The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/06/19City Hsil Anahelm~ Californla Ju~e 19~ 1978 REGULAR MEETIIJG OF Tt1E ANAt1EIM CITY RLANNING COMMISSION REGUTAR - The regular mePting of the Anahelm Gity Planninq Commiss(an was celled to MEETING order by Chatrman 1'alar at 1:3y p.m.~ June 19, 197~~ in the Counci) ChamUer~ a quuruin bein~~ pr~sent. PRkSENT - GNAIRNAN: Tolar COMMISSIONEftS: kiarnes~ Davicl~ I~erbst~ Kln,y, Ltnn Commi,sioner Johnson Arrived at 1:4~ ~.m. AL5u PRESCr~T - Jack White Jay TI tus James KawamurA Ronald Thompso~ Fhlilip Schwartze A~nl4:a Santalaliti Joel Fick Jay Tashiro Pamela Lucado Robert Henninger Edtth ~iarris Deputy Clty Attorney Office Englneer Traffic ~ngtneertng Asststant Planning Department Diractor Assistant Dtrector for Planninq Assistant pirecior for Zontnq Associate Planner Assotiatc Plenner Assistant Planner Planntng Aldc Planntng Cornmi5s(on Secretary PLEDGE OF - The Ple~ge of Ailegi~nce to the Flag was led by Cammissio~er Linn. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - Commissioncr Ktny offered a motion~ seconded by Cortanissioner Davld and TN~ MINUTES MOTION CARRIEU. that the minutes of the meetiRgs of May 22 and June 5~ 1973 be approved as submttted. ITEM N0. ~ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARlNG. OWNERS: ROBERT A. AND EIR~CA~TEGORICAL EXEMPTIOt1-CLASS 11 ROSEMARIE SMITH, 1372° Rosecrans~ Santa Fe Springs~ VARIANCE N0. 3013 CA y0670. AG~NT: AMOS JOHNSTCt~E. 111~0 West Nampstiire~ Anaheim~ CA ~2802. Petitioner requests WAIVER OF (A) PERMiTTED LOCA1'10~1 OF FREE-STANQING SIGN, (B) MAXINUM I~EIGNT OF FRCE-STANDING SIGN~ ANU (C) MRXIMUM AREA OF FREE-STANOING SIGN. 'f0 CONSTRUCT A FREE-STAt~DING SIGN on property dcscribed as a rcctanguinrly-shaped pe~ce! of land consisting of approximateiy 4.2 acres having epproximate frontages of 317 feet on the south stde of Winston Road and 155 feet on the west stde of Sunk(st Street. Prnperty presently classifted ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMIT~D) ZONE. SubJect petlttnn was conttnued frorn the meetinys of May 22 and June 5. 197~, at th~ t'~que5t Of thP; peti*inr~r, Chairman Tolar po' ,t the petitioner had indicated a desire to request a continuance and asked if there ~ ~nyone attending In opposttion to subJect rtquest~ and there was no response. 78-447 6/lg/78 MINUT~S. ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ JUNE l~j~ 1978 78•44a EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION•CLA5S I1 AND VAaIANGE N0. 3~13 (continuad) ACTION: Conwnlssioner Kinq offered a motion~ secanded by Commi~sin~er David and MpTIUN GARRIED (Commissio~er Johnson belny absent)~ that consideretian of Vartance No. 3013 be contlnued to the re~aular mcettng ~f the Planntng Commission of July 3, 197K~ at thc requ4st of the petltloner. Annike Sant~l~hti~ Assistant Uirectur for Zo~ing~ pointed out July 3-'d is the meeting dste betwecn the Fourth of July an~f tlic weekend and wanted tn rnake surc c+ll petit(o~ers dnd the CoRanission were aware this woul~l be 9 lonn I~ul iday weekr.nd. ITEM N0. 7 PUtiLIC NEARING. 041NER: CANYON PLAZA UEVELOPMENT, EIR CATEGQRIGAL E~(~M~''~IOt~-CLA55 11 10~?.2 Greenbrler~ Sant~ Ana~ cn ~z7~,. AGENT: nOHIL NCE ~~0. 02 OIL Ct1RPORATION~ P. 0. Hox 2211~ Tustin~ CA 92630. Peti~foner reyuests WAIVER OF PERMITTED SiGNS, TO GOIISTRUCT 7 FREL'-S7ANQING SIGNS AT A PROPOSED $ERVICE 57ATION on properr~~ desc~ibed as a rectanhularly-shaped parcel af land consistinq of approxi- matefy 0.6 acre located at the northeast corner of McK(nnon Drive and Lakev(ew Ave~ue. hAVing approximatE frontayPs af IG~~ feet an the n~rCf~ side of McKtnnon Urlve and 160 fee[ nn the east sld~ of Lakevtev~ Avenue~ and further descrlk,ed as 40n North Lakeview Avenue. Property presently classiflecf CL(SC) (COMML'RCIIIL, LIMITEU-SCE:NIC C(1RRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. Chairman Tolar polr~ted out the petition~~r tiad requested a tw~-week continuance in orde~ to submit rcvlsed plsns. ACTION: Gommiss(oner Linn offered a motion~ s~conded by Co~rnisslaner Barnes and MOTION tt U(Cornmissloner Johnson being absent) ~ tliat cur,SideraGlon ~f Variance No. 30'L1 be continued to the reyular meetiny of the P;anninc~ Commissian of July 3~ 197b~ at the ~equest af the petitianer to submit revtsed plans. ITEM N0. 1 CONTINUED REAONERTISfD PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: ~1i~ROCAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES. INC.~ P. 0. Hox 5~+143, RECLASSIFICAT~UN N0. 7-75-2~ ~ Los An~cles~ CA 90054• AGENT: C. J. QUEYREL~ P. 0. ~ox 3668. An~hetm~ GA 92~03• Petitiorter requests APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATE COMMERCIA~ tlSE on prope~ty described as an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land conststing of approximately 4.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunk(st Street. having approx(mate frontages of 630 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 220 feeL on the west side of Sunkist Street. Property prescntly classtfted CL (COMMCRCI/1L, LIMITED) ZONE. SubjeGt petition was continued from the mceting uf May 22, 197~~ for the submission of rev(sed ptans. There were two persons indicating their presence in opp~sition to subJect request, and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 1g, 1918 was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made b part of the minutes. Cal Queyr~el. agent~ pointed out a letter had been submitted to the Planning Department stating that the previously approved 4000-square foot bank building would generate 656 cars based on the Traffic Department study and that the 9200-square foot drug store would ~enerate 594 trips per day based on the Traffic Departim~nt study~ and that the petitioner 6/19/78 MI~IUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING CO-'MISSION, JUNk 19, ~~7~1 78-4~i9 E!R CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AN~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 74~75-26 (tontlnued) would request approval of tha 920U^square foot buiid(ng irstefld of the 400Q-square f~ot flnancial building previously approved. Ne indiceted the last plans submil•ted had hed multfple uses proposed and t~~ere Is no way to determtne the r.xact traffic count~ but that in the analysis of thc; Traffic Uepartment~ there would be less traffic generated by the drug store than a bank building. No noted a letter had been writte to representetives af Ralph's Markets, pointfng out t-,~ prevtously ment(oned complalnts rey~rding the trucks enterlnc~ off Sunkist Street, 1(~~hts, n~ise~ thelr yeneral lack of cooperation~ etc.~ so they are aware of the complaints. kiob Carter polnted out he has atten~led Planninn Cornmisslun mcetinqs severa) timcs and is tlred of hear(nc~ the same "snow Job"; that this property c~wner wants eo develop thls carner for rrwnetary reasons and does not care about the morc~l or physlcal (mpact on the concr.rned residents~ which is obvlous frum the requests that have been submitted and by tfie way bus I ness lias been conduc t~~d i n the pas t. He fe I t once tti i s use i s approved ~ there wlll be no end to the discomfort and inental anquish pushed upon the residents of this area. Fle pointed out Ralph's Narket is more successful tl~an they ~~ed prevlously antic(pated and that parking is at a prNmium alr~acly~ and that the noise leve) and discomfort caused by Ralpli's tc~ the nelyhborhood Is an ex(sting problem. Ne polnted out that (f just one more groce r~ store cluses~ therP would be a lot of addltlonal c~~stomers who would n~t have a place to park~ an~ lie felt the emplayees and customers wouid be trying to park an the streets and cars would be lined up on Lincoln Avonue and Sunktst Strect, trying to puil into the parkiny lot. Ile pointed out the ~esidents would not have any place t~ park on the streets; ttiat there is an alley in the back of his property and they have no drlveway since the alley is adJacenr to the garage~ and that they are ve ry limitcd in parking at the pre~ent tim~. He pointed out the numbers represented on pap~r for thc: needed parking spaces are not the practical numtier of parking spaces actually needed. Ne stated it wnuld n~t be ve ry nlce to allow an unconcerned dcveloper to overbuild an intersection and inconvenience the residents as belny proposed. Ne pointed out he has had requests turned dawn for commercial xoning because he did not liave enough park(ng~ and bccause of the redevelopment plans~ he had been informed there would not be any need for additional comrnercial buildinys. Hp (ndicatecJ he had owne~ his house far 15 years and felt development is fine~ Uut that there has to Le a limit and he did not think a promise made to a d~velop~r Ovo year5 ayo should hald water today~ that times change and the City is beiny changed completely; that tF~erc are shoppin~ centers on every maJo~ intersection. COMMISSIONE:R JOHNSON ARRIVED AT 1:45 P.M. Pat Blumberg~ 2~-53 Powhatan Avenue, directly behlnd Ralph's parktn~ lot, presented pictures to illustraCe the points slie would make and indicated they could be kept for future reference. She indicated she was glad to see the petitioner nad dropped the five small shops, but sf~e wondered if anyone from tl~at organization had laeked at the property and ti~e existin,y- traffic and parkiny situation. She presented pictures of the traffic on l.incoln Avenue and lndicated she could not imagine a 9200-aquare foot building would have adequaie parkiny and presented pictu~es of ttie present parking situation. She pointed ~ut that Ralph's trucks puli into the parktng lot and unhitch their trailers and use up four or five parktng spaces for severai liours. She dtd not feel there would be sufficlent parking for the drug store proposed and the ~mployees would be parking around the corner. She pofnted out that Ralph's is put ing out tf~e lights at a decent hnur now, but s;~e felt approval of thls would start the problem all over again, She pointed out there is a Skagg's Drug Store within five minutes of this locatien and she was concerned the petitioner wants to put sanething on this corner that is not needed. She felt they should 6/19/78 ~, NINUTES~ A~~AIIEIM C17Y Pl.ANNIr~G COMMISSION~ JUNE: 19~ 147b 7R-~+;U EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS y AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 74-75-26 (conttnued) be requireJ t~ comply with thr oriylnal approval and shc~uld not t,e nllawed to develop a 9200-square foot bulldiny. She Indicated now she would ilke to see the cleen(ng of the lot at Ralpl~'s done at a Jecent huu~ and the truck deltvertes ctianqed. Mr. Queyrel Indicated he is 91ac1 he dc~es not work for Ralph',. He asked the Trafffc Englnoer to c~nfirm the fiyures hc tiad Qu~ted earl(er based ori the square footages and restated the car count figures fnr a drug store and a ftnancial buildiny. He polnted out thiey liad considered that if traffic is tl~e main probl~m hers~ then the drug store would generate less traffic tfian a financiai hu(lding. Ur. ~amuel Ilirt~ ~7;U Shannon R(v~r Ctrclc, F'ountain Valley, pointed out he has no connectlo~ with Ralph's, hut (s an indiviJu~l Joininq witl~ an independpnt druq store to provide a nciyhborhood drug store that would extend credit and make home deliver(es, whlch would bc a bcnefit and scrvicc to thc community. 11e indicoted he sympathizes entlrely with the problems thc carnnunity is heviny with Ralph's Market with the truck lights~ nolse~ etc., and felt it is reflectinq on t.hts use. Ne Indlcated tie had made an agreement to purchase the ~+r~perty from Ralph's and at flrst tric~l to put smaller shops into the area~ but when the~ traffic problem tiad been discussed they decided to provide the drug storc which would be more compatible and mc~re in line wtt~~ the trafflc demands of the area. He putnted out thr_ property is zoned commerc(al anJ they do meei the Ctty of Anaheim requirements for parking and would like to he able to put cortmer~ij+l development on the property~ and if the usc is nut approved they would havc a persona) financial loss. Ne pointed out that with the passage of Propos~~lon 13, ctties ere laoking for ways to get additional revenue and Ieaving a property vacant w(11 nat briny ~iny revenue ta the Clty. He felt a ~1rug store wuuld not cause any addit(onal problems witti lights, deliverles, etc.~ and pointed out they do not operatc~ like a maJor chatn drug store ar supermarkets such as ftalph's. 11e pointed out tl~ey would not be located adJacent to resident(al homes and would like the opportunity to develop a nceded asset to the community. TtIE PUBLIG HEARING 1JA5 CLOSEL'. Chairman Tolar potnted out he was am.~zed the petitioncr had Y~bmltt~d a plan for more than the o~igi~ally approved -~OGO sauare feet. He felt [he lmpact of a 9200-square foot dtscount store on tliat corner would be worse than tlie five ilttle shops. tle pointed out when the reclassification had oriyinally be~n ~ppr~ved~ it was sp~cifically supposed to be a bank and naw tFiere is a discounc drug stare being praposed~ whether It be a neighborhodd drug store or a store similar to Skagg's~ it is going to qenerate a certatn amount of traffic and parkiny~ and he indicated tie would not agree with the 594 dally tr(ps presented by the petitioner and felt a large drug store at this site would generate a lot more traffic. He pointed out drug stores he is famtliar witl~ hav~ a pharmacy i~~ on~ area, but the rest af the stc~re is devoted to handl=,~g ma)or appliances and just about everything else. He indicated he felt Mr. ~,rter's remarks have been heard and he felt the Commi3slon I~ad listened to xhe pcople. He Nointed out '-~ felt a plan could be presented utllizing the 400~) square feet with a specific usP; that he was not going to look favorably on making a problem,which is already bad~two and one-half times w4rse~ and he envisfons this ~s a maJor p~oblem. He felt if ~alph's is doing that great a business, they are goi~y to need additional parking, Ne pointed out if the gentleman had bought this property without a contingency, that would not be considered by Che Planning Commission slnce economics cannot be a part of their dc~ision. Mr. Q,ueyrel indicated Che facts shauld be considered in _his situation and they are based upon scientific facts and the traffic count is based o~ past er.perience, and as far as the traffic problen; on Lincoln and Sunkist is concerned~ he did not think it was any worse 6/19/78 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78-4y1 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 5 AND RECLASSIFICATION NQ~-26 (contlnued) _~ tl~an any othcr intersectton on Lincoln. Ne patnted out there (s going ta be e signal that will help thc traffic p~ttern. James Kawamura~ Traffic Engineertng Asslstent~ pointed out this was probably not correct; thut thls is a street with a lat of residentia) frantage (Su~kist) And it Intersec~s wtth a rrajar street (lincoln) And this fs a rar(ty in the City of An~3helm and ts one of thG worst intPrsectlons tn thr entlre City. Chalrman Tolar pointed out lincoln narraws down on the north side of the street and there is no parking at that l~catiun fur chc: residentlal horics. Mr. Quey~el potnted out this all came abo~ic becausQ the bank w3s found not to be feasible at this location and if a b~nk is constructed o~ Chat carner, the trafffc generated would be mvrc ch.~n th~+ propos~J drug store. Chatrman Tolar stated he rr_alixed times change and he wondcred (f he would have supported thls type of development on tl~at corner and felt t1~e~ problem was created by the fact the Planniny Commission dicl not liave the fvresi~h~ to see that carner wauld not hold anything as largc as a Ralph's Market. 14e pofntcd out ttie Planning Commlssion makes mtstakes and maybe Ralph's should have mc~rc pErkii~c~ at this time. Commissianer lierbst pointed out the car count indicated was not the totai car count per day. but that it was for pcak hours at the bank~ and he dtd not feel this was the t~ue plcRure and the fiyures were confusiny. 11~ noted that at the las[ meetiny he pointed out he wanted the butldiny tc~ stay th~ same sc~uorc f~otage with an alternate uss~ and now the petltioner is coming back wlth rrore square footage and an operatian with longer operatinq hours. The Gomrnlssion discussed a use for the 4~00-snuare foot build?n~i proposed (n the ar(~inal request, witl~ Comr~Issioner Darnes In~iicating she felt a person has thc right to develop his property, but st~e did agree with the Commission's feeling that this increased square footage would cause an increase (n craffic and noise. Commissioner 8arnes patnted out to Dr. Hir[ the problems that have been created on this particular parcel of property and the suffering the homeowners tiave gonc through~ and indicated this is a11 taken into consideratlon on this particuiar piece of property. Commissioner Johnson asked about tt~e lot split involved ~yith the transaction of selling the property. f1e polnted out the plan Joes not stiow the lot split~ and Jack White. Deputy City Attarney, pAinted out that if the prpperty is purchased~ it would have to be split for separate ownersl~ip~ but that if it Is leased, it wiil remain the same. Chairman Tolar asked if the property was bouyht with a cnntingency of thls approval, and Dr. Nirt replied it is in escrow and thcy have made a S10,Q00 non-refundable depaslt. Commissioner Johnson re~inded the Commission they may be backing themselves into a corner by putting a limit on a piece of pr~perty beyond what the code requires. Jack White pointed out the policy in the past h8s been to restr(ct reclassificatlons t~ site development plans and he did nat wish to comment further at this parttcular time. it was noted the Planning Director or his ~uthor{zed representative ha~ detcrmined that the proposed praJect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Ciass 5~ as 6/19/78 '~ [~t MINU7~5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 197C 78-4y2 EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS S ANp RECLASSIFICATION N0. /4-75-26 (continued) deftned in paragrapli 2 of the City of Anahelm Envtranm~ntel Impact Raport Guldeltnes and Is~ therefore, cat~c~ortcally exempt from the requtrement to prepare an EIR. AGTION: Ccmmissloner Herbst offered Resolutlan Na. PC7b-127 and move!d for its passage and a~optrnn. that the Anahcim City Pl~nniny Commisslon daes hereby reeommend to the City Counci) that the request for approval of an alternate commercia) usa in connectton with Reclassificat(on No. 74-7~-26 he denied on thc basis that the sucGesa of the curre~tly developed sup~rmarket has hEavily Impatted the trafftc situatlon at the intersection of Su~kist Street dnd L(ncoln Avenue~ whtch is a more congested Intersection then the average Intersoction ~f this type~ And h.,s c~eated part;ing and noise problems wlth the delivery trucks entering the site on Sunkise Strect~ a resldcnti~l strcet~ end not complying w(th the sttpulated del(very hours has created notse~ llyht~ park(ng and traffic problems for the resldents in the area~ and thc Jevclopment of an additional 9200-square foot drug store or discount cenxer would add to these problems. On rull call, thc foregaing resolut(on was passed by tt~e follawing vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: DARNES~ DAVID, NERDST~ Y.ING, LiNN, JONN50N, TOI.AR NQES: COMMISSIONCRS: ~~OI~E ADSCNT: CQMMISSIONERS: NONC It was polnted out to the petitioner that he has the ric~ht to appeal the Planning Comm(ssion's dectsion and ~lso recc~mmended that he cornply with the oriytnal Intent of approval of the reclassiflcation on the property~ inclvding the developinent of the 4000- square foot bulldiny on tlie northeasterly ~rner of the property wlth no increase !n square footage to be considcred. ITEM N0. 2 CONTINUEU PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: JAMES HOOPS AI~D ~~~VE DtCLARAI'IUN GEORGE OLSEN~ ~4~~ North Cypress~ Orange, CA 926b6. V R ANCE N0. 3n AGENT: AL fINK~ 4949 Wa~ner Ave~ue, Nuntfngton Beach~ CA 92G49. Pecitioner reque~ts 41AIVER OF (A) MINIMUM RECP,EATIOti-L.EISURE AREA~ (B) MIMIMUM WIDT11 OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY, AND (C) REQUIRED VEHICULAR AGCESS TO GARAGES~ TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approximately 6000 square feet located at the northwest corner of Broadwey and Melrose Street, havtny approxtmate frontages of 50 feet on the north side of Broadway and 120 feet on the west side of Meirose Street~ and further desc~ibed as 417 East 6roadway. Property presently classifted RM-1200 (RESIDEr~TIAL~ MULTlPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. SubJect petttion was continucd from the mceting of June 5~ 1978~ to rcaavertise an additiona! walver. There was no one indicating tFeir pre,e~ce tn opposiclon to subJect request~ and although the staff report to the Planning CQmmisslon dated June 19~ 197~ Was not rgad at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, polnted out a correction t~ the staff report tn paragraph (2) ln that the petitloner requests the fallowing watvers to construct a three-building, 12-unit apartment complex rather than a four-unit complex as shown. 6/r9I78 ~ MINUTES. ANANEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~~ 1y7$ 78-453 EIR NEGF~TIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 301W (cantlnucd) A1 Fink~ agent~ tndlcatcd the plan 1~ to construct thred fourplexes on slx lots. Ne polnted out the problcm hsd arisen because the strnet might be w(dened G fuet. He stated tho cnncopt ls to have one entlos~d garage witli a garAge daor per bedroom and that there wll) be laundry facllitles (n eacli untt so that the tenants can have their own washers and d ryers. Ne referred to paragraph (1G) c~ncerning carp~rts end potnted out there would be no carports In the proJect. Ne indlcated bumper guards and storage spacas would be provided and th~ petitioner is willtng to comply wlth nll Interdepartmental Committee r~commendetlons. Ne tndiceteci he had drawings showinc~ the buildtngs from B~oadw~y. from Mclrose, and from the alley~ and tie thounht tt~ls praJect would he an assct and is need~d in the Area, TNE pUBI.IL NCARlNG WAS CLQSkO. Chairman Tolar re.ferrrd to thc (~-foot dedication~ ~nd Jay Titus~ Office Enqlneer, ~xplained this would requir•e e;tlier a conditional dedication or irrcvocable offer of dedicatlon whe~eby the developer wauld offer th~e dedlcation and would not be ablr. tU wlthdraw it and t~~e Clty would accept tt at such time as they are r~ady to widen the street. In the meantime~ it hes never been accepted and would st(I1 rema(n the devclaper's property and he would n-alntafn it and h~ve use of it until the property has be:en aceep~eJ by the C( ty . Jack Nhite, Oeputy Clty Attorney, indicated the developnr woulcf liave contlnulny use of the G f~et unti) thc CI[y accepts the offer of dedlcati~n, at whtch t(me thP City would take the property and improve it with street~ guiter~ curb and sidewalk; that the mai~ten~nce would be ttie responsibllity of tf~e developer until the City has accepted the dedication; that he could do wi th~ i t whatevcr tre pleases as long .