Minutes-PC 1978/11/20City liali
Anaheim~ California
November 20, 1978
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAf1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGUTAR - The regular meetinq of thc M aheim City Plrnning Coarntsston wea called to
M~ETINC ' ordcr by Chalrman Nerbst at 1:3J p.m.~ November 20~ 1978~ In the Council
Cherrbe r, a Quorum be t nq pre~ent.
PRESENT - Chat~man: Hnrbst
- Commissioner9; Bushore~ David, Kln~~~ Tol+~r
ABSEI~T - Commisslones: Barnes~ Johnson
ALSO PaES~NT • Frank low ry
Jack White
Paul Singer
Jay Ti tus
Roneld Thompson
Phtllip Schwartze
Annika Sent~!~hti
Joe) Fick
Robe rt Ke i l ey
Robert He~ntnger
Edith Harris
Assistsnt City Attor~ey
Oeputy City Atto~ney
T~affic E~gineer
04ftce Fnglne~r
Planning Depertment Director
Asslstant Dtrector for Planntng
Assistant Director for Zoning
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Assistent Planner
Planninq Commission Secreta~y
PIEDGE OF - The Pledge of Allegia~ce to the Fla,q wes led by Commissloner Tolar.
ALLEGi MICE
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner King off~~ed a motion~ seconded by Conmissloner David a~d
THE MINUTES MOTION CpRR1ED (Commissione~s Barr+es and Johnson be(ng absent and
Commissione~ Tolar absta(nl~q on the minutes of Novembar 6th)~ that the
mi~utea of the meetinc~s of October 23 and November 6~ 1978 be appPOVed
as submitted.
Chairmsn Herbst explained to t~,ose perso~s presant tn the audience thet the Gener~l Plsn
amendmant~ Item No. 16, is simply a housekecping item to brtng zoning Into conformance
with ths existing la~d uses, and if anyone had any questto~s ~ege~di~c~ the General Plan
sm~~dm~nt~ they should go to the Planning bepartn+ent and dlacuss those n~atters wlth Joe)
Fick in o~~er to sa~re ttme et the Planning Commission level.
ITEM N0. 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERt ANAHEIM REDEVELOP-
EIR~ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLA55 1 MENT AGENCY~ 106 Nofth Claudine St.~ Suite 400~
Anahatm~ CA 92805. AGEMTs ED SCHNATtME1fER~ 111 East
~ 6. 1909 Llncoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92805. Petitioner
requests pe~misston to ESTpBLISH AN ADULT BOOK STORE.
WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMRER OF PARKING SPACES on
prnperty described as a reetangularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approximately
6750 squ~re faet having a frontage of app roxtmately 50 feet o~ the south side of lincoln
~g_93p 11/20/18
~
78-931
MINUTES~ AMAH~IM CIiY PLANNIMG CQMMISSlON~ NOVEMFIER 20~ 197a
EIR CATE~~a1CAl EYEMPTION CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~.~09 (contlnued)
.~_...-.
Avanua~ hoving a maximum depth of approximately 135 feet~ betng 1ocAted app~oximately 10
feet west of the c~otQft~~~resentlyacl~sslfiedrCGt(COMMERCIA~~rGENERAI)~ZONE.~38 Esat
Ll~col~ Avenue. P P Y P
Sub)ect patition was continued from the meeting of Noveunber 6~ 197g~ +~t the request of the
petitioner.
Commissioner Bushore indicated he ha~s a possible conflict sap~c`~9eAtConfllctnof Interest
Anahelm City Planntnc~ Commissio~ Resolution No. PC76 157.
Lode for the Planning Commission~ end Gavernmcnc Codc Sectlon 3~z5~ ~t saQ•~ ~n that he
hss e contractua~l agroement wi th the Redevelopment I19~~~Y a~d~ P~arsu~+nt to the provtsions
af the above c~dey~ is declaring xo the Commisa{on that he i~ witl~drawing from the hearing
and would no~ take pareriwi ~htanr me~er5ofgthenPlanningvGtommissioneon7"EREUPONt h~ f'Ad
not discussed the matt Y
COMMISSIONCR DUSHORE LEF1' THE COUNCIL CHAMBEfi.
Chelrman Herbst exphet^~ondltlon~leUserPermiteNo.rlgOgvbe te~minatednaheim Redevelopment
Agency ~equesting t t
Richard Barr. Attorncy for D~n's 8ook Store~ stated it was hts understanding this matter
was continued from th~ last meetir,g at the request of one of the petitioners and that once
a matter has been brought ln for a vote, it is continuad on the agenda rather tha~ being
dismissed ln midstream. He felt the Redevelopment Agency had been in error by indicating
Mr. Schnatzmeye~ was the only aclent and he belleved the petitfon was braught ln in the
name of Don's Baok Stare.
Chairma~ Nerbst replied the petition was ~ubmitted by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and
thay are req ucsting that it be withdrawn.
Mr. Ba~r stated th~ authorized agent was Don's Book Sto~e which is a community property
item and Mrs. Schnatzmeyer was present and was wt111n9 to proceed with the r~quest and
obJects to thc dismissal.
Jack Mhite. Deputy City A~torney~ ~xplained the applicatton indicates the authorized agent
who owns
was Ed Sehnatzmeyer~ not Don's Book Store, and the A~aheim Redevelopment Agency,
the aroperty, had previously authorized Mr. Schnatzmeyer to be the authorized aqent and
has now withdrawn that authorization; he was not sure that w~s even necessary due to Mr.
Schnatzmeyer's untimely demise;bucdthattituis~a decision thenC'ort+miss onscannmake.rs the
request of the property owner,
Chairman HerbstM'taBedrt~igcussithetmatterewithtthetReoevelopment~Agencyjrathernthan the
suggested that .
Planning Commissian.
Mr. Barr askad if Cou~sel's opinion was based upon the fact that the Redevelopment Agen~cy
is allegc~ to be the avner of the subJect property.
Jack White replied the Redevelopment Agency is the awner of th~ property where the store
would be moved if the application were approved. He steted it was his understending that
there is no le~ashisrsuccessor~aincinterest~far,thexutil~zatloneof thatspB perty.re or Mr.
Schnatzmeyer r
Commissiot~er Tolar indicated he would like to have some guidance from the Redevetopment
Agency; that hehi~t~~totineettwithrtheaaedevtiloQmentiAgencysto determinehiftthisirequest
applicant enoUg
11/20/78
MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 20~ 197R 7A-932
Ellt CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. _IsQ~(continued)
for an exten~ion of tin~ me~ts with th~tr approval. He su~qestcd c.onttnulnq the metter
untll later tn tuday's hearinq In order for the attorney to rneet with M~. Prlest af the
Redevalapment Agancy.
Mr. I3arr Indiceted in ltght of the lony agenda of today's meseting~ he would like to
requeat a continuance for two weeks.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offered ~ motion~ s~r.onded hy Commtsslone~ Qavid and MOTIAN
~t ~D (Commtssioners Barnes ~ Bushore and Johnson being absant) ~ that tonside~atlon of
the sforementioned Item be continued to the regularly•scheduled meeting of Decembor 4~
137$~ at the request of the Attarney for Mrs. SchnatzmQyer.
