuse~ which would Invoive about 9 parkl~~ stoll~. Thc Commisslon then tngulred if the parking requirements would l~e met iF thesc stalls were removed, ond i t Wes po~nted out that they stl 11 would be wI thin Code. Mr. Schoff stated they would not fi~d anytl~ing obJectionable to provi~Jiny tl~e 2~-foot IAndseaped are~ but would like tu sl~lft the entire parkinc; area 2~ fnr~ tc~w~rd the bu I 1 d i ny, Commi s5l~ner Ile rbs t i nd i catecl he on ly wan cr_d to make surc thc res i dent I A I home had the 2~- foot, landscaped buf fcr arca. Ccxnmissloner KIn~ asked Paul Siny~r~ Traffic Enginecr•~ why hc was opposed tu tlie driveway at the south propcrty I i~e. Mr. 5 i ngar f nd i cated ( t was because of the ex i t i n f ront of s~omeone ~ 1 se's property wi th ~ dr ( vcway adj acent to that . 11e stated there i s an exi t of f the extens i on ~f tl~e ad)acent prnpe~ty line and then thi, driveway immedtately adjacenc to that. Mr. S ch~f~ k~ d i f mov i ny the dri veway further to the ~ortl~ woul cf sal vs the prob lem ancJ aske~+ If Mr. Si nyer was opposed to the driveway or its location. Mr. Sinqe~ asked Mr. Schof f if he real ly needed tha[ driveway and he repl fed tf~at he dld need the driveway and felt if the dri veway was el(minat^~~~ii would create more problems, It would be creatiny a deade~d parking a~ea, and the trar flc would have to come in a~d then back out, Mr. Singer repl i ed that the traFfic coulJ turn around but the point of concern is that there are two drive~ways too elusely adJacent to earh other wt~icti wo.:ld create a trafFic conflict on the street, Chairman Tolar sugyested dcsignating the dr(veway at the sduth property Ilne for ingress on 1 y _ Mr. Schoff stateJ he would prefcr seeing thac drivewAy destgnated f~r lnc~ress oniy; ~hat thei ~ main coneern ts iliat they do have delivery truc~:s and trash trucks (largc vehicles) anJ he would prefer they not make the detivertes fra the street; that it would be extremely diff ~~ult for them t~ ccxne in ancl turn around in the parking ares. Clia i ~man Tol a r as ked hav he wou 1 d eri f~rce the ent rance-on 1 y~ and the App 1 i cant rep 1 i ed he woul d desfgnaLe that driveway "one-way" and put up a sign in the street and on the property at th~ east side. Cornmissloner Flerbst sugyes* d ingress only with angled parking with exit on the other s tde . MINUTES, AI~IIHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novembcr 21~ 1917 77-780 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAtIQN AND COI~DI'iIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 17'72 (contlnucd) Mr. Sinc~er stated you could not control people galn,y ouc that entrance-~nly access. Chalrman Talar indic~ted he would have no obJ~ctlons t~ an ontronce-only if thc pet~tlonor could shaw hlm some w~y to enforce tt. Hr. Schoff steted he felt a:;ign at the rear of tMe property would help enforce Qntrance-only For that driveway. IC was sug~3ested that access be ~hared with tl~e ad}acent property owner throuyh an easement~ and the petitioner indicated that would be ayreeable with them If the adjacent property u~wnor would ~gree to It. Ghairmon Tolar stated fiP did not think that would bc a good conditlon to put on a canditional use pGrrnit. Mr. Schoff indicatad he would li~.e to keep the two-way access on the north driveway ~nci that the south drlveway be deslc~nateJ for entrancc-only~ and that In order to enf~rce It they would c~nstruct signs on the strcet and a an -way si9n nn the rear ~f the site. Cotrrnl ~sioner Ki ng askeci Mr. Schaf f i f Che wuuJei~ fencc oL tt~e south ~roCPr~y I 1 ne f s removed and that area is landsc~ped~ wl~ac would keep the cars from yoing over the curbs. Ann(ka Santalahti~ Assistant Dlrector f~r Zonin,y~ Indic~ted that 18ndscaped arcas are required by Godc to be protected by G-incl~ ~urbs to restrict driving through them. ACT 10~1: Commf ss 1 oner K( n~ of ferecf e mot f on ~ seconded by Conxn( ss i orer Ilerbs t and M4T i 0~~ ttl 0(Gommisslon~r Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commisslon has reviewed the subject proposal consistiny of on-sale becr and wlne in a proposed seml- enclospd restaurant wlth walver of required cree screening on approximately 0.~ acre having a fron[age of approximately lb5 f~et on thc east side of Euclid Street~ having a maximum depth of apRroximately 181 feet~ and beiny located approximaCely 140 feet north of the centerline of Orange Ave~ue; and does hereby approve !he Negativ~ Dec.laratlon from the requtrement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that. there would be no signiflcant indivlJual or cumulat(ve adverse environmental impatt due to the approval of this Negative ~eclaration sin~e [hc Anahefm General Plan designates the subJect property for yeneral corrunercial land uses cummensurate wlth tf~e proposal; that no sensitlve envlronmental impacts are involved in the pr~posal; that the Inittal Study submitted by tF-e petitloner indicates no sign~ficant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Leclaration substentiating the foregoing findings is on flle in the City of Anafieim PI.-,nning Department. ACTION: Commissloner Kiny offered Resolutton No. PC77-2~~ and moved for its passage and adoptlon~ that thc Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1772, in part~ sub,ject to the petittaner's stipulation Co provide a 20-foot wide~ landscaped buffer area along the northerly approximately 110 feet of the easterly property line adjacent to the ex(sting residential development~ and to allaw ingress and egress at the northern dri~ov+ay but to restrict the sout~~ern driveway to ingress only by means of proper slgning desiynatiny said driveway "entrance only~" said information to be posted at Euclid Street and on the southeast co~ne~ of the proposed building; and waiver of the required tree screeni~iy is h~:reby denled on the basis that the pet(t(oner sttpulat~ed to providing a landscaped planter adjacent to the easterly property line to buffer the adjacent residentfal uses from the comrnercial proposal and the walver, therefose~ Is unnecessary; and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call. the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOtJEftS: BARNES, DAVID~ HERBST~ KlNG. LItiN, TOLAR NOES: CONMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: GOMMISS IOP~ERS: J011NSON MINUTES, ANA~IEIM GITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ Navexnber 21, 1977 77-781 ITEM N0. 12 E 0 Ic.AL EXEMPTION-CLASS PUE~LIC NCARING. OWNCR; FOREMOST bAIR1E'S~ INC.~ ~~~~U~t~. ; Onc Post Strcet~ Crocker ?laza~ San F~ancisco~ CA y4104. AGEI~TS; tiY~ ~~~ l.. GRU11E AND VERIlON W. MONROE. ~20~ Seashorc Urive~ Ncwporr. Ocach~ cn 9zGG3. P~tltioner resquests permtssion to ESTAkiLISN A TRUCK STORAGE YA(t0 on property described ~s an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approxlmately 1.8 acre having a frontage of approxlmately 20 feet an thc soutli side of Ball Road, havin~ a maximum depth of approxlnu~tely 60E~ feet, being located apprvxtmately I;QO feet west of the centerline of Lewis Street, and further described as 600 Cas[ Uall RoaJ. Property presently ctass(fied ML (INUUSTRIAL~ LIt11TED) ZONE. There was no one indicatiny tl~elr presence in oppo5ltion to subject requcst~ ancl ali'~uugh the staff report ta thc Pl~nniny Coimiission ciated Novembcr 21~ lqJ7 was not read at the publ(c hearing~ it is referred to and ma~Jc a p~rt of the rninutGS. Vernan W. Monr~e~ 223~ west Sec.~uui.~~ Anatieim~ ycnt f~r the petltianer~ stated the petttioner (s buil~Jlny 11 buildiriys on tlic prc crty Just south of th~s prop~rty and that this is a surplus pi~ce of property that will ue sal~l to a cunstruction Gompany who will be utilizing I~ for an office anJ as an interim use for storage of one-ton trucks and about six pick-up trucks~ but there would be no heavy equ(prnent~ and they planned to evontually build a buildin, when tl~cy buy thc property. TNE PUEiLIC NEARING wAS CLOSED. Commiss(oner Ilerbst aske~i the pctitioner to s~ecify that there would be no sem( trucks or diesel trucks~ which he did. Rod Crov~dy, ~epresentiny Torre Construction Cor-~ any~ staCed that chey would occaslonally 5tore heavy equipment on the pr~perty, suct~ as ~~'1 backhoes and tlie smal 1 trucks earl ier referreJ to end Iow-bed trucks to pick up tfie backhoes. It was nated that [he Director of the Planniny Depar[ment has cie[ermined that the proposed acr.ivity falls within the definitton of Section 3,01~ Class 3~ of th~ City of Anahelm Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore~ cetegorically exempt from the requiren~ent to file an EIR. ACTION: Camm(ssionEr DaviJ offered Resqlutlon No. PC77-261 and moved for its passage and a~capt~on, tl~at the Anaheim City Planniny Comm(ssion does ~~ereby grant Petitfon for Condit(ona) Use Permit No, 1713~ subject to Interdepartmental Committee recomnendattons. On roll call~ thz foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ QAVIU, NERaST, KING~ LINN, TOLAR NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSE~~T: COMMISSIONERS: JOt~NSOt~ MINUTES~ ANAIi~IM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 21~ 1977 77~782 ITEM N0. 13 Elft CAIrC RICA~ EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PU~LIC HEARING. OWNER, UTHE FAMIIY TRUST, 811 NU E M N0. j Ma)ela ~ane~ N~smet~ tn g2343. AGENT; FAST FOOUS -"- '-'~ EXPRESS~ INC.