~s I t does not i nterfere w) th the City's acceptance of the dedicativn. Mr. Fink polnted out he had conta~.tec1 the owners of the ~~roperty and they are aware uf the condttt~n and are wiliing ta comply. Chairr~en Tolar polntc:d out this prop~rty is adjoining the rCdeveloFment area~ and the Plenning Comntssion witl be recciving mo~e requests for this type va~iance~ and this prnJect is che maximum of what could be developed ~n this property and pointed out he liked this proJect because of the accumuletiun vf three lots for a better proJect. Jay 7ashiro pointed out he tiad contacted the Redevelopment Agency and they had indicated this is tho type of us~ they are laoking for in th(s area and were only concerned about the number of waivers Involved, ACTI01~: Cammissianer King o~fcred a~~~otion, seconded by Cofvnissioner David and MOTIO~J C~n, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commisaion has reviewed the propasal to construct a three-buildin9i 12-unit apartment complex with waivers of minimum front setback, mtntmum recreational-leisure area per unit~ minlmum width of pedestrian accessway~ and required vehicular access to garages on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 0.1~ acre loceted at the northwest cc,rner of aroadway ond Melrose Street. havtng approxlmate frontages of 1y0 fect on the north side of Broaciway and 114 feet on the wPst side of Fkirose Street; and does hereby approve the Idegative Deciarstion from the ~equirernent to p~epare an environmental impact ~epott on th~ basis that there would be no significant (ndivldual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the appraval of this Negative Declaration since the Anahelm General Plan designates the subJect property for medium density resldential land uses comrt~ensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive anvlronmental impacts are 6nvolved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by 6/19/78 .,. ~ ~ MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLAf~NING COMMISSIQN~ JUNC ly~ 1978 7a-4S4 ~IR NEGATIVE DEC..AMTION AND YA~IANCE N0. ~(cantinuad) the petit:oner indicates ~o slgntficant indivtduat or cumulative acJverse environmental (mpacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantlatinq ¢he foregoing findings ts an flla In the City of Anahelm PlAnniny Uapertment. Commtssl~ner Ltnn offered Resc,lutlon No. PC78-12~i and navcd for Its passege and adoptlon~ that the Anahe(m City Planniny Commissfon dues he eby grant Petitlon for Variance No. 3014 o~ the basis thet the petltioner derrx~nscrated a hardship exlsts In that the site of subJect property Is reduced by G feet r~;qulred for the wtdentnq of aroadway end subaect property adjo(ns the da,intown redevelopment area and the proJect wil) supply hiqher denstty housiny needs in the area and accumulation of land in this area pravldes for better develnpment; subJect to the et(pul.~tion k~~nt; the petitloner wll) provfde a conti~uing irrevocable uffer af deuication for an add(tfonal b feet for the vclden(ng of Broadway; and sub~ject t~ I nterdepa~tmental Comni ttee recomrnenciations. On rall cail~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; UARNES~ DAVIO~ HCRBST~ .:OHNS01~, KING~ LINI~~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONE~S: NONf: AEiSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NO~JE ITEM t10~ 4 CONTINUEU PUBLIC HEARING. QWNERS: RONALO W. AND EIR C<TEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA;S 5 NAPICY R. PIIAftRIS~ 13A EI Dorado La~~e, Ilnahetm, CA VARIANGE NQ. 3017 ~2t307. Petltloner requests WAIVER l~F MINIMl1M SiDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS f,OURT on propG~ty descrlbed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting af approxlmately 1.0 acre having a frontage of approximately 200 feet on the east side of El Uorado Lane~ havinq a nu~ximum depth of approximately 223 feet. being located approxirr~tely 210 feet north of the centerline of Cerro Yista prive~ and further describcd as 1~0 E1 Uorado lane. Property presently classified RS-N5-43~04Q(SC) (RESIQENTIAL/ AGRICULTURAI-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZOt1E. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June S~ 197$ due tc~ e tie vote. There was no on~ (nd(cating the(r presencc in oppositlon to subJect request~ and although the staff rGport to Ghe Planning Cornmiss(on dated June 13~ 197E was not read at the pub~ic hearing, it ls referred to and made a pa~t of tl~e minutes. Ron~ld Pharris, the petittoner~ indicated the neighbors on the south stde of h(s property were prese~t and they were (n agreement with hts proposal. He indicated the original pian was to construct a 12-faot fence~ but tha~ he has changed his plans and wtll put the tennis court 3~1/2 feet below the grade level~ requiring a G-1/2 foot fence above grade. 71iE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissto~er King asked if the six si9naturps were of nearby neighbars~ and Mr. Pharris replied thet they were. Commissioner Barn~s pointed out she had personally visited all those lats with tennis courts cQnstructed in Peralta tiills and tF~at Mr. Pharris was right in that there are others which have bee~ constructed legally or illegally and~ to her knowledge, mest have never car~e before the Plannfng Commissfon. 6/19/78 ~ ~ ~. kINUTES~ AI~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~, 1978 78-455 EIR CATkGOfiICAL EXEMPTIQN-GLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3011 (conttnu~~1) M~. Pharris indicate~ that maybe tl~ey were not aware e varl~nce wes requlred. Commissionor Bern~s falt thcs Plannln,y Comml~slon Is placed In a difflcult positlon; that thase people havP constructed tennis cnurts tllegaily and nc~w the petitioner has r~quested to conskruct one leyally~ and she did not see any way thQ Plsnntnq Cortmisslon could deny tt~is requ~st. She indiceted there is an ordinance on the books which ts not being upheld and if the citizens feel frec to c~o ahead and do wtiatever thcy pleASe~ then thc ordinence must be lookcd into. She polnted out to Mr. Pherris she was sure he would not want someone next dc~or to him tn buflcJ a tall, uyly tower; and that the Plsnninq Commisslon ls supposed to uphuld thc ordinanGes. Chairman Tolar aske~i Mr. Pharrls tl~e cust of depressing the t~nnts cou~t 3 or 4 feet~ and Mr. Pt~arris replted it would cost him an additlnnal $4~500. Comrnisstoner Linn Indicated hc woulcf support a matlan ap~roving the oriqinal rec~uest without depresslny the tennis court~ and Commissloner flarnes asked Hr. Pharris if the neiyhbors have any abJec[lons to this tennis court betny built as oriy(na{ly proposed, a~d he replied they d(d not obj~ct. Cortimisstoner Ba rnes pointed out she had v~ted ayalnst thls project prev(ously, but since vtawiny the tennls courts In the ar~a, she would Iike to offer the motlon for approval. It was noted that the Planning Director ~r his authori~ed representatlve has determined that the proposed pro,ject falls within the ~iefiniclon of Catec~orlcal E.xemptions~ Glass 5~ as defined in paragraph Z of thc City of Anahei~~ Cnvironrnental Impact Report Guidellnes and is~ therefore~ cat~-_~arically exenpt from thc requirement t~ prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissiontr Barnes oFfered Resolution No. PC7~-12~ and moved for its passage and adopt~un, tt~at the Anaheim City Planning Cammission docs hereby grant Petition far Variance Nu. 3017 ~n the basis that numerous tennis courts in the aree have .een constructed wiCh ~im(lar encroa:hrne~~ts, both legally and illegally; subJect to the petitioner's sti~~ulat~~n that ciawnlighttng will Ue provided and no light standards shall be located within the 15-foot setback area; and subject to interdepartmental Committee recortmendattons. On roll call, the foreaotng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: GUMMISSIONERS: BARi~ES~ DAVID, tIERBST. JOH(~501~, KING~ LINN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: NONE AEiSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOr~E Cortmissioner Herbat offered a rr~tion~ seconded by Comnissioner Oavid end HOTION CARRIEO, that the Planning Oepartn~ent staff study an ordinance regardiny tenr~is courts and come up with a plan that wili allow tennis courts by right~ which would not consider a fence a struGture on the property line as la~g ~s it does not interfere wit~, somebndy else's righ[s. Chairmen Tolar indicated he would like the placement of the light standards to be included in the staff rep~rt and there should b~ some definite guidelines and clariflcation regarding a fence being a structure in thac he was not sure a 12-foot fence is a structu~e. b1 l', . , ~ ~ ~. MINUTES ~ ANAHE IN C 11'Y PLANN 1 NG COMMI SS I ON ~ JU~~E 19 r~~7~ '78--~SG Elli CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOt~-Cl/1S5 5 AND VARIANCE I~0~3017 (c~ntlnund) Annika Santslahtl~ Aaslstant Oirector for Zoniny, po(nted aut in terms af a hul~ding permit~ technically o pe~mlt Is required for a ctialnlink fe~ce dnd any fence exceedinqG foet is consldered to bo e structure. It was neted the study would unly ~tlude construction of a te ~ nls court. ITI:M N0. CONTINUEU PUUI.IC HEAaING, UWN~R: G1IPIYON VtILflGE, ~C TEGORIGAL EXEMf'TIOtJ-CLASS 1 P. 0. ISox G348~ Ora~ge. CA 9?.667. Petlttoner C~~ ONAL USE PERMIT N0. ~0 requests qermission to GIVE PRIVATE 'INIS LESSONS 1 N AN EX I ST I NG APARTMENT COMPLEX on propGrty d~scribed as an i rregul arly-shopeJ parcel of lan~~ consist;~ig of approx(rtx+tely 7.5 ac.res located at the northerly terminus of Chrisden Stroet. havtng a frontaye af approximately 372 fect on the east slde of (mperial Highway~ heving a msximum depth of approximately 78/ fcet. being located approxi matcly 565 fcct north of the cent~rltne af La Pelma Avenuc:~ and further desc~ibed as 126~ and 1275 Chrlscien Street, Propcrty presently classlfled RM-1200(SC) (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPIE-FAMIIY^SCENiC CORRIUOR OVERLAY) ZOI~E. 5ubJect petltlo~ was continucd from the n~eeti~g of June ~~. 1973~ to scek the aperCmant tenants' acknuwledymenc of subJect petition. There was no one Indicating tl~eir presence in opposltion t~ subJect rcqu~est~ and although the staff rapo~-t to the Planning Cammfsslon dated June 1~3, 1~70 was not read at the publ ie hearing, it is referreJ to and made a part of the minutes. Dick ~roadway~ representing Canyon lfillage~ A Ltmited Partnershi~, and IPS~ A Ge~era) Partnership~ indicoted a petitlon had been signed by 90; uf the apartment cr~mplex tenants. TIiE F'UfiLIC NEARIMG WA~ CLOSED. Chalrman Tolar pointed out ther~ is a large turnover w~th tenants in apa~trrwnts end evan though the present tenants are aware oF the ch+~nge, the futu~e tenants would not be made arware. but that he was more concerned ahout a cortxnercfal vent~. .: being established in a~ apartment complex or develuping a busir,ess in a residential a ~e~. N~ pointed out peopit would be abie to come into tnis area from ather parts of tow~ and take lessons~ and he felt sure tf the tennis instruttor wanted to advertise, he co~ld get a lot more students for the classes~ and that once ch= conditional use perrnit is granted, it create3 the ~pportunity for thls gentleman to move out uf the complex and enother instructor to come (n and conduct tennis lessons. Dick Brnadway pointed out that if havtng tennis lesaons at the complex adversely affects the complex~ the lessans wi l l te stnpped sinca economics woul d not al law ther~ to contlnue. He poinxed out from a management standpoint they are also concerne.,. but they could not allow it to hurt the complex. Commissioner King asked Mr. Broadway if he would ytipulate to allowing thc courts to onty be used by occupants~ and Mr. Broadway po~nted out there are two courts for 198 units and he had checked tfie courts at 10:00 a.m. that morning and no ane was on the ~ourts. Commissioncr Linn indicated he wa: concerned about the traff ic and parking; that there would be a problam wl~h people coming in for lessons, and Mr. Droadway pointed out he ~. 6/ 19/7g ~ « __ _ ~.. ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 1~~ 1978 78-457 EIR CATEGO_ RIC~L EXENPTION-CLASS t ANO CO~~UITIANAI. USE PERMIT~NO. 1~40 (continued) cnunted the perkl ny apoc~s ava I I ab 1 e wl th i n%y foet of the tenn I s courts st 10:00 a.m. anu there wore approximately 50 spaccs avallabl~, Commissioner pavid po(nted out at 1U:00 e.m, rnost people are at work end wondered what tlie situetlon ,ould be at night. Mr. Broadway polnted ou[ the complex has ~xcess parking that Is not utlllxed and he felt the pa~king would be adequete. Commiss(oner Johnson indicAccd hc felt the Commissior~ was br.ing unduly co;~cerned stnce management would have cuntrol of thc situatlon. ~~snd he did not se~: any harm in gra ting a two-ye~r approval for the condicional use pnri~-it if mana.~ement felt tlils would make a bet ter package for thF t r c~m~, l ex , He i ndl cated he fe 1 t the Commi ss lon w~s concerne~ ebou t taking away rights of the other 1r)$ who had not stgned the ~~ettt(on. ! t was noted khat tt~e Plannin~ 01 rector or hls authori zPd r~rresent~~tive has dQtcrmined that the proposed proJect falls wlth(n the dCfinit(on of Catec~c~rlca) Exe.rnptions~ Class 1~ as defin~d in paragraph 2 of thc Clty of An~~hcim Environmencal (mpact Report Gutdellnes and (s~ thercfore, cakegorically exempt from the rcc~utrement to preparc an EIR. ALTtUIJ: Commissloner Johnson offered Resolution No. PC74-13~ and rr~ved for tts passage an a optton~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Comr~~isslon Joes herehy ~rant Pet(Lion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1~.i~+0 for a tw~-year perlod of time~ subJect to constderatlon for rev(ew by the Plannin~ Cormission for posstble extenslcros of c(me u~on written r~quest by the petitloner; subject to tl~e petitioner's stipul~t ion t~ use only one court for private tennis lessons and to limit the hours of instructlon on Monday and Tuesday from 9:Ou a.m. to y:00 p.m. ~ on Wednesday and Thursday from 9;0~ a.m, to L;~O p,m., an~ on Saturday fr~~n a;00 a.m. to 1?:00 noon; and subject to interdepartme.ntal Comnittee recommendac tons. Pricr to votiny on the resolution~ Ghairman Tolar pointed c~ut he could not suFport the resolutlon because of the dual use on the property and there are a lot of people whc~ would like to f~ave a dual use on their property,and that was his maJor concern. He felt the Planning Commis~(on was setting a preceden[ in thfs parttcular s(tuatlon. Caiunlssioner Hcrbst indicated he felt thl~ would be a plus for thc apartmznt tenants because ~hey would have the abillty t~ take lessons. He indicated he did not considcr this ~ commerclal use and felt it would be a service to the people living In the complex. Commissloner Uavid asked Mr. Kor~reich if he has obtaTned a business llcense from the City of Anahe) m, and Mr. Kornre i ch i ndi cated he had not ob ta i ned one but wou 1 d be wt 1 1( ng to get a business license. Corr~nisstoner Qarnes indlcated she was concern~d about people from the out~ide coming in for te~nts lessons and asked Mr. IGornre(ch if he could l lmit the business to those peopte in the complex~ and Mr. Kornretch indlcated there would not be enough buslness. He pointed out that even established tenniS clubs permit lessons tooutsiders since they do not have enough membe rs to make a p rcf i tab le bus i ness . Commissianer Barnes indicatad she could ~;;NNOrt the resolution stnGe there was no spl (t bety+een the Cenn(s pro and the complex, and that the presence of an instructor ~rovtdes a service in keeping the courts clean and offering occasional free cllnlcs. 6/19/78 ~ MINUT~S. A.l~ANEI M CITY PLANN 1 NG COMMI''S I ON~ JUN~ 19~ 19y8 70~458 ~IR CATEGORICAL ~.XEMf'TION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL US[ PERMIT N0~1840 ( continued) Chelnnan Tolar polnted nuL ha understooci from varioue teachlny pros In ,yolf~ etc,~ that most of th~ money Is made i~ the pro shop~ and Mr. Korn~eich (ndicated he hed no Interost i n a p ro s hop , On roi) cal) ~ thc foregoing r~solution was passed by the fol lc~wing vot~t AYES: CUMMISSI~NERS; 6ARNt:S, UAVID, IIERE3ST~ JOHNSON, KIt~G NOES: COMWISSI UNERS; L 1 NN, TO~AR ABS~I~T: COMMISSIONERS; NONE (T~M N0. f~ PUI~IIC HEARINf,, OWNERS; MICNAEL S. ANO J11NE7 L. E EG RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS > ttfU1USHA41~ 19fi 5outh St~rlight Uirlve, Ant~ligim, CA VA (A21CE N0. 3020 ?2f307. Pe~itloncr r~-~uests WA1 VER OF MItJIMUM SIDE YARD SETIIACK TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COUR7 un property descril,ed as o rectangularly-shapcd parecl of land conslstingof approximately 1,0 acr~ IoeeCed at the norther~st corner of Paralta Hilis Drlve end StArllght Drive. Fieving approx~mate frontages of 3~7n feet on the no~th and wast sldes of Peralta Hills Drive and 11b femt on the east side of S~erltghz Urive, end further descrlbed as 1~6 South Starllyht Orive. Property presently classif(ed RS-NS-43~000(SC) (RL'S1 D~NT IAL ~ S INCLE-FAMI LY-SCEN I C CORR I UOR OVERLAY) ZONE. Tliere was no one indicating thelr presence in oppositlon to subJect requast. ~+nd alth~ugh tha s taf f report to the P 1 anning Commi ss i on dated Junc 1'~, 1913 was no t re&d at the pub 1 1 c hanrtng. it Is refcrreJ ta and made a part of the mtnuLes. Mlchael g radshaw. the petitioner~ indieated t~e was requcsting the variance to ~rinq the fence for his t~~nis court tow(tl~in Z feet and a feet. 1 inches or theprope~ty ll~es. Comni ss io~ar k3arnes as; :d i f therc was any way ta rearrange the plan T n order to br tnq the court wi thin cod~. Mr, Bradshaw polnted out he is planniny tn Lui id a swimming pool; that he has been w~tching h(s neighbora co~structing tenn,s courts~ some legally end somewithout permits~ and assuRSed his tennis court shoule+ go ac~oss the beck of h(s property, He ic~dlcated he had bought the lot w-th it inmtnd to build a tennis court a~d It r~ev~roccur~ed to him lhat he would have a prob lem with the fence. He indicated he haJ al r~ady spent S4,500 as refe~re~ to earl ter to excavatc the tennis caurt wh(cfti wou~d bring th~ helght of the fence to 5-1/Z feet: that he had done this for the appearance of the property so they would not have to ~ aok down I nto the tenn i s cou r t, He pointed out behlnd him Is a double ruw of ~cucelyptus trees and his neigl~bors to the north~ Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, we~~e ayreeab ie ta the plan, He tndicated i f lie had to move the tannls court an extra 10 feet, he could not construct the tennis ~ourt, He pointe~ out there is a publ(c utillty easement and two larqe avocado trees south of the court a~d the court wouid hardly ba seer. fram the st~eet~ but tl~e vlew would be of the two avocado trees enJ~ environmentally, iie felt it wauld be an atkractlve ~uurt. Commissic-me~ Johnson pointed out Che developer in th(s situatton had bullt th~ lots too narrow; that this is a beautlful countrysfde araa with 118-foot lots and he f~lt it was unfortunate and that naw reality is evidant in this request f~r a va~iance. He pointed out this var(ance is diff~rent from the one previously distussed in tt~at the fence Is 6/19/78 ~.. ~; a ~ MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUI~E 1~~ 1~~8 78•N59 ~,IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0, 3020 (continued) adJacent to Clty property and Lakevlew wi 11 prabably be madC wtder~ but he was concerned obout tha restrlctlv~ fanciny tennis courts usually havc. Mr. 9redshaw polntecl qut there still would be a ~vw of trees between the tennis caurt ~nd the road. It wes note~ that tl~e Planning Uirector or I~is authorized representntive has determined that the proposed proJect falis within the def(niti~n of Categorical Exemptlons~ Class 5, as def ined In paragraph 2 of the C1 ty ~r Anahelm Envl rnnmenta! Impact Report Gulde) i nes and Is~ therefo~e, cateyc,rically exem{~t from the requlrement ta pre~Are an EIR. ACTION; Commisslaner King offered Resol utlon No. PG7~3~131 ~~nd mova~i for Its pnss~ge and a~optYon. that thc Anah~im City Planning Comnfsslon does I~~reby gra~~t Petition for Var(ance No. 3Q2U on the basls that the property (s narrow and str(ct appl icat(on of the Zanlny Code dnprlves the praperty of privilc~~cs enJaycd by others in the nrca slnce th~ aclJecent property to thc north and other properti~s in the area t~~vr. bLnn yranteJ simT lar variances ~ anJ sub.)ect to Inter~fepartmenta) Commlttee reconK~~end~tions. On roll call~ the foreqoing resolution was passcd by che. follawing votr.: AYES; COMHISSII, I~RS: kiARNLS~ onvia. HE:RBST~ JONNS~~~~, Y.ING~ IINH~ TOLAK NOES: C01•1MISSIONERS: PIOIJE ABSENT: COMI115SIOIIERS: N01~~ C014MISSIONER HERBST LEFT TfiE COUNCIL C11ANaER AT 2:55 P.M. ITEM NO. 3 PUUIIC I~EARING. OFlNERS: EDWARU H. AND MAR~ARET M. VE UECLARATfON NERNAND~Z~ 12S1 Hancock Street~ Anahelm~ CA 9280~. CONDI IO~~AL USE f:Rf~117 ;40. 18;9 A~EPiT: A. G. S7ARK~ P. 0. Qox 5373, S,mta Ana, CA 92704. Potittoner requ~sts permission ta F.STABLISl~ A SLAUGHTERHOUSE on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ of approximately 2.3 acfes havlnc~ a frontage of approximately 190 feet on the west side of Ha~cack Street, having a r.iaximum depth of approxtmately 5~~ feec, b~ing located approxtmately 7~~5 feet north of the centerllne of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 12ti1 Hancock Street. Property presently c1 mss i f t ed RS-A-43~On0(SC) (RE51 UEIJTIAL/AGRICULTURfZI-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. There were three persons indicatiny their presence in opposition to subJect request, and Jay Tastii ro~ Associate Planner~ pointed o~~t one l~tter in opposi ttorr had been recei ved~ Althaugh the steff report to the Planning Cortxnission datEd June 19. 