Mr. B+~rr stated it was hla urtdcrttanding at the tfine th~ metter waa cc:nttnued from the
meeting of Idovember 6th~ that all matters were co~tinued to this date~ and ~sked if all
mattars would agaln be contlnued "ta thc meet(ng of Daccmbar ~+. 197~.
Jeck Whtte explalned evo rything In relationshtp to the conditlonal use permit would be
co~tinued.
COMMISStaNER BUSHORE RETURNED TO TNE COUNr,IL Ci~AME~ER.
(TEM N0. 15 PUBLIC HEARING. TEXACO ANAHElM HILLS~ INC.~ 3~
EIR NE~GA V~E DECLARATI01~ Anahzim Nllis Rond~ P.nahelm~ CA 92807. AGENT:
, INNOVATIVE DEVELQPMEN7 CQNCEPTS~ 17q42 Sky Park,
~N~A IVE MAP F Sutte A~ lrvine, CA 92714. P~nperty descrtbed as an
T W1CT NOS. 105J~ At~p 1U586 irregularly-shaped parcef of land consisting of
approxim~tely 21 acres havtng a fr~ntage of approxi-
mskaly Sa7 fect on the west side of Noh) Rsnch Road~ having e msxlmum depth of approxi-
mately 1~14 feet~ a~d being located appoximately 271 feet south of the centerltne of
Canyon Rlm Road. Propcrty presentiy classtfted RS-A-43~000 (RESiOENTIAI/AGRICULTURAL-
SCENiC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
VARIANCE R£QUEST: WAIVER OF MAXIMUN STRUGTURAL HEIGHT.
TENTATIVE TRAI':T REQUESTS: TRACT N0. 10585 - ONE-LOTr 51•UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION.
~RACT N0. 10586 - ONE-10T~ 37-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION.
It was ~oted the petltloner hed requested that this petitlon be contlnued for four weeks
in order for him to modify the design and improve the µronosed proJect.
ACT(ON: Comnissionar David offered a motlon, sQr.onded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION
~D (Comm(ssioners Barnes end Johnson betng absent)~ that consideration of the
aforementlo~ed itam be continue.d t, the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Anahelm City
Ptanning Conmissio~ on Decertbn r 18, 1978~ at the req uest of the petitioner In order to
submit revised pians.
11/20/78
MIf~UTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ NOYEMBER 20~ 197~ 78~933
ITEM N0. 2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt EAfLE REALTIf CO.~ 3435
~'~'~VE DECLARATION Wilshtre Boulovard~ Los Angeles~ ~A 90010. AGENTs
L N . -61- 8 BOB DEE 91RU~ 16133 Wood~uft Avenue~ Bellflower~ CA
. 16 90706. Property descrtbed aa ~n t~regularty-
.~..._..........
shaped parce) of land consisting of app roximately 2.
ecres located aouth end west of the southwnst corner
of Vermont Avenue and Aneheim Boulevard~ havtng approxlmata fronteges of 23~ feet on the
south side of Ve Pmont Street and 2'13 feet a~ the w~st sida ~~ O,~ehetrn eoulevard~ and being
located epproximately 153 feet south of the centerilne of Vermont Street and 170 fe~st west
af the centerline of Anaheim Boulevord. Property presently classifted CL (COMMERCIAL~
LIMI7ED) ZANE.
RECl.ASSIFICATION REQUEST; AMENDMENT OF CONUITIONS OF APPaOVAL.
CONOITIUNAL USE PERMIT REOUEST; TO PEaMIT A gOARD ANU CARE FACILITY FOR THE EIDERLY.
There was no one IndtcAting their presance in oppositian to subJect request~ and although
the staff report Co the Pl~nning Commisston dated November 20~ 1q78 was not read at th~a
public hearing~ it Is referred to and made. a part of the minutes.
Jay Tashiro~ Assotiate Pla~ner, pointed put Condltlon No. 1 of the Interdepartmental
C~mmittee recommendat(ons for the candltional use permit should be deleted.
8ob Btrd~ agent. passed out a brochure showing en existtng facility and indicated the
proposed faciltty will he the same destgn and about Mice the size~ wtth 26f~ bads
proposed. He explatned the pholographs tn the brochure were the res(dents' rooms~ dining
room. labby~ beauty shop~ recredtton room~ and kitchen. He stated th{s will be a stngle-
story structure dnd pointed out there wlll be a nurse on-cell wtth a medica) staff,
prlvate baths for each room, full-slze beds~ filtered nlr-condlt(oning~ beauty salon and
barber shop~ gerden patlos, televisions and radios, planncd recreation entertainment~
persona) laundry servtce, limousine service~ ftve mc~als a day~ and lndiceted they cater to
spGCiel diets~ such as low-cholesterol or low-calorie diets. He stated th(s facillty
wlll be for retired people and they wlll have eve ry possible convenience they could want.
TNE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comnissioner Bushore asked if Lhere were any plans for the wideninq of Anahedm Boulevard,
and Jay T(tus, Officc Engineer, replied that the current right-of-way is y3 feet~ whlch is
the ultimate,
Chairmen Nerbst asked about parking, and Jay Tashiro polnted out the City of Anaheim does
not currently have parking criteria for a board and care facittty; that in the past It was
based on the activttles held at the facility an~ tha petitioner has indicated they operate
stmtlar busincsses elsewhere and they are anticipating they will not have an~ residents
who would own a car.
Gommissionar King pointed out they are providtng 60 parking spaces for employees and
visttors.
Mr. Bird explained they currently have approximately 500 residents and no one owns a car.
ACTION: Commissione~ King offered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTtON
~D~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planntng Commission has reviewed the proposai to permit a
board and care faciltty for the elderly and to amend conditions of approval in connection
with reclassificatto~ of an irregul~erly-shaped parcel Qf land consisting of approximately
11/20/78
~
MINUTES~ At~AtIE1M CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 20~ 19~7~
ON RECLASSIFICATION NQ.
78•934
8 ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 19)
r 1 \ 1 rMr~~ • ~~ ~~~~' ._ . ' _ _.
2.4 sc~es loceted aouth And west of the southweat corner of Ve~mont Avenue and Anshe m
Boulevard~ havinc~ approxlmAte fror~tagas of 23~ foet ~n the aouth slde o1` Vermont Avenue
and 223 foet on th~ west slde of Anaheim Boulevard~ and being located spproxlmetely 153
feet south of the centorllne of Vermont Avenue snd 170 Peet west of the centorline of
Anahsim Bouleva~d; and does hereby a~prove the Negative Declsratlon from the ~equirert+ent
to prepare on environmental Impact report on the besis thet there would ba no signlficant
indlvldusl or cumulat(ve adverse environmental Impact due to the approval of this Negatlve
Uecle~atlon slnce the Anaheim Genersl Plan designates the subJect property for genarel
cammerclal lend uses comm~nsurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental
tmpacts are involved In the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petttioner
indtcates no signif~~iun su~st~ntlatingCthc'foregoing~fln~lln~ar/sm ntftle~lncthe Citytoft
the Negfltive Ueclarat
Anehelm Plenning Depertment.
Commisslana~ Kfng offered ansolutlon N~. PC78-259 end moved for its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Pla~ning Commission does hereby recommend to the Clty Counc(1 that
conditfons of epp~oval of RficationnNoQ•6~~61~.c~gd Ordtnance No. 1619 be amended as adopted
in connection w(th Reclass
On roll call. the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the folla+iny vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BUSHOftE~
NOES : COMMI SS 1 UNERS ; NOI~E
AHSENT: COMMISSI~~~ERS; BARNES.