~ 8~1 South St~te Collcge Koulevard~ Anahelm~ CA y2806. Petitloner requests permisslon for ON~SALE BEEK ANU WINE It~ AN EXISTING RE.STAUR/1NT on property descr(bed as a rectanyularly- shaped parcel of land conslsting of approximatoly 0.5 acre having a frontage ~f approximately lOG feet on Che west side of 5tate Colicge aoulevard~ having a max(mum Jepth of approximatcly 240 feet~ be(ny located epproximately 2fi5 feet south of thc centerllne of South Straet~ and further dcscribed as 521 South Statc Collc~ye Bouleva~d. Property presently classifled CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMlTED) ZONE. There was no ona Indicating their presence ln opposttion ta subJect I'eqUCSt~ and elthough the staff report to the Planning Comm(sslan dated November 21~ 19~JJ wes not r•ead at thc public. hearing~ (t is referred to and mads a part of the minutes. Alex W~ny, representing Fast foods Express, Inc. ~ agent fur li~c ~~clf tiuner~ IndtcatEd he was p~esent to answer any questlons. TNE PU~LIC 11EARING NAS CLUSED. It wa~ nokeJ that thc Director of thc Planning Department has determ(ned tt~at che praposed activity falls witl~ln thP definttlon of Sectlon 3.~~1~ Class 1~ of che C(cy of Anahe(m Guidel(nas to the Requlrements for an Envlronmcntal impact Report and is~ tl~erefore~ categorically exempt from ttie requirement to file An EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolutio~ No. PC7'1-262 and moved for ics p+~ssage and a~optTon, that the Anaheim Clty Planninc~ Comniss~on docs hereby grant Petition for Condltional Use Permit No. 171G for on-sale beer anci wine in conjunction wlth the serving of ineals tn rn existing restaurant~ subject to Interdepartmental Committee r e comrr~ n d e t 1 on s. On rol) call, tfic foregoing resolution was passed by thc following voce: AYES: COMM15510NERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HEROST~ KING~ LII~N~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: NONE Al3SEI~T: GOMMISSIOP~ERS: JOtiNSON ITEM N0. 14 EIR NEGA'fIVE DECIARATION PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER; A. L. At~O MARGARET E. RIST, C NDI I N L RM N0. 1777 1212 Vista Cayenta~ San Clemente. CA 97672. AGENT: B. N. PATEL~ 434 West Katella Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92802, Petitlaner requesta permisslan to ESTABLISH A T MVEL TR{11LER PARK on property described as an irregularly-sliaped parcel of land consist- ing of epproximately 4.5 acres haviny a frontage of approximately 336 feet on the north side of I'.atella Avenue. having a maximurn depth of approximately bl5 feet, and being located approxtmocely 9~4 feet east of the centerline of Narbor Boulevard. Property presently classlfied a5-A-43~~OQ (RESIDENTIAL/AGRIGULTURAL) ZONE. There was one interested person indicating his presence~ and ~lthaugh the staff report to the Plareniny Cammission dated h{ovember 21~ 1977 was not read at the public hearing, It is referred to a~d mede a part of the minutcs. ~ ' M I ~~UTF S, IINANE I M C 1 TY PLANN I NG CON~M 1 SS I ON ~ November 21 , 1~17 7 77-783 EIR NEGATII'E DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USC PCRMIT H0. 1777 (contlnued) Edwa~d 0. Morse indtcated he rapresented the agant and owner on this pccltion ~nd that tfiey wou1J Ilke to place a recreatianal vel~lcle (RV) park on the ~i.5-acre pe~cel on the north side of Katella AYenuo. T11E PU~iLIC NEARING WAS CI.OSED. Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Morsc the dimensions of thc spaces on thc west prope~ty line, and M~. Morse re~',~d the spoces werc 20 by 2~ feet and that the stre~:ts wcre 2~ feet widc. Ne Ind(cAted tf~erc was an area d~signated for small cab-over campers which ever~ge trom 10 feet tn lti feec; that there are spaces provlJecl for the fifth-wheelers wt~ich are approxin~ately GO feet lony. Comrn(ssionor H~erbst asked Mr. Morse If lie was awarc ~f thc Planning Cammission's recommanded ordin~nce for travcl traller parks of this type as fer as tlie numl,er of feet per space per unit encf IIII~II,ALUIJ I1C f~lt these pl~n, dcvtatcd quite a bit frr+n thr recornrt~nd~d ord i nance . Mr. Morse stated h~ had t~~lk.~d w([h thc zoning officials and thc Bulldine~ Departrn~nt and had been told that If he would measure the spaces at Vecationl8nd and Y.OA and met those standards~ it would rnect with CSty standarJs~ and that~ in fACt~ nx~re space had been provided. Cortu~i(ssloner Herb,t Indicated he w~s not aware of any plans be(ng approved that did not meet the recommended ordinance and that if somc of these are~s havc noc been built to tl~ese standar~is, thr.n it was not stipulated to at the Planning Commission meetings. Ile felt the sl~aces were about as dense as tl~ey could bc and that the clrculation was pretty ttght. 1{e felt it wuuld be c9lfficuit for sor~e peaple pullin9 trailers to get ou[ of the 25-foot wide streets. Mr. Morse replied th~c was why they had used the GO-dPqree an91e and that some people had diffieulty puliing a small wrr,~er. Commissloner Kiny referred to the masonry wall requlrement and referred to the mobilehc~me park across the street from tt~c proposed travcl t~ailer par~, indicating he thought that looked good and f~lt it would enhance subjec[ pronerty to tiave a block wr'i; that ha could not picture the chainlink fence with slats for this type installation. Mr. Morse replled their mai~ reasor~ for requestiny the chainlink fence was for safety and referred to the hazard if someone hit a block wall~ with a wali falliny on a child playing against the wall. The Commission generally d(scussed the circulation of the plan w(th the petitioner~ Comm-ssloner Linn indicatiny he felt it was too ttght for turniny. Ne referenced the block wall and indicated that some sort of curb shouid be installed ta stop cars from going into the wal~, and Mr. Morse replled that some people go rfyht over the curbs. Fred UeWortz~ reprasenttr.y Helod~!and~ Anaheim, indicatcd they awned the adJacent parcel and were using it as a temporary parking lot. He indlcated Melodyland hes a 60-foot easemcnt across subJect property all the way to Katella Avenue and would be putting an exit throuyh that property; that they owned several parcels adJacent to thfs parcel and they hac! owned it for about 15 years~ and that this easement dlvidGS subJect property. Mr. Morse stated that Melociyland does have an access both in and ~ut of Freedman Way but thet it ls kept closed most nf the time wiih permanent cables. He indicated they also have access onto Katella Ave~ue by way of Clementine at the east end and that is the way , ~ M1NU7ES~ ~~NAHLIM CITY PLAF~NING COMMISSION~ November 21~ 1977 71-7~1~ EIR NEGATIYE UECLARATION AND CONpITI01iAL USE PERMIT N0. 1777 (conilnued) they usu~lly yo (n and out of tl~oir property. Ho indicated they heve a cable completely surroundfn,q this s~ction ~f graund~ which is tied up. Ne tndlcated he had bee~ watching this for two end one-half to three years and unless someone sltps the cabie d~vn~ tl~ey never go in and out on Kst~ila; that they I~ave Jone thac on occasion but someone at Melodyland always goes out a~d puts thn cable back up. Annikt~ Sonlalehti~ Assistant Qirector for Zon(ng~ Indicated there have been a number of complalnts about dust rt~ised by usage of that lot sl~ice thP earth iz not treated~ and it was her understand(ng thore was an agreement wlth Melodyland that the cable would be across there and unlcss a condttional use pcrmtt were s~~ught to expend the pArk(ng lot or the zontny were finallzed~ they were not supposed t., be using that lot~ and thet, undoubtedly~ was why the ceble is there. Mr. UeWortz replted that they have treated the parking lot with oil to u~e for overflaw ~row~5 anJ ti,,,t tf~ey Also use the t~otGl parking lot, and the complaint had bcen flled by thc owner of the Rip Van Winkle Notel at the corner of Clemcntine and Y,atclla; that they hod put slgns out ond the public did not respond to them so [hey put up the cable~ only to prevent this problem; thaz they had oiled [he lot cwice~ however, they are plann(n~ to develop this into a parkiny lot and as soon as thc exlt opens they will bc using that street; tl~at they acguire~i the easement to tiave an cxit to Katella; ~nd that they have 13 acres adJacent to the subject site. Chatrman Tolar asked ff this parcel af land was owned by one owncr and why hc had sold this caseme~t to Helodyland, Mr. DeWortz explained that some ycars ago s~rne board members of Melodyland felt it was necPSSary to acquire access to Katella anJ hacJ acquired this easement~ and this Nas In 1971 b~fore the present owner acquired the resc of ths: propercy. Chairman Tolar clarified that the owner was aware nf tf~i~ easement and the owner replled that the easement had bcen on tl~e propQrty for a long time. Paul Singer~ Traff(c Cngineer~ indica[ed he was not aware of the easert-ent through the property. Flr. Morse reFGrred to the stop sign at one end of Freedman uey which actually goes onto Manchester Avenue~ paralicl with thc Melodyland parking lot. He stated he~ personally~ dIJ not see where they have need for the use of this easement going through to Katella at this tlme. Chairman Tolar poin~ed out that they do have the right to use that easement~ and Mr. Morse replled they were aware o.' that right and had revamped their RV park ln order to allow a s[reet that could be turned into a public strect at a later date~ ~f needed. Chairman Tolar stated iie feit all the amenitles of this park~ the pool~ sCore~ etc., were going tQ be divided by o public street; that al! of tl~ose people would be running back and forth across the street and he felt that would be a problem. Mr. Morse Rointed out tl~at with an RV pai~k mosi of the ~eople traveling arrive before 4;00 p.m. and you rarely see more than one or two at a tirt~e coming into a park and that they had tried to allow e~ougti room to yet five or six units off Katella int~ the park to eliminate any ttg traffic hassle. lic indicated that before the Cables were put up~ there were a number of people who went through the back lot and that he had seen a couple of accidents there. v MINUTES~ Af~ANEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ November 21~ iq77 77-]g§ EIR t~EGATIVE DE~CLARATION AND CUNOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1777 (co~tinued) Chalrmmn Tolar potnted out that thc rgpresentatlvc from Melodyland had stated they