1978 was not read at the publ ie hearing~ it is refe~red to and made a par[ ~f the minutes. i t wes noted the N i 1 1 ar~d Canyon Mun t c i pal Advt sory Camrni ttee (HACM/1C) revtewed the above prnposal at tholr mceting an June 6~ 197~ and with five members present, voted unanimously to reconmend den(al of CAndltional L'sf Permit No. 1859 as it is nat compatible with it~e surraun~ii ng area. A. G. Stark~ egent~ pointed out the ~equest is for an o~thodox kosher slaughterhouse and thia ty~e of slaughtnrhous~e has m~re st~ingent s~enitary laws to uphold than any other type slaughterhouse and is very clean. He ~eferred to the Manntngs b Son operation In Pico Rivera and indicated thts operatlon wauld bc about one-tenth the size of that~ but would 6/19/78 MINUTES, l1NWIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ JU~~C 19~ 1978 7~'~+~~ EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION ANU GONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 18~(continucd) be a slmllar type operatlon. Ile steted tliere hov~ bee~ no ~mplaints ayalnst the Mannings b Son operat ( on a~d they have beon i n bus i ness s 1 nc~~ 19~L. Ile 1 nd i c~ted there wou 1 d be absolut~ly no noise or odor from tliis operation. Deve Snow, represer-tinq HancoGk Laboratorles, 4f~33 East le Palma Avenuc, Anahelm~ Indlcat~d Nancock Lab~ratorics has strong obj~ctions to allnwing a sl~uqhterhouse in this area; that they did not fcel a c~laughterhous~: in thc rnlddle of one of Anahe(m's best 1(c~ht Industrial ar manufacturinc~ arcAS would bc ~,~aod for their business ur far thc Ctty; that they had surveyed communltles in Oran.ye County four years a,yo wlien they declded t~ move into the area and had made a considerable Invest~nent in thc thr. Anahelm dcv~lopment zone and felt a SlaughCerhnu5e o~Pr~tinn ic nnt c~nsistent with the usac~es In thls area~ that it wou1J have a serlous ec~nomicAl effect on the City's ablifty to attract other high- technology companies to the nrea. Ne pointed out there woulc! bc: problems uncJer th~: best of condlxions witli odors, (nsects~ a~~rosols, ancl otl~~r prol,lems of transporting thc animals in and uut of tlie area; that anir-x~ls are not the clcanest tt~ings In ttie world and thcsy felt havir~g a slaughterhousc next door to an operation such as thelrs would be detrintentat. H~~ po(nted uut their ~per~t(an is under close scrutiny by the Federal Food and Drug Administration~ thc Fed~ral Centcr for Dlsease Control~ the State of Californla Food and Dr•uy Admin istratian~ the Courty Ile ~Ici~ Jepertment~ etc. , and these agcnclcs have sal d~ i n ef fect, they have been concc:rned ahout peop 1 e having an i rn~--1 s i n the area s~ close to an operation such as theirs. He pointed out their business is man~~fecturing heart valves and these valves are from pigs~ which are shipped in containers from all over the tauntry end he was not ayainst thc piy inJustry~ but thelr operation Is under ~bsolute starile conclltlons and they havic extcnsive fi ltcrinc~ systr.ms and they bclleve having a sla~aghter~~ouse operation Chat close would present problems. Ile nointed out Hancack Laboratories now employ some 5~Q people a[ thei r Anaheim plant and they arr_ Just completiny a$2 ~~ .ion facility whlcti is t-~e first maJor fACi'.ity built in the Anaheim Redevelopmen! Agency area. He indicated these were some of the reasons f~r requestinq that the Planninc~ Commi,sion and the City fathers deny this request for a slaughterhause operatinn on th~: propcrty as requcsted. Dave Gallow, representing Santa Fe Rallway Company~ pointed out they are obJecting to the proposed slaughterhouse; that tf~e Sanka Fe Land Improvement Ccxnpany is the owner of retord of the 1Q9 acres directly ac~oss the street from Hancock Laboratories; and thnt ti~ey dtd nok feel this use would be compat+ble with the types of industry they hope to locate in the area. Ne indicated he has stiawn their p~operty which has been recently developed with streets and ~ther ut( 1 i ties to a number Uf industr(es and everyone has cornnented on the unsightly cnndi tio~ of the existing yard where the slaughterh~use is to be located and felt this would t~ave an impact on ttic developrnent of thelr property and wo~ld be detrimental to attracting (ndustry to the Ci[y of Anaheim and yetting sales tax revenue an~+ i ncreas i ng the tax basc, and u r<~ed den i a 1 of the reques* Pat ArleJye Indicated she was a next door neighbor and she would likc to see ihis request denie~ because the place is a pig sty; th~c she has taken pictures for the Health Department; and that they have watcfied them to~ture the animals before they slaught~r them. She indicated the dc.gs have kil led their chickens and they have -~~d nothing bux problems with flics~ bugs~ etc., and they have even had a huge steer on their patio and were afraid to l~t their dog loos because the neighbors have 30 dogs that run through their yard; that they do not keep the animals contained; and that there is a white horse r~ith rope burns on its le~as tF.ere naw and they do not likz to see the animals abused. Mr. Stark stated that unfortunate ly there are some "bi g guns" i n the area and do not want to see anything developed except what they want for the property; that Mr. and Mrs. 6/19/78 MI~IUtES~ ANI111EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~1~ 197~ 7~'461 EIR NFGI1TIVt DECLAFIATIUN AND CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1K5~ (contfnued) Hesrnandex have awned the p~operty slnce befarc it came into the Ctty of Anaheim ond they we~e on ly us ing ( t undar oqr i cul turn I means as far as k~~erl n~t the enimal s unrler the prevlous use. He pointed out~ unfortunately~ if anyone vlsits a lArc~e sldughterhouse dnd sees the way anlmals are kl lled~ wl~ethcr th~y be stunneci or whsteve~~ it se~ms lnl~umane to tho averege porson. Ne indlcated thls operatlon would not have ~ny problems; that~ unfortunAtely~ the expert wltncsses who were suppASed to appear before the Commisslen were not present, and indicotod R+bbi Cayan,who is incl~arge of thc ortl~odox kosher slaughte~houses on the west Cobst~ and John Schindler~ arcliitect~ were not prGSent to answer s~me of those questlons. He indicated he had talked with Mr. Snaw and tt~e Klingmans and they had voiced thelr opposition~ hawever, t~e was trying to brinq across tl~e pofnt th~t the conditions referred to in the past I~ave ceasecf to be an~i ct~e place has been cleaned up. t~e Indicated this was primarily a Mexican-American community; tl~at it is an area nobody wanted orlglnally~ but now everyonc wants It end wants to devel~.~ on it~ and asked if that wAs the case~ why na onc had offc:rcd the Hernandet' the ~mount ~f money It was w~rth so that they could c~o sc~mewhere else and open their opcratlon. Ile polnted out the slaughterhouse they are proposiny is in c.on~~lian~.e wlll~ ell health laws anJ any other restrlGclons placed on (t~ ~jnd polnted out that is why they had mentioned orthodox kosl~er, wf~ich is more stringsnt than any healtl~ laws. Fle indlceted the animals would be slaughtered in the most humane way possil~le; that ther~ weuld bo nu odors~ flies~ etc,; and that Mannings b Sons has been in existence since 195~ and there hav~ been no complaints. Fle polnted oul that as far as the railroad company is ~ancerned, they would not have to worry about the aesthetics of the p~operty. 11e inJicateJ they would put a G-foot high wall to screcn this property and questioned the r-otives of tl~e flancuck Laborato~fes~ indicating it seems thcy arc bent on buyiny mnre land to expand their operat.ion anci if that be the case~ they would like to knav ic~ but if thcy ob,ject to this operat(on~ he wondered what [hey woul~J like to have them put on the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSEU. Commissioner Johnson indicate~ he wanted co apologize t~ Mr. Stark because he was coming from a positlan of not being able to support the application and he fett sor~y for pcople wlio have a venture with words~ such as s'aughterl~ouse, which scare most people, including him, and they become negatlve. Ne indi~ated he would like to know what the plans were for the animals before the slauylitefious4. Mr. Stark pointed out the animals are brought in datly to the back of the slaughterhouse where they are kept in covered pens. Ne ~inted out these are temporary corrals which are constructed accordiny tu the U.S.D.A. yuidelines. He ind~cated these are concrete slabs with run-offs and roofs to keep the animals f~om being in tl~c sun too long, Commissioner Jotinson indicated the second questiun he would have would be the volume of animals per day. Mr. Sta~k pointed out on a daily basls ttiey would have 10 heacl o( cattle, 7.0 sheep. 20 goats, and 30 pigs and the anin~als will be slaughtered daily and not kept on-slte~ even on a seml-permanent basis. Commissloner Johnsan asked for further information conce~ning the "orthodox. kosher" operatton since 30 pigs per day are involved. Mr. Stark explained this is a separate operatlon. 6/19/78 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~~ 1`)78 7E~-W62 EIR NECATIV~ UECLARATION ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1859 (cant~nued) Commlasionsr Johnsan asked if the pr~posed operAti~n ls dlfferent than the operation aa dlscussed by Mrs. Artedge concerning the mistreatment of the anirnels, ~nJ Mr. Sta~k replled this would be the seme owners but o dlfferent operetlon~ with tne R~bbl supervising the aide nf tl~e operatlon for the kosher plant. Chalrman Tolar indicated h~ would find It difflcult to Justify this type of use In the middle of a prlme induxtrlal zone~ an~f~ more specifically~ next to a d~velopment such as the i~ancock Laboratories. Ile stated rnaybe this use would be compatlble with some industrir~l uses~ but is so far remnvraJ from this onc that he ~ould not ]ustify It t~ hls own mind. Ne stated he ~ias cvmpassic;n far the peopl~ who own thu property and want to deve lop i n a way tli~y see f i t; tl~at th I s 1 s the Amcr i can way of 1 I fe ~ howeve r~ ha tli~aught this use could be detrimental tu the hnolth and sefety of tli~ communlty and possibly have an ill effect on somconc else's rl~hts, and he docs appreciete the flernandez' posltlon but felt this particular use would not be co~,patlble in this z~ne. Commissloner E3arnes indicateci she is an cx-4-11 s~+ine 1~ -der and clld not I~ave ~nythinn against slauyhcerhuuses~ but felt the Planning Cor~xniss ~n is trying to uphold tt~e intagrity of the Industrlal communlty and trying io attr~~ct laryc industry to this area~ and this property happens to be across the street frc~~n one of the prlrt-e areas to be developed. She (ndicated she c91d n-~t feFl the property avner would suffer in the lonc~ run if ,yis use Is denied; that this parCicular ~~iece o` ~~r~perty fs goln~~ to be very valuable~ but shc felt a slauyhterh~use woulc'. clctr~~t froin invi tin~3 thos~ kinds of peoplc inta the area tha[ would i,iaL:e this property valu~~hlc. Cha(rman Tolar indicaced he felc this use could be ~lNtrimcnt~il ta the ~ropcrty value of this part(cular property. Commissioner David asked if tf~+:r:.~ was a zone where tt~is type of use would be allowed, and Jay iashiro, Associate Planr.~r~ u~~~~ted out this use waul~: requlrc~ a condltional use pe~mit~ but there is n~ p.~rticu!ar ::c~ne where it would be allowecl• ACTI011: Commissluner Johnsun oi~Fered ~~ motl~n~ seconJe~' by Cammissior,er David and HA710t~ C~R U(Gommissioners Linr~ e~n~+ Toiar vot.iny nc~ and Corrmissioner Herbst being absent), that the Anaheim City Flanni~~r, C.v~~untysiur has revlew~d t1iA p~'oposal to permit e slaugl~terhouse ~n a r•f:c:tcang~tarly-sha~e~d pttrcel of land cc~nsisting of approximately 2.3 acres having a fro~tay~ c~f ap,~ra;:ink~tcly ln') feet on the west si~ie of IS3ncock Street~ betng located appror.imatr~ly 7~s!; f~.~~:t r~~rti~ of the centerl ine c~f La Palma Avenue; and ~oes hereby approve the N~,y,a4ivc: Ueclar~et+on frnm tt~e requirement to preparr. an enviranmental impact report un th~e basis t~~at the.rc; would b~ no significant indi~Idual or cumulative adverse environmental ir.~~ac~ cfc~e to the a,~prov~~l of this Neyative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan desiyn.Ztes tt~s subJect pr~~perty for general industrial land uses comn-ensurate wi~h the praaosal; ~h~t nU sensitlve e~~vironmental impacts a~e involved in the proposal; that the Initlal St~~cSy submitted by tna petitioner indicates no significant individual or cu~nulative adversc* envlrenmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantlatiny the foregoing fEr~din~~s is c~n f(le in the City of Anahelm Planning Department. Commissioner Johnson offered Resolutio~ No. PG7~3-1~2 and moved for its passage ~nd adoptio~, thAt the Anaheim City Planning Commission c~nes here~y deny Petlilon for Conditional Use Permit No. 1859 on thc bxsis thaX [hp use would have a negetlve effect on the entire lndustrial arPa and the Ciiy af Anahei~n ~s a whole. On roll call~ the foregoing resalution was passed by the follaving vote: 6/19/78 ~~ MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, JUNE 19~ 1978 EIR NEGATIVE nEGLARATION AN~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 18~ (conttnued) AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ JOHNSON~ KING~ LINN, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NERBST 78-463 Jeck Whice~ Deputy City Attor~oy~ pointed out the petltloner I~as the right to appea) the Plan~ing Comntssion's dectston withln 22 days to the Lity Councll. aECESS There was a 15-m(nute recnss at 3:25 p.m. REGONVENE The meotiny reconvened at 3:40 p.m.~ all Cortmissioners present except ~_ Comni ss loner flarbst. ITEM NO. g PUE~LIr. NfaRtNr,, owNFRS; GLFNr~ R, AND t3ERNAUFTTE EIR CA~EGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1~ 3 F, CIIRTER~ 14241 East f~ayward Street~ Whittier, VAittNJCE N0. 3022 ` CA g06o,. AGCNT; ~AREiARA DUN11~ 811 North Euclld Street~ Analieiri~ CA y2U01, Petitioner requests WAIVCR OF (A) MIWIh1UH SIDE YARU SETBACK AND (ff) TYPE OF PARKI~~G SPA(.LS TU PLKMII' AN ~XISTING ILLEGAL GARAG~E CO~~VERSIQfI on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel ~f land consisting oi approximetely G400 square foet having a frontage af appr~oximately 5a fcet on the soutl~ slde of La Palma Avenue, havi~g a maximum depth of approximately 101 fe~t~ being located ~pprox(mately y4U fQet east of the centerllne of EuGlid Street~ a~d further dQSc.ribe~ as tA2i~ West La Palma Avenue. Prop~rty presently classtfled RS-7200 (RESIDCNTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY) ZO~IE. There was no one incllcating thetr presence in oppasition co sub.iect request~ and although the staff report to the Planning C~mmissEon dated June 1~, 197~ wes not rt~d at the public hcortng~ It is referred to end madc a part of tl~c minutes. Pau) T. Kott~ Car) Rau Realty~ indic.at~d the waivers being ~equested for min(mum slde yard satback and type of parking spaces were for an lllegal garage conversfon. Ffe po(nted out there have been no corry~laints about the carport or qarage situation and that approval is needed for Fi~A lnan approval; that he contacted tt~e neiahbors personally and there were no obJections. Ne stated there are two parking sp~~ces on the ~roperty itself and presented plctures illustrating tt~e situatlon. He pointed out the converslon has been in exi~tence 1$ year~; that there was a permit found in thc 1960 Buliding Department ftle for a garage and famtly room er~ction~ and he felt this permit was possibly fo~ this conversion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. It was noted that the Planning plrector or his authorized representative has determtned that the proposed project falls witl~in tl~e definitlon of Categorica' Exemptions, Classes 1 and 3, as deflned in paragrapti 2 of the City of Anaheim E~vtronmental Impact Report Guicieifnes and is~ therefore, categarically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EfR. ACTIOt~: Commissioner Linn offPred Resolutian No. PC7~-133 and moved for its pessage and a opt on~ that the Anahetm City Planntng G~mnlssion does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 3022 an the basis ttiat ttie converslon has been in existence for 18 years end has had no adverse effects on tt~e surrounding area and that adequats off~street parking ts provided~and subJect to Interdepartmenta) Committee recommendations. On rol) w 11, che foreyoing resotution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CQNMIS510NERS: BARNES, Dl1VID~ JOHNSOPJ~ KiNG~ LIIJPI~ TOLAR N~ES: COMMISSIONFRS: NONE ABSENT: C0~IMISSIOWERS: NERBST 6/19/7a r- ~~ „ MINUTES~ A~a~I1F.IM CITY PLNNHING GOMMISSION, JUNE 1~3~ 1y78 78-464 I;tN N0. 10 PUIfLIC HEARING. OWIJLR; CQUITCC 77-REAL ESTATE EIR ChTEGORIGAL EXL11f'TION-CLA5S 1 INVk.STQRS~ P. 0, l3ax 11~(~~ LaFayettc~ cn ~-~5~+,. CUNU N L C CRMI N0. ~2 AGLNT: JIM'S DISGOUI~T WARC110USE~ IGI1 South Sunkist Street~ Anahelm, CA 72`.i06. Petitloner reryuests pcrinisslon to E~iT/1ULIS11 RETAII. SAl.E.S 0~ FURt~ITURE IIJ AI~ ML ZONI' on praperty ~lescr(I~ed as a rectanc~ularly-si~spe~i pArcel ~f IAnd consisting ~f approxim.~tely 11.3 acres t~avtny a frontaye of op~roxtmately 1022 feet on the soutt~ slde of Katella Avenue~ haviny a rnaximum deptl~ of appraximatcly ~OJ feet~ be{ng located app~oxi- matoly G60 feet west oF the cr.nterline of State College Boulevard, and furtf~er descrlbed a~ 1Z00 East Katell~a ~~~cnue. Propercy presently classified Nl. (INUUSTRIAL~ ~1~1~TEU) ZONE. There was no on~; indic~tinr~ cheir presence in oppc~sltion Co subiect request, and elthough the s taf f report to the P 1 ann 1 ny Goi~imi ss ic~n d~tcd June 1~ ~ 197f- w.~~, nnt read at the publ i c hearing~ it is referred to and made a p~rt of the minutes. Bill Pulver~ rei~~esentiny Jiin's Dlscount Wareliouse~ (ndicated thelr con~pany h~d appl(ed fvr a business licensc fn July~ 19/b to opr.r~te ti~eir storc at tliis loGation. He pointed out thls request was aP4>ro•ved by the Plannin9 Uepartn~ent on August 30~ 1~7G, with the Iicense granted on Octuber 1~ 1976. Ne s+tated based an this~ they had entered Inta a long-term lease anJ that 'l0 manths fater~ on I~ay 30th~ wcre informecl by the Planning Department thAt they do not have thc proper zoning for thls uae. He st~ted h~c had been in contact w(tf~ the Planning steff and was told ~ s[aff erro~• was made and a condltlonal use permlt would ba necessary, He stated they had heen In business slnce November~ 1976 and felt Lhey are an asset tn tl~e cor,ununity and have en attractive exterlor and more than adequatc parking facilities. I~e inclicated he did not believe the use contributed to the traff(c congestlon and felt that forc(nc~ them to abandon thls location would place them in a very drastic flnancial s(tuation. He pointed out it was hls understanding that the Gommission could yrant approval for retail furniture In this z~ne, lie refcrrecl to tf~e Interdepartmental Committee recommendation requiring payme~t of a traffic signal assessment fee which would be in excess of S~~O40 and pointE~d out thc orJinance tequlring this fee was passed in July af 1977~ which ~aas 11 months after the buslness license was grantcJ and he Jid nor, feel staff had constdered that point. Ile patnted out ~ay~~~ent of that fee would have been a factor in tl~~eir decis(on to develop in this area. THE PUBL.IC HEARI~~G 41AS CLOSED. Chai~man Tolar pointed out there has been a real problem with comnercial development moving into the industrial areas. Ne stateJ f~e did not consiJer a business Ilcense be(ng lssu~d In 197G a harJstiip, He pointed out recently khere has t~een a 411ckes furniture store in an industrial zane that went in under thc ar•,ument that they were manufacturing the furnlture and should be allawed (n ati ML Xone. and tliat more recently a business license was issued for a retail furniture store in a primary industrlal area and they are flying balloons, etc.; that certaln comrnercial ventures are ailowed in tt~e industrial zone and there is a list of th~se compatible uses. Hc pointed out the petitioner has bcen very honest in his application by sayiny he does not have a commercial use~ but that thts fs a retail furniture sales store and they oecupy 1~,OQ0 square feet of a very targe Industrial complex. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, pointed out tlie entire area for this complex is approximately 1Z acres. 6/19/78 ~~~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1g~ 197~ 78-465 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOW•CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1842 (conttnued) .___._.___ Chairm~n Tolar indicsted hc did not wish to create s problem for this o~ganizatlon~ but xhat he felt the Planning Commisston ls going to have ta com~ to grlps with thls sttuation~ particulerly furniture campenies moving (nto an ML Zone whnn they belong (n a comme~clal zone, end he realized they went in an ML Zone because of the cost. He indicated he was totally In favor of commerctal developn~nt~ but not in an tndustria) ~one and he Is unhappy wlth what Is happening in the tndustrlal zones. He felt this would destroy the potentlai for development In the induscrla) perk ~nd thts Is a nice industria) park and there sra a lot of Industrial usors who would want to locate: tn this a~ee. He tndlcated he would like to so~ this type of development tn the Ctty of Anahelm~ maybe as part of the rsdevelopment area~ but not in a p~imn industrial srea. Mr. Pulv~r Indlcated th~y had bee~n looking for anoth~r slte and the averagc cost was 70~ per square foot for thts type af use. He pointed out If the rates were rtght In the downtvwn area~ they would bc happy to rrwve there. Chat~man Tolar pointed out there are a lat of comn~ercfal users ~-ho would llka to be in s~ industrlal zon~; that t~e wauld like to be able to locate hls reel estate offlce in an industrial park, but~ In ra~ality~ he is paytng '75C or 80C a foot in the zone where he (s supposed to be. I~e asked where the Commtssinn should draw the tine in order to step this type of encroachment into the industrlal areas. He asked why have ordlna~ces at all tf they are not going to be adhered to. He indicated it is frustrating having ordi~ences and then constantly looking for reaso~s to get around them; that he has sympathy with what this company has invested in this property~ but, In all clear tonscience, he could not support 18~000 square feet as carunercial bustness in an Industrlal park. Mr. Pulver polnted out there is a lot of retail business east and west of this slte~ and Chatrman Tolar lndicated he reallzed the Planning Commisslan has made a lAt of mistakes. Jay Tashiro point~d out the butlding area of the praposed site ts approximately 171~000 square feet~ with 83$ being used fur industrial uses, such as warehoustng~ ar,a 17~ utillzed for commercial office space. He pointed ouc a cnnditio~al use permit was approved for commercial offlce uses with a conditlon listing the permitted uses and wes provided as a guidellne for staff determination and approvai~ subJect to the petitfoner's wrltten description of the subJect business. He read the llst of uses as Indtcated in the staff report, Chai~man Tolar indtceted he felt probably 37~ to 40$ of thls tndustrtal park ts currently being used For conmercial. Commisstoner Johnson lnd(cated he could identify with what Chat~man Tolar was saying exactly. and tf this petitioner was coming tn c~id with this application~ he would not allew it bec~use it violates ordinancts and violates the general thrust of the industrial xone~ and the Cornnission is trying to preserve the intagrity of the zone~ but that this is another whole ballgame since he has be~n In business for 20 months and there had been a misunde~standing with staff regarding a business license. Ile indicated he felt very strong~y both ways and it wouid be hard to deny a use thaC is bringing revenue to the City; that there hava been no complaints, but that maybe the us~ is hurting the zone and causing trafftc and someone else coming in would not went to b~ located next to this commercial store. Mr. Pulver indicated they have had no complaints from their neighbors and~ reqarding the traffic~ 76$ of their traffic is evanings and weekends and they have 71 parking spaces located around the perimeter of the building. 