DAVIO~ I~ERBST. KING~ TOLAR
JQHNSON
Cammissioner King offered Resolut(4~ No. PC78-260 and moved for its passaqe and adoption~
that thc A.naheim City Plannii^tco~ ~artmentalsChommttteerrecaPmr-~endatlonsr Conditlonal Use
Permit Na. 1915, s~ject to P
On roll cail, the foregoing resolutio~ was passed by th~e following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE~ DAVID~ HERBST~ KING. TULAR
NOES: '~OMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEN'i: COMMISSIOI~ERS: BARNES~ JOHNSON
Nr. Bird asked if approVe~hisgrequesttfo~ 260~beds and~he cnuld only~putei~ 25~fbeds?~ tf
thc State dld n~t app ro
Chalrman Herbst m~Ppr~chantestcould beUapp~oved byustaffYe to be ~eviewed by the Pls~ning
Commission, but 9
Jack White~ Deputy mity At~vcdYfor a,ma imum ofd260ebadsianaehe reould notGhaveeto appear
conditional use pcr t a~pp
bcfo~r. the Planning Commisslon.
Mr. 9i~d asked if this request would have t~a come baFore the Clty Council~ and Jack White
replied the request to ~edCouncil,~but thepoonditionalRuse~permltawouldNnot6bebheaad by
would have to go beforc
the Council unless it was appealed,
JACK WNITE LEF1' THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AN~ FRANK LOWRY ASSUM~D HIS CHA{R.
> >/2o/7a
~ ,
~.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ NOVEMBER 20~ 197a 78'93S
ITEM N0. 3 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TSUENG-YEN AND GRACE YANG
E R NEG VE DECIARATION HUANG, 845 South Beach Bouleve~d~ Ansheim~ CA 92804.
_ ~_ ~9_17 Fetttione~ requests that prope~ty dasc~ibed as s
rectengulfl rly-sh~ped parc~l of la~d conststing af
App roxlmately 0.7 acre having a frontage of •pproxl-
mately 105 feet on the west side of Besch Boulevard~ heving a maximum depth of
app~oxtmately 298 faet~ betng located approxtmetely 616 feet north of the centerltna of
Ball Road~ and further described as 84S South Beach Boul~vard be reclassifted from the RS-
A-43.~00 (~ESIUENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE to the CN (COMMERCIAL~ HEAVY) 20NE.
The~e was no one Indtcating their presence in opposition to subJect request, and etthough
the staff report to the Planninq Commission deted Novembe~ 20~ 197~ was not reed et the
public hearing~ it ts referred to and made e part of the minutes.
Tsuang-Yen Nuang~ awnnr~ was prese~t ta answer any questions.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ch~irman Herbst indlcated he unde~st~od the petlttoner deslres tn add ten units t~ the
existing motel~ and M~. Huang repliad this was correct.
Jay Tashlro~ A3soclate Planner~ pointed out thc plan does r~eet the requlrements of the CH
2one.
Commtsstoner Bushore asked the petitloner if he resides tn the residencn on the north stde
of the pool~ and Mr. Huang replied th~t he llves in one of the motel untts.
ACTIOi~: Cammissione~ Ktng offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Davlc~ and MOTlON
CARRIED (Commissioners Barnes a,~d Johnson being absent), that the A~aheim C1ty Planninq
Commission has revtewed the proposal to reclassify the prope~ty from the RS-A-43~000
(Residenttal/Agr~cultural) Zone to the CH {~~rcial~ Heavy) tons on a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acrc having a frontage ot
approximately 105 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard~ having a mextmum ciepth of
app roxtma~ely 298 feet. being located approximately Er1E3 feet north of the centerllne of
Ball Road; and cbes hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon from the requirement to
prepare e~ envi~onmental impact r^.port on the basis that there would be no sigRlfiGant
indlvidual or cumulatlve adverse snvironmental Impact due to the approval of this Negative
Declaration slnce the Anaheim General P'a~ des(gnates tht subJect prope~ty for gene~al
cammercial land uses c,omnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Inittal Study submttted by the petittoner
indicates no significant individual or cumulative adve~se environmental impacts; and that
the Negatlve Declaration substantiatiny the foregoing findings is on file tn the City of
Anaheim Planning Dapartment.
Commtssio~er Kinq offered Resolu~tan No. PC78-261 end moved for its passa~e and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission claes hereby grant Petitio~ for Reclassif~cation
No. 78-79-17~ subJect to Interdepartmental Commtttee recommendatlons.
On roli call~ the foregotng resolutlon was passed by the folloaring vote;
AYES: COMMISSIOI~CRS: BUSHORE~ DAVID, HERBST, KING, 70LAP,
NOES: COMMISSiONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEitS; gARNES~ JOHNSON
11/20/78
MIUUTES~ ANAMlIM GITY NLANNING COMMISSION. NOVEMBER 20~ 1g78 7g-93b
ITEM IdO, ~ PUULIC IiCARINr,. OuNCRS: VELMA GODARU ANU ~NNA VAN
EIR-NE~6ATIVE DECLARA710N NEEMST~ 25n Esst Telcgreph aoect~ Fillmore~ CA 93015.
._____,,,_ ~ . • 79' 1~ AGENT t TIiE NAR I S 1 C C0. ~~25 Sou th Wes tern Avenue ~
Anah~im~ C!1 ~~2~iUQ. Petitloner requests thet property
descrtbed as en trrequlr~rly-shaped parce) ot lend
conslatiny of ap~,roximately ~.~ ec~e h~ving e frontre~e of Ap~~roximetely 223 feet on the
west stde of 8ubach Street~ hAVinq a mrixlmum derth of approximAtely 170 fQet~ end betng
located approxlmately 56~1 feet north of' the centerline of Orangetf~orpe Avenu~~ be
reclessifibd fram the County A1 (RENERAI AGa1CULTURAL) DISTRICT to thc RS-5000
(11ESIULNI'IAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
Tl~cre was no one inctlcattng their presencc ln op~ositi~n t~ sub.)ect ~equest~ and aithough
the staff report to the t'lann(ng Comm(ssi~n deted Navember 2~~ IyJK was not reed st the
public I~naring~ it Is referrcd to and madc a part af the mtnutes.
Herry Tocid, 1477 South Manchester Avenue~ Anahetr~~ indicate~ tt~ia is hasicelly a four-lot
subdlvision with single-family houstn7 plAnnecl.
TNE PUH~IC NEARING WAS GLOSEf).
ACTION: Commissfoner 7olar offere~ a motlon~ seconded by Comnissioner Oavtd and MOTION
CA- RRTED (Gommiss(oners tlarries and Johnson betn~ absent)~ that ;he Anahsim City Planning
Commisslon has revir.wed the pr~pos~l ta reclassify tf~e property from the County A1
(General Ayrirultural) District to the City of Aneheim RS-y~(10 (Resldentfal~ Single-
Family) Zone on an (rregulArly-shaped parcel of land consisting af approximately 0.7 acre
having a frontaqe of approximatcly 223 feet or~ thc west side of bubach Street, having a
maximum depth of appraximately 170 feet~ and being located approximately SGO feet no~th of
the centerllne of Orangethorpe Avenue; and does hr.reby approve the Negatlve Declarbtion
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact ~eporc on the basis that thcrc
would be no signlficant individual or cumulative adverse environment~l impact due to the
apprava) of this Negative Declarat(on since the Anaheim General Plsn designates th~
subject property for law-medi~x„ density residential land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive env(ronmental irr+pacts a~e involved in thc proposal; that the
Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individua) or
cumulattve adverse environmencal impects; and that the Ne4atfve Declaratton suhstanttating
the foregoing findings is on ftle in the City of Anahelm Planning Department.