were going t~ maku - parkiny lot in tlie beck. Mr. DeWortz stated the reason thay put tl~e cobles in was bec~use of trouble they were hovln,y at night; the Police Depertment I~acf su,y,yr.sted the cable and they d~ have security guards Around-tho-clock; end that thr, cables are Just temporary tn comply wtth the Clty request. Commissioner Herbst stated tl~at in vlewing thc 3itc with the density proposeci that he hes some rsservatl~ns as to whether ar n~t this Is a suftablc site for ~n RV park. He stated we have not encroached into the besic square !n that ~~rea w(th RV parks. tle pofnted out thet there is one tentatively approved across the street aJjacent to the motel and felt that a two-story motel adjacent to an RV park wauld create visua) problPms. Ile felc a i~te) would be rnore suited to tliis site tl~an an kV park witfi the flow of trafflc desiynatcd to yo through tn thc future anJ witli tl~a N1~~~y dNNruvecJ for thc Melodyland ex;anslon~ there would be a lot of problems as this wauld I>e a maln ~ntr.incP to their factlfty off Katella~ tt~us makinq tl~is sita strictiy incompatible for an RV park. Mr. Singer polnted out that a traffic signal Is eventuaily planned for Clem~nt(ne~ only p~oviding the street will be extended all the way sr~uth tu Orangewr~od, Commission Linn stateci that as long as the easement is through the propcrty~ therc is na way he coulJ vote fc~r tfiis proJcr_t. Gonun(ssioner Ktny askcd why the easement should stop this project~ and Cortmissioner Linn repiled because of tt~e traffic. Chalrman Tolar pointed out this was yoing to ae a main boulevard; that the property is actually divided and when that casNrr~nt ts dcveloped, there are going to he a lot of people going through [here. Commissioner 4lerbst stated he felt a motel would be a better use for this property~ and Mr. Morse replled that after three y~ars of resea~ch hc would say that a mote) was not suitable for this sitc. tie Indicated there arc problems wlt motel operations in Anaheim at the present time and it is not ~ practical area and felt ~~ie motel center wil) change locations in a few years. He stated he did not think Melodyland was going to use that easement; that it was not practical for them to develop this street because they would lose a lot of their parking. Commtssloner Herbst pointe~l out that they would lose some parking to develop the street but Chai th~y do own that easement and ~he Planning Commission cannot overlook that fact, and that they do have plans for expansion. Ne sugyrsted thac the petitianer should try to des(gn his proJect around the future requirements~ including the easement. Commissioner Barnes asked if tt~is easement was specifically purchased for ingress and egress~ and the applicant replied that it was. but not for Melodyland; that in 195? there were eight parcels which would have been landlocked and this easement was originally designed for ingress ~nd egress to those landlocked Rarcels. Commissloner Nerbst suggested that the petltioner desiyn a~ark with Chat ease-r~nt as part of it. in accordance with the proposed ordinance as iaid down by the Planning Commisslon for a travel trailer park~ with an improvement in the traffic circulat~on~ and suggested a continuance. He indicaked that the proposed density was too high~ the circulatton was poor~ and it was too far fran the proposed c.~rdinance. • MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION, November 21~ 1977 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 171~ (continued) 77-786 Ctialrman Tol~r indtcated he dld not s~e what a continuance was c~a(ng to do in relatlonsh(p ta the 18nd use of this property; that the land Is divlded with a 60-faot easement which Is the sar-~ as a public street and ha did not feel an RV perk with two-thirds of it on one side of the st~oet and one-third on the other side would be a pr~cttcal use. Commissioncr Herbst (ndicated he thou,yht mayba 5orr~one would be vcry innovatlvc and try to develop something on this piece of property; that ff they d(d not come back with an improved plon It would be "down tho tubas," but tie would like to see tlie property developed in some manner~ ff it cAn be done In a reasonaGle way. Commisslaner liarnes stated that if the property is not ~u(tablc for anythin9 else but an RV park. would Jenlal of the condltional use permit be denylny an ItV park. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ pointed out that plans were submitted f~r makiny use of the property in a particular manner but that other plnns cuuld be submitted and~ in no way~ w~~u1J the Planning Commisston be denyin~~ an RV park on the property by dcnyiny these particular plans. Ct~airman Tolar sugyested tlie petitioner try to develop two separete uses slnce thP property Is Jivlded in suct~ a fashion~ and Mr. Murse replied tt~at this would not be practical fur an RV park. Chalrman Tnlar stated he was not tf~inking of an RV park but other commercia) use~. Chairman Talar asked if Mr. Morse would like a c~ntinuance [o try to da somethiny clse wit~i the plans I~e has, and Mr. Morse replied tl~at they would try to see what they coi~ld come up with but did not think [t,ey coul~ put another RV park in thet would be practical with the amount ~f money it would ta~e to develop it. ACTIUN: Commissloner fierbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Y.iny and MOTlOlI ~ EO (Commissioner Jolinson beiny absent)~ that the Aneheim City Planning Commisslon has reviewed th~ subject proposa) consisting of a trAVel trailer park on approximately 4.5 acres having a frontagc of approxin~atel~ 336 fe:et on the north sfde of Katella Avenue~ havlnc~ a max(num <i~pth of approximately G1~ feet. and be(ng located approximately 9~1~ feet ~ast of the centerline of 1larbor Baulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to p~epare an environmental In-pact report on the basfs that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental tmpa~ct due to the approval of this Negative Decla~ation since the Anahelm General Plan designates tl~e subJect property for commercial~recreational land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in tho proposal; that the Initial Siudy submitted by the petitioner Indicates r significant ind(vidual or cumulattve adverse environmenta! impacts; and that the ~eyative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planninh Department. ACTION: Lommissioi~er I~erbst vffered Resolution No. PC7J-2G3 and moved for its passage and a opt on. that t~~c Anaheim City Planning Commission does h~reby d~ny Petition for Con~i(tional Use Permit t~o. 1117 to permit a travel trailer par~ an the basis of an existinf,~ vehicular acces~ sase~~:nt across the entire ~roperty from Katella Avenue to adJacent propcrty to the north~ thereby maktny development of the travel trailer park~ as proposed~ undesirabie and impractical in view of the traffic patterns and volume that may tross the subject property in the future~ and thac such trafflc would be incompa:ible wlth the propoaed usc. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by thc following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOIJERS: BARNES, DAVIU~ tiERBST~ LINN. T4LAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KIFIG ABSEI~T: COMMI SS IOt~ERS : JOH~~SON Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney, presented the petitioner with the written right to appsal the Planniny Commission's decislon within 22 ~ays. 1 MINUI'ES. ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNIIJG COMMISSIOH~ November 21~ 1977 77-7Q7 ITCM W0. 1~ E I R NEGA 1 VE DECIARAT IOt~ DEVELOPER: ALFRED 0. AIJD JQSEPIII'IE PAI NO ~ 71 1 5outh -_~_ ~ C r~0. 1U14/ beach Baul~vard~ Anahelm~ CA 92804. ENGIN~ER; 'TEU J. CUSIIMIIN (AIA) ~ 26G9 Myrtle Avenue~ S(c~nal Hi I i~ CA 90f-O6. SubJcct property, conslsting of approxt- matoly 0.5 acre havtng a frontaye of approximately 140 feet on the west side of liayward Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 156 fect~ and befny located npproxlrtu~tely 132 foot north of the centerlinc; of Rome Avenue~ ts proposcd for subdivlsian into a 1-lot~ 5-unit~ RM-1200 condnminium subdtvts(on. (t was noted the petitioner was not prescnt regor~Jing Item No. 1y. At the end of the rr~eting~ Annika SantalAhtt, Assistant Dlrector for Zoning~ reported that sl~e had not boen able to contact the petitioncr. ACTIpN: Commissioner llarnes offered a motfon, seconded Dy Commissloncr Davld and MO710N C~f If~ED (Commiss(oner Johnson bein~ ~hsent), t~,at cnnsl~l~r~tinn of Tentat(ve Map of Trect No. lOlA7 be continued to tFie rcgul~~r mecting of the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon of Decsmber 5~ 1977. RECESS A five-minute recess was called at 5:40 ,~.m. RECONVENE The meeting was recunvened at S:kS p.m. ITEM N0. 16 E~o~'A~~n RECOMMENUATIONS ITEN A. VARIANCE N0. 