6/19/78 .c. ~ ti MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~~~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78-466 EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CIASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1842 (co~ttnued) Commi~sloner Linn asked ~w long the laase is for Chis property. end Mr. Pulver replled It Is a 15•ye~r lease. C~irov ded hlmnw/thladli~teofhpe nn(ttedeusesband he~hasileesad thts'propertyaandhthe,u~e ha~ p is not on the ilst. Can~nissloncr Linn asked Jack Whlte, Deputti- City Attorney~ if the lessee has any recoursc wl[h his landiord~ end Jack White Ind(cated he could not be in a positton of glwin9 1e9a) advice~ but there is a possiblllty he might went to look into It. Chalrman 7ola~ Indicated he pleces responslbility on the developer sln~~ thts had been discussed snd it was made clear and a specific list was provided to the developer. Commisslane~ Barnes pointed out thc Comm(sslon has made e lot of wrong decislons In the past and the decisions arc tough since they do not want to hurt anyone who is trying to do business (n the Ctty, but the problem ts getttng worse and worse. She patnted out the Planning Commission Is supnosed to protcct thc in~ustrial area beceuse it means s lat of good things for the people of Anaheim. She polnted out the Commtssion has ca start somdwhere to stop these use~. M;, Pulver pointed out their store employs 35 people and clost~g it wc,uld ba very drastic. Chairman Tolar suggested the Planning Commisslon cuuld grr~nt approva~ ortunttc~totrel cate use perm(t for a one or two~yeer period to give the petittoner thc opp Y and to possibly prn•rate some of the cost. He indicated he recogntxes they hAVe a 15-year lease and he felt tne petitioner would have recourse with the property owner~ but did not feel he could be lenient far a longer per(od. Commissloner Johnson pointed out the traffic slgnel assessment fee should be considered~ and Chalrman Tolar scated peyment of that fee would be Lhe obligatlon of the property owne r. Mr. Pulver potnted out the property has recently changed hands; that it was ortglnally built by Golden West and was bough~t by Equltec in October of last year~ so ther~ is a new property owner invnlved. He painted out investn-ents are based on a return over a perlod of time, and he felt it wauld ba rarc to start operatton on a use for about a three or four-year ltfc span. An~lka Santalahti~ Assistant ~irector far Zoning~ pointed out the request the Planning Commission had dcn(ed on ~lhite Star and La Palma a fe~r weeks ago had gone to City Counc(1~ a publlc hearing was held, and the petitioner wanted specific uses for homc furnishings with a great deal of storaye space whfch they felt would be suitabl~ ln an industrial areai~~-~~eSe butnthe hwere~wlllin9tto accept~ittwith1jthatuamourt ofsstoragetln olvedei~1y reta ~ Y th~s particular instance. Chatrman Tolar indicated this wss ve~y tnteresting a~e situationsandiprobablyttheybshould City Council wvuld llke to handle this particular typ handle it. He indicated th~ list is v~ry clear to him and he could not supp~rt a co~cept thet wantdthe~list cha~g~duanditheZPlanning C~ommissionthastn t~recetveddanytredlrectlon th y f rom them. 6/19/78 ~ ~e-467 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 191a EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1842 (contlnued) Mr. Pulver pointed out it was hls understanding that a uso such •s this would be appropri~te with Planning Commission approval. Chalrm~~ Tolar putnted out thet ts co~rect~ but thet the City Cuuncll has seen fit to add home furntahings to the llst on a speclfic proJect. Comrtilssioner Jahnson Indlceted he felt Clty Councll would have aome ratlonele in thet in most citlea this type of heavy furnlture us~s wlth lots of storage spece necessary is not usu~lly found in e prime cammerciel area, but neither should it be in a hesvy Industriel area, snd this area is inbetaee~. He pointed out that other then the unspoken policy of protection of the industrial area for industrial u~ers~ from a cttizen's standpoint this would not be a bad location. Ne indtcated he would be i~ favor of supporting a moclon for denlel and that let the City Council make the decision~ although the Planntng Commission seldom denies a r~yuest on that basls. Chsirman To18r n~theePlanningeCo~mnisslan should~have~dlrectiontfromitheCCouncilgregarding philosophy~ the that. Commissianer Linn pointed out this areo is unique in that across the street there are a lot of restaurants, a nursery+ and a yreenhouse~ which w9uld be conp atible with home furntshings. ~ Po~~~ed out the Planning Gommi~slon has talked about a potentiel 6enerai Plan amendmant far thls area on State College Boulevard because of the retail eperatlons. He (ndicated he would agree that the City Counci) should aay some~ht~g ta the Commission concerning the nature~ oLth~hereuaretreta918operations,onWb thrsides fethGistreet.~~ose proximity. Hc pointe Commisstoner David clarihiM'. Pulverbpofntl~g,outnthatehebwas n tusurenof~tha exacty the Planning Qepartment~ wit procedure. Commisstoner Oavid suggested that a phrase m(ght be added to the business ltcense~ with some type of h~~~o"~ business in violatgon ofPthemcoda~nwhich'mlght1pr~~^ttthisstype alla+ the rig situatlon from occurring. Jack white po~nted out this is s posslbilit~r~ with w~rding stmiler to what is currantly on th~ building permit. He indicated mistekes n-ade b~ the 8usiness License Oepsrtment or Buildl~g Department dn not givc the party vbtaining the permit the r19ht to violate the C i ty u~des . Mr. Pulver pointed out the 1lcense is specific in location and the use on the premises. Chatrman Tolar pol~ted Pulvererepliedithisswas thetfirstrtimelheehsdtse ~athepli~ted was specific also~ and Mr. Chairman Tola~ indicated he personally is going to telk wtti~ the Mayor in th~ near future a~d meetings can be scheduled as deemed ~ecessary. Commissloner Johnson ~unci~t~e arding'thelrcphilosop~y;ethatsitewouldubeibetteretha~~re input from the City Co 9 raaking a bad mtstake. 6119/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78-b68 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLAsS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 N0. 1842 (contl~ued) ACTION: Commtsstone~ Johnson offered ~ motion, secondad by Commlsstoncr Osvid and MOTION ~~D (Commis~laner Herbst being ebsant)~ that considerativn of Co~ditlonel Use Pern+it No. 1842 be continued to the re~ulsr meetl~g of the Planning Commisslon on July 17~ 1978~ tn o~der for the Pl~nning Commission to recelve more input from the City Counct) regardtng thts m~tter, 1TEM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARI~G. OWNERS: LEWIS a. APID JUQITN E. ~~~~ICAL EXEMPTIOi~-CLA~S 1 SCI~MIO~ 16A1 L~ngiey Avenue~ Irvine~ CA 92714. ONDIT ON L USE PERMIT N0. AGENT: ANDREW KALANl.~ 2;60 Ea~t Katetla Avenuc~ Anoheim~ CA 92806. Pettttoner requests ON-SALE BE' AND WINE IN A RECREA'~IONAL FACILITY on property descrtbed ~s ~n irr~gul~riy-shnped parcel of land consisting of approxlmately 2.0 acres located at Che southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Street~ having approximate fronteges of 215 feet on thc south side of Ketella Avenue end 4~A feet on the west side of DouglASS Stre~t~ end furcher describad es 2560 Esst Katella Avenue. Property presently clessiflecl ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED} ZONE. Thare was no one Indiceting their presance in ~pposicton to subJect request~ and although the steff report to thc Planntng Commiss(on dated June 19~ 197a was not read at the publtc hearing, tt Is referrod to and made a part of the mtnutes. Andrew Kalan2~ agent, lndicated his presence ta answer any questlons. Tf1E PUBLiG HEARIkG WAS CIOSED. Chalrman Tolar asked the haurs of operetion, and Mr. Kalanz replied they were liond~y through Frtdsy from b:30 s.m, to 10:30 p.m.~ Saturday 8:0~ a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 F.m. It wss no~ed that the Planning Director or his authortzed representative has determined that the proposed proJect falls wtthin the definition of C~tegorical Exemptions. Class 1. as deflned tn paragraph 2 of tfi e City of M aheim Environmental Impact Report Guideltnes ~nd Is. therefore. categortcally exempt from the ~equirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissloner K(ng offe~~d Resolution No. PC7g-134 and moved for its aassage and Adopt~on~ that tha l4naheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby granc Petition for Conditiunal Use Perm(t No. 1844~ subJect to the petitfoner's stipulation that the hours of operstlon shall be limlted to Monday throuyh Friday 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.~ Saturday 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.~ and Sunday 9:00 a.m. ta 5:00 p.m.. and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommcndattons. On ral) call~ the foregoing resalutton was passed by Che followiny vote: AYES: COMM15510NER5: 6ARNE5~ DAVIU, JOHNSON~ KING~ LINN, TULAR NOES: COMM15510NERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NERBS7 6/~9/78 ~' MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 19~ 1978 78-469 ITEM N0. 12 PUBIIC HEARING. OWNE~c: BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL EIR NEGA IVE DECIAMTION TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION~ Fi0) North Main Street~ 0. 18~~ Santa Ana~ CA 92701. Petittnner requests permission to EXPAND AN AUTOMOBILE SALES AGENCY on property descrtbed ~s a rectanguiarly-sheped pa~ce) of land consisttng of •p~rox(mately 0.3 acre locstad at the ~o~theast c~rner af Broadw~y ~nd Anahalm Bouleva~d~ having approxlmate fronteges of 90 feet on the south stde of B~oadway and 135 feet on the e~at side of Anaheim Bouleva~d~ and further deacr{bed as 300 South Anaheim Bouleverd. Property p~esently classif;ed CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZONE. There waa no one indlcating the(r presence In opposltion to aubJect request, and although the staff report to thc Planning Commission dated June 19, 1~78 was not read at the public hearing~ It Is raferred to and made a part of the minutes. Ruth Bar~ett~ Russ Realty. 1303 Wes: Valencia~ Suite B~ Fullerton~ was prosent to answer any questlons. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLQSED. The dr(veways were discussed~ with Jay Tashiro~ Assoc~ate Planner~ indicating the one drlveway proposed is adJecent to the existing alley and the Traffic Engfneer hes recommended that drlveway have a maximum wtdth of 30 fect onto Anaheim Boulevard. ACTION: Commissfoner King offered e motlon~ secended by Commissioner Dav(d and MOTION ~~ED (Commissioner Herbst being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Fla~ntng Carmisston has revlewed the proposa) to expand an automobtle sales aqency on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of ~and conslsting of approximat~ly 0.3 acre lo,~a~ed at the southtast co~ner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard~ having appr~ximate frontages of 90 feet ort the south stde of Broadway and 135 feet on the east s(de of Anahetm BQUlevard; and does hereby approve the Neqatlve Decldratlon from the ~equ(r~ment to prepare an environmental tmpact report on the basis that there would be no siqnificant individual or cumulative adverse env(ronmenta) impact due to the approval of this Negatlve Oeclaration since the Anahcim Genera) Plan designates th~ subJect property for genera~ commerclal 'and uses cann~nsurate with the proposal; thst no sensitive e~vtronmentel impac~s are invo'ved in the p~oposal; that the Inltial Study submitted by the petitioner tndicates no sfgniflcant individua) o~ cumulative adverse envtronmental Impacts; and that the Negativ~ Declaratlon substanttating the faregoing findings (s on fiie in the City of Anaheim P)anning Department. Can~;Ysioner King offered kesoluiion t~n. PC78-t35 and moved for its passage and adoption~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commissian dces he~eby grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1845~ subje~t tc~ the petitloner'3 stlpulation that the driveway onto Anahefm Boulevard adJacent to the ~alley will have a maximum width of 30 feet~ and subJect to ~nterdepartrr~nta! Committee ~ecommendati~ns. On roll call, the foregotng resolution was passed by the following voLe: AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: BARNES. DkVID~ JOIiNSON, KiNG, L1NN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE aBSENT: COMMISSI0NER5: HERDS7 6/19/78 w C MINUTES~ ANAH~IM ~ITY PLANN~Nu COMMISSION, JUNE 13. 1978 78- 4'0 ITEM N0. 1 PUOIIf NEARlNG. OWNER: SER RIC1~, INC.~ 279 ~sst '~~'~~E fl[CLARATIOr~ Lincoln Avenue~ An~helm~ CA 92845. AGENT: CASA ~ ~0. 1846 Pi.ACENTIA~ INC. ~ 201 W~t t S+~nta Fe~ Placsntta~ CA A~ORUG REHABILITATIONQCENTERpFORtMOMEN WITNSWAIVERH w OF MINIMUM NUM9ER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as a ~ectangularly-sh~eped parcel of lo~d consisting of appr~ximataly A.4 acrN locetad at the northwest c~rncr of Li~coln Avenue and Phil~delohia Stree~. having epproxl- mate front+~qes of 149 feec a~ the north stde of Ltncal~ Avenu~ n+~d ~ 15 feet on tha west side of Philadelphla Street~ and fu~ther desc~ibed as 179 East Lincoln Avenue. Property p~asently cla4siftcd CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZONE. There was no one Indic~ting their presence In opposttlon to subJect req uest~ and although the staf f re~ort to thes PI an;i i nq Commi ss lon dated June 19 ~ 197~ was not reed et the pub 1 I c her.ring~ lt I~ referred to and made a part of the m~nutes. Rus~~ll 9er~los~ Exec~tlve Olrector of C~sa Placentla~ In~.. ~gent, Indicated the proposal is to provtda s women's rehsbilitation treatment program at the An~eiina Notel. THE PU4~IC NEARING WAS CL05Ea. Cortimissioner King asksd haw lony the bullding wauld be in this area slnce it is In the redeveloprnent area~ and Jay Tasniro~ Assoclate Pla~ner~ replied the Rede velapment Commissi~,n has tndlcated they do not have plans for purchasing thls property et this time. Mr. Dar.ios indtcated he hed spoken with the R~development Agency~ also, and was told the bu) 1 ding 1 s s tructural ly sound. Conmissioner David asked if tha building had been le:escd~ and Mr. Barrtos r~plied an agreen~snt had been drawn up~ but Hill not ba slyned until approva) Is q ~antad. Chat~man Tol~~• aske~ the length of the lease ayreement, and Mr. aar~io~: replied it would be for slx moi~ths wt th sn optlon to extend for snother year. Commissloner ~avld aske.d where the funding would be coming from for this program. and Mr. Berr{os replied ~t w~utd bc federally fundcd Lhrouyh the County Youth Services. ~hsirman Tolar i~dica~ed hc was not opposed to this type use. but would Iike to see a time limit ~laced on tl~r.. ~+pproval~ If yranted. He pointed out the Redevelopment Agency cauld decide t~ pu~chasa the building in the ntAr future and he w~uld prefer to sae a time ltmit attached to any approval. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney. po(nted out the Redevelopment Aqency would have the responsibiltty for :'.~e relocation and paym~~t of relocation casts~ but thai should n~t be considered in the Planniry Commisslan's decision. The Comhission discussed [h~ possibility of the program not being re-f unded and the fact that the condltlana'. use permlt gces with the p~operty~ with Jack White potnting out if another person came in and ope~ated the same type busine~.~, thls would be permlttCd~ hav~ver, the chances of that happening were very sllm. Commissio ner Linn asked how long it wnuld b~ before the buildtng would be ready for occupancy. with Mr. Barrios oo+ntinq out they hsd done a~reat deal Qf work and it would probably be six weeks i,pfore they would have any residents i~ the area. 6/19/7$ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMiSSION~ JUNE lg~ 1978 78•47) Ela NE~ATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 1846 (continuea) Ch~irm~n Tolar asked if the buildtng would bn inspectcd~ and Mr. Ba~rtos replied the Stete Insp~ctors woulcJ Inspcct the bulidtng. ACTION: CommisYloner D~vld offe~ed A rrqtlon, seconded by Commiss(oner Linn and MOTION ~D (Commissloner Herbst belny sbse~t)~ thet che Anehclm City Plsnntng Cortmisslon has revlewed the p~oposai to permtt a drug rehabllitation center for women w:th walver of minlmum number of par~;t~g spaces on a rect~ngulariy-sheped parccl of land consisting of approximately 0.4 ac:re located at the northwest corner cf Ltncoln Avei~ue and Philadelphla Street~ havlny appraxlmnte frontsges of 149 feet on thc n~,rth sida of Ltncoln Ave~ue and 1!5 feet on the west side of Philadelphia Strcct; snd do~s hereby approve the Negatlve Ouclaratton from the requirement to prepare en envtronmental impeck report on the basls that there wauld be no slgnificant tndivl~ual or c~mulativ~ adverse environmental tmpsct due to the approval of this Negacive Declaration stnce th~ Anahetm fener~-1 Plen de~tgn~~es the subJect property for general commerclal land usea comnensu~ate with the proposal; that no sensttive envlronmental impacts are Involved in the proposal; tha: the 'ntttal Study submitted by the petttioner ind(cates no signiftcant tndividual ar cum~le:,•~e adverse environmental ir-p acts; and thac the Neyattve Decl~rat(on subst~ntiating :-~~~ furegoing ftndings Is on file in th~ Clty of Anshelm Planning Departmcnt. Commisstone~ David offered Resolutton No. PC78-136 ~^d mnvad for its passage and adoption, that the Anahetr~ Cicy Pla~ntng Commission does hereby grent Petitlon far Condit(ona) Use Permlt No. 1846 for a period of app~oximately 18 mo~ths~ to expire Februa ry 1~ 1980~ sub)ect to Interdepartmental Canmittee recommendetions. On roll call~ tho for~yatng resolution ~vas passed by the folla,ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVIU~ .lOHNSON~ KiNG~ LINN. TOLAR NOE.S: GOMMISSIONERS: NONE A85ENT: CCPIMISSIONERS: HCRB57 Thc Commisslon dlscussed the need for parking (n the arca~ wlth Mr. 8ar~tos potnting out the patrons In the facllity wouid not be allowed to have the use of a•~~~hicle. Commissioner ~vid offered ~ motion, seconded by Comnissloner L(nn and M0710t~ CIIRRIED (Commissioner ile~bst being absent)~ that the Anahetm Gity Planninq Commisslon does hereby yiant watvar of code requirement for minimum number of parking sn~ces on the basis that patrons in the subJect faci 1(ty w) l l not have acr.ess to vahicl~s. 6/1gi78 ~.. ~ ~. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78-472 (TEM N0. 14 PUBLIC HEARING. DEVEIOPER; FOUR SAILS PROPERTIES~ IR NE A IVE DECLARATION INC.~ 16781 Milliken Stre~t~ Ste. A~ Irvine~ CA 92714. Q. 10424 ~NGINfER: RAY MERCADO R ASSOCIATES, 12550 Brookhurst Street~ Suita J~ Garden Grove~ CA 92b40. Sub,ject property~ conslsttng of an irregutarly-shaped parcei of land consisting of approx(mat~ly 1.~. acres havtng s fronteg~ of approxtmately 92 feet an the east slae of Tustin Avenue~ havtng e maximum de~th of approxtmat~ly 2~0 feet~ being locsted app~ox(mately 340 teet north of the centerltne of Santa Ane C~nyon Ro~d. end further described a~ 124 North Tustin Avenue~ Is proposed for a o~e-lot~ slx-butiding~ RM-1200 (Residential~ Multiple- Family) subdivisiun. Chrts Canaday~ representir~y Four Satis Properties~ Inc.~ th~ developer~ explelned thr complex Is existir.g end no naw constructlon le proposed and che subdivision is fur rrsale purposes; that a prel(mina~y title report tndicated thc properky was subdtvided lnto seven ~arcelc and r~c~rd~d~ but the or(gina) dcveloper hed not nottnn approva) of the Clty of Anaheim In 1g65; therefore. thi~ request Is ta correct that sttuatton. TNE PUBLIC HCARING WAS CL05E0. f,CTION: Conunissloner King offered a motlon~ seconded by Commtsatoner Davtd and MOTION ~ Rt ED (Commissloner Nerbst bcing ~b:,ent) ~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commtysion hss reviewed the proJect to establish a o~e-lot~ six-bullding~ RM-12~0 subdlvtsion on an irregularly-shaped psrc~! of land consistfng of approximat~ly 1.9 acres~ heving a frontage of approximstely y2 feet on the east sidn ~f Tustin Avenue. being located approxlmately 340 feet n~~th of the centerline of Santa Ana Cenyon Road; and ~taes hereby approve the Negatlve Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental tmpact report on the basis that thare would be no signtficant tndividual or cumulative adverse envlronmental impact due tu the approval of th!s Negative Declaration since the Anahelm General Plan deslgnatos the sub)ect propercy for low-medlum density residential land uses commensurate wfth the p~oposal; that no sensitive environmen~a) tmpacts ara involved in the proposal; that the initial St.:•~y submicted by the petltloner indicr~krs no significant individual or cumulet'~~e a-iverse erviranmenta! tmpacts; and that che Negative Detlaration substa~nttdttng the foreyoing findin~as is on flle In the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Comm(ssioner King offered a motion~ secondr_d by Commissloner Lin~ and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst being absent)~ chat tne Anaheim City Planning Cortimisston does hernby Rind that the propased subdtvision~ together with its design and improvement, ts consistent with the City nf Anaheim's General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Seciton 66473.5~ and does~ therefo~e~ app~ave Tentative Map of Tract No. 10424 for a one-lot, s(x- butiding~ RM-1200 subdivtsion~ subJect to che r'ollawing c~nditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more tt~an one subdivisia~~ each subdivls!on thereof sh~ll be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. ThaC subJect ~roperty shall be served by underground utilities. 3. That a final tract map of subJect property shali be submitted to and ap?raved by the City Council and then be recorded in the nffice of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That any proposed covenants. con~~itions. and restrictions shall be submitted to and epproved by the City Atto~ney's OfficE and Clty Engineer pr+or to City Council appr~val of thr, finai tract map and~ further, th~t the approved covenants, candlttons~ and reStricttons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract mbF. 5. That the covenanC3~ conditions. and restrictions sh~ell o~taln a provision prcahiblttng the sale of indtvidual untCS within the apartment building. 6. ~~~~at the a~ner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City or Anaheim a strlp of land 53 feet inr~idth from the centerline of the street along 7ustin Avenue fc,r street widening purposes. 7. That drainage of subject property sha11 be disposed of In a manner satisfactory to the City Enginee~. 