Commiss(oner Tolar offered Resolutic~n No. Pc78-2G2 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that the Anahefm ~ity Plannin~~ Commtssion does hereby grent Petition for Raclassification
No. 7t~•7~-1~~ subject to the property being develaped substentially in accordance with the
submitted plans and sub.ject to Interdepartmental Committee recorm-rndations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
^~.YES: COHMISSIONERS: BUS110RE~ DAVID, HERBST, KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMM15S10N~(tS; NONE
A9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: EARNES~ JOHNSQM
11 ~20/78
MINUTLS~ ~-~AHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSI~N~ N~VkMBER 2C~ 1~78 78~•937
ITEM N0. ' PIIBLIC HLARING. OWt~ERS: CITY OF ANAIiEIN~ 20~~ Eost
I N G VE DEGLARATION l.incoln Avenue~ Aneh~fm~ CA !?if~QS. Petitonar proposes
C N . -J9-21 that property described As an irregularly-shaped parcel
ot land consisttng af approxtmately 0.7 acre havtng
a frontee~c of approx(m++tely 223 feet on the west side
of Duhech Strect~ hAVin~~ a maximum Jepth af approximntely 17U feet~ end being loceted
appraximate~ly ~GO fe:et n~rth nP the centerltne of Orannethorpe Avenue be reclassified from
the COUNTY A1 (GEI~ERAL AGRICULTURAL) DISTRIGT to thz RS~A-43~~00
(RESIUENTIAL/AGftlCllITURAL) 70NF..
There was no one indicatin~~ their presenc~ in opposttian to subJect request~ and although
the steff repvrt co the Planniny Coinmisslon dated Novcmber 1.~, 1~)b was not read at the
public hearing, it is referre~l to and made a part ~f tt~e minutes.
IC was note~ sut~.ject petitlon was initi~ted by rhe Clty of Anaheim anci proposes
reclassiflcation of the subJect pr~perty frnm the County A1 (f;enerel Agricultural)
Uistrict to the RS-A-~+3~U0~ (Resiriencial/Agriculxural) tone nnd that subJe~t propsrty Is
in the process of undergoing annexation from thc County of Orangc to the City of Anahcim.
THC PU~LIC HEl1RING WAS CL~Sku.
ACTION: Conmissione:r Tolar off~red n mr~tion~ seconded by Commissioner Davld and MOTION
C RIEU (Commissioners Sarncs an~ Johnson being ebsent)~ that the Anahelm City Plann(ng
Commission has reviewed the pronasal to reclassify the xoning from the Gounty A1 (Ceneral
Agriculturalj District ta thc R5-A-43~U00 (Residenttal/Agric~ltural) Zone on an
trregularly-sl~aped parcel ~f land consistinq of approximately ~.7 acre having a frontage
of approximately 123 feet oi~ the west slde ~f I3ubacli Street~ havfng a max(mum depth of
approxin~ately liU feet~ and betng located approximately ~~,~ feet north of the centerline
of Orangethorpe Avenue; and does here~y approve the Negetive Ueclaration fram the
raquirement to prepare an cnvironrt~enta' impact report on the basts that there would be no
siynlficant indivldual or cumulattve Adverse environmental impact due to tt~e approval af
tl~is Negative Ueclaration since the Anatieim General Plan ~;r.stgnates the subject prcperty
for low-medlum density residential land uses c,ommensurate witli the preposal; that no
se~sitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; th~t the Initial Study
submi[ttd by the petition~r indicates no significan[ indiviJual or cumulative adverse
environmenta) impacts; and tl~at the Negative Ueclaratlon substantiating the foreyot~~g
findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Oepar•tment.
Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC73-2G3 a~~d moved for its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission does hereby qrant Petitton for Reclasslfication
No. J~S-%9'~1, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recortmendations.
~n roll call~ the forenoir+~; resolution was passeci b~ the followiny vate:
AYE5: COMMISSIOt~ERS: RUSfIOkE~ UAV1~~ 11ERUST~ Y.I~IG~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMtSS10NER5: NONE
ABSCNT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNF.S~ J0FINSON
>>/zo/~s
9
MI NuTf.S ~ ANAN~. tM GI TY PLAN~ ~' GOMM~ SS ION, NOVEMBE R 20. 1g76
1~-93~
ITEH N0. (, PI~OLIC NEARII~G. AW~~ERSt DAVIO S. AND MARION GRAAf
EIR CATEGORI~AL EXENPTIUN-CLASS 11 COLLINS~ 1077 Weat Ball Roud, Mahetm~ CA 92802.
. AfENT: LON~ BkACN NEqN AUVERTISING~ INC., 1a12 West
SIGN on property clescribed as an
approximately 1„ acreg havina a
of West Struet~ havinc~ e iru~ximum
approxl mate ly 39y fee north~ves c
91y Sauth West Str~et. Property
I~inth Street~ Long l3each~ CA 9081'~. Petittoner requests
WAIVLR QF MAXIMUM SIGN M~.I:IIT TO ERECT A fREE-STANDING
Irregularly-sheped parcel of land consisttn~ of
frontnge of ep~+roxtmetely 3U2 fcec on the southwest side
depth of approxirt~ately 249 fcet~ be(ng located
of the cent~rllne of ~all Road~ and further deser(bed +~s
pr~sent ly c 1~ssl f 1 ed C-R (GOMMERC I AL•ftEGREATI UN) ZONE.
There wes no ane 1 nd 1 cat i ng thc i r pres~nce I n oppos I tl on to sub.)ect requ~st ~ a~c1 al thou~h
th~ staff r~p~rc to the Planninq Commisxion dated November 2~~ 1978 was not read at the
public hearing~ It ts referred to and r~ade n pdrt af Che mtnuf•~~,
Dell Boone~ representlnc~ long Beach Nnon Adv~rtlsin9~ Inc, agent, tndicate~i the~r ere
proposing s y0-foot polc sinn oR West Strret for a three-story rnotel and It will not be
seen from thc residentlal ere~+ in tt~e rerr b~cause of the building~ and Chat they want it
to be seen from ~all Road and tha Sherat~n Motol~ nnd potnted out the(r siyn wtll be
approxlmate ly 3 feet be low the Sheraton slc~n .
THE PUI~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSEn.
Commissioner TolAr state~f he was disturbed by this request because the devGloper wha had
requested tl~e varianc~ in order to construct tha three-story mote) had assured the
Planning Comnissian that most of the penplc wh~ a~e goin4 to be occupying the motels ln
thls recreatlonal area are br~ught in by plar~e or bus, erc. ~ wt~lch wss one of the ressons
Far gra~ting the three-story motel wtth thc parking variance. He felt the develope~ had
created the prab 1 em of not be i n g ab 1 c to see the s t gn f rom the Sheraton ; that tha P 1 snn 1 ng
Commission granted the three-st4ry bu( Idin,y and the vartance for perking predicatod on that
fact, that n»st of the people would be arrivinq by plane, bus. etc.~ end indicated h~ was
not going to support e siyn height vartance. He felt tf this request were granted~ thert
would be requests from others in the area to ~alse the heic~ht of thei~ signs.