294t~ - Request for approval of vehicular circulation and parking plan. Commisstoner King noted that he had a passible conflict of interest as defincd by Anaheim City Planniny Commission Resolution No. rc76-1S7~ adopting a Confltct of Interest Code f~r the Planning Comnission and Gove~nment Code Section 3625 et seq., ln that a member of his family is affiliated with Katella Realty~ Inc• and Katella Realty is represented by Mr. Floyd Farano. who also represents the petition~r; that, pursuant to thc provisions of the above codes~ he was declariny to tha Ghairman Pro Tempore that h~ was withirawing from the hea~ing ln connection wlth Varlance No. 2943 and would noC take part in eith~r the d(scussion or voting thereon. Chairman Tolar also indlcated that he had a possible cunflict of interest as def(ned by A~ahelm City Planning Comnission Resolution Mo. PC76-157~ adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planniny Commission and Government Code Sectio~ 3625 et seq.. (n that he leases property from the petitioner and that~ pursuant ~o provisions of the above codes, he was dec) ar i ng to the Chai ~man Pru Tempore tt~at t~e was wi thdrawi ng f rorn the heari ng i n ca~nection with Varlence i~o. 294ii and would ~ot take par¢ In elther the discussion or voting thereon, TNEREUPON~ COMMISSiONER KII~G AIID CHAIRMAt~ TOLAR LEFT THE COUNCIL Ct1AME3ER. CNAORHAN PRO TEMPORE HERBST ASSUMEO THE CHAIR FOR TI~E FOLLOWING NEARING. The staff raport to the Planning Commission dated No~embe~ 21~ t977 was presented~ indicoting that the subject property ls an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cor~slsting of approximately 4.2 acres located et the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 21, 1977 ~~"~a~ ITEM A (contlnued) Imp rial Nighway; that the applicant rcquests approval of veViicular circulatlon and psrking plans~ and that the Planning Commission h~J moved at thelr Octuber 2G. 1977 meetlny to revlew~ egain, tlie re~ised vehicular circuietlon and parktng plans for Vari~n~e t~o. 29~~~ whlch tiad been approved et their meetl~g ~f October 10~ 1917• Chalrman Pro Tempore ~lerbst explained the Planniny Commisslon's cancern regarding access to the adJoining prope~ties; that the State owned two properties ad.Joining thls property and it was hard Co get any answer from them as to when they mi~ht scll the property~ and rQCOg~izing Mr. Rinker's rlght to go al~ead with liis developn~nt plans~ the Planning Corrmission approved plans but that snmc of tlie circuldtlon plans approved by tiie Planninc~ Comm(sslon were not approved by the Clty Council; that Katella Realty had purchased the adjuininy ~roperty and planned to develop a commerclal site; and that the Planning Commission had felt they sl~ould revlew all of tl~e prr~pertles as far as tF;e circulatlan elemer~t is cancerned to decermine if tt~ere cauld be servic:~don o common basis provided t~ botl~ propertip5. He indicated hc h~d walked the property frcxn Via Cortez to Solomon~ and it appeared there was quite a lot of access to tl~e property to the nortt~~ buC access was limited to the property to tl~e southr and that all the circulation off the Katella Realty property abutting tf~e frceway is ont~ Via Cortez. f1e Indicated this was the reason Lhe possibility of a better ci~culation pl.~n which might Join these properties should be ~onsidered and talked about. He poin[ed out the Katella Realty p~opcrty is somewha~ 1 andlocked; that there ( s a dra inaye cl i tc:1i r i yi~t dc~wn the mt ddl e of i t; an~ that there has been some discusslon that sald ditch could bc covercd~ whicl~ would join the propertles with some sort of common ground. Ne indicated he did not knc~w whether this cauld be done and whether It. would improve Imperial Prope~ties' development and felt this was thc area the Commission wanted to discuss. Ne indicated that from I~~oking at thc whole area, includiny the Maay property~ that there were sa~ie serious prohle~-s, partlcularly Via Cortc.x~ a tremendous row of euc~lyptu~ trees and a ditch that probably drops to 12 feet. Mr. Rinkcsr and his attorney in~iicated they had nothin~~ tc~ present at this time. Fl~yd L. Farano~ 25S~ Cast Chapman Avenue~ Fullcrton~ representing Katcll~~ Realty, indlcated the City Council and ttie Planniny Commission he~i instructed Imperial Properti~s to submit a circulation pla~ whicf~ provided access to the pr~>~ ~rties to the north and east~ an~! that tt~eir res~iution indlcates three parcels lacat~~d south of the Riverslde Freeway~ west of Via Cortez~ north of S~nta /1na Canyon Road and Imper(al Iltghway~ and that thls had not been Jane and Katella Realty was left witti very little access, and what was left was ineffectlve and dld not proviae an efficient circulation plan. Ne indlcated the Commisslon had requested and instructed tiim to spenJ somc time with Mr. Rinke~ and his representatives to decide wtiether tliere was cortxno~ ground to cievlse an intel l igenk circulation plan. Ne s[ated tt~is had been done and the result was that there was no change from tl~e plan which the Cornmission has before them. ;4e referrcd to the plan and a line on the north slde of the c~riginal pipce ~f propcrty. tIe stated that when this item was ori,yinally before the Planning Conxnission, which Nas denied~ and the City Council approved it and provlded in their resolution that access be provided by tt~e northerly 30 feet of the Imperi~l Properties property along Imperial Ili~hway for the purposes of servin~ the property to the wesl. and at that point~ no considcrati~n was given to [~ie property now owneJ by K.atella Realty lying immediately anci adjoininy to tt~e north. ;le indicated there was some question regarding the parcel which lies immediately to tt~e west of the Imperial Properties praperty whlct~ is bcing developed by GriSwold's immediat:'y east of Imperial Highway; that there was no dtsc~ssion nor any consioeration given to the fact tt~at that pr~perty and the property riow owned by Katella Realty were two parcels. He stated the Ci¢y Council had instructed Imperial Properties to provide aGCess to the property tQ the west and that access was pr~vided by the virtue of an irrevocable license between Imperial Properties ~nd the State of California executed Fe~ruary 26, 1974 and M{NUTLS~ ANA-1~IM CITY PLANNII~G COMl11SSION~ November 21~ i977 77-]~; ITEM A (contlnuad; omonded Junc 2J~ 1yJ4. to provide in,yress anJ egress for service piirposes on the narth sidc: of the Rlnkcr proper(y, Ile indicatod he hAct nat checl~.ed the property descriptlon ci t~d In the i lcense; thst it wes I~is rc~col lr..ccion that was t~ie I lyht blue I ine as sl~own; Gtiat Katella Realty's p~sltlun ~riylnally was t1~at th~y wanted to be allowed to enter lhelr propcrty throu~~h thc upeiiing in Sant.: Ana Cenyon Road. whlch is aqprox(mately in the middye of the entlre project, tr~ ~nt~r thcre and qo south around the Keystonc Savings bu(Idiny ~ncl down the 2~-foot e~sr.ment an~! ent~•r thelr c~wn prorerty frpn th~at di~~ction, and that they st{ I I would Ilke to have that; that it was the anly ~oocf encrance ~~ thelr property but hc is n~t sure that it (s availablc because thc minutes of the Flanning Gommission meetl~g an~ thc Clty Council meeting stateJ tfiat c~trancc was yo(ng to bc closed at the timr, the- aver,~c~e clai ly traffic co~~nt rcr~cf~ed 25~00~. He indtcotecl he would 11ke to b~ adv(sed to that eifect so that they co~~id change the(r th(nking. It is thelr posltion th~t at thls pc-i~~t ln llnke that entrance shouid be Ieft opcn and thcy shauld bt ~1lowed ~cces5 to thei r pr~~perty a~ fndicated by the 1 iyht blue , ine ~n the drawiny~ whtcl~ was granted as e 1 icense and IncludeJ as a part of thc circulat(on element for access to ehc Katella property. Ne Ind(c~ted the only access they have is Via Cortez and he did not th(nk tha[ was a full-w(clth street aiid probahly will ~ot be a ful!-width ~creet unless ~he adJoining proF,erty ~~wncrs give somc sort uF ~i~dleation and d(~~ not feel th~r. (s good circulatlon for thc~(r propPrty. Ne indlcated t-fc attltude of Mr, Rinker and his attorney w~s that that license no lonycr exlst~ by virtue of a merger af thc fce tltlc of ths property to the imnr_Ji ate west and Mr, Rlnker's propcrty, Katell~ Realty feels th~t Via Cortcz~ alone, is not adequate .~c~ess to t!~ei r propcrty; that they have ~,ffcred to deJtcate an additiunal 30 feet Imn,e~iately adjoining th~ I(censeJ ~rea n,arkec~ i^ blue on the plan and, In addi tlon~ they have offcred and wi 11 dedicate some parking to r r. Rinker's developrr~ent i n the Gvc~t tnat wliatr..ver they may arrive at wi 11 not jeopardirP the adequancy Insofar .~~ h Is parkin~ 9 s concern~~J. ~le (ndicateJ that the prescnt 1:ne goes dawn ~lony the northeasterly portion oF tt~~ Irnperial Propert~es shoppinc~ center and is only ~cide enouc~l~ for one aut~mobile; and that cars are~ now parkin~ on both sides of that. s t reet ~ and there i s a iraff ic t~azard *herc now. !i~ s tated tnat i n orc'er to re 1 I eve the prablem and possibly elfminate any problems (n thc f,,:urc, thc cntire circulation of the aret shc~uld be determi ned beforc i t is tcx~ late. l,lan Watts~ 1~55 Nortt~ Main Strcet~ Santa Ana, representing Canyon Plaza and Imperla) Propertlcs~ statco tliat Mr. Rinker is a partner i~ botf~ of these organizations. He revte:wed briefly what has t.ransplred over the last several ycars and wsnted to address s~nx: comments m~~de by Mr. Farano in respeci to the 30-foo[ easPment tha[ runs alonq the nur*.herly pr•~pert~~ line of thc imncrial Propertics parcel. Ile pointed tu the map and poln ed out Imperial H(ghway, cfie freeway on-ramp~ Santa Ana Canyon Road at the bottom of the rnap~ Via Cortez an~f the Maag pr~~pcrty whach surrounds this prore~•cy and (ndicated tl~ere was a grade d i f~,~rence, because of the dra i nage ci i tch ~ af about 10 to 12 feet, and puinted to the flc~od eontrol easement and che CalTrans parcel which was acquired pursuant tA a bid by an organization cal led Freeway F~operties in 1')7~F. At that tlme there wer~ hear'~ys before the Commission and City Council to discuss access to the Irnperial Properties parcei whieh was acqu(red by Fre~vay PropertieS. He indicated tlrese discussfons resulted in ~ome aecess befng provld~d to tl~is parcel, has(cally through Via Cortez along the j0-foot casement. Subsequent :o that~ Mr. Rinker and ~~is a,sociat(on have acqu 1 recf tlie Freeway Propert i es parc~• ~. Ne I nd i ca ted he had rsot extens 1 ve ly researched the f i!es and was re ly i ng or nn:mc-ry and tha t he had not done an exhaus t I ve je~ ( nsofar as restarch i ng the effect to the easement of ttie acqui s( t ton by Cany~n Pranert 1 es . Referring to the 3~3-fc~ot easement along ;he nor[herly boundary. It was tntended for ~he benefit of this parce ~ and at thc t(me they were talking a5out this ~~rcel and ;,he parcel to the north th~:t has. subsequently been acquired by Katella Keaity~ and that they were Lwo separat~ parcels of ~. •operty. He stated he tliouglit the easement was intend:d to cover the westerlyrnost parcel and i t was not clear that i t was intended for the benefi t of the northerly parcel. The acquisltion by the same peopte would certai~ly lead a lawyer to MINUTF.S~ AI~AfIk:IM CITY PI,ANNING CQMMISSIQN~ Novemhor 21 ~ 1977 77~140 ITLN A (continucci) ._._..