6/14l7A MINUTFS~ ANANEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78~~i73 ITEM N0. 1~ A~~~ RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0~ - Request for an extenston of ttme. The staff ~eport to tha Planning Cammisslon dated June 19~ 1978 wes F'esented~ ~oting sub,ject p~operty ts an (rregularly-shaped ~arcel of land co~ststing of epprnxim~t~ly 3~.3 a~crs~ having a frontage af approxtmately 296 Peet oR the southwesterly side of 1'awell Avenue and being located a~pproximately 520 feet no~thwest~rly of tl~e centerl ine af Katella Avenue~ a~d that the appltcant (Wood~ow T. McClure) ~equests approvnl of an extonsion of time for CondlttanAi Use Permit No. 1G23 which wes q ~anted for a~ time perlod of two ye ara to permlt a recreatiunal vehicle storage ys~d. ACTION: Commissioner David offered e mo[lo~, secon A~d by Commissioner Linn and MUfION C~IED (Commissioner Nerbst bc(ng abscnt) ~ that the Anahetm Clty Planning Camiisslon does herrsby grant a two-year excension nf time for Condit ional Usc Permit No. 16z3~ to nxpi re Mey 24 ~ 1980. B. MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE G4UNTY - Acquisitlon of easemant~• and rights- o~-way to construct a ma n trAnsm ss on pipclinc - Conformance with City of Anahelm Gener~l P1An. Tha staff report to the Planning Commission dated J u ne 19~ 1978 was p~esented~ nAting the Munictpal Nate~ District of Orange County requests a determination that the proposed acquisitlon of easements and riyhts-of-way ln the po rt~on of the City of Anahelm to construct a main ttansmission pipellne would be in c onformance with the Ctty o'f Anaheim Genere) Plan; that xhe route of the plpeline and ea s ements bnd rfghts-of-way is partially located within the City of Yorba Linda and the u~in eopo~ated areas of the County of Orange; and that the purpose of the pipellne is to provid~ a main transmissian facility to deliver ~ treated blend of State ProJect and Colora do River water from the Metropolit an Water District R. D. Oleme~ Filtration Plant In no~t~ern Yorba Linria to the Yarba Linda County Mater aistrict~ the City of Anahetm~ the Cit y of Orange, Ea~t Orange County Ws ter Uistrict~ Irvine Ranch Wpter Dtstrtct~ Santlago County Water District~ Los Alisos Water District. E1 Toro Water ~Istrtct. Moulton NlguelWa t~r District, Sbnta Margarita Wate r Qistrlct~ and Sants Ana Mountains County Water Dls t ~ict; and that Gove~nment Code Section 65402 requires that the Ctty of Anahelm dete~mine whether or not the proposed project is ir~ eonformance wlth ::°e City of A:,ahetm Genernl Pla~. ACTION: Commtssione~ David offered Resolut(on No. PC78-137 and moved for tts pessa9e and a~opt~on~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commission has determinc:: that the acqulsition of aasements and rights-of-way to construct a main transmission pipelEne would be In conformance with the City of Anahelm General Plan. On rol) call~ the fo~egcing resolution was passed by the following vote: hYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNESo DAV10. JOHNSON~ KING~ LINN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSI0NER5: HERBST TEMPORARY The meeting was adJourned at 4:45 p.m. for dinner. AOJOURNMENT RECONVENE The meeting ,econvened ~t 7:03 p.m.~ all Commissioners being present. r...~.~.~...~.. 6/19/78 r i MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNC 1~~ 1~78 JH-~74 IT~M N0. 1G PUC3LIC HCARItIC. O~1N~RS: MAitEI. J. Ul1UER ANO UNITEU ENVI~~M ~ AL IMPACT RfPORT N0. 216 GALIFARI~1l1 BA~~Y~~ 707 W1lshlr~ Bouleverd~ Los Ang~ica~ ~ -~ CA 9~~~~. AGCNT: KENT LANQ CoMPANY~ I1~~~ Shy Park North, Irvine~ CA ~3271u• Pacitfoncr rcquests reclassiflcation ot property descrlbeJ as an Irregulerly-shapr.d perccl of Irnd consiskinc~ of aoproxlmetely 315 ecr~s located southeasc and southwest of t hc intcrsection of tlie Riverstde Freewsy and Welr Canyon Rnad~ hrv(ng A fro~tage of ap~ro ximately 6920 feet on Sonta Ana Canyon Roed~ having e mmxlmum deptti of approximetQly 3~~00 feet~ and further descrll,eci as the Ba~.~Pr Ranch~ fran the County A1 (GENE:RAI AGRICULT U RAL) UISTRICT to the PC (PLANNED COMMUNtTY) ZONE. Phllllp Schwart:e , Asslstant Ufre~tor P~r Planning,p~inted out the F'lannlnc~ Commtsslon w(il l,~ conslder( ng two Itcros: en E~virnnmr.nt~l Impac• Report for the Bauer Ranch and a p~e-annexatl~n zor+e chan~~e request. Ile tntroduced ac.~~~rt NennlnqPr~ Plenning Alde~ to present the staff report, Robert Ilennin~er presentcd the staff report and explalned tf~e two actlons being sought by the petlti~ner: flrst~ a rieciston on the adequacy af the draft EIR anJ~ secondly, a de:(slun on the r equested zoninc;. F!e polnte~l out the petitlonGr Is requesting ~re- arinext+tion toning to tlie Planned Community (PC) l.pne; tht~t this type of zaning ellows the ?lanning Conxnlssiun to consider an ~nteyrate~ plan comprisinq several different land uses for a single~ la ~ ge pro~erty; that the PC Zonc rcqulres the petitioner to submlt a General Plan of Developm-ant wl~~ includes a l.and Us~ Element~ e Zoning Element~ and several other elements~ such as Circulat(~n~ Public Utillties~ etc. He polnted out the petitt~ner has submltted a Ge~c r al Plen of pevelopn~ent and accompanying Elft and Ftscal !mpact Analys(s. Fie rointed aut ttie Canyon Area General P1An on the wall and the Bauer Ranch proposal and noted tl~e bas(c difference in tl~ese two plans is lhe ~orm~rr,ial ar~a which is shown as medium density on the General Plan r•,,ap. lie indicated while the exact location of land use 1 s not the same as shown on t-~e Cany-un Area Genera 1 P 1 a~: , thc yenera 1 presport i ons ~f the la~d use areas a ~e the samc and t~~e Plannin~3 siaff bclteves the p~opos~d Land Use Element to be in conformance wit~~ thc map~ goals and pollcies of the Canyon Area General Plan. On the other hand~ the proposea Zoning Element does not seem thc app~oprl~te way of tmplementing the ..and Use Element. He indicated~ for example~ the petitioner proposes to implement estate density la~d use on thc westcrn portion of the property and pointed out this area on the plan~ with relatlvely dcnse zoning~ allowing 77.OQ and i0~0~0 syuare fcwt lots. Ne statr d normally estate Jrnsity land uses call for ~ti3~0~~ and '12~Q~0 square foot lots. He indlca ted there ar~ two maJor issues before the Plannirag Gommission; one being the Zoning Eleme ~t and the the other the fact that the proJe~t description in the draft EIR calis for 1,100 units wt~lch daes not match the proJect descrlptton in the General Plan of Development o f 1~3~0 units~ and the CI[y Attorney has stated the proJect may not be approved w~til t he draft EIR addresses the ssme project. t1e pointed out thc main lssue i whether nr not t he submitted pr~posal confo rms to the General Plan and not whether the proposed plan is a good F~an. tie indicated the State Subdivision Map Act would not allaw the approval of any tentative tracts that have a greater number of units than shown on the General Plan; that the legend on tt~e Ger~eral Plan states mar.lmum density ranges for each of thP plann~•' land uses. He stated this has t~cen A brtef summary o! 2he lengthy staff report and i~ cated there are ~~xtra ~:opies of the staff report i f anyone would 1 ik~ t~ have one. Keith Mu~doch, ~16 Wedgewood Drive~ M aheim~ indicated he had spent many years in cioing much of the ~+la nning and assisting 'n the planning for the future of Anbheim and had had the opportunity to viisw the Santa Ana Canyon as a community asset; that traveling through the ~.anyon~ on e could abserve the Bauer Ranch prope-•ty as offering the best oppo~tunity fo~ developmen t with its gently sw~eping terrai~, backed up by steeper hlllsides to the 6/19/7a ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUN~ lq~ 197~ 78~47~ EIR N0. 21~ ~NQ RCCIASSIFICATION N0. 71~]~~64_(contin~aed) _ ~-~- ~ - south. He Indicated the plan before the Planning Commisston Is a development plan that wi 1 1 N rese rve mos t ~f tl~e r,1 1 1 s t~f~~ v 1 ew f rom the canyon h 1 gh.+o•j:, and ret a i n the canyon ovorvlew om~,nity for the new resl~ents who wlll Ge coming tnto the area. Ne (ndicated the develupment and preserved open space sh~uld result in a deliqhtfu) asset to the City; that tho plsn has been propared by Kaufinen b Broad eng(n~ers and pl~nners end retalns fully 3~~ of the rancl~ es op~n space. He Indic~ted tt retains thet open space in a ~nsnner that retalns the vlew and blends with the proposed r~~identlal development In a wey that shaulJ enhance the h(llside li.~ng quality throughout the development and throughout the canyon. Ne polnted out there :~re otl»r f~etures thet would enhance th~ I~viny convenience and qualiCy for the re~,telents~ Includtng the proposed canmercial arra which would p~oylde the convenicnce ef shoppiny not only to th~ ranch residents but to rnany of the existing rasidents and is IOGACkU at Weir Canynn Road and the R(versld~ Freewey where trafflc makes residenttal Itving less deslrable~ which is one of the ~rima ry reesons f~r thet chanye. ke stated the public facilities serving the Bauer Ranch residents and 41eir Canyon res i den ts a re i nc 1~~ded on the p I an ~ i r~c 1 ud i ny ~ scl~cw 1 wl~ 1 ch t a shown not on the ranch itself~ but the location is to b~~ dctermined at a later date,and that the Ca~yon Llbrary is F'ar~ned ac;tually on the r~n~n .;; Weir Canyon Road~ which seems to fic the location discussed witti the s[aff, I~e I~i~lc.ated n fire station and possibly a poltce st~t(on in canJunctlon wlth it. are pr•npose~~ and a neiyhborhood park which '.es bee~ submitted to the Parks Oepartment as r~ Wil~e~ness Park, and Nr. Ruth of tne Parks Department has tndicated perhaps It would t~e bet[er to havr. sc>me flat land for more active sports, but that is net the fina) detcrmination~ particularly tn vtew of hudgetary restraints at the present tlme. He polnteci out they may find some alternatives and indicated [tiey have been working witF, the Parks Oepartmsnt to work out the park and recreational facilities to flt the area. 11e ind(cated basically the public facilities. as far as the proposal is concerned~ do follow the General Plan very well, rte- (nJicated bicycle trails and a Wilderness Park are provicled. He polnted out th~ Parks and Recreation Department has expr~ssed some reluctance t.~ accept res~.onslbillty for maintenancr. of tlie Wilclerness Park, but they felt the wilder~ess arc~~ is an ass~t a-~d should t,e preserved. He indicatcd an alternate to the Parks Department taking ove.r reS~x,nsit,tllty would be to form an associatlon ta assume the responslbi(ltti or perhaps having a district to maintain that facility. He Indlcated the plan bc~ore the Commission~ altf~ouyh subst~nntial~y the same as the one presented in Octaber, does represent yo~~d planr~ing for the area~ ,•articularly for the t~rra.in and for the service requirements~ and does foltow the go~+ls and policies of the Ca~yon Area General Plan, lie stated the Lanyon A~ea General Plan establishes goals as (deals or ultimate desires to be obtaincd; within the canyon area goais and poltcles have been constructecl to be flex(ble and yet refl~~c[ th~ deslres of obtaining a contempdrary llving envlronment c.hat reflects varying life styles for all persons of Anaheim and preserve the uniquc environme+it of the canyon. tie indicated lt does not say it must remain tl~e same. that this is a develop;nerit plan and they recognize it as a development plan which does require some changes in the terrain and a great deal of planning to maxim~ze the amenities wh(ch exist and can be recained. Ne referred to the 5anta Ana Canyon Perspectives as contained ir. the Canyon Area General Plan~ as foliows: 1. "Provide fur ~nd maintaln a s~fe~ attractive and desirable living environme~t and insure optimum health and well-being for all residen~s of the Santa Ana Canyon area of Anaheim." H~s explained that as far as safety is concerned~ two maJor items would be pollce and fire protection~ a~d that a fire station specificaily :rould be located very close to Santa Ana Canyon Road wherever the ultimate locetion is d~termined best for 6/19/78 MINUrES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING f.ONMIS~ION~ JUHE 19~ t'~y8 78-476 EIR N0. 2'~ AND RECLASSIFI~ATION N0. 17'78•64 (contin~ad) the F~re Gepartment. Ne t~dtcated e pol(ce yu~stetfan could ~ccur In that are~ end thet would have to be determined later~ but could be eccomnwdak~~i (n the some buildtng or struGture close to the fire ytatton with the same eccess polnts, etc. Ile lndlcated (f a substatlon is not provided~ police protPCtion would be prov(de~ In the seme menncr as ft Is now~ with patrol cars with redio communtcations. 2. "Ma(ntain e dynamic qeneral plan whicl• will serve as the basts for land use development (n the Canyon erea." Ile pointed out ttie word "dynemic" as deflned (n the dictlonery means change as opposnd to stacic. f1e pointed out they do nac fee) thelr proposel mekes any ma)ur clianges fn che plen .~nd that the reel difference waul;! be ln the locetion of the commcrciel ;rc:a~ nnd c, hove nbved the conflguration for the varlous lAnd u~es ~s •r~c:l5c~ly indicated nn t~~P plan to ~rnns where lhey hell~v~ there will be less yrading and fic the terretn better. Ile indicated he wished t~ emphasize the word "genera!" and pointed out the General Plan Is n~t a preclse document. Ile indlcated~ eqain~ that n-ore than 30b of the Bauer Rencl~ is left in dedicate~l open space, and that is not the open space in the individuel lo~s. 3. "Assure an opportunity for the experience of a variecy ~f life styles." He (ndlcated they I~~ve shc~wn six dlfferent type;, ~f land uses wh(ch very from rather large lots far single-femtly resldences to rnedium slze lots wlth single-famlly~ dCtached housiny. Ne steted they expect there will be ga~d use ~f cluster housing and they want to explure the possibillty of "0" lot lines in highc~ denslty areas. I~e stAted there are multiple-family type zonings where condominiums~ townhouses~ t+nd even apartments arc shvwn for thos~ ~~ho are Just starting thelr resldential life when the income and space requirements are smt~ll, an,. also for ttiose wha have reduced the size of their nest. 4. "Utscnurage urban sprr+wl and provlde for orderly development." tie stated they felt thelr .~lan complies with providing orderly dcvelopment; that the goal shows an intent !o develop the arr.a and they expect to develoo 21 acres of comrt~ercial use and the balance for residential and npcn spa,e. He stated discour•aging urban sprawl relates primarily to the extension of ~tiysical service fa~_~lities~ and polnted out the closest city water line is located app~uximately 2600 feet away. Ile pointed out the Bauer Ranch has partictpated with the Nohl Rancr+ for a good many years and has ttie right ta use and does utilize Metropolitan water fram the water line which runs through their r~ench~ anJ it is propoSed the inic(al constructlon will utilize that water so they do not have tu run the water line out there bafo~e :onstr•uction starts. He stated this would p rovf~c flre protection dur(ng the initiat constructio~ phase. Ne indicated the sewer 11ne is imrnediately across Santa Ana Canyon Road ane the freeway, right along Weir Canyan Ras~d~ and they could connect into it at Weir Ce~~yon Ro~d; that it is the Sa~itatton Ulstrict llne for the City of Anaheim and any properties tncluded in th~ Sanltatlon District '+ave the rigtit to use that line and ~;he Bauer Ranch has been in the Sanlcation Ulstrict since ft began. 5. "Pramote identtfication and vtsudt quality within the C~rnyon arsa arn~ng residents ~~nd visitors." He stated tF~e visual quality is the type af thing they had loc~ked at very closely an~ tried to retain the bec~:drap provided by the hills. Fle potncGd out that when you lo~k up a hill from either Santa Ana Canyon Road or the freeway onto the Bauer Ranch property to the hlgher elevation~ most of the hills you sec are not on the Bauer Ranch property. He stated th~ir p1An shows tt~e baGkd~op maintalned as apen space~ particularly on the west side of Weir Canyon Road. Ne felt the open speces shown on tl~eir plan would p~eserve tha view better than the open space shavn on the General Plan and pointed out these areas on both plans. He stated they dtd not fee! 6/19/78 MINUTES, ANAl1E1~! CI' PLANNING COMM{5S~01~~ JUNE 1'~. 1~78 78-47~ EIR NQ. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-64 (continued) thi~ would be a deviation from ~.he Genorel Plen~ but would be taktng adva~~tage of the terrain. Mr. Murdoch ,•efcrred to the population end land use growth of the General Plan whlch Intends to deAl wlth patterns of growtl~ rother than ultirru~te populatton 1~ tcrms of nun~bers. 6. "~4aintain the tntegrity of each land usa by locating compatible land usea adJacent to each other and pr~ventiny tnca~npatible lend uses." Ne potnted to the plan~ Indicating the largest loes are Along the area immedlet~ly adJacent or backlnq up to the ~prn space areas so they have (mmediate access to the open s~ace and polnced aut these ereas with the next laryest lots ,just beyond that~ close to Santa Ana Canyon Road~ end then drifttn~ inta thr. 7?~)~ squore foot lots end smaller~ 500~ 4~uAr~ foot lots, H~ polnted out tt,ese are single-family~ detachrd homt:s and felt tht preservatlon of Welr Ganyon itself in open space separated from tf~e srru~lle~ lots only by Weir Canyon Road should prov'de an amenity fcr those small lots. 7. "Recognize man's de~endence on the lond and to constder land a resource for current and future generations ~ a resource nut a commodity." He st~ted the polictes Included i~ thls area r~late to su~.h resources as wat~r~ etc.~ aiid probably some ayrlculture. 11e indlc~ted that currently thare are 90 head uf cattle on the land and ther~ are no unusual watar sources; that in rn~st ~f this area water is imported. He polnted out they do not proNose to take away the land; they proposc to malnt~~n 30~ ln ope~ space and to develop tt-p rcmainder Into usable~ developable~ mostly ~esidential a~eas wlth the serv(ces necessary for convenlence provided. He referred to the residential section whicl~ elaborates on the densit(es shown on the plan map in refe~ence to hillslde residenLial are~~; that thes~ have ~~ee~ dete~mined based on the hlllside nature of the area and thc unique gc~~raphical features of the canyon area wi~ich constratn :h~ carrying capability of the lana, Ne indicated this is where the developer takes issue with the Gtty in what the Ger~~+ral Plrn actually shaws and the interpretatton of the staff. Ne Indicated that wher you look at the plan for the Haue~ Ranch itself and then at som~: of the properties alrejdy devPloped ln the Clty oF Anah~im~ and the relative terrain of those properties. you re:ognize rather quicklr the densitl~s that heve bean developed in s~r~e of thc a~eas are mu~h greater than on the Bauer Ra~ch~ as proposed. Ne stated hc would not say sar~eon~ has "go~fcd~" but the~e is an Indication that things were not treated evenly. He felt even with ;tiat, they could stay wtth the General Ptan as retated to the c~oals and policies without deviating and show a density and type of developmeni cons(stent with the terra(n and not Inconsistent wt*.h the pian map~ but that was up to Ch~ Commission to decide. 8. "Prov(de an opportunity t~ obtain decent hous(ny and a suitable living environment." He polnted out thew propose a vc ry large number of different kinds of living untts~ which does follow exactly what the goals and obJectives state ar,d does foltow what the plan map shaws, and pro~(des as much as poss(ble the variety of housing for varlous typ~s of lncome levels~ as well as types of preferenee for liv(ng for ~arl~us people. He pointed ou~C before the meet(ng he had discussed the contemporary life styles w(fh reference -o campers and motorhomes and that ever~~one has a little different choica: that sar~ people would be happy with a large tot and be happy to maintain it~ whi~~ others would rather not be tied down to land as closely and would Just as soon have little o~ no land to ..~atntein; that some people pref~r to have land maintained through a condor, tiium or townhouse associatian; that there are those who do not care about th:~~ and prefer ta live in apartments; and tt~at this proposal has tried to include 6/19/7~ MINUTES, ANA~IEIM CITY PLANNINC C4MMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1918 78-478 EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-64 (conttnued) some of erch of these typ~s of ltving ~u~litles in the ~verell plnr A~d h~ f~lt they had done thls in a vGry saund mnnner. 9. "Encourege the maintena~nce of sound and vfable res(dentiat nelghborhoods and housi~g." Hc pointrd out tfie larger nei~l~bort~ood ~ncludes the cortanerctal fecilit(es and (ncludes the service facilitles incllcated~ in~~.~ing a past affico~ and tn addition to that~ a Wllderness Park wl~ich does two thln~~ In providing recreation end transportation ltnkage ta the uphill properttes a~~ sapsrates the two development a~eas~ but it does nat separate them so far that thr are campletely different arcas but gives some qulet zones lnbetween and~ in each in~.ance, these areas hrve been developed close to the facllitles which serve them. 1A. "Enc4ur~+ge and mafntain livl g areas which pres~rv~ the arr~nitie3 of hillside 1(vtng a~d wh(ch retain the overat; law density~ seml-rural~ uncongested charscter of the Santo Ana Conyon area." f1c indlc-ted obvtously :t~~rc is gaing to bc some congestlon and it ls Just a r-~tter of hc~w much. Goncerning the cortun~rcial portion of the Ge~eral Plan~ Mr. Murdoch referred to the following goals: il. "Uiscouraye strip commercial development." Ne indicated obviously the(r plan provldes for cortmercial development in a way that is not cons(dered strip commercial and still provides the amenitlzs and convenience. 