Commiss(aner Bushore pointed out there are t~ro otfner Saga Motels (n the area and fe{t
those mote 1 s wou I d bc 'eede rs fo r th i s th ( rd moCe 1 and that the s i gn ~rou 1 d n~t be
requi red.
Commissioner King indicate~'. he w~s in favor of th ~s request because to deny the variance
would depriv~ this property of a prtvi lege being enJoyed by other propertlcs i~ th~ aree,
and referred to a sign on the north sidc of 8all ftoad. Just west of West Street~ Nhich
scrves the Stardust Motel and The Depot Aostaurant, whtch he felt sure was more than 25
feet h i gh and i s wi t~.1 n 300 fee t of a homo ~r, Ba) ' Raad. He a 1 so fe 1 t mos t ~f thc homes
in the erea would have tr~:~es to shie{d the s i gn f ~om thei r view.
Commiss(oner Tolar stated his argument ig that the Clty has an ordinance a~d felt we must
llve with that ordli~ance or cha~sge it~ and fe.it tt~e property a.•ner or developer had
created the hardship. Regardtng other hiyher slgns in the area, he potnted out those are
there and cannot be changed an~i are probably there by "grandf~ther rivhts."
Mr. 13oone asked what the pro~+erty aw,~er had done to create the hardshtp, and Commissioner
Tolar repl ied he had dcveloped a tremendous numb~r af units on a small ptece of property
and the propert~/ owner knew t`~e Sheraton was there when he put the unf ts up.
Mr. Boone pointed out thc Sheraton has a y6-foot hi,yh siqn.
t~/2o/78
MINUTET, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMB~R 2i), 191~; 7b•939
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 ANU VAf~IA~,d,L ;.~ob? (co~tlnued)
Lammissloner Tolar indicatect th~t property Is located on the fr~ewey and he f~lt thla Is a
different sltu~tl~n and is nat on thR freeaay.
Chalrman Nerbst stete~i the sign ordinence was adopted btcruse af the stgns fn the
Disneylan~~ ~roa~ end that driving down Harbor Boulevard you cen~~ot ~ee the motels because
of al) thc slyns. He did not fcel the stgn ordinance should be lgnored end polnted out
some of the lerger siyns in the arca ware ther~ bec~+use ~f "grandfather rlghts" end same
were eilewed oriyinally enci (t was later found th~y hed made qulte a mess.
Commissioner yushore inJi~atacJ he ~iJ not fce) tf~er. w~~ ~ hardship~ polntt~ig out the
motel operetors are indlcntinn they do not need on-street t~afflc slnce the peopl~ are
~eing flow~ or busssd in a~d iie did not seP the necessity fur bigger siqns.
Ghairman Nerbst ~oted this parxlcular proaerty had requcstsd a park nq varianc~ end it
had ber.n yranted on the b~sis th~~t yuests are arrlving by trr~nsportatlon modes other than
pr(vAte autc~nobile~ anJ tf~ls roquest is ccntradicting that findiny.
Mr. Soone stated they had erccted a 40•foot sign ab~ut a year aqo on North Harbor
lioulevard on thc: nort~~ si~fe of the frecwdy and It does noC really loc~k tht~t high~ and that
the oriyinal si~~n herc was 35 feet hiph.
Cvmmissioner Toler stated tt~e prablem is that if the Commission approvcs thls req~,est for
a~0-foot fii_yh siyn~ next week there wi11 be anothc~ request f~r a higher sign. He stdted
he wc>uld not dev(ate from the code at this location because th~ property owner had
indlcated he would not need the amenlties becaus~ thcy wo~ld not draw traffic off the
street. Ne statecl he would support the ~rdinance for 2',-foot hlgh signs.
Mr. 9oone stated the type of si9n proposed wuuld be useless w(thout the t~etght; that the
siqn is primarily plct~rial - a knight with a flag on a t~orsc - and it takes e lot of
room~ and It is the trademarlc of the niotPl.
It was noted the Plannlnq Director or his authorized representative has determtned thet
the proposed prolect falls within the definition of Categarica) Exemptions, Class 11, as
defined in oa~a~raph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guideilnes and
is. therefore, catc~orically exempt from the requlreme~t to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushore offered Resoluti~n No. PC7$-264 and movtd fAr its passage
and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim City Plann(ng Commissian does hereby deny Petition for
Ya~tance No. 3~62 on r.he basis that no hardshi~ exists because testlmony presented at a
publlc hearing requesting a variance of watver of minlmum number of pa~king spaces
indfcated a substanttal percentage of guests arrive by a ttansporiatlon mode other th.+n
private autnmobile.
8n roll cali~ th~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHOR~~ DAVIp, NERBST~ TOI.AP,
NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: KING
ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, .lOHNSON
Frank Law ry~ Assistant City Attorney~ presented the written right to appea) the Planning
Commisslon's d~cision within 22 days ta the City C~uncil.
11/20/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~QN, NOVEMBER 20~ 1978
18-94~
ITEM N0. 7 PUULIC NEARII~G. OWNERs PROPCRTIES~ LTU.~ 1315 Ea~t
EIR GA EGORICALLY EXEMPT- St. A~d~ews Piace~ pB~ Sante A~e~ CA 92705. Petitioner
C6ASSE5 ANO raquasts WAtVER OF MAXIMUM WALI HCIGHT TA RETAIN AN
~~~. 30 8-f00T HIGH BLOCK WALL on property descrtbed as a
rQCtangulariy-ahaped pa~cel of l~nci conststing of
spproxtmetely 9.3 ~eres having a frontsge of approxt-
meitely 660 feet o~ the south side of Miraloma Avenuc~ havinq a maxtmum depth oP
approxlmately 61$ feot~ bcing locat~d epproximately 325 feet eaat of the centerline of Red
Gum Street~ and further dcscribed as 3p~p E~st Mireloma Avenue nnd 2990 l.a Loma Ctrcle.
Property presently clesstfled ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one indlcaCin~~ thelr pre~ence In ohposltfon to aut,}r.ct request~ and olthough
the staff report to the Planning Comnissia~ dated Navember 20, 1978 was not reAd et the
public hCaring~ it Is referrcd to and made a Na~t of the minutes.
John Dela~ey~ 26,72 Mambra~o~ M(sslon VieJo~ stetad they are rt~ak(ng this request bec~•se
of the partlcular design of Ct~e bullding; that plen~ were submltted to and epproved ~, the
Buildinq Department whlch Inclucied tiie fence or~d that the Pence walls were not cle~rly
shvwn on the plans~ but were approved and it was later dtscavered thcy are !n violatlon of
the ordinance; that the fence watls are ~pproximately 8 feet liigh and are sr.t back from
the property line In excess af 12 feet~ with a total setback from Niraloma Avenu~ of 23
feet (he p~tnted out I~e fe'.t the staff repart was (n error~ indicatinq e 10-faot setb~ck).