~ tunsider th~ Nussibi 1 ity that tli~ru hacl been a mer,ynr of the eas.ume~t by thc facc thet one cennot awn on easement in one's fec (ntcrest property. ~nd that was wliat th~ discusslon of a morger was all r~bout. fle expldtned tl~ore was e 54-foot right-of-wey wttf~ an irrevoceble offer of cJadicatlun which t~ie Clty coulJ fiave at any tirne; tha~t the Intant~ in hls llmited review of Ct~e fil~s~ was for Katella Realty parcel to acqulre access to thc en~i of Via Cortex to their prvperty; that in order to co~struct a road which would strr~dJle the property 1 ii~e~ the existing channel would havr to he cavered and suygcsted thc enqliieers conslJer whekher or not thl, was prac[ic~l. Ne (ndlcated he would llke to defer any further dlscussion to Mr. Rfnkcr and let hi~~~ d(scuss Chc occess pro6l~ms from the dcvelope•'s point of vlew. Herry Rir~ker~ partner ~f Impcri~l Prc~~er4les and Canyon Plaza Pr~pertias~ stated he felt thls was pr~bably thr_ ~~Otl~ tine hc ha~ becn tc~ public hearings reqarding this prcpcrty; that he would I ike ta sc~y at this tirr. that he and his ,~ss~ciates l~~k upon thr Kat^11~ „ea ~ ty pcop 1 e as vc ry f( ne pcor 1 c and wan t to co~pcr~~ tc w( th them, When this pr~pcrty was offered fc~r saic by sealed bld. Katel'a Realy bid along with ~ everybody elsc. Thc Statc ~ivision of FI(qhways put ouc ;~ '~a ~,heet which told the conditions of the prop~rty anJ Mr, Rin~,er pointsd out lhc ;~i~~h~ ;yhts of th(s fACt sheet. Access: dy future y'i-foot wirle scrr.ct from Santa An~ Cenyon R~ad~ whlch was mt~ant as Via Curte=~ ~nd on Paye 2, that access to subject ~ropertY is tu 'ae provlcied by the C(ty of Anahelrn by City Resolut(an 72R daced Aori! 11, 1972, which would make Via Cortez the access street to tl~~. property to the nortf~. Furtl~cr in the -vrftc-up he read a statement as follo~~s: "if [he 5ubject parcel is so1J to 5ome~ne other than the owner of tl~e proposed sl~opping center {meaninr~ Im{~eria) Properties) ~ tl~ey would be requi red to grant an easement f-~r access. In this event~ both parties woulJ sl~arP in tf~e tot~~l cost of the access ~~ad. This was ayreed to and is of pubi(c record. Sliould this occur~ it will be necessary [o brldye and construct a roaci across tl~e above-menti~ned drainage channel to galn ~ccess to the subject." Ne stateci the word "oasement" is sli '~tly n,isleadiny; that they obviously ln tended ttit s to mean V i a Cortez. He referred ta a map on the wall an~ stateci tha[ he h~d as4.ed Katella aealty the proposed use for the property~ and that they had nc~t fully made un their minds, but generally cons(dered tt for office-Rrofessianal use and that if f,r ,.~ere developin~ the pr~pPrty, that (s exactly ihe s~me use he would see, He felt any ~cxrKnercial use~ such as a fast- ooci establ istim~:nt, would bc an improper use for the property ent-rely, He suggested the :ommission look on this locatlon for office-professlonal use anci that there is e nee~ for it in the area. He indicated on the map where a corm~ercial office building may be placed on the property and vartou, routes to yet to the parking for tt~at arr.a. Regardiny the statement made that Via Cor•tez i~ not adequate, he felt that was not true; that there ls a riyht-of-way ava~ lable and ind(cated an the map the eompleted portiun of Via Cortez; and thet, Just as tt:e 5[aCe hid impli~s~ the devel~perhere should complete tha[ sact(on of Yia Cortez and brldge tt~e channel whicf~ would provlde as good access as possible. Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst indic~ted he felt thal looking at the successful shopping center dr.vel~nr~i and the traffic patterns as they have ~leveloped i~~ the area and recogn i z i ng thet f f that parce 1 i s deve loped, t~~ey shou ~ d be t i e~i togethe r i n s~ ~e respect. He pui~~ted out thai if a pe~son were to go from Alber[san's Market and tr~en want to go to the professicnal buildtng to maybe s~-~ a doctor~ the oroperties shoul~ be tied rogether. He felt if the access point was util(zed by bqth properties it would be a more viable development for both properties. M~. Rinker pointed e• thP service entrance for ;he Albertson's Mt •~.et witt: semi-trucks~ garbage~ etc. (he ind'cated they were attem~t(ng to acree~ some c '~) and indicated the servic~: e~trancP to the restaur~nt~ the einployee parkin~ area which is not suitable for MltII~TES~ 11NANEIM C1TY PLANNI NG COMMISSI011, Novamber 21 ~ 1977 77•791 ITEM A (cc~ntlnucd) customer parking~ and indicatod that to try to bring traffic through thc+t. are~ would n~C be practic~l. Regardlny a s tatement that tl~esa propertles perhaps should he tled t~yether for cho beneflt of both prnp crtles~ he indicated they discussed the posstblllt~- f a Jolnt venture but that after looki ~n at th(s slte and the cost to develop it and t~ ~~nect them~ they had ~ieclded ay~in st thls icfea; that this does nnt make any ec~nomic sense to them. I~e Indicated the~; find tfiemselves (n a position of bcing askc~ ~o do something for nothing that tl~cy would ~~ot do for n~onay, and that tl~ey fclt this was unfalr. Ne fQlt they had gone way overboard in trying to make thls really the finest centcr of its klnd ln tho County or thc City and h ad attcm~~tcJ to use im.3gi~~tlon and have spent a lot uf money simply for oesthetics and referred to the bell tower for whtch th(s var(ance waa requested. He indlcated th ey have put In mowed lawns in all areas~ which is co~slderably moro expensive to maintain. tle fclc (t was unfnl, to be asked to m~kc access for• a propcrty that was clcarly bought with problems. Ile indicatca he still wo~il~i like to hAVe th.~i pi~ce of prnp~~rty and would put offices there if he owned it end would not think of trying to connect the two piropertics. Chalrman Pro Tempore Ilerbst indicatcd he ~isar~rced with Mr. Rinker in some resp~cts and referr~cl to Grisw~l~i's r~~taurant. fle stated that if there was en offlce bu(ldin~ ~cross tl~o d I tch ~ i t seemed to h i r~ tl~at 1 t wau I d be a benef 1 t wi th peap l e go ( ng to ttie of t i ce bulldiny and cominy arross to thc restaur~int~ and that as long as the property owne-'s were wi l l ing to stend the ~~~rdcn of expensc and he ~+as not tryi ny to ~rnply that i t should be of any expense to ~1r. Rinker, but was tryinq to sec the benefit to both properttes. Mr. Rinker suogested tf~at a ped~stri~r access could be placed chcre ~nd that they have no obJecllc,n to people from th~ shopping center wantfny to gc~ ovcr to the office building. Mr, Rinker stated he did no t think it was economically fea•...l,le to cover this channet so tfiat peopl~: cou1J drive the entire Icnc~ti~. Chairman P ro Temp~rc Nerbs t stated that M~. Rinker may be right hut asked if Katella Realty saw fl[ tv develop the channel. would t~e t~ave any ob.jcctions. Ile ~ndicated he felt it would certalr~ly make access t~ f,ri~wol~1's better. 11e inaicated he di:l not see where this could be a detrlment tt7 Mr. Rinker's prop~~rty wl:atsocver. Mr. R~nker sinte~ he thou~~~~ t~ t was unfortunate that thcy had not Jone sorne si [e plan stuclies. ~~e referred to a lc~cation ~`or tl~c building on the site an~i where the parking would be located and fel[ t hat a cost/benefit study fpr covering tl~e channel should be done; that they have coverc~i channe2s anJ it is very expensive Just to cross the channel~ but to drive parallcl on it , it l~ecomes prohibitive. He staced hc felt the Clty is going to have to be fair and tf~at th~ Katella Realty prope.rty has yec~d access to their property and it is -varth more than they paid for it; that it is unfair to give Y,atella Realty good access at his expen~e. Ch airman Pro Tempore Herhst p^intad out that fi ~,~ould be done at Katella Realty's expense a nd would bcnefi[ Mr. Rinke~'s property~ and asked tf he would be ayr~eable to t`~a[. Mr, Rinker po(nted out tt~at they were certa9nly cooperative-minded in e~e ry way and wantecJ to se e thac ~roperty developed and would do anything they could which wc~uld r~~t cust ;hem money tliat woul~l be of benefit to Ghat {~roperty; that hs ha~f noC given any stuoy to this anc: what it would cost. M~'. Watts brouyht up two q~estions in his mind: (1) t1,is area is simply blacktopped and streets woulcl require curbr and yuttcrs and I~e w~:n~lcred if nerliaps tf~e paved area would be sufficient t~ bui Id a street; ~2) fie asked what f~appcns to tlic property east of V~a Gortez and stated~ in his view~ [t~at parcel needs a road f~r access eoo. t~e stated he suspecked there was yoing to be a road on the so~~thern boun~lary of the Katella Realty property for mc~st of its lengtl~ to provide atcess anu asked if the C~mmiss(on was thinking of sorne "S" movement on that road. M~NUTE~~ ANAtiEIM CITY PLI1Nr~ING COnr~IS510~1~ November 21~ 19)7 77-792 ITCM A (contlnucd) Chalrman Pro Tempore -1~rbst stat~d he felt bec~use of the limited .ircul~~tion in that area in regarJs to that parccl of property and furtl~er east~ that tl~ere definitely should bc some sort af orea development and circul~~tlon studies to determl~e what zonln~ sh<~uld be allo+red thore. t1e stated he thou~~ht tl~cse were the qucatlons beforc the Commtsslon and that bec~usc of tr~c laGk uf ~.nuwledge as to when the State would releasc tt~ose paresls~ they rec;oynized at that time there would be A problem ancl felt it should be dealt with rtyl~t ewoy. Ilo stntcd this was the reason for calling Mr, Rlnkcr bac~: far further dlscussion and felt the situatiun could requlre some consir~crati~~~ on lils part t~ service that area becausr. the rt~th~d of Jevelopment ryn the parcel and the success of hIs development lias created part of the preblems. Ile Indicated the parkiny l~ts are packed and dr_flnitaly show tfie area neeucd developmtnt in this manner; tl~nt if commerclul ~~ffice use is to be developed on the back port(on, he felt some access po~~~t should be made from there to the other parcel for rhe benefit of the users an~f hr. felt ! shoulcl h~ cr~nsiderrd beforo it Is drastically tc~o late and nothin~ c~n be done, He stated he was look'~~g for ways tl~at wou1J benef f t Mr. Rinkcr and ttie Katc:) la Reol cy ~arccl , and t~e Indlcated he felt there wou1~1 be serious traffic prot~lerns if all the t~affic i~ Jumped onto Vta Cortez and rsferred to the shartness u~ the trafflc sign»1 at Santa Ana Canyon Roa~i, Paul Singer~ "frafflc Engineer~ polnted out that the traffic c~unt is close to 2fi~~Q~ .it the prespnt ttme and Is prc~Jected up to ~~~000. Comin(ssioner Darnes state~f she felt an acccss would bencfit Nr. R(nker's propcrty~ espectally for G~iswold's re~taurant~ ~.