12. "Provide eonwnerctal areas whlch serve the convenlence shopping and personal servlce needs of res(dents living In the hill and canyon a~eas." 11e felt that with Santa Ana Ganyan Road along the edge of the property, the Santa Ana Freea~ay whlch makes fast connecttons in other areas, and Nelr Canyon Road ult~mately providing access north and south to adJacent properties and posstbly across the river~ they would have adea w te access for convenience; that there would be some ~ntertor roads which would help. 13. "Encourage staged development praposals based on this Canyon General Plan and thus prevent the opening of vast areas for premature development. Ne (ndicated there has been qu(te a bit of concern vaiced by several people on this11maxte~ and polnted aut the develc~ment of the Hauer Ran;,h will not bring Immediate development to the adJacent properties. lie pointed out that in order to qet any services ca the uphill propertics, We(r Ce~tyon Road lias to be put in all the way. Ne stated there is a posslbility that under the County plan the~e might be some funding av~ilable for that roadway if all the property avners can agree and at the same time the City end Count~~ agtee the fu~ds shoulJ be provided for that hiyhway~ but if It dces, it will have to go to Serrano Avenuc~ oth~rwise, thc County would not consider that fcar funding. Ne felt that more than llkely Weir Cjnyon Rnad would be devcloped as needed~ first of all by the 43auer Ranch, and that may be several yea~s. He statgd there is no intentton to develop the Bauer Ranch any fester than the market indicates is app~op~late, but construction (s proposed to start in 197g~ with the earliest occupancy late in S'79~ more Itkely (n 1980. Ne stated the indications are this may well be a five~year development plan~ but it was too early to give a time frame. Ile indicated the~e is no intention at the present ttme for Kaufman S Broad L~ wa.it to develop the whnle property. As far as the sewer and water lines are concerned~ and they are included, they could get st~~ted on the development prog• sefore some of the maJor facilities are provided~ bu~ they are stitl talking about o~ two years before somr. of these items a~e needed; that 6/19/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~~ 197~ 78-4~g EIR~ N0~21G AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-6~ (continuc~d) thc matter nf staging is something that F~as to be planned very carefully and thorougl~ly with the City And oth~r agencles. along with the developer and owners of t~dJecent lands~ but they dld not scc eny penlc. 14. "Provlde fire: an~ police facitities which prote:ct the llves~ property and investments of tlin ci~iz~ns af the Canyon area." He pointed out that tn orde~ to retaln the desired five-minute mex(mum response tlme for f(re servlce~ the flre stat(on should be avallable obout the time constructlon begins. Ne tndiceted one of tl~e ~equlrertients would be to have water and they already ~~ave water avatlable to work wtth through the constructlon stege. I~e p~inted out ti~e fire stati~m~ together with the pumper and full crew~ would cost about onc-hnlf million dollars~ but if it ts done lni[lally~ ic would provtde a ftve-minute maximum response. H~ pointed ~ut there w~s not always a lot of the Clty of Anaheim which was served wlth a five-minutc respon~e~ but thnt they would w~rk clos~ly wiCh the fire Dep~rtrr~nt f~ meet that ~oal. He Indlcated Chey h~ve dlscussed the posxibility of terr~ora ry faciltties or it may !~P they would have to make do wltli some exist(ng buildings to rt-eet the flre station requ(rements~ but they L, ~ld certainly need a pumpcr and it woul~ be an expense thac would havc to be met ~n the inStlal stages. 15. "Provide a system of trafftcway5 which is related to the ultimate need for mov(ng people and goods. and whlch wlll enhance the appearance and quallty of the residential and comrkrcial areas Lhrough whicf~ they travel." He indicated ha had already discus~ed these polnts. 1G. "Pruvide a balanced transportation system which establishes mob(Ilt~ for all ages~ efficlent and economic movement~ campatibifity with the enviro~ment~ and recognizes all avellable rrodes of tr~nsportation~ including~ but not Itmlted to~ the aut~n~bile~ mass transit~ pedestrtans~ equestrians and bicycles." He potnted out they are provlding hik(ng trails~ bicycie traiis~ and horse trails; that the Orange C~~unty Transit Distr(ct (OCTD) has acGess ta the location at Welr Canyon Road. Concerning the parks~ recreation~ open space~ and cc~servation portion of th~ goals a~d pollcies~ Mr. Murdoch potnted out hC did not went to sNend any moru time on the open space~ an~d concerntng the park situetion there arP two ways to go; that they are pr~posing a Wilderness Park and felt very strongly that shouid be done~ primarily b~cause It retains an amenity which (s there and (s a ve ry beautfful one full of live ~ak trees, sycamores, and is a natural water course which they hcpe they will be able to retain, buc th~y are not sure at this ooint. F~~ pointed out the other recre:atto~al facilities would be up to whateve~r the City decid~s to do. He potnted out ~che prebl~m the City is currently facing regardl;;g ecanomics which could Jeopa~dize the recreatianal programs~ but It ts too early to make a determination reyarding this. 17. "Guide deve!opm~nt toward a form which provddes a balance between man-~~~ade and natural systems." lie indtcated he felt the IJilderness Park would rneet the criteria of thi, goal, along with the ridge and the way the open space is located. He felt the plan proposed foilows thi~ principle ver~ clasely. tb. ''Foster elimination of the deyradation and pollution of the area's basic ~esources~ such as water, alr and land." He inelcated that Just about anywhere there is development there will be some poilutton in the aiea. Ne stated the~ have provided for the various mod~s of transportation whtch should eliminate or ,itigate some of the problems with pallution. He felt that yy placing the h~gher der~;;ity areas tn close praximity to the com~rctal area and the 4lilderness Park~ would probably mitigate the 6/19/78 MINUTES~ ANAHE~M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1g78 ~a-aa~ EIR N0. 216 AND KECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-6~ ~~+~tlnued) pollution in the arae. As fer as p~lluting the watr.r reso~irces, he point~d out there is no water on that land; that the weter Is brought fr~m th^. outside. 19. "Preserve and snha~nce historlcal~ archeologicai and ma~-mede unique fentures." He pointed out wlth the excfptlon of the hllltaps~ ridy~s and alopes~ there are no unusual i~istorical~ archeolaglcal or man-nk-de features on the lan~~ at iGast none have been disco~~~~ed u~ tA xhls potnt. 20. "Encourago th,r, educational vnd cultural enr~chment of the resldents of the Cenyon Nc polnted out thls ~Qal would be met primarlly thraug~~ the progrems offered ar~a." by the City ~r ether Jurisdictions and th~y would provide the physical facilities to assist with Chese pr~grAms and presuma~ly [hey would be maintdined on thc same leve) as th~oughout other parts of the City. He indlcated the net result of all this Is tl~ey believe they hevc a lAnd use plan which is In conformity with tlie General Plan and the goals of that plan a plan that devotes 32$ of the residentlal area for open spsce~ 30$ of the entire plar for open space, 41$ for low density~ single-family residential ;22~U00~ 10~00o and 77"D zoning)~ 8~ far low-medtum density, stngle-famtly~ detacl~ed restdentlal~ 500U square foot lots, and the remaining 19$ "lanning Canmisslon in medlum density condomlr-tums~ etc. Ne indfcated they are asking the ~ t~ ^~kiiitdeofrtheaGenera'leplan goalstandeobjectives al~statedoand toegive~thenZSOmee flexib y guidelines in which direction to tnke. Chairman Tolar f~~dicate~ he felt this is a tre~-endous opportunity to collectively do somechiny 1n th~: canyon area that ev~rybody wan~:s to see d~ne~ and In reviewing what has happened on the Bauer Ranch and khe General Plan that was put together nfter a lot of hours by the Task Force~ he did not `eel anyo~e e~ivis(oned development was going to get to this stage In such a short period of time. Ne i~dicated he has a ~o*. af questi~ns and w~s (n total agreement that gome of the ~hanyes mentio~ed were probably fo~ the best. He indicated he felt there arc chanyes to the General Plan~ even thougl~ (t is gencral in nature from tlie plan as presented and they are so vastly different~ he felt a Ge~eral Plan art,p~-' snt would be required. 11e indicated there are a lot of q~~stions he wo~ld want a •~ered which would probably be from the privatc~ develoFers•andeunlessethe proJectgcould ~, estion he would have would be a cost analysis co the Ctty~ stAnd on its own merit and unless the development cou1~1 support itaelf, he would i»ve some difficulty in arproviny the p~oJect; that he is concernad not on'y about the den~(ty and nw~er of units, but the whol~e maste~ plan. Ne ir~dicet~d h,e wou!~ expcc: the cost analysis from the private ~eveloper as to how much it is goir~ to impect the City before hP would be bbla tu act on this request. Mr. Murdoch irtdicated tie dld not have complete ens~~°rs to this and it woula takz a great more detail beforb answers could be given. Ne ir.~ cated staff had shown the use of the computer model a~d had cnme up with some figure~ out he ha.i not had a~, upportunity to take a look at the inp~t factors which went into the computer model, and that h.s to be done. He indlcated there is no questlon . ~t that the;~ would have to look at a large number of alternatives an~ the riming on sc-me of the~e aiternatives to c~me up with an answer. He indicated that certainly the impact of this develnpn+ent shoul~ be as minimal to the City and other governmental agencies as ~ossible, but thcy recugnized that if there is going to bq rosidential development and that residenttal Jevelopmcnt probably does the least for providing the economic b~lance of any land use there is and the g~eater the dznsity in a r§tatedton,theeGeneral`Planr~reureallytr-ieanteand~ifCiteisnintendedpthatetheut if the things 6/ 19/78 ~ . MINUTES~ IINAHEIM CITY PLANN-'~G COMMISSION, JUNE 19~ 197~ 7Q-4a1 EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78•64 (co~tlnued) bulk of this hlll and canyc~n area will bs rctetned for open space and residential areas~ the~e is gotng to have 2o t~e a lnt of ingpnuity on Lhe part of the developer and e great dea) of oblectlvity on the part af staff or they will find themselves in e negative position. Chai~man Toler (n~..,.ated staff feels that some of thn changes are not (n conformance with thc Gcneral Plan and that they appear to be a lot dlfferent than the overdll General Plan es he vlews It. Mr. Murdoch p~inted out that he thought the key word In thfs con:, on is "flexiblllty," Phlllip Schwartze pointed out that as far as staff is concern~d, they have always felt this partlcular land use plan rneets the (ntent af the calored map and the ganls and pol(cies of the recently-aclo,ted Cenyon Area General Pian. 11e indicdted the plen moves lend use~ as Indicated on the mtip ar•ound~ buc that in terms ~f ac~eage and land use~ he felt It was probably (n crn~furmance with the General Plan. Ile pointed o~~t tlie areas along the Wn_~r C~nyo~ ~taad off-ramp shown es commerctal. He felt that probably better rneets the goals and poltcles of the Getieral Plan for sound attenuation, etc.. and In terms of land use the proposal probably meets th~e lntent of tl~e code. buc lt is the trnplementatton of the plan wher~ the difference a~ises and xhe ciensitles do not agree, in sta~°f's opinlon. Commissloner Johnson indicated tt~is Gcncral Plan has bee~ studied before and NACMAC has Agreed thetr plan du~s not agree with the General Plan~ but that hcre is a gentieman who is an expert in his fteld and who was a basic, inteyral par* of the overell developmenf ~f the City who feels the ,yoals and pollctes maybe ove~rtde tt~~: pictures~ and rtu~ybe the goals and policies are the General Plan and not the pictur~s seen on the wall~ and wondered what the legal requlreme~ts are that require that the Planning Cortmtsslon Jump out 10 m(les and allow something to be developed ancf get locked tnto a situatlon they did not really want later down the road and then if Ic is not what it should be, it takes a l~t to change it. Chairman Tolar indicated he would like staff to include further discusslon regarding the density; that there is a glaring difference between 3.2 and 5.~ units per acre. Philllp SchwartLe polnted out Mr. Murdoch presented a large stack of cards containing lthe goals and pol(cies of the Canyon Area General Plan and the staff repore has called out a number of goals and ,~licles, ~1e tndicated staff doec not dtsagree with the Land Use Elemant and probably there is no conflict with any of ne goals and policies that were presented~ but fe ts staff's point of vtew that the plan does not have conformity and goes against some of the policles Ghat were not discussed earlitr. 11e stated flexib(lity and de~sity changes have been discussed~ and the canyon plan itself does indicate tt is a dynamic docurxnt that is subJect ta change and should be changed. He suggested the Commtssion locG: at some of the yoals called out in the staff r~port; that this is where the staff gets (nto a conflict because sort~ may bc worktng ~n opposttion eo another and, tn some ceses, ~hose goals and policles w~ere not addressed at all here, such as the extension of utilities which should be economically feasible and the per unit denstty count which should not be gone over. Ne stated that the map colors were generally in agrcement. He irdicated the primary problem with thc entire pack.age was the toning Element and the tmplementation of the overall dwelling units~ and the density did not agree. He indicated the C(ty Attorn~y cAUld explain that yoU cannot approve a subdivision map when the General Plan indicates a denstty and the plan does nat conform with tha~t density~ and here you have a denslty conFlict between the land use and the aoning map. Ne stated the plan as tndicated has flexibility; that those areas have the opportunity as b/ 19 /?R MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ JUNE 19~ ~974 76-482 EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-64 (continued) ~_ more detailed enalysis !s done ta expand and contract; that when the Genera) Plan was done. the topography was somewhat c~nsidared~ but they did not have that much ~'~'all as to the topogreFhy and tf~at Is why the Genera) Plon density is allowed to expdnd end co~tract to conform to the topography, but once the color~ ~s established and it says 1.5 untts pe~ acre, the developer cannot go over that number; and that na flextbility exists in terms of increastng the denslty per acre. He indicated t:ie denslty as sti~wn may not be inappropriete~ but when a more decalled analysis is done and it is determir~~d it should be cha~ged, therc is an opportunity t~~ have a Genera) Plan amendment; and that Is the method that should be used and until thot ts donc~ th~ stated goals and polictes will r~-m~in In effect. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ pointed out there are two points of possible Inconsisten~y beinq ~Iscussed~ both the inconsistency between the .oning map and the General Plan and the approval of the tantetive tract map and thr Generat P13n. He referred to the questiun regarding maximum permitted dens(ty in the ar~a and the totel maximum unit count In the area. He polnt~J out he thou,yht Mr. Murdocii was correct when he said the lines are flexible and can be changed. and if they are changed and the change would affec: the total maxlmum unlt count in that If the~e is more restdential density and less open space~ that would chanye~ or more medlum density and less estate density, the maxlmum u~lt count would change~ therefore, some degree of flexibility is built ir~ to the plan. He indicated It is the opinion of their r.ffice that by using the calculations of ttu Planning Department changing the maximum denslty from 300 units to 1~35~ units as proposed~ would be an incr•ease of 6~$. He felt it would be dlfficult for the Plann~n~ Commission to make a finding that would be sustainable in court that this density would be c~nsistent wlth tfie General Plan. I~e indicated they understand the 700 to 800•unit figure is flex.ible and sub,ject to interpretation and could be Increased somewhat. Ne indicated that where the General Plan saya the density shall allow 1-1/2 units per acre, that fiqure is built lnto the General Plan and the.re is no allc~wance in the text that it is suhject to deviatlon. He indicated there are two parts to the General Plan, one being the goals and policies of the text and the other the land use map. Referrtng to the s~eciftic subdivision maps. he indicatod there is another problem in that the Subdtvision Map Act no less than three times sets forth that a proposed tentative tract map musC be consistent w(th the GenPral Plan. He indicated Section 66473.5 of the Government Code states a proposed subdivistan shall be consfstent with the General Plan only if the local agenc;~ has officially adopted such a plan and the proposec+ subdivislon or land use is compatible with the ob,lectives. policie~ and gener~l lanJ use of sald plan. He pointed out he felt these are the goals and policies ~ir. Nurdoch referred to. He indicated Sectlon 66473 agafn states that t~e legislative body shall deny r~pproval of a final tentative map if it makes the follawing findings: that the map is inconsistent with the applicable speclflc or general plan ur if the ~esign and improvement of the pruposed subdivlsion is not cansiste~t with the applicable ~aecific ar general ptan. He tndicated the place he has a problem is in justifytng approval of the tentative subdivision map higher in density than shown on the Gcneral Plan. Ne tndicated th{s same type reasoning applles ~egarding consistency be~v~reen the Generai Plan and the zoning. and while everyone recognizes the State law does not prectcely state ~ charter city's rezoning must be consistent with the Genera) Plan, he felt if ~zhe Pianning Conmission or City Counctl approved the r~zoninq which was substantially inconsist~rst w;th the General Plan~ it could be deen:~d by a court to be arbitrary or ca~ritious by nature. He indicated that white we ars not subJect to a specific statwe, we will ba htt from that point and mere definltely when we havn a tentative subdiviston map ti: approve~ and that those are the Qroblems he v,•~uld anvtsion from a legal standpoint; that the Planning Commission or City Co~~ncil would have to determtne e) whether or not the zoning is consistent with the Genera) Plar and b) 6/19/~8 MINUTES~ MIAHEIM CITY PUINNING COMMISSIQN. JUNt 19~ 1978 7~-483 EiR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIF~~,ITION NU. 77•y8-64 (contlnued) If they meke that finding an~ spprove tha rezoning without a General Plen amRndment end later got a subdfvislon map~ they would have to make preclse findin~s~ but would ba spectfic~lly bound by the ~tatutes of the Subdivislon Mep Act end they have to bt~e the bullot now or l~ter whench~ r~ap comes In and they would be forced to make the flndtng of consistency~ and the questlon naw is whether or not this plan Is conststent with the Generel Plan or should A Ge~~ral Plan amendr~-ent be initiated to evald the problem. Chalrman Tolar indiceted that if the Planning Commisslon wer~ in total a9reement ~hat this is wi~at they wan~ to da, ~e did n~t balieve lt~e epplicnnt would want acclon o~ thls plan~ baseu on ti•rhat has bcen satd, ~rithout a Gencra) Plan Amendment; that it would place s!+me strinys ~n the dev~loper whicl~ he cou'd ~iot live w1th~ b~t that only the applfcent could answer that questlon. S~condly~ he was not sur~ the ElR covered what (t should; that lt do~s not eddr~as those changes in density from 7~0 or E3~0 unlts up to 1,350 untts. Jack ~dhite pointed out the questton of the EIR is re~+ily one c~f what thc proJect desc~lption ls and wliether it is adequate. Ne referred ta e recent case of the County of Inyo ve~sus the City of Los Anqelcs whlch clearlti• f~olds thot the rea) heart of any EIR (s an occurrte descrtption of the proJect and without an accurate desc~iption of the pra~ect~ it would be difficult to adequately address all the e~vtronmenta) coneerns requlred by the Callfotnia Environmental Quality Act or the revlcwinq ~e~ency to ade:quacely respond to lt. He noted the proJect desGl'ipti~~ contained In the draft EtR clearly refers to a 1~100- unlt residentiai proJect plus thP commercial and the deve.l~pment plan addresses 1,3~0 units, and he felt from a legal standpodnt if an attack were made on the certificatlo~ of an EIR for 1~10~ unfts and subsequent approval of a 1~350-unit proJect basTd on the cert(ficatlon of the CIR~ thc~re would be legal problems tn defending that posit(on. Ne indiceted •his was not to say crir Planning Commissian could nat approve a 1~100-unit proJect baseu upon a 1~1~0-un~t EIR, whic~ is certainly possible~ but here wr. are talking about a 23$ increase in unit tount from what is desc~ibed tn the EIR. Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Mu~dact~ hls rrsponse to tfie questians brought up so far regarding the General P1 ~n ~.mendmen[ and tlie E I R. Mr. MurdocFi indicated they alsa had concerns of a similar nature~ particularly afcer read(ng the staff report which was not an entire surprise stnce they tiave been discussing for many r,o~ths what the problems were, and they had taken a look at Just what they were propost~g a~~d the posstble risks. He (ndicated they had explored somc other co~fiyuratlons in a draft method~ but did not think until sar~e additlona) input was provlded they would want to get into a f~~il discussion of them. He indicated they had been conc~~ned about the two items~ the possible General Pl~n amen~ment and did ~ot think it wc,u-d b~ necessary~, but the Ctty Attorney is stating clearly he feels it ts not a govd rlsk and they would have to take that into serlo~cs consideration. As far as the EIR is toncerned~ he noted the EIR was looked at flrst with the larger configuratton and at some potnt the criteria had to be determined as to how the EIR should be set forth and the number ~as establlshed before they had the anaylsis made~ otherwise they wc~uld have presented an EIF for 1~35~ units. He indicated they felt the plan would allow for this density~ In f;,ct, it would alle~w for more~ but that good planning on a piece of property indtcates what the density is rather than the density indicating what the planning would be. Ffe stated they would like xo have an opportunity to ~eview the various alternatlvec with the Plan~ing Commission before the hearing was over~ but w~ouid ilke. to ha~~e additi~nal input on what other factors ere fnvol~ied. Chairman Tolar p~inted out~ in relationship to the EIR, he was not totally concerned with the dlsplacEment of squirrels ar flora and fauna, but was concern~d with the traffic count b/i9/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ JUNC 1~~ 1978 7A-484 ~IR N~. 