He presented an artist's rendering shvwtng what the walls would look Ilke and potnted out
the a~ee would be bermed and landsceped. He stated the original intent c~f the fence was
to m~re or less block the view of the loadtng dock daors from Mlraloma Avenue~ snd if tha
height of the wal) •.ras reduced~ that area would be ve ry vistble.
Chalrman Herbst asked if the wall would be uscd as a retaining wall.
M~. Delan~y replied that tt wtl) be a reteln(~g wall slnce they ar~ gotn~ to berm up to
it. but it will primarily be used as a screen. He q'ated thc. be;m ere~s t+nd landscapf~+q
were p~ovided because they would be better looking thian the stark wall.
Commtssi~ er Tolar asked what would be on the other ~ide of the wflll~ and Mr. Delaney
replled that area would be used for parking for the [wo bulldings.
Commtssioner King polnted out tl~ere are ga~age ope~ings at the front and the wall wilt
hide the view f~om the street.
Mr. Oelaney stated apparently their architect was not aware nf this requirement and when
the plans were submitted~ t~e wall was located for the purpose of screening the view and
felt if th~y had known the requlrement, they might have been able tn rearrange the
butldings. He stated 6y the time they had found out about the requlrement~ the buliding
walls were up, the roof was an~ and the fcnce panels w~re the~e.
Commissloner King tndlcated the top of the berm will be about 30 inches from the top of
the well~ and t'~en asked why the wall is not conslstent at the top as it goes further
west.
Mr. Delaney explalned there are different el~vatlons between the two lots and the fe~ce
panels were bulld for the partlcular lots.
TNE PUBLiG HEARING WAS CLOSEL~.
11/20/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSIUN~ NOVEMBE R 20. 197~ 78-941
Ela CATEGOIiICALLY EXEKPT-CIASSES J AND 5 AND VAaIANCE N~. 3063 (cnntinued)
it w~s noted that the Planning Director or his autharizad representative hes dotermined
that the proposed proJect falls within the deftnition of Categoricel Exempcions~ Classes 3
and ;~ ea defined in paragreoh 2 ot thc City of Anehelm Enviro~mental Impact Report
Guidelines and is~ the~efore~ categorically exempt f~om the require+nent to prepere sn EIR.
ACTION: Commissl~~e~ Tolar offered Rasolutlon No. PC7R-2F,~ and moved for it s pessage and
ad~optfon~ that the M eheim City Plonning Conrnission does herehy yrant Petitton for
Varlance No. 306;~ on the b~Yts Chat there w~s e mis u~derstandtng between the Buildinq
Dtpartment and the architect ra~ plllnS submlttod; th at the fence will screen the vlew of
the loading docks Prom the street end thc la~idscapir~g and be~ming wtll add ~o the
seslti~tlcs of the proJect; suhJect to th. candttion that the praperty will be developed
substentlally tn acc~rdancu witli the exhlblt p~esentGd ek the ~ubllc hearlnq; end sub{ect
to Interdep~rtmencal Commlttee recommr~detions.
On roll call. the fo re<~oin~ rosolution was passed by the following vatet
AYES; COMMIaSIQNERS: QUSNOkE, DAVIU, HERKST, KING~ TOLAR
NOES ; COMMI S51 l)I~ERS ; NONE
AtfSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i3ARNkS~ JUtiNSON
(7EM N0. o FU~LIC HEARI NG. OWNCRS; FOREST IAWN CE:METERY ASSOC. ~
t CA CGORICAL EXEMPTIO~~-CLASS 1 P, 0. Box 1151. Glendale~ CA 91209. AGENT; JONN
CQN: ~TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 190-~ HELMICK ANG TIIOMAS SE(30L'aN~ 1225 Na~th Eucl id Street.
Anaheim~ CA 92FiU1. Petltioner requests ON-SALE BEER
AND WINE IN AN f:X15TING RESTAURANT on property
descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land co~sisting of approxim~tely 0.7 acre
having a frontage of approxtmately 167 feet on the west si~ic of Eucl id Street, having a
maxim~~m depth of app~oxlmatPly 175 feet~ bein~ located approximAtely 19~ feet ~orth of the
centQ •line of Rom~eya Drive, and further descrihed :+s 1225 t~orth Euclid Street. Property
presently cimssified CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMIYEU) ZONE.
7here was no one indicatinq thetr presence tn oppositlon to subject request, and although
thc sCaff report to the P~anning Commission dAted N~vember 20~ 1~?J$ was not read at the
pub 11 c hear ( n,y. i t i s referre~! to and made a part of the mi nutes .
John Nelmick~ agent~ was present to answer any qucstions.
THE PUBLIC HEARIWG WA5 CLOSEO.
It was noted that the Planninq Director or hIs autt~orized representative has determincd
that the proposed proJec2 falls within the definition ~f Crtegor(cal Exemptions~ Class i~
as defined in paragraph 2 of the City af Anaheim Envtronmental impact Rapo~t Guidelines
and is~ the~eforr~ categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commtssloner Tolar offered Res~lution No. PC78-766 and moved for its passage and
a~optTqn, that [he Anaheim Ctty Planntng Commissio~ does he~eby grant Petition for
Condi tia~al Use Permi t No. 1~Of>~ subJect to Interdepartmental Commi tt~e recan~endatlons.
On roll call~ the foreooing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSiONERS: BUShIORE, DAVID~ HERBST~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMI SS I OIJERS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ JOtINSON
11/20/78
Y;
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ NOVEMBER 20, t978 78'9~+2
ITEM N0~. PUHLIG HEARING. OWNEKSt ROB~RT l1N0 ESTNER J. C1IRLIN~
~GATIVE DECLARATIOt~ 3672 Llggett Drive~ Ssn Dieqo~ CA 9210fi. AGENT;
0 DE U EMENT ANTHONY INDUSTRtES~ INC.~ c/o John Ha~lan~ 5~71
CONDITIONAL USE~E:RMI~ N0. 1~07 Firestone BoulevArd~ South Gate~ C!1 942Ei~. Petittoner
~cqu~~ts permtsstnn to ESTABLISN A DRIVE-TNROUCH
RESTAURANT WITN ~IAtVF.R OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-
STANDING SIGNS AND (~) MINIMUM NUMB;a OF PARKIN~ SPACES on property descrtbQd as an
Irregularly-sheped percel af I~nd consistlnq of approx(mately 0.5 acre loceted st tha
northeest carner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street~ heving approximete frontaqes of 1g0
feet on the north slde of Llncoln Avenue and 6; feet an the east slde of West Street~ and
further described es 102a Wesk Llncoln Avenue. Property presently cidssified CG~
(COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) IONE.
Thare was no one indlcatl~~ thcir pres~nce in eppositio~ to subJect ~equest~ a~d althouqh
the stdff report to the Planning Commission dateA tiovember 20~ 197ti wes not rc~d at the
publlc. I~ear(ng~ it Is referred to and m~de a pwrt of the minutes.
Joh~ Harle~, Anthony Industries~ agent~ referred to the co~cern over the stacking
sltuatton mentloned In the staff report aa it relates to the parkinq on-s(te and stated he
would ltke to submit thet the stacking as proposed is more then sdequete to me~t thP
requfrements of the site~ and thac the park(ng stalls mencioned as not betng usable
becausa uf the steckiny lane will be used by the man~gement and nat the patrons.