~.d tha[ she did not understand the problcm and fclt the operators of thc restauraiit would want a ro.~~ ta it. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ skated he feit. the Commisslon was ~vercomplicattng the sltuatlon and were yettiny into discussions of areas that thcy dtd not have the authcrlty ta do anyth(ny abour and referred to Condltion No. 7 ~f the Clty Council r~~solutton and reacl it as follows: "That pri•~r to i~suancc of a bulldinq permit~ the propcrty owner(s) shall submit to the Planniny Commisslon for review and ap~rovat a revised site plan specify(ny on-site vehicular circulation pr~viding adequate tww way access between the three p~rcels located south of the Riverside Frceway~ west uf Via Cortez~ north of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ and e~st of Imperial Nigliway and th~_ two approved access po(nts on Santa Ana Canyon Road." Ne staced that wa~ the only thin~ the Commis,ion was ~ookinq at, whether or not the site plans proposed comply with that ~onditlon~ and if tt~e condition turns nut Lo be bad~ then ti~e condition should be modified. He stated that rAther than tryiny to repian what clrculation plan would be the best, the Commission should deal w(th wiiether or not the circulation plan, as provided, meets the condittons of tt~e resoiutlon. Mr. Watts indlcated three parcels were menttoned and pointe<1 out those parcels on the map~ indicating there were three leyal parcels. Ghairman Pro Tempore Herbst indicated the Council stipulated access must be supplied to those three parcels~ and Mr. Rinker replied tha~ access is provided and referred to the plan. Jack White indicated he felt the Froblem seemed to be witti the very last clauge of that condition rcferring to the two approved access points on Santa A~a Canyon Road. Fle indicated that alternates proposed woul~i p~ovide circulatian to the north~rly Fa!•cel but dces not provide access to th~ tv • points on Santa Ana Cenyon Ruad. Mr. Rinker replied tliat his architect was at the rnecting where the minutes were derived and he did not hear anyone say anything ebout two access points on Santa Ana Canyon Ruad. MINUTES~ A~U111EIM CITY FI,ANNING COMMISSION~ November 21~ 1~77 IT_ EM A (continued) 77•~793 Mr. Wh( te stated i t secnbd to hlm the remedy to tl~e s ituatlon would be to chanc~e th~ cnnditlon. Mr. Farano stated they were cAlking nbaut accass ~oints and the(r point was~ according ta tho resulutlon of the Counc:il~ that c(rculatlon wos to be developed betw~cn these three parcele sncl they dtd nut feel the {~~oposed plan r~presents adoquat^ clrculation. fle indicated the petitloner was willing to work wft!i Mr. Rtnkor to cry anci resoivc anything; tl~at ho real Ized this was holding Mr. Rlnker's development up and tliey w~re not anxious to hold him up but until this is resc~lved~ ielt they heve only one 54-foot access to the parcel. fle felt If the situation was laft as It is~ tlie Commission would be faced witl~ a lot of variances. Comrnissioner Barnes -Qferred to the 5 ate speclfic~tions indicatiny th~t ti~~, ow~~cr of the prop o~eci shopping center would t,e requirad to grant an easement for acGess ta the parcel south of subjc~ct parce) acr~s: an ~~pen~ 1Q-foot Jrainay~ channel, Mr. Rinkr.r r~fcrre~f to a rnap and indicated the 1~)-foo[ ~irai~iaqe channr.l and added the State was putttng the buyer on notfce tl~at their praperty did not have access. Commissionc•r E~arn~s staccd shc felt this spcc(fication de~initcly says the c~wner of the shnpping center shall pruvicie an easement for access. whict~ woulJ climinsite Via Cortez. Mr. Rin felt this was an error c~n :he State's part; that they wcrc referring to thc offer of dedicati~n rather trian an r_asement. Chairman Prc~ Temp~~re Nerbst stat°d he felt i,~~ qucstion herc is wheth-~r or no[ the circulat(on element meets t'r~e requ(rernent of the wridition as stated in the City Counc(1 rosoi ut i~n. Mr. Rinker 5[ateJ his I~~st sta[ement a[ this hearing ~~o~~id bc that he hoped the Commissian would apprecia[~ the fact that they Jo have rnaximum ~~se af thc vehicular coverage to get out of the parcel and that any more traffic would he an added burden to lils development. Ch~~irman Pro Tempore Ilerbst indicated tie ~ay be right but tf~at 1ie could be wro~g. Fle fe1Y the biygest traffic problem is going to be created to Griswold's rescaur,nt~ and he felt an eecess would help tha[ situation. He indicat~d he would like to see an area development sCucly made on tt~e Maay property ar~d the rest of tfic properties. Mr. Rinker (ndicatcd I~is view was Lha[ che property was purc~~ased wi th the owncr kn~wing the fatts, at less than S4~,000 an acre, and tfi~t property in the R-3 Zon~e is se) l ing far three or four times that amou~t and to try and make this into a$25~~000 ar acre parcel of land can cnly be done a[ somebociy's expense. Lhairman Pr~ Tem~or~ Ilerbst stated want i t to ~ost him anythi ng; that Ftealty's axpense and in return fGr offset them on tt~ei r parcel ; that nef i t both parccls .-~e f~ 1 t the ~.th wau I d benef i t f ror~ i t. lie wanted [o enhance Mr. Rinker's property and did not if a road has to be put in~ it would be at Katella the parking spaces *.hat might be lost~ they would it would ~e a little blt of give-anc~-take to try and c•~ulation is important to both pa~rcels and felt they Commissione~ Linn asked Mr. Schantz~ a,rner of the property. if h~ had plans to put the building on the parc~l as iridicated by Mr. Rinker~ and Mr. Farano answ~,•ed that conceptual plans are being prepared but they could not tell at this time exactly the locatlon of the building; that a lot depended upan whaC is done today regarding the access. MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COM~~ISSI01~, Novemt~r 21, 19~7 77-794 ITEM A (contlnued) Commis~loncr Linn stated Mr. Rlnk~r hed lndlcatecl a willingncss for a pedostrian accessway and discuzsed the locatlon and advisabllity of that eccess with Mr. Faran~. Thcy also dtscussad the trafflc flaw~ and Mr. Farano st~t~cf he felt if same~hing Is done along the lines as discusseJ~ the traffic patterns wo~~ld have to changG; that thts wou1J be a twp- way drlva so that the traffic~ as drown~ could continue in en easterly directi~n and the wes tbc~und t raf f I c I cinc wou 1 d be to the n~r t~i of t hc b 1 ue I I ne an the p I an. C~mmi ss toner I.1 nn esked Mr, S i nyc ~• about put~ I nq a road on ths north s I~ie, and Mr. S( n.~er re~lled ~!~at he w~uld have to take a closer Ic,ok at the plan but d(d not think It w~~ld havo a ;raat ~ffrct. Chalrman Pru Tempore Nerbst stated he felt chc Commission was spinninq thcir wheels and ref~rred tu the condition as po(nted out by Mr. white. Mr. Rinker stete~ I~e tliou,ylit tlils was obviously an err~~r; that there was only one access point on Santa Ana Canyon R~ad~ and Mr. 4lhite repli~ed 1-c dfd not know whether or not It was an ~~rror~ but it wzs there, a~d a rernedy wnulJ br. to modify ttie condition. Cummissioncr B~irnes sugycsted the Commission ask for clariflcation from the Council reyordiny this cu;~Jitton. Mr. Farano stated hc and Mr. Watts had co~sultr.J and (t was t.heir considercd oplnion that th~ Planning C~mmissinn coulci make a ftn~ling~ notwithstand(nq whnt che Co~ncil had said, as (t concerns the circulatlon element and he realiz~d [h~~t Mr. ainker was being held up and they were not interested In holdinc~ him up any lc~nyer; t~~at they were only interested in having some k(nd of circulat(on clcnwnt det~ermined, Chairman Pro T~~npore ~~erb~t indlcate~i what is before the Cammission (s circulation on Mr. Rtnker's parcel of property and whethcr or not tfie site plan cnmplics wtth Conditlon No. 7. Ne Indlcated he did not think chts plan services other accr.ss potnts to the property. Mr. Rinker stated that if the Commiss(on is not talking about forcing him t~~ qive another sccess polnt and (s talking only abouc doing something along the llnes of covering the channel~ he would be happy to sta~7~ on the sug~estion by Chairman Pro 7empore Herbst ~f doing a cost/benefik study. fle stated he did not rhink it was fair to ask hlm to pay for the cost of improvemencs bui thac if Katella Realt; wants to covcr the channel and Chere was no new element whicf, had ~~ot been discussed~ that he felt this would be acceptable to him as lon,y as he would not h~ve to pay fur it. Ile stated the thing tfiat destroys his developm~nt is to brinq morc~ cars int~ an aiready-loaded street and indicated he felt Mr. Singer would agree tliat to pur rnore cars through his development would not make sense, coupled with ttie fact that cliis is wtiere a building stiould be and not parking. Commissloner Eiarnes stated she felt :his would satisf'y any interpretation of the Cou~cil's decislcn. Mr. Faran~ asked Mr. Rtnker to plea5c restate what he was willing to do, and Mr. Rinke~ st~ted he wo~ld be willing to contribute thc propcrty that woulJ be ~ half-street to a point. raughly about 5a fect left of Albertson's Market corner to the e~sterly pdrt of the drainage line. Mr. Farano statcd Mr. Schantz would bc willing to accept that but there was one other concern, and that r~as the existing medlan or~ Via Cortez; that traffic on Vla Cortez naturelly I~ pushed back into the shopping center and i~ a p~rson does not want to go back into the sliopping center, he has to go across incoming t~affic and it is quite a nightmare~ and suggested that consideration be given to removing that median. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI0~1~ Nuvember 21~ 1977 ITEM A (co~tln~~ed) .~._._ 77•795 Mr. Singer stated this ia on a public str~.et and In a{s~~blic rtqht-of-way; that the Clty could take cere of that and it ~h~uld not can~licatr, this hcurlr~g. Mr. Slnyer stated that at no time has I[ been proposed th~t tt;at access would ~~e closed; that ~hP cutoff polnt of 25~000 vehlcles was mc~~rly for require~i tompietton of thu accelerat(on/deceleration lanes at that en±r~nce. Mr. Rinkor ~tated he wsnted t~~ ~~~ke it tlear that t~u~ respansi~.~l(ty for the improvements w~uld be with Y.atella ftealtv~ as stated on the bid form; that they have completecJ the improvement of Via Cortez on chcir p~rcfor~. Chalrman P ro Tempore Herbst inJicat~•~+ he felt it would behouve Katcl~~ Re~lty to get together wiCh Maag re~ esentativ~ +~~J look at the rnw of eucalyptus trees wh(ch h~vP hhen falling lnt the Jitc,~ and which cvuld fall ~~nt~ s~me c,f their buildinqs. and at the posslbiltty that the r~ad ~ould be widened if the trees were remoucd. He felt th~ trees w~rc a real tiazard. Mr. Farana stated f.• would Iike to bc surc what Mr. Rink~r was refcrrinn to as to Katella Realty payiciy for tiie cost of improvements. f1e inJlc~ated that aGCOrding t~ the statement Mr. Rinker is relyinq on, tl~e cost ~~f improvir~g the 54-foot aGCess i~, to be sh~reJ by both par~ies~ anu Mr. Rinker r~.~plied that hc had .~Irca~.fy improveJ his partion of Via Cortez. Commissioner Linn asked Mr. Farano to clarify whether or not he still wanted tlie access on the westcrly sidc for pedestrians. 11r. Farano replicJ tl~at .is far as hc was concerned~ it was rx~re of a request of Mr, Rin~:cr's; ci~at If he wants t~ provide It~ hc wlll be very happy to accept i~~ th~t it will be an a~decf convenience for their custor~ers, a-~d he hoped it would bc of b~_:cfit to both partics. Mr. Ri nker stated that thi s coulci bc worke~i out to tl~e benef i t of bott~ rar~ ies i f both partles wani it open. Ile askcd if the builJiny permits could be. rcleased on the basis of the understandiny. Chairman Pro Tempare Nerbst st~~t~~1 that +s lony as the Planniny Commission yrants approval of th~ Clrculatlon pia~i, subJect to conditions~ the permits could be released. Mr. 5inyer asked if the Cermmission intended [o see a specific layout uf the circulation plan. Chairman Pro Tempor~ Herbst stated he would want to see the specific plan 5ut that -,ow the ~Commission is talking about the interim circ~~lation element around these buildings that 1s holding up tfje building pcrmits. ACTION: G~~mmissloner Linn offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner pav(J and M0710N ~7R~(~U (Commissioner Johnson being absent and Commissioners King and Tolar abstaining)~ tliat tFie AnahPim ~ity Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised vehicular and ci~culation plan for Veriance No. 2?4~i, subjec.t to the condition that thc~ part(es (Katella Realty and Ganyon P~operties) provide equal ~nd mutually accessible vehicular access easem~ents of 30 feet each, for a total widtl~ of 60 fect~ along thc property line separating the parcels and generally paraileling the existing cpen storm draln; sald easement to extend south,~csterly approximately 450 feet from the easL side of the present terminus of Via Cortez; and thet Katella Realty will be responsible for the cost of street i;nprovements if said easement is dedicated for public strect purposes~ the need for said dedication to be sub,ject to the approval of the City Engineer; and~ furthermore~ if the nasement is dedicated for public street purposes. the improvements tt~ereto shall comply with ali applicable City standards. MINUTES~ ANAIiE{M CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Novnmber 21~ l~77 77-79G ITCM A ~continued) .__._.._ Commissioncr Herbst nffered a mottor~~ seconded by C~~nissloncr Darn<~a and MOTION CARR~''n (Comnixsloner Johnson being absent and Commissioners King and Tolar abstatninq)~ th~t as soon os Katella Reolty cornes in with scx~x sort of plan an that p•operty~ th~t the Maag property be inclucied in somc sort of area development study to show the balance of ~lrculation to be resolved to the property ta the east. CIIAIRMAN TOLAR AWD COMMISSIOri KING Rf-ENTL'RED TNL COUNCII. CN~M(3ER~ AND CHAIRMAN TOLAR ASSUMEG TIIE C11AI R AT J: 1~ P..M. ITEM B. VARIANCE N0. 237~ ~ Request for extensf~n of time. The staf(' rcpc~rt to thc Plar~niny Commissian dated Noverfier 'l1~ t91T Wns rrr.sentpd, noGing tl~e suhject p~operty (s a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land consisttny of approximake'y 0,7 ecrc having a frontagc of approximately 90 fect on the wcsc side of Harbor Boulevard and beiny loc:atc~ appr~ximatcly 65 feet south of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard; th~t the applicant requests an extension of tirn~ to continuc an autor~eotfve rep~ir use whlct~ includes engine overhaul; that Variance No. 2~i7~ was approved by the Planning Commission ~n November o~ 197(~~ for a period of one year, subject to conditions that within ~30 ciays tf~e owner of subJec[ property shal! deed to ttie City t~f Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from thc centerline of the street aloiiy 1larbor poulevard~ pay to the Ci[y of An~heim the sum of $2.OU per front foot alony Narbor Boulevarct fur street ligheing purposes~ and pay to the City of Anaheim the sum r~( ~,0~ per frunt foot along Harbor Boulevard for tree planting purposes. and that ' 1ie proper•ty ow~er has not con~pl ied wi th these cond) tions. The applicant has indicated Fie would like to cont(nue his business in the sub.ject location but has not been able to pcrsuade the property own~r to ~ir,~ly with the conditions. Donald tiess with Michael Reminyt.on Law Offices, 2555 East Chapman Avenue~ Fullerton~ represent(ny Terry Berzenye~ st~ted the problem i~ ehat the owners of the property own the land and someone else owns the -~~ildiny and leases it to the tenant. He indic.ated that Mr. kierzen•~re is in the prc~c:ess ~~t ~4~wt iatiny to buy th.• bui lding and eventua! ly to buy the land, at whicl~ time f~e wi 11 be haN,•y to abide by the conditions set by the staff. Commissioner Herhst askecl how much timr he needed and Chairman Tolar indicated he would not reconxnend a~ extension longer than ;'J uays because of the conditions and h~ felt not approving this request would force the o~ners oi the property [o comply with the conditions or thcy would end up without + tenant. Hr. Hess stated tf~at the oa~ners of the property do nat c4re whether chey have a tenant ar not; that t ey have a lease on the building, Mr. Hess indicated that ti~c tenant is willing to pay for the fnstallation of streel lighting and tree planting but cannot grant the casement. Arnika Saritlahti~ Assistant Lirector for Zoning~ poin[ed out since the variance was approved~ the street lighting fee f~as yone up fr~m $2.00 to S3.5U. Chairrnan Talar a~ked if the tenant had considered moving his bus(ness CU another location~ that he did n~t wart to put the man out of business but it ~1id not make sense to h(m to grant an extension. fle indicated if tl~ey approved these requests subject to conditions and the propertv owner does not cor~ly tliis time, what happen~ to tlie ~ext one? Co~~~missioncr Nrrt,st stated he felt a six-month extension of tirr~ would gi~. . the tenant a c'~ance to negotiate with the prope~ty owner to :,uy the pruperty and also felt since the :nant had indicated a willingness to pay the fees set forth, that a condition sh~uld be ..Jded to that effect. 77-797 MI NUTES, ANAl1E I M C ITY PLANN ~ NG COMM) SS 101~ ~ November 21 ~ 1!377 17EN B (cantinucd) Th_ e Commissi~n dlscussed whetl~cr or not tlie tenant should pay tl~e fees~ and i[ was the general consensus that 1~c should not poy them. Clialrman lol~r zndlcated he i~h~~heucnndltlons~IthonoMr~ l3erzenyehshouldslookbfartanother Lhe owner has not complied place t~ ~~e hls buslness. ACTION: Commisstnncr King o' red a motlon~ seconded by Commissioncr llnn and NOT104 R ED (Commi:sloner Jolinso being ibsent)~ tF~at the Anaheim Cfty Plannin~~ Commisslon does hcreby grar~t a six-mo~ -~' ~review~andf consldcr~~tioneforUanWexhtenslonnof ftirne2by5thep explre May 8~ 19JG~ subJ~ t ko Planntnc~ Commisalon. iTEM G. Al~~~~ ~tIT N0~ 11",1A The staff repor: ta [he Planniny Comm155ion ~iated Novcmbcr ~1~ 1~77 ti•~as presented, indicatinc~ a rnquest,e~ south~uf~~Katclla'I1v~:nucibyrKerry~u.c~La~~lertb,Astsoclatesny the west side ~f Douglass Str~ t It was notcd that the Ulrect~r of the f'lanninc~ Uepartmc:nt has ~~{eLficnCityh,of Anehe~mPosed activity fall, within the definicion of Sectior, 3.~1, Cl~ss ~~ Guidelines to the Requirements fo~ an Envir~nn~e~tal I~pRct Report anc~ is~ the~tfore~ categorically exempc from tlu~ requlr~sment to file an ACTI~.~: Lammissioner k ~U (Commissioner does I~ereby reccxnmend approved. ITEM D. K) ng of fered a mot lon ~ SeCOnded by Corx~i ss ic~ncr Dav i d and M~T I ON Johnson be 1 ny af~scnt) ~ tha t thc Anahe i~~~ C i ty P 1 ann i ng Commi ssA t>e to the City Council that the reyues[ fnr Abandonment No. 77-7 RECLASSiFiCAT1011 NU. 77-1~-1u At~D VARIA~~CE N0. 2~bG (REVISIOIJ N~. 