216 ANp RCClASSlFICATION Mn. 77•78-64 (continued) and th e numbe~ of unitt propos~d. He pointed out he had checked with some of the prople wt~~ had bac~ on the Task Force and they figured 70~ or ~00 units were the orlginal numbers the dev~lo~er had ellud~d to dnd then It had risen to 1~1~Q~ end naw Is up t~ 1~35~~ end those wo~e the s~ecific areas nf concern~ the tre~fflc end h191~ number of unlts~ and he would like Mr. Murdoch to Address th~se issues. Commissinner Harbst pofnted out the City Atto~ney has tndlcated the Plannl~g Commissfon cannot epprove the proJecc without the tIR t~eing In confarRU+nce~ wlth Jeck Whl:e Indicrting that would have to be tl~e ciPClsion of the -'lenning Commtsslon~ end Commtssioner Herbst contlnued that thc wor~, "defend~ble" bothers him; that hc felt eithcr the EIR has to be brouc~hi up to maet the 1.350 units propas~d or the proJect has to be brought Jown ta meet the 1.100 units covered In :he EIR. Comm(s~3iAner Kiny refer~ed to Jeck 4lhite's letter to Kaufman ~ 8raad of June 15th, polnting out thc requirc!T+ents for an EIR under the Celifornla Environmental Qualfty Act~ and read the letter ta the Commisslon. Jack White Indlcated the letter was written beceuse that was his aptnlon and their office does not have the power to tell the Planning Commisslon what to do; that the Planning Commisston h~s the pc~wer to override the advice of the Clty Attorn~y's offlce and whatevar the decision I~ere is~ he wo~~ld do I~is best to defend it. Commissioner Barnes pointed out she felt the Planning C~mmir~slon has a mnre basic p~oblem than whether or not the EIR addresses the ~raper number of units~ and that is whethar or not the proposed plan is co~sistent wfth the Gene~al Plan. She referred to previous me~etings where the Planning Commissian had diSCUSSed the Clrc~latlon Element of the Ge°pral Plan and decid~d if somethi~g ls r~ved over, aro~nd~ or between a natu~al or man- made bou~dnry or 1~Q00 feet. it ls not ronsistent with thc General Plan and the P1~?~ning Commissiun had agreed that was thelr policy. She felt tfits plan does not coma close to meeting whbt the Pl~nning Commission decided was their interpretrtion of the General Plan. She felt b~fore discussing this matter some guldelines must be established for what they want to do wlth that area. She indicated perhaps if the Planning Commiss(o~ Is not happy with the Gener-+1 Plan~ maybe sta~f shoulcl come up with some alternatives. Sh,e poi~ted out she had served ~n tne Task Force and remembered whet the ob)ectives and goals we~e. end that one of the goals had been to create a rural atmoaphere and keep the density law. She pointed out they had not looked at the topographical features of the area and these stlli have not been looked at and felt this is the reason for this unusual plan. She stated she would like to see some type of study done by the staff~ taking into conslderation the geog raphicel features. Commissioner Linn ir~dicated he felt rather tt~an put the foeectnthinkBnUetheaElR woldEbend heve them come back in with a olan for a lo~-rer density p J 9 appraved~ he wanted to remind the Commisslon and the developers that the taxpayers have spoken in the pass~ge of Proposltion 13 and the City will be having to r~duce thelr services. cut capital expenditures, cut library services and reGreational facilitles, etc.. and this couid not have been addressed i~ the E!R because It h~+d nat been passed' and a new EIR wouicif~ave to bc prepared on that basis alone. He felt tt~is would effect whether or not there will be police and fire protection~ library facilitles~ recreational facilitles. etc., in the area. ~ie tndicated he felt the Commission needs to krn~w ho~ much of a loss this is going to be; that the present propasal states $7 million and he felt the General Plan has to be changed if anything is goin~ to take plece on thts property. and these are the things that have to come out in a study; that Lhe density is a problem but~ nart importantly, the initial costs to the City t~ provide servlces. 6/19/78 -~ MINUtCS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI4N~ JUNE 19~ 1978 EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 17~78-h4 ~continued) 73-48, Chai~m~n Talar indicated he reco~nizes thQre ~~e vest ch~nges a~d there sre ~hree thl~gs requlr~d: 1) tha need for a Ganorel Plan amendmant~ ospecially for the Baunr Ranch. if thls proposal is going to be consid~red and ho felt the Commisston Is bound to listen to any proposa) of any developer; 2) t~e felt in order to make any logicel determ(~etlo~ a coat analysis ~f what it ts going to cost the City t~ provtde s~rvicas would have to be tncluded; and 3) tt~at an Add~ndum to tho EIR In relatlonship to the numbe~ of unlts would be necessary. I~e pointed out if tltie p~oJect Is reduced to 1~100 untta the present EIR mlght be adrquatQ~ but he did not feel this proJect could be dlscussed any further until thcsc things havc be~n answercd. Commtssioner Johnson Indicated he would agree with Chairman Tolar except for the f~ct th~t to Just say a General Plan an-~ndment would be requlrcd is shut`ctn~ the appllc~nt off; that thts is an appllcation for a zonc change ahich looks to the Commission like a vlolatlon of the Gcneral Plan and the City Attorney has a~lvised he felt It woulcl not he tansistcnt with the G~eneral Plen. He indicated hc would give Mr. Murdocl~ a lot of credit and that he says 1~35~ ~1we111ng unlts (s in conformance with the Cencral Plari. Chairmen Tolar stated the City Att~rney has advised the lines have chenged drastically and indicetad the applicant Is entitled to a decision by this bady~ but on the advice of the City Attorney~ there Is a d(ffcrence of c~pin(an bs to whether or not the plan is In con Po rm i ty . Mr. Murcioch steted Kaufman b 8road have been reluctant to fac.e the issue of a General Plan amendment~ b ut he would request a short recess to discuss the optlons with staff and petitioner's representatlves. iiECESS The meetiny recess~cl at 8:45 p.m, RECONVENE ~-_ The meotiny rec~nvened at 9:05 p.m. Mary Dinndorf~ President of Sante Ana Canyon Hom.owners Improvement Associatian~ 131 La Paz, Ana~hein;~ stated their associat(on is adamantly opposed to the: annexation of 375+ acres to the Llty of Anahetm aC this ttme. She pointad out she was a member of the H1'1 and Canyon Ta~k Force and i~ad spent two yea~a on that committee and they had made the determinatlon that the ann~xation would be in 1985~ and a,:ced why the sudden thrus~ for movinq it forward seven years. She pointed out there is no need at this time for more housing~ that there is a large invrnto ry uf unsold houses currently on the market in that area; that the ~hopping centers are having d(fficulty keeping ten~nts, so she saw no need for mora c.ommercial a~eas. She indicatecl times are changing and that ts evident tn the current plans af the C(ty to possibly eliminate Lhe tibrary planned for that area and the possibility of reductng the nuirber of schools and not constructing a pollce si~bstation tn the area~ etc. She poinxed out there is a question as to why the other residents of Anaheim should pay the additional cost to annex this ter-itory. She pointed out City se~vices c.,nnot be furnished to the people who already live there. She felt this move would be to accommodete developers and wondered how many of the residents were aware of the cost of the annexation to the Cit~. She wvnde~ed how people in other perts of Anaheim with flooded streets and sewers near capaclty would feel about money spe~t on this annexation. She pointed out the Ctty of Yarba Linda ts currently raquesting to an~ex 1~600 acres in Coal Canyon~ which would definitely add traffic. She felt if thts proJect Is approved~ th~ Planning Commtssion would be responsible for endangerirsg the health and wclfare of the citizens of Anahetm by increasing air pollutio~~ dete~iorating water quality. insufftclent police and fire pratection~ and less than satisfactory public services. She p~'~ted out this pnrtlon of Anaheim has the worst air quality of any city bi~~i~a MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLAf~NING COMMISSION~ JUNE~ 1~~ lg7g )9-486 EIR N0. 216 A~ID RECL~SSIFICIITION N0. 77^7S-G~ (continund) .~..,_ ._. - In tho Gounty ~nd that in 1q76 the standards were exceedad one-third of the yea~ for unhealthful at~ quality. Shc stated she felt the ~•egult of tl~~ June f~th election was a mandate af the people~ not only dld Prc ~ositfon 13 pass by twcrthirds vote, but the average turnaut was 70$. She felt this w~:s a turn-iround attitude of the people. She p~inted out there Is one group in the canyon who have become so disenchnn[ed with th~ zoning pollc(es th at they want to de- Annex and she pr..rsonalty wtsh~d them success. She stated this country is mede up of people ~+nd land and when people lose contrUl of good land use polictcs , they havc lost control of their dest(ny. Sha indlcated she belleves ln the frcc ente rprls~ system and a fr~e enterp~ise ts thc right to t~ke a rlsk end no ane guerantces you will make e profit. John Rau~ Vice Chalrman~ HI11 and Canyon Municipal Aclvisory Committee. 6-~32 Vla Estreda~ Anahelm Hllls~ revlewed the IiACNAC repor! to the Plannin~ Commisslon concern(nq this item~ pointing out NRCMIAC Is en advlsory commi tte~ end they try to brtng thaughts ~nd opinians and pulse af the h(11 and canyon area to th~ Commission and that a number of the member~ o~ the cammittee are members of homeowners assoclatlo~s. tle lndfcate d at thelr rieettng of June 13th ihey hAd very fundamental concerns reya~eiing wh~ther or not this plan for 1~30~ dwelling uniCs ls compatible with tt~e goals and policfes of the Ge~e ral Plan. He referred to thc goal to Giscourac~c urban spravrl and provtde fo~ arcf~rly development and to meet that goal~ p~bllc f~~cilitiss such as seHCrs~ roads, water and energy s ources should not be exceeded prematurely into uncieveloped are~is which lie far beyond the u rban fringe. He indlcated they were concerned because they tend to feel pertiaps thls is an nxample of what this goal is dlscussing in trytng to discouraye urban s~-rawl. He referred to the goel to encourage stayed deveioprnent proposals based on this Canyon Area Ge~e ral Plan and thus pravent the opcniny of vast arcas of ~~remature development~ and state d that one of th~ po0lctes to implement this goal would be that faclllties sliould be provided only as they are requ~ red r~nd not ~n advance of the need~ thereby imduly encouragi ng growth In a haphazard manner. He indicated this was another m~Jor conccrn of NAC MAC. He point~d out they had taken a look at che Info~mation provided and indtcated the h omeowners groups in the area had gi ven i nformat i on to HACMAC conce rn i ng these repores and pc~ i nted out the cancerns they had reyarding these tl~ree documents. aegarding the Ba uer Ranch development plan~ they felt the La~d Use ~lemant and Zoning Element wcre not totelly conslstent; that they dld not metch up witli the maps on the wall. Ne indicated NACMAC had requested the Genera) Plan of Development be modi~ied in arder to be consistent wit~~ thc EIR and HACMAC revlew thP revised docurnent prlor to Planning Canmission action. Ne stated It was thel~ feeling the EIR and the development proposal were not the same and did not rofer to the same proJe~t and should be made consistent. Secondly~ regarding the Fiscal (mpact Report~ he pointed out that was prepared priur to the passa9e of P~o~osition 13 and did not ~eflect th~ true pi cture and fel t wt~at 1 s reported to be a wi nner rru~y not be so today . He i~dicated they had serious concerns that it did not recognize the time phasing of development and corresponding inflationary effects ~ith costs and revenucs that are increasing per year. He indicated it 1s HACMAC's rPcommendation tha t the Fiscal impact Report not be accepted os complete informalion ~egarding cost impact s slnce timing af development is not consldered~ and that the Planning C~mnission take no act(on until the Fiscal Impact Report is revised. Ne indicated tiiey were also concerned about the opinion provided by the City Attorney re~arding the p~oposed General Pla~ amendment and pointed aut the goal in the Canyon Area General Plan that it sho~.~ld be the pol (cy to evaluate proposed changes in terms of conformity to the General Plan, and if conformity is lacking. the City Council~ Planning Commisslon and canyon ~esider.ts should first consider amending the General Plan prio~ to approval of any proposed changes contrary to the plan. Ne indicate d it was HACMAC's 6/19/78 M I I~U7E5 ~ ANAHE I M G! 7V PLANN I NG CUMMI 55 1 ON ~ JUNE 19 ~ 1978 78'~+87 EIR N0. 216 ANO RECIASSIFICATION N0. 77w78•64 (continued) position that a General Plan amendment should be constdered bef~r~ prexoning and they ~ecommended that they are opposed te a ~equest for a Generel Plan r~mendment whtch would allow for sn increese (n dwelling unlts In excaas oP maximum desi~noted General Plan denstty. He pointnc{ out they elso had made e statement the devclc~pment af the asuer Ranch (s p~emature snd n~.t consfst~nt with the goals and abJectivas of the Generel Plan end that the area is deveioping too rapidly an d ls not in keeping w(th the spirit of the General Plan. Cha{rmen Tolar staced thls report was one of the best enelyses I~e has seen from HACMAC and felt (t was ve ry valuable i~formetlon. Mitxy Ozakl~ 340 Sout~~ Timken Road~ Anahelm, polnt~d out Mr. Rau had covered most af the ideas she had in mind~ but thouyht tt sliould be stated again the Task Force hod deliberated this f~r about two a^.d onc-holf yeArs and disac~reed with one of Mr. Murdoch's statements and fclt they are Jeopardiz ing ane of the chief resources i~ the area~ the Santa Ana River becl which ts one of the potantial recreatinnal areas for zhe entire Ctty a~d County. She Indicoted when they h ad planned the area~ tl~ey had tried to keep one side or the ott~er open for access and that Weir Canyon Roed was the only way they had to get down to the rtver bed; that Imperial H ighway Is too dangcrous and they hed trled to keep either the east or west slde of Weir C anyon Road free fram commercial bnd high density and had picked thc estate zaning bccause it would permit this dtvelor-~nt~ so that btkc tratls~ equestrlan trails and hlking t ralls could be planned on t.~e wcst slde of Wci~ Canyon Road. She fclt thc commerclal arca proposed in the plan presenced would add additlonal traffic onto Weir Canyon Ro ad and felt the tiazards for thc btkers, equestrians and hlkers would be insurmountable. S he indlcated she thought one of the Counril Members had promised that area would be loaked I~;to. She felt before any maJor planning can be done~ there has to be some wey to get the peoplc down tnto that arna, and allowing commercla! on that one slde would not help tf~e situatlon. She indicsted their concern was not the s i ze of lhe corrKnerci al zone, b ut to keep onc s t de f ree for acc~ss to the tra 11 resources they havc in that area. She indltated thr_ othPr thing that sur{~rised he~ Nas that for years developers have been telling the residents that in order tv break even and make a profit and for the C(ty to make money, they have to have higher dens(ty and indicated the study b rought to the Task Forcc Commi ttee wr~s tha t the h i gher• tt~e dens I ty ~ the more ~ t cos ts the C i ty. She fe 1 t that information should be a part of this report. She indicated they had studied every possible diversity of density and found the htgher the denslty~ the mc~re costly it would b e to th e C i ty . She indicated Mr. Murdoch had discuss ed the goals and policles listed in the GGneral Ptan text and stated they were concerned about the prevention of leap-frog dcvelopment~ whfch is exactly what thiy development waui d be~ and felt these are the reasons this pla~ should go back to the drawing board and tha t th(s proJect should be denied as presented. Chairman Tolar indicated it is appare ~t to h(m the one thing that is important ts the analysls on what this is going to cos x the City. Ne indicated he was more conccrned wlth the cost than wlth the leap-f~og devm lopMnt. He indicated he dtd not want ta deny anyone: the right to develop their property, but it ls ve ry apparent to him that the citizens are sick and tired of the high costs and the taxes and if a proJect can~ot stand on its own~ it is going to be very difficult for him to support. 6/19/7~ r• ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSlUN~ JUNE 1~, 1978 1K~~8R €lit N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 77-78-64 (conttnued) Commtssioner Darn~s polnted out tha cost/be~efit etudy actually shcrved any developmenc is goi ng to cos t thc C 1 ty ~ney ~ that no development woul d c.os t the C t ty money ~ so we are I n e"no-wln" posi t i~n ancl I t Is Just e metter af how much wu wl l t lase. Chalrman Tolar polnted out one of the ways to gnt around th at would ba t~ provide s~me typo of homevwne ~s assocfatl~n to mfltnta6n the ~~pen space. and Commtssfon~rs Barnes ~nd Herbst polnted o ut Mr. Mu~doch had nlrcady suggasted thet as one passlbll(ty. Dr. Glo ry Ludwic k steted shc Has 5~b owner of the Dougless Rsnch whlch wlll be a netghbor ta th(s p~oposal and polnted out a refa.rence on page 16•J of tt~e staff repart cnncernlnq "the transfer of dens(ty and tl~c dt:valopmont right.s from surroun.iing lAnd c~wners." and uuinted out thci r yroup hae nevPr auggested that they would ever have en Increase in Jens i ty ove r wha t thc Genera 1 P 1 an sh~aws ; that the dens ( ty as g I ven woul d make a n I ce ~icvel~pment~ bu t they would ccrtainly nevcr warst t~ ~IvP ~ ny of thely denstty to anybody c: l se . Chalrman Tolar pointed out ane of tha ques[lons he had In relationshtp to clevcloprr-~nt of this propcrty was what it will do to th~ d~ainage downhill to che other propertles and tl~at questlon Mrould t~evc io be answered, Ph~) l lip Schwart=e potnted nut staff t~as had furtl~er discusslon tonight. wlth the va~tous agents tn 1(ght of some of the thinys discussed and carefully expleined all the lntents included in the st~ff report end tt~e {aws which w(11 constrfct the Planning Commission. t~e potnted out the request befor~ tha Planning C~mmisston is a pre-annexation zontng ~e~aucst and an E IR adclressing tf~at request~ end Chat the optlons r~vui latrle to the Plenning Cot~nf ss Ion are ~pp roval . den f a 1 or cont i nuance of the zon i ng chan~e reques t unt I 1 some of the~ problems could be worked out~ and the Planning stAff does not have a recortwnendation for the Planning Commission at this time. 11e potnted out the agents arr.. ~fiscussing thetr optlans at the present time. and he was not sure what they wanted to do, Ne sugycsted the Planning Commis slon could close thn publlc hearlnq with the~ rlght to reopen it and retufn ta th i s I tem 1 a te~ on th i s eve~ i ng, Jack White pointed out this would be a highly unusual procedure; thst there would be no obJnction tf i t Is r~ade clear the mattcr wi l l be c:ontinued unti l later this evening and tha2 the Planni~y Commission will be temporerily taklny up another matter. Cortwn(ssioner H~rbst indicated he felt thls (s A ve.ry tmpo~tant ma[ter and all the disc:usslon nec~ssary shnuld be acconipl ist~ed at thi s time. Mr. Murdoch returned to the Council Charr~er~ end Ch~lrm~n Tolar polnted out to t~im that sev~:ral people from tl,e pub 1(c have spoken a~d indicated the maJor comment seems to be that the resid~nts fe't the Bauer Ranch development is about five years prematu~e and they felt a request far onnexbtton proc~edings should be denled completely. Mr. Murdoch i ndicated kt~ey arc runntng into a si tuation vfiere some of the f lexibi l ity they had felt and s till feel sh~~uld be available tn the Goneral Plan may not actually be there and that relat~s prlmarit~,~ to the transfer of densittes and transfcr of zoning on the prnp~rty ttself and not nn ad,jacent propertias. Ne indi~ated they would likc to request a continuence ~f the matter and lf the Planning Gortmission felt a Genera) Plan amendment would be eppropriate~ to di~ect staff to 2n~lyze thet situation so that they could cc~me up with a recomme~dation in the shortest time possible~ and indicated they felt stuck without an Analysis of that situatian. 6/19/7a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78-48g EIR N0. 216 ANO kECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7A-64 (continued) Chalrman Tolar pointed out thore ~r~ four or flve items whlch he had noted should bo consld~red In reletionship to a General Plan amendment and canttnuence. 11e Ind(ceted he would not be oppased to a continuance~ but ho felt Mr. Murdoch should wrlto rlown the follcwtng (tcros: 1. A Gene~el Plan amendment which would bring the pleri into conformance. 2. A cost analy~is. He felt the developer should provtde a cost an~lysis es to wha[ this proJoct wllt cost the City end should be based on the current fl~ures rather than two years a~o. Included In the cost analysis ho would itke wat~r~ drrinage~ s~wer 1lnes~ etc., adaquste for this type of developn-ant being proposed end r~ breekclown of what thet cvst wou1J b~ to tho Ci ty. 3. They would nee~d an EIR that Is In confarmance. with the General Plan, whether It bn an oddendum or a new EIR he was not sure. ~. Ne wuuld 1(ka the petitloner to rcvicw the N/1CMAC report end the concerns r.xprnssed by them. Mr. Murdoch pointod out th~e englneering Is not far enough along to pravtde that lnformatton~ and Chalrman Tolar suygested they would like to hove s~me sort of praJected analysis. Cammissloner Linn indicated water for construction had been discussed and asked if there w~s enough water to supply the cntlra development~ and Mr. Murdoch re~lled this fs untreeted water and some type of trestrt~nt would have to be provided for the developn~ent. He poir~ted out water Is brQUght to this rrnperty from outsidc sources, but there ls no water on the pr~perty itself. Commissloner Linn indicatr_d he was also concerned about the grading. Commissloner lierbst polnted out thet would all be addressed in ~n EIR. He wes concerned about developma~t of horse tra(ls In the area~ as well as the corm~~cial property and whether or not it would prevent access to the river bottom. Mr. Murdoch polnted out the traffic h~d already bCen discussed In thn staff ~aport and clarified whether or not Conmissioner Herbsl (s asking that it be eddressed again~ and Commissloner N~erbst repliad he was only cAncerned about the access to the river bottnrn. Phlliip Schwartze pointed out the City had adopted a Genera) Plan amendment scheduled for tg78 when they understood they were allowed three times a year~ but ihat subsequently~ due to court actions, it has baen determined that since Anaheim is a charter city it would not be held to the schedule, therefc~re~ it could be changed. He pointed out that if the developer could provide the documents which were llsted by the Planning Commisslon, the EIR~ cost analysis, spectfic plans which could be considered by HACMAC, to the Planning Department by July 19th~ which gives the developer four weeks to prepare the information; then the developer would hand-carry to the State of Celifornia Clearinghuuse copies of the EIR which could be brought bdck by July 27th to HACMAC~ return to the Planning ~Commtsslon for publlc hearing on September ilth, and if on September 11th the General Plan amendment has been approved~ would go to the City Counci) about October 10th and if approved~ would immediately be followed by the Ptanning Commission public hearing regarding the zone change request on October 23rd. Ne pointed out there could be alterations to the time schedule if certain things were not done by the proper date. He potnted out City staff is not adding so much ttme to the heartng~ but is adhering to the time frame guidelines establlshed by the State~ that is, ~~5 days fur consideration of an EIR~ over which the Pianning DeparCment or Commission has no control. 