Chalrman tlerbst asked Mr. Harlan to discuss the three signs requested.
Mr. Narlen stated th~y are rsquesting the three signs because of the deslgn of the
building; thet two panels extend out frorn the butldtng Nii1Gh are used for shading purposes
on the south and west frontages to screen ihe sun end ossist wlth the alr•condtt(oning~
and he did not feel the fact that the stgn is attached to the those trvo penels necessartly
makas them free-sCanding and tnJicated he did not completely understand the ordinsnce
rc .dtng that situation.
Chairman Herbst asked why staff had considered this as a free-standing s(gR rather than a
wall sign if the panels are attached ta the building with the cenopy and lt they ara an
integ ral part of the butlding.
Jay Tash(rn~ Assoctate Planner~ axplained they are set back approx(~+ately 8 feet a~d that
they are Indlcating they have logo signs on th~ panels~ and staff felf because of the way
they are situated ;hey are not part af the building because they are a to 10 feet away
from the building.
Chairman Nerbst clar(flad with the petittoner that the gas station would be completely
removed~ and Mr. Harlan replied that it would.
TNE PUBLIC HENRING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King referred to the Traffic Engineer's recommendation that the drivewAy be
perpendlcular to the centerllne of Lincoln Avenue~ which would eltminate one parkinq
space~ and that a ratsed curb be constructed ad)acent to the area for a parki~g spaa .
Jay Tashiro explained the Traffic Engineer was concerned about the area to the east where
a parking space ts ~ndtcated on the plan and that he would like to have that portion
desig~ated for parking curbed.
Mr. Harlan replied that hP would be willing to comply with Chat request.
11/20/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVkMiiEk 20~ 1978
') 8-91+ 3
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIANAL USE PERMIT N0. 1907 (co~tinued)
_~_,,.__._.._____.~
Jdy Tashfro pointed out the Trafftc Enginecr's concarn regardinc~ the driveway on the pian.
snd Mr. Harl~n ~eplled he would ba wtlltng to comply with thrt recomrt~andetton~ also.
Commtssiuner Bushore askcd if the 50-foat lot to thn easC of subject property i~ Included
as part of this plan and tf tl~at property would be using any of the pa~king in~lcated~ and
indicsted he had determined the accounting firm is using that area for parking~ and Mr.
Harlan replt~d that propcrty w~s included.
Robert Carltn~ the property avne:r~ explain~d the parking used by the adjoininq property is
on a month-to-month~ t~m~orary erranyement; that thts arrangement Gould be terminetnd nn a
mo~th's notice.
Gommissloner Tolar pofntcd out with the new ordinance approvhci~ he will have more parktng
spaces than rec~uired and he was not Gorcern~-1 wlth Chat~ but lndtc~ted he did not
understend why the siyns coulcl n~t be made an Integral part of the huilcfinc~ without the
va~iancc. tle stated he was not oppused to the us~~ but was oprosed to the varlance.
Commisstoner dust~ore asked if the sign on the c,orner is wtthin code rcquirements~ and Jay
Tashiro replied that is a free-standing sign and is wltt~in code. He stoted if the
appllcant wants tv place the two si9ns ~n the nK~ln structure~ the varlance would not b~
necessary.
Mr. liarla~ stated the Gommissian wil) bc se~i~y many more of thesc types of reque~ts
b~cause of Title 24 regerd(ng energy congervation which ~K regulated by the State; that
they have trled to destgn tliis ~roJect thc~ best way tt~ey cauld Co have a reasonable
appearence and use materials that wlil gtve them ttie most for their money. Ne stated the
architect had designed the two panels on the west and south sides of the buildtng for
energy conservation and explained that eve ry face of the building has to be looked at in
terms of energy utilization. flc stated they could put [he signs on the wall of tf~e main
st~ucturc~ but did not fecl that wo~~ld se~ve a;~y purpose, Ne stated the panels are
necessary and indicated he dfd not understand the thrust of the ordinance.
Cammissioner Tolar stated the crdinance allows one free-standing sign and if the panels
are tfed to the building~ there would be no problem. He stated there are many more
restaurants simil~r ta thi~ all over the city and the problem fs that ttie other
restaurants wil) want two more free-standtng signs. lie stated he did not have any problem
with the rt~uest lf the panels werc tied to the butlding.
Mr. Harlan stated there Is a complete cover b~etween the panel and the buTld(ng.
Jay Tashiro stated scaff had taken that (nto conslderation; however~ based on the fact
that the panels were located so far away from the main structure~ they considered them as
free-standing siyns.
Commissioner Nerbst stated this is a case where the Planning Commission must examine thc
new sta[e of the art as far as making buildings morp energy conscious. Ne felt if these
panels being separated from the main structure make it more efficient, then maybe the code
should be reviewed.
F~ank Lowry, Assistant Ctty Attorney~ stated staff has reached the conclusion that these
should be considered aa free-standiny signs; however, tnte~pretation of the code rests
with the Planning Commission and if they do not agree wtth st~ff's d~termi~ation, they
should rule a vartanc~ ls not necessary, but, if the Commission agrees, perhaps they would
wish to instruct staff to amend the o~dinance for this type ~f screening which ts naw
requlred under Stat~ law.
11/20/78
~ '
MINUTCS~ At1ANE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NQVEMBER 20~ 1978 78-944
CIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATION AND GONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 190_7_ (contlnued)
-
Cheirmen Herh~st st++ted now that we are qetting Into energy proqrams which r~quire
bulldi~gs to be designed In a ma~~ier to c~anserve ene~qy~ maybe thls should be determined
as part of the buildln~ structu~e end frlt the Plannlnq Commission wlll be g~tttng more
~equesta slmilar to this.
Annika Santelahtl~ Assistant Dlrector for Zoning~ notr.d that under the current code~ if
wall signs are 16 inches or closer and if there Is e foot or so diffe~ence, then staff may
conslder them, depending upon the deslyn~ but that they had discussed this situation and
felt the ~i-fuot dlstance was a little bit more thsn the i~t-tnch code requlrement.
Cha!rmen 1lerbst stated th~ statc of the a~t is changing end wa sh~uld rxemine the code and
(f bulldings have ta be designed in tlils manner and these wails are moved out to make thc
buildtng morc e~ergy-Officlent~ they should be ecceptable. He folt (f this is approvcd~
he would want to s~e It tted to the logn only.
ACTIONt Commissioner King offercd a motion. seconded by Commissloner Tolar and MOTION
CA- R~t~ED (Commissioners Barnes and Johnson heing absent)~ that the Anahcim Clty Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to pc ~mit a drive-through resteur~nt with waiver of
maximum nurnber of free-standing siyns and ,(n(mum number of parktng spaces on en
irregula~ly-sliaped percel of land consisting af opproxlmately 0.5 acre located at the
northeast c.orner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, having app~oximate frontages ot 190
feet on tl~e north side of L(ncoln Avenue and 65 feet on the eest side of West Street; and
does hereby approve th~ Negative Declaratton from the requ(~ement to prepa~e an
environmental impact report on the basis that there wo~ald be no stgnlftcant Individual or
cumulative adverse enviranmenta) imract due ta the epproval af thls Ngget(ve Dectaratton
since the Anaheim Gene~al Plan designz+tes the gubJect property for general cortmerr.l~) land
uses commensurate with the prop~sal; thst no sensit~ve environmental impacts are tnvolved
in the proposal; that th~ Initial Study suhmttt~:d by the ~~etttioner (ndtcat~s no
slgnificant individuA! or cumulative adverse ~~vironm~^ntal im~acts; and that the Negative
Decla~ation substantiating the foregoing findinc~s is ~n file In the C(ty of Anaheim
Planning Departn~enx.