1) Re uest for a roval of revised lans. ~977 Wa5 presented. The staff report tu the Planniny Co-nmission dated November 21~ ~7 on indicatin9 that this item was Jenied by the Planning Cornnissin~ on October 2G~ 19 , tii~ basis tl~at surrounding prope~tles having a similar size and shape are zoned both RS-A- Sin le-Family) and alt are 4't,000 (Resldent~al/Agricultural) and RS-7200 (Restdentia~~ 9 developed with .,ingle-f~mily residences and that thc p+'oposal would~ therefore, be an intrusion ~f multiple-f~mily resldential ~~icanttiserequestinshQ?pruvaleofa*evtsed plans resldenttal ne1ghborhooJ; and that the app 9' for a second, de[aclied~ single-family dwellin~ to the rear of an exist.ing single-family resiJe~ce in the proposeu RM-1200 (Residential~ Multiple-Family) Zone. Jatk Muller. agent for th~ peti'.ioner, indicated revised planswiLY-ea''~~ttle overP10005af to a detached~ sin9le~st~ry house at the rear of the praperty square feet. which ~~^Peino varlancesGbeing,requested`~nation of inedium denstty ln that area; and that tt~erc ar Commissloncr ~ierbst s~assdfi~ation andtthatinowcthe~rnatt~r,willubetgoing~to`thetCity Was oppositlon to the rec a Caunci{ for public hearing. Mr. Muller pointed out the~e was only one perscn opposing thie two-story butlding at the prevlous heartng. ~. MINUTES~ ANANEIM C1TY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ November 21. f977 77-7g8 ITEM D (w~itlnued) ...~...__ Annika Santalahtl. Asslsr~nt Oirecta~ for 2onfng~ pointed out there (s a Councll pollcy whlch spocifies chet although the Council may cansider tho item~ even though substantial changes are rt-ade~ It would he thelr policy that the plAns ,yo back to the Planning Commfssion for thetr ravlew; that the Planning Commission co~~ld then dccide If tliey want e publlc hearing. but lt (s not requirad of the Commission; t~~at the notific:.tion wlll shc~w thc same varlances on tho propcrty and the peaple wauld probably show up wlth thc samc opposition unless the petitloner has contacted him regarding his revised plans. Commissloner Herbst stated he dtd nat likc to see samethiny cJenied at the Planning Cammission level af~er a public hearing and then come back to the Commtsslon for revlsed plens undpr reports end recommendat(ons. Mr. Muller fndlc~ted he does have letters from all pruperty owners on that side ~f the stre~at with the same typc property, stating they arc in aqreern~nr wtth hls pians. He po(nted out that down tho s[reet~ five praperties away and wittiii~ 290 feet~ there a~•e two- story~ multiple-family units. Commissioner Herbst stetcd~ agaln~ hc d(d nut likc to appraoch somethin~, .fke this under r@ports end recommendations port(oii of the agenda after It had been Jenied before ~ pubifc hearing. Annika Santalahtl stated that if the Planning Commissfon felc [hey would like to have another public hearing~ they are free to state tf~ey fee) [lils item should be d(scussed before e public I~Paring by the Planniny Commisslon. Commtssioner Herbst indicated he Jld not think it was fair to people in th~ nciyhbo~hood to have the plans go before thc Council with the Planning ''ommlssion recammendation without thelr input~ and i~e felt this body should set ~ public hearing. Mr. Muller did not think the Plann(ny Commtssion should hold a public hearing. Jac~ White~ Deputy City Attorney. sta!ed it is not neces~r~ry for the Planning Cortmisslon to take any action on this before it yoes ~o the City Councll; that they can simply refer i t to the Ci ty CQUnr.i 1 wf th no action t.~krn. ACTION: Commiss(oner Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CA' R~D (Commi~;ioner Johnson bei~g absent and Chairman Tolar abstaining)~ that RPclassification No. 77-78-13 and Variance No. 296G h., considered by the City Council wlChout Planning Cnmmission recommendation since the Commission ,1id not hav~ the beneflt of cltlzen input on the revised plans. ITEM E. TEP~TATIVE -'~P OF TRACT N0. 75~7 -~equesi for waiver of street 1 ights and st dewall~s. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Directur for Zoniny~ referred tu the staff repor•t to the Planning Comnission dated November 21, 1977 and po(nted out that there ar~~ some refere~ces made to the Mohler Driv~ and Peralta 11111s areas as being similar developments~ and the fact that tl:ere are no strc:~t lights ar sidewalks i~ those areas is true, however~ ln both cas~s the properties were ann~xed developed as they are; that there are Councll pol(ctes statiny if it is determined in the future Lhat either ~treet ii~'~ts or ~idewalks are necessary~ a special assessment district wil) be formed for the p~ymer,t of in:,tallattoi~ fees for ihose particular facilities. Don Willdamson, representing Anaheim Hilis~ Inc.~ poinc~d out that they are propos(ng a feductiun r~ street lights at Flidden Canyon RoaJ which forms the entrance to their estate- M I t~UTES ~ ANAtIE I H C I TY PLANN I Nf COMM I SS I aN ~ Novembe r 21 ~ 19 7/ ~ ~" ~`~9 ITFH ~ (c~ntinuod) lot dc~v~lopmant~ alsu cllmir~ation of street I iyhts ~~ncl sid~walks ln tl~e estate-lot development (Trac;t No. 7~~1)• Ne st.~ted tliat t,-c Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory C~mmittee (HI1CMl1G) had approved fhe stre;et Il~ht eliminatlon proposa) and referred to the previously-established pol icy in tlie (~4ol~ler Ur~ve and P~ralta Hi l ls areas~ anJ that the Gity Council has approved tentat(ve maps fe~r three uf their tr~~cts at Canyon RIm Roed and fairmunt Uoulc:vard with similar zuniny anJ they did approv~ the de~etlon of strect ll~hts ir, tfiose tracts~ a~~d tliat Anal~ei~~~ 11111s~ Inc. lias aqrcc~i t~ thc condition of Installing condu~t ancl posting e bond tu yuarantce (nstallation of strcet Ilyhts at any timc during the two-year pc:ric~d following r~cor~.-t(on of tl~e final map, G~mmissioner Herbst inJicateJ hc h~d driven the proptrty ~n~t felt that widely-spaced~ disttnctive-type llyh[in9 s(mi~ar [r~ that along C~ny~n Rfm Road s~nd on the curves woulJ be advisable in the arca. Ne disa~,~reeci tliat I iglits of tliis type wouid be an intrusion, Ne felt this would bc a lonely road and t,ccaus~ i[ is yoing to have schoo) hus ACCP_55~ there should be siclc:walks at least olony onr sicie ~~f tf~e roaJ, Ile indicated he Jid not ayree with wtint Peralta Htlls has done wftl, their circulation and f~lt lights and sidewalks are needed (n certain ~ark a'eas because af tt~e chi;Jren irivolved. Commissioner (iar~~es ~sl.c~1 what devclopment Is proposed on ~venida ae Santl~~yo across the street from thc estatc development~ and Mr. 4!I I 1 iamson rcpl ted estat~.s lots ar~~ proposed for that araa. tie stated therc is an ac~reement to bui ~,, a trai 1 alony that siJe ~f t' ~~ street. Commissioner tiarnes Ind(cated cc~ncern w~[h a pcrson driviny fran a liyhted area into a dark ar~a and referred ta tt~c property ~oneJ RN-24U0, indicatiny she felt whe~ that property is developed it will I~e t+ liyhted area. She suqgesced ihere should probably be a few l ights Co keep Clie peopl~ on .`.lie street al~ny tliere. Mr. Wi1llamson indlcated their main concern was [he glare Froblem and 3tatrd a number of the residents lrave comp131ned anJ felt by elim(natinq the street ~ights entlrely~ rw:uld be taking the CiCy of° the f~~t seat. Commissloner Nerbst ind(cated hc felt the lightina a~ong ~anyon Rim Road is an improvement~ thac lt ls dlmly lit and ttie corners are lit; that there a-e some pretty good curves in this area and looking at [i~e Pol'~ce Oeportment~ Engincering Oeoartment and Electrical Uenartment recommendatlons~ he felt there should be somr licht. Ne sr.ated that to assurne thc people buying the lots wa~~cl nc~t wan: .;trcat llghts is not necessa~(ly trut; that lie did not see the Mohlcr Driv~ develo~ment. a~ a cnnnection a[ all; that here you have curbs and lt is r~ot the rural atmosp:~erE; and that he fel; t~~e ligtiling should be similar to Canyon Ftim Road. Commi ss ioner ttai nas stated ~hc fel t N' ~~~ e~tate dens 1 ty on b tli s ides of tl~e s treet there was ~o need far sidewalks and curbs, ~spec(ally if there +s 4olny to be a horse trall~ and suygested that the develoqer consi~ low-profile, reduced lighting So that people wiil no[ bQ driving down a liyhted roa~ .,nd sudJenly bc~ in thP dark. ACTION: Cnmmissioner Linn c,"fered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner flerbst and MOfIOt~ CARRI~D (;.on.nlssiener Johnson being absentl. that the P~anr~ing Commission deny the requ~st of Anaheim Hills~ Inc. nn Tentative Tract I~o. J35~ for ~aiver of sr.reet lights and sidewalks. based on the recommendations provide~ by Lhe Police Department~ Electri~al D~partnent a~d Enyineering Department~ and That sidewalks be provided on one side of the street only. Prior to ttie Cornr,ission voting on the foregeing motion~ Mr. Willlamson indtcai.ed the CiYy Council has already e~tablished a policy of sorts in allowing elimination of street llghts ; ~, , , ~ t , MINUTE:S~ ANANE~M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 21, 1977 »~~~ IT~M E, (co~ti~ued) in Tent~tiva 7ract Nas. 974~+. 91~+5 and 9601~ Paui Sinyer. Traffic Engineer~ indicated this v+es on an experimental basis onlY and until such time as the experimant has proved succeysful~ the Clty could not mako any ~ecommendatlons; Commissionar Barnas stated thare were s~ oLher altarnatives~ such as vary low-profile 1lghts, for example. at entrances to property at 5 feet high~ or something to delineate the straat. Chairmsn Tolar addad they coul~! be evon lawer than 5 faet~ encl Commissioner Linn pointed out that the Comrnissio~ We~~a~~Anahelmt1111s~ I`nc.Acouldmcome'backnin withdrevised plensAasamany,times paintnd out t es they wl~hed. ADJOURNMENT - Gommissloner King offered a rnntlon thar ~~ cing be adjou~ned. Ths meeting was adj~urnod et ]:40 p.m. Reapectfully submitted~ ~~~ ~ ~dith L. Narrls~ Secretary Aneheim City Planning Commission Eli~:hm