6/19/78 MIPIUTES~ ANANEIM CIIY PLANNING COMMISS{ON~ JUNE 19~ 1978 7A-490 EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-64 (contt~ucd) Mr. Murdoch askad iP the time schadule outilned assumes chsnging the EIR~ and Pt~illip Schwertze potnted aut we •re talking ~bout a General Pien Amendment end the EtR is ~ended for th~ zo~e chango request. Ne polnted out that somc of tho informetio~ whtch ~s ca~tained in the EIR would probably ba vlrble, but the othe~ changes must also be conslda~ed in the repart. He potnted out staff would bo prepertng edd(tlonal alternatives for the Plenning Commission to consl~ier at the time thts (s brauyht befor~ the Commission. He polnted out a Gencr+~) Plan amendment wou1J b~ braught before the Conmission about ~ix weeks prlor to the reclessiflcntion I~erring and It presupposes activities would occur on or prlor to July 19th a~d~ If necessary, a continuancc could be requested at the conttnued heeriny on October 23rd. Chalrman TolAr tndicated he felt (t would bc appropriAtc wlth thi~ lcngth of timc betwcen hearings th~t tho publlc be renotffted. Jack White pointed out it Is not mandatory~ but could be dnne. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offPred a motion~ seconded by Commiss(oner Herbst And MOTI01~ ~11~~D~ thet considerat(on of the Environmental Impact Repart No. 21(, and Rnclsssiflcatlon No. 77-7~~64 be continued to the regular meeting of the Anaheim Cfty Planning Commir~sion on Octuber 23~ 1q7t3~ to be held at 7:00 p.m.~ at the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 1 k~ UEN HILLSIOE SITE UEVELOPMENT STANDARUS A. M~n mum~ot area ln the RS-11S- 3,~UQ Zone. D. Minimum contiguous lut area in the RS-N5-~~3,n~0. RS-NS-22~OQ0~ and RS•HS•10~000 tones. C. Minimum lot width and frontage in the RS-HS-~~3~OAQ~ aS-IiS-22,0~~~ and RS-HS-10~000 lones. D. Mlnimum structurel setback end yard requirements fron private strsets and accessways and equestrian Casements in tl-e RS•NS-43~~~Q and RS-I~S-22~0~0 Zones. Subject item was cont(nued from the Planning Commiss(dn meeting of Apri) :4, 1978 for input from the Nill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Commiitee (HACMAC~ and ~rvm tha meeting of Miay 22, 1978 for further revier+. Annika Sentalahtt. Assistant Oirector for Zoning, presented the staff report to the Planning Commisston dated Ju~e 19~ 1978~ polnting out the Planning Commission h~d previously on a 4:3 vote recorm~nded that the Clty Councii dire~t the Ctty Attorney to prepare an ordinanCe for Planning Comm(ssion revlew prio~ to Ctty Council wnsideration amending the extsting RS-HS-43~000 area si~e to requlre mintmum net and c~oss lot size of 43~000 square feet excluding public and prtvate streets and eccessway easements, ~nd that no furthar action ts necessary at this ttme. Regarding Section 8(minimum co~tiguaus iot area in the aS-F15-4~~000 and RS-HS-l0,OQ0 Zones) of the staff report, ~he Planning Commission had recommended the City Council to direct the City Attorney to prepa~e an ordinance amending the RS-HS-22,000 and f~S-HS- 10~000 Zones by adding that the mi~imum lot area exclusive of public streets and private 6/19/78 ~' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING CQMMI5SION~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78'~9~ RESIDENTIAL IiILl510~ SITE UEVELOPMENT STANDAaDS (contlnued) accessways shall constst of co~tlnuous land aree which mey not be divided into two or mor~ p~rcels by such streets or eccessways~ and tha~ na further ection is necessary at this tlme. Concerning Sectlon C(minirnurn tot width And frontage In the RS-115-~~3~000~ RS-HS-22~Q00 +~nd RS-IIS~1Q,000 lones) oF the staff repart~ the Planning Cartm(ssi~n hAd taken ection on th~ existing lot width requirement of the I~ilislde rosidentlal zones and recomm~nded that the Ctty Council direct thc City Attorney to prepere en ordinance for Planning Canmission revlew prior to C(ty Counctl consideration~ amend(ng the exist(ng RS-HS-22~OQQ to~e standard to requlre minirnum 1l)-fc~ot sidc yards, end no chan,ye to thc RS-NS-~i3~Q~0 Zane~ and ttiat no furtl~Gr ectlan is necossary concerning th~t pc~rtinn of tt~~ st~ff report. She polnted out the Commission had discussed the ap~ropriete minirnum side yerds in the RS- 115-10~000 Zonc cxtensivcly and detPr-nl~r~1 r c~ntinuance would be appropriate, alChough ft was generatly agr~ed th~~t A minimum side yard tot~l af 15 feet per lot rnay be appropriate and a minirnum nf 8 feet on eacfi side was also discussed~ and they t~ad not dtscussed parking on cul-de-s~cs ancl determinatlon where a minimum lot wldtl~ should be measured. Comrnlss(oncr Linn pointed out the Commisslon had discussed an 8•foot slde ysrd for dralnagc. Philip kSettencourt~ rac~resenting Anaheim I~ills~ Inc.~ stated consider~ble work has been done slnce the last meeting and they tiave looked at tf~e dralnage 5itut~tian~ ~tetting aside the aesthetlc objactions of the original s~tback considerett~ns. He pointpd out the drainage situation deals with anather set of codes. He indicatpd they have made a recommendation to the staff after consideriny a number of options f~r dra(nage which do not include an increase in setbacks~ but rather is a requirement for a post home construction certificatiQn that suffictene drainag~ does exist. Ile polnted out the reason f~r this. fram their standpoint as a subdivider~ is tl~et after the approvAl of their as- buiit gradiny pians the hc~mebuilder then goes onto the si[c arid as a result of his construction activicies~ there is not ti~e same degree of asgurance that tl,e drainage as designed still exists as a result of the foundations~ etc. fla felt this app~oach would give thc City assurance that at least the ultimate consumer Has pravided wlth proQer drainage af the lot. Ne poinceJ ouc tl~at a pr~~blem sttll needs to t,e dealt with as to what the homeawner wov~d decide to construct on the lot; that clearly there ~eods to be some education as to the sensitivity of droinage t~ the homeowners; that there Is sane controversy of that subJect with the Pa~cific Soils Investioat(on report of the Westridge slope difficulties which appear to indicate that e good many homevwners are not aware or are inattentive to the drainage o~ their ow~ lots and are b contributing factor to the d(fFiculties that occurred. Ne felt it was best to disposh of the drai~a~e question first and riould have Mr. Fernald discuss the setbacks later. Jay Titus. Off(ce Engineer, pointed out the subdivision ordinance controls the side yards. setbacks, gradt~g~ and other ordinances would control the drainage. He indicated Anahelm Hills. Inc. has presented propasals for additional certifiGation by the privat~ engineer after the house is const~ucted and before occupancy is given thmt tl~e lot has positive drainage et that point. Ne potnted out the one thing that has been a problem in Che past hes been in getting certification UPOh the con~letion of grading prior to the building and then during the construction of the house, the drainage is oftentimes revised to the point wher~ it does not drein properly. Ne stated there is also a prob{em in controlling the actions of the homeowners themselves in constructtng improvements. and the Anaheim Hills. Inc. proposal is to have that controlled by a maste~ homeowners association. Ns stated the engineeriny staff have consider~d an~i revie-~ed these p~oposals and feel they are 6/19/78 MIt1UTES~ A,NANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNk 19~ 177~ 78"49Z RESIDENTIAL HILl51DE SITE UEVEI.OPMENT 5TANDAROS (continued) somethlrig which should be g(ven a try. He potnted out thls woulct meAn leaviny ti~e Sidc yards 1(ke tliey ore dnd edd a rrstrtctlon in tha CCf,its of the master homec~vners assocl~~tton that eny construction by the hcxneowners would heve to be reviewed by tlie associetlon ~n assure the dralnage would not be blocked. lie pc~tnted out the certl~lcatlen by thc: prlvatc ~ngineer would bo necessary because many times during the constructlon of a h4use~ dfgging the footings~ ~tc.~ the drainage becomes plugged and the proposed additlon~l ccrtlfication by a privAte englncer after tt~e house is constructcci and prlor to occ~~p++ncy woulCOnstructlontbytthemhomeawncrspwiuldabearevlewed hydtheaassociotlon,Lwhich, of any futu e is somothing we do not I,ave at khis tim~. Cummts~loncr Jahnson p~int~d out he felt the Issuc in this mAttcr W~r.tTitusrand somehow~h and that the discussion concerning drainage had been brought up by 'the Cornmissinn hacl yatten hung up ~n the ~1rAinage problem which is not the real issue, and by i~aving wider setbar.ks t~ the butldings from th~e slde ysrds, ic mi~ht accnmplisl, ~I~e dratnage problem~ but his cancern was the narrnw slde yards. Ann(ka Sent~lahtl~ Assistant director for zoning~ pointed out that currently the si~-e yard setback is 5 feet on either slde~ or m comFiinatlon of 1(1 feet~ and A~aheim Nills~~4}; suggestion is for 12 feet, wi-h a 5-foot minimum for a one-storY house and a 15- combination for a two-sto ry house. Commissioner llerbst pofnted out they were discussing the possibi ~1tY af other -- "-~~"~~''~'~S for dratnaqe using the 5-foat side yerd setback possibly with concrete cuive~,-~ whatever is necessary tu accompl ish ti~is to assure dreinaga~ ar.d maybe this ~~++ Ue~i~ '=he too)g t~ey may use by haviny a builder certify drainage after che house is Commissianer Johnson agreed that th(s was a very good idea~ however, tt t~~~~ ~+~~~ :+~drpose is t~ keep the 5-foot minirown sidc yard set~ack~ he was not I~ agreament. Commissioner Nerbat pointed out they were canccrned about the setbacks ~~n ~~ •-~-sac lots wh(ch are already cut down to a minimum and to requirz larger setbacks wo+~~ ^~,~f~~rd to develop them and he was looking for some alternative method t~ accomp side yard setback. Jay Titus ~ointed out NACMAC's ~ecomn~endation had baen for a total of 15 fr~:~ w~th e mi~tmum of 5 feet on either stde~ anJ Chairman Talar indicated he f~~t tha; ++K*~,ld accornplish both objectives. Jay TTtus palnted o~t he was only addressing tl~e drainage~ assuming the n~o~+osed ~'dinence stayed at 5 feet on either stde with a total of 10 feet. Commtssioncr Linn pointed out to Mr. Titus thac he had prev~uuslY stated S feet will be necessary on cach side in order to maintain the pro~cr drainaq~~ and asked why he had changed his mind~ and Mr. Tit~s replied that was at the time he was co~siderin9 the pro~lem of trying C. keep sidewalks, fireplac~s. ~ther lendscaping~ eic., out of the S' foat setback and stili aermit drainage~ which st~ll cannot be done., but that Anaheim Hi{Is' proposal is to contral other construccic~n and e1i~~inate the p~oblem so that drainage wouid not be blocked. Philip Bettencourt pointed out thac at the same tliae this discussion was going on, tha Engineering Depa~t ~~~ ~~~in5s~etct~,9andethrydfelt theyewereabe:(ig~pushedhint design ~• subterfanean rea y 6/19/7$ MINU7F.5~ ANAHGIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUN~ 19~ 197d 78-~93 RESIDENTIAL HILLSIQE SITE DEV~IOFMENT STANDARDS (c~ntinued) criterte that may not be necessary. N~a yletbd an 8-foot ~.etbac~ base~ ~~ curr~nt requlrements ls better than e 50~ incc•ease which (s ro'attvely unprecedente~a In lots af thl~ st2e. F1e indicated It was thei-• feeling 2h~t rather than tle a d~siqn crlterle to ~ach I~t~ thcy shauld nwke It the er~gincer's respansibllity to us~ whatever methods he needs tn order to meintain the dr~inage. Commissloner 8arnes asked how this would ba policed; thAt after a homeowner moves in and Guilds a side+walk~ the drafnage could be altered. lir. Dettoncourt polnted out they I,ave recorded CCbRs over all the property w;th architect~~r~l rrvlew a~d felt t.hey woulci heve a better chance to cnntro) thls than the City and that s~~e improvert-e.~nts can bc made which da not r~quire a City pc:rmit~ but they are aleri to the sltuatlon anci arc cry~ng to watct~ it on tl~eir nwn. Chairman Tolar indicated the prohlem Ig that ~I,~ CC6Rs are not enfc~rceable; thrt A hcxnevwners organlzAtion could elect to disband and the CiRy would hevN no recourse. Mr. Oettencourt po(ntecl out they I~ave 12,QOf1 lots (n this homeownera associatlon and over S50~A00 Invested In recording thc dacuments alone; that tl~ey ha~:~ taken consider~ble core in puttin,y it toge.thcr becausc vf thclr inability t~~ deal wlth these problems in the past and they wished to creatz a peroe[ual mechantsm to take care of these problems. He f~dicated there are a number ~f Glty ordinances wliich are nat enf~rceable and referred ta the no roof-top antenna ordinance. and tF~e ~nly place it is enforced is in Anahetm tlilis. He indicated they have a ~us(ness reputation involved ancl i~isofar as slope maintcnAncs and drainage are concerned, it is in their best interest to take care of the prablems. Ne statPd you could have a 3Q-fAO2 wtde side yard and sti11 not I~ave the assurance withnut a third party involved tliat n~ ok•structions will be placed Sn the side yard area and felt probably a persun woul~ bc more temptcd to pave the side yard if it ts wSder. Commissioner Herbst pointed out he a~lreed wlth Mr. Bettencourt; that he h~s just gone through some Improveme~ts on I~is own propertY in M aheim Hills and belongs to e homeowners assoef~tlon and had t~ submit plens and documents far their approval. and he could not have yotten approval from the Clty w(thout the(r stamp on the documents. Ne fclt Anaheim Nills~ Inc. is probably the st~angest homeowners association in Southern Califarnia; that the preposal wouid work and felt this Additional certification by the eny(neer after ectual construction of the house would Izelp. Chairman Tolar indicated tiis w ss not only a concern of Anaheim 1lills~ Inc., but other developers down t~e rflad; that they are not talki~g abnut one area but the whole hill and canyo~ area. Philip Bettencourt pointed out there is l~t certiftcatton prior to the issuance of bulldiny permits that adequate d~ainage has been provided~ but there is reasonable susplcion co believe the drainage patterns are being disturt~ed during construction and if there is a midclle-man~ the home bullder~ certifyinn prior to receiving notice af completion and ce~tiffcatian of occupancy that drainage is ~rovided~ thts offers the City and purchaser one more assurance that ~lralnage is adequate. Chairman Tol~r pointed out part of the problem is that the grading is dane beforc the build~ng sites are approved. Ph'lip ~ettencourt pointed out tl~is would take away one oF the big obstacl~s in fixing respansibiltty; that tf~e homeowner, by nature~ is going to ~ilege there is nothi~g he eve~ 6/19/78 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMM15510N~ JUNE 19~ 1~78 78-494 RESIUENTIAL HILLSIDE SITE DEVELOPMENY STANQA~US (continued) dl~! that wouid havc caused the dreinagc problem, thst it must have b~en the 1-orr~ builder dlsturbin~ the course af the dralnagc~ ~nd then the Enryinec~ing Depertment says the lot was certifled and there ts no c~rteln~y as to wt~dt heppened to the l~t after that. Contmissloner Harnes esked if there w111 be eny cost for thls extra certificatlon ta the Cfty~ and Mr. 6ettencourt replied thac. would ue a cost to the homa bullder. Commissioner Johnson stat~d he apprecieted th~ solution to thts drainag~ problem and agreed even with 3~-foot side yord setbecks there cauld be disturbancas to bl~ck the draineqe. H~ felt~ however~ thes~ are two diffcrent is~ues ond wAnted to make it very clear t~ tlie Commissi~n that they had ectunlly been discussing a 16-fooc side yard total~ 8 fPet on c~ither side, and had pretty we11 decided thot was the way they wante~l to go, and tl~en Mr. Titus had brought up the Arainage issue. He felt a tutal of not less than 15 fcet In tt~e RS-10~0~~ 7onP (r. a precedent-sctting situ~tlon. fle potnted cut he (s awere a lot of people wha are Iiving in these 10~A00-square foot lots and their one complaint is they a~e too ctase together. He indicated he felt it would make a better pACkage wlth wider side yards~ and the (mpression at che present time is that you can Jun~ fron~ raof- to-roof in thaC area. t~e felt requiring mure room between homes would make better developments and benefit thc devclopers~ even though It d~es not appear that way. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out thAt if the Comrn(sslon is satisfied witl~ the drainagC aspects~ their proposal was not to maintaln an existinq 5-foot sethack but to hAVC the 1~-foot fqrmula for single-story and 1;-foot formula fo~ tao-story structures~ and Mr. Fernald has dane some analyses and worked on some of tt~e suggest(ons made hy Mr. Buffington at the last r~eting. Knawltan Fernald prescnted a pian to show what I~appcns between houses with the setbacks. He pointad out the present ordinance requires a 10-foot setback betw~en houses whethe~ they are one story or two scories and that encroachments or overhangs are allowed 1 foot, 8 inches into the setbacks~ but everyone agrees that is too clost. 11e pointed out the HACMAC proposal is l~or 15 fcet between t~ouses whether ane or two stories and with no encraachmants allowed. He pointed out they recomrnend the 15 feet per lot could be distributed to best util(ze the land, and they agreed with that~ but they we~e conce~ned about that as archite~cts because it will dictate certain typcs of des(gns~ whtch is fine for a well-designed proJect~ but with a cluster of ranch-type houses~ is not arct~itecturally pleasing. Nr. Fernald showed a plan illustrating ttiat there is a lot of architecture on the ends of h~uses~ especially wher~~ ends are exnosed and are n4t always completely hidden by the house next door; that the fi~eplaces, roof overhangs and other proJections lnto the setback are part of the ~~rchi~ecture and should b~ a continuation of the facade. The other alternative Is to n~ove the buildings further apart to accamnodate the same 1-foot~ 8-inch projection, which ~,~eans the bufldings are 18 feet, k inches apArt~ rather than 15 feet. This wauld be a dram~tic change from the current situation, one they felt is n~t )ustified. He thougl~t the lo~ical compromise, even though it was their original suggestlon, is to increase the s~ace between hauses for one story from 10 feet to 1? feet and for two storles from 10 feet to 15 feet (or an increase of 50~b for a two-story scructure) and stil) gove~n ~nc~oachments as in the past because it wauld be easier to administer than to change thc. procedurr. He poineed out while the numbers seem relatively insignificant~ their proposal adds i feet~ 2 inches into the rear yard~ while HACMAC's suggestton adds 5 feet encroac:P~ment Into the rear yard. He stated a 5-foot reduction in yard space could easily keep someone from putting in a sw;mming pool. 6/ 14/78 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 19~ 1978 78'~~~5 RESIDENTIAL NIILSIDE SITC DEVELOPMENT STANOARDS (continued) Jen Hall~ ~opresentiny I~ACMAC~ po~nted out their recommenJetlon was 15 fee!~ wlth 5 fcet mtnlmum on either side~ end where the S faot minirnum ts utillzed no encraachments. Conanl~sloner Barnes askod the size of the average side y~rd in the area currently, and Mr. 8ettancourt repllad it Is from 5 fQet to 22 feet. Cammisstoner 6arstedithe mc~tton~should lncludecb~th one ~ drtwo~storY structures~e^ the houses and sug~e Chalrman Tolar felt ti~e Anohcim i1111s~ Inc. recommendatlon would accompllsh what the Lommissi~n ls looking for eesthetlcAlly. Comm~s~iu~~cr HerbsC potnted ouC the diffa~encc between the Anahelm Hills~ Inc. recommendAtfon and thP NACMAC recorm~endation is the overhang and felt 6 feet on eftl~er side would satisfy both. ACTION: Commis~ioner Herbst offered a motlon~ seconded by Cc~mmissloner Johnaon ~nd MO710N C~D, that the minimum side yard standerds In the RS•fIS-10~040 lone shall be a total of 12 feet~ with neither side less than 6 feet for a one-st~ry buildlnq; ~+nd a total of l5 feet~ with neither side less than G feet for a two-story bullding~ and that the Gradtn~ Ord(nance be amended to tnclude that u~ture'tottt~e satisfactionr~ofPthe,CitybEngineer~e bullder after construction of thc str Commissfcx~er Linn offered a motion~ second~d by Commisstoner 1lerbst and MOTION CARRIED, that cul-de-s~~ssaofifivenlnts~~l~Fcated~withinni~rfeetroftthe~culfdetsactcenter~,9 5paces per lot in exce Concerning the determinatih~uld beemeasuredifromltheWCOnstrucLlontlineeofrthe houses noted it had bee~ decided thi~ s Annika Santalahti explained the portion of the staff report pertrining to minimum structural setback and yard requlrerne~oO~fRSmN5r22~,0005LandtR58H5-1Q~OOOWZo~esnd equestrien easements In the RS-HS-43, Gommisstoner Nerbst offer~:d a motio~+. seconded by Cortmissiorier King and MOTIOIJ CARRIED. that the Plannin,y Commission direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Commission review prior t~ C+ty Council consideration, amr.nding the RS~NS-43~G00 ~one by addlny that the minimum la-faut structural setback shall also apply to any recorded private accessway easement and to any reco~ded hiking and equestrtan trails easement. Cotcxntssioner Herbst offered a motion, seco~ded by Commissloner King and PIOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission direct the City Attorney to prepare a~ o~dinance fer Comnission review prlor to City Coun~31 consideration, amending the RS-HS-22,000 Zone~ by adding that when a lot does not abut a public street, the 25-foot front y~ard setback sha11 be measured from the private accessway easert~ent whith provides prima ry access to the property; ~nd that when a recorded equestrtan and hlking trails easen+ant exlsts. a minimum 1q-foot setback shall be required from any structure used for hurnan habitation; and, furthermore~ that when a private access easement is located in the side or rear yard of the property. the setback between the ciwelling and sald easement shall be 10 feet. Commissloner Herbst uffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner K(nq and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Planning CommissioCi~irCouncil consideratian~tame~dingethc R~aHSal0e00QrZone by Commission reviwi prior to Y 6/19/78 ~. MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ .IUNE 19~ 1978 ~a_496 RES I QENT! AL H I LLS 1 D~ S I TE DEVELOPME-;T STANDARDS (cont i nued) edding thst when a lot does not abut • public st~eet~ the 10-foot front yat~d setback shsl) be msaaured from the privata accessway es~en~nt which provtdes prima ry acceas to the property; end~ furthermore. thet when e private access eesement is loceted tn the slde o~ rear yerd of the proaerty~ the setbdck betwaen the c~welling end setd eesement shall be the ssme ss the mt~imum side yard requirement tn the zone. ADJOUkNMENT There being no furthe~ bustne~s, Commi~sioner Hert-st offered a motlon~ seconded by Conmissioner David and MOTION CARRIED~ that the meeting be ad)ourned. The meeting was adJuurned et 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ ~~ ~ ~ Edlti~ L. Har~is, Secretary Anaheim Ctty Plonni~g Commission ELH:hm 6/19/78