Commissloner Kin~ uffered a motion that tf~r_ An~heim Clty Pl~nning Commfssion does he~eby
grant the request fGr walver of code rzquirements, grantin~ waiver (a) on the basis that
two of the signs wa~~1d be on panels whlch are part of the building and are connected by
framework and granting wofver (b) on the basls thnt the parking will meet the requirements
af the rrvised sc~nCnrds for drtve-through restaurants which aare recently approved.
Cortmisstoner Talar state~i tie would support the motlon if w~iver (a) was not granted on the
basis that kh~ signs will be an integral part of the bulidinq and will bc a logo-type s(gn
only.
Frank Low ry~ Assistant City Att~,rney~ asked if the Commisston desired to grant waiver (b)
and cfeny watver (a) because it ts nat needed.
Annika Sentalahet~ Assistant Oirrcto~ fc~r Zoning~ indicated she would like to ob.iec:t to
that because the cod~ talks abaut build6ng walls whlch enclose the usable space inside the
bullding~ and thes~ walls do ~r~i enciose anything. She stated she has no problem with
this p~rttcular buitding~ but that. och~r developers have come in wtth free-standing stgns
and modlfied their bulidiny ~l~ns sli4htiy (n order to have thern an tntegrel part of the
bullding end she felt ~liis wauld be seitiny a p~ece~ent.
Commissioner 7olar indicate~i he would support the request because the area is not being
used and is just a•planter ar~a and is ~ot usablG space.
1t/20/78
MI NUTES ~ ANAFIE I M CI TY PLANN ING COMhII SS I ON. NOVEMBER 20. 1978
EIR N~GATIVE DECLARA710N AND CONDITIONAL USE: PERM ~ HO• 1907 (conttnued)
Frank Lvwry asked if It wes the Planning Commisslon's dc ta qrant both waivera (~) and
(b)~ and it was ayraed this was their dastre.
Commisstoner David seconded Cammi~sloner Kln,y's motinn ta grnnt both walvers (a) and (b)
ancf MOT 1 QN CARR I E U ( Conxn( ss i ane; rs Eie rnes and Johnson be 1 nq absent) .
Cortanlsstoner King offered Resolution No. PC7~-267 and moved for tts passage and adoptlon~
that the Anaheim City Planning Comnisslon does hnreby qrant Petitton for Condltionel Use
Permit No. 1y0)~ subJect tu Interdepartn~ntal Cammtttee recommendattons.
On rall cell~ thP fareqoing reselutlon was pnssed by th~ following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BUSHOi~E,
NQES: COMMISSIONEaS: NONE
A~SENT: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES,
~i~atrman Ilerbst offered a motion~ secc~ded hy Commisstoner Tolar and MOTION C1IRRICO~ to
instruct steff to look Into thc eneryy problems regardtng des(yn of bulldings with regard
t~ TiCle 24, and if this is going to require separate walls~ thcn the code should be
modifled so that Chey are considerod as part af the structure.
(7EM NA. 10 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: f,ALDEN WEST EQUlTY PROPEP,T~ES,
EIR CA L'GORICAL EXEMPTIOIJ-CLASS 1 INC.~ 393r M~cArthur Eioulevard~ Newport Beach~ CA 92660.
C ND I L E ERM N0. 9q Fetitioner requests Ot~-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN A
ftESTAURANT AND BANQUET FACILITY on property descrlbed
as a rectangula~ly-shaped parcci of land consisting of
epproximately 17.6 acres located at the southwest corner of Paclfico Avenue and State
Colleye Boulevard~ haviny approximate frontages of 1218 feet on the south side of Pactfico
Avsnue and b31 feet on the west side of State C~llegc 8oulevard, and further descrtbed as
192y and 1939 South State College Boulevard. Property presently classified Ml
(INDUSTRIAL. LIMITE:D) ZQ~1E.
There was no one indicatinc~ thetr presence tn opposition to subJect request~ and althouyh
the staff report to the Planntng Commtsslon dated November 20, 1978 wes not read at the
public hearing~ it is reFerrcd to and made a part of the minut~s.
Lloyd McDonald~ 1y77 South State College Boulevard~ Anaheim, was present to answer any
questions.
7NE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was~ noted that the Planning Director or h{s authorized repres~ntativ~ has detnrmined
that the proposed pro~ect falis within th~ definition of Catsgorical Exemptions~ Class 1,
as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidelines
and is~ therefore~ categoricallY exempt from the requtrement to prepa~e an EIR.
AC?'ION: Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC78-268 and moved for tts passage and
a~fon~ that the Anahetm City Planning CommissIon does hereby grant Petitton for
Co~ditional Use Permit No. 1908 subJect to Interdepartn~ntal Committee recommendations.
DAVID~ NERBST~ KING~ TOLAR
~~O~INSON
78-9~-5
On roll call~ the fo~eyoing ~esolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIoNERS: BUSHARE,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A~SENT: COMMISSION~RS: BARMI.S,
DAVID~ HERBST~ KlNG, TOI,AR
JOHNS01.
11/20/78
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEI~BER 2Q~ 197t~ 78-946
ITEM N0. 1) PUBIIC HEARING. AWNERs ANTHONY J. RIVERA~ 6~99
~TR"'~~1~'fTVE DECLAMTI QN Oran C i rc 1 R~ Bu~ne Park ~ CA 9~621. AGENT: COM~IERC I AL
W I R 0_ CODE_C~ CMENTS TRUCK AND AU70, 11701 Car~innl ClrGle~ Gardcn Grove,
ONU 0 RM N0. 1~12 C~ °92G43. Pecftt~ncr roquests permissloc~ to ESTApLISH
A TRUCK BOOY R~PAIR AND PAINT S110P WITti WAIVER OF
REQUIREMENT TNAT ALL IOTS A(~UT A PUBLIC STREET on
proparty d~scrlb~d as a rectanqularly-shaped ~ercel ef land conslstin!t of epproximetely
0.5 acre located north of the Riverside Freowa~y~ epproxim~tely 22Q f~et west of the
~enterline of State Coile~~ Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 233 feet~
and furth~ descrlbod as 1~+21 North Stetc Coll~sge Baulevard. Property presentiv
classlfi~d ML (II~UUSTR111L LIMITED) ZONE.
There was one person (ndica[ing his presence tn opposfti~n to subJect request~ and
a l though the s taf f repo~t to the P l ann i ng Cornni ss i on Jelc~~t IIo~CU~er 20 ~ 1~ 79 was not rcad
at thc publlc hcaring~ lt (s rcferred to and mAdP a~sart of ti~r minutes.
Ty Nietzey, ggent~ statcJ hc has ha~i a ve ry gnod wa~king rclationshlp with the City ~f
Garden Grove at his cxisting bustness and he would like approval of thls request in nrder
to relocete. He Indicated he has dlsrussed the use with the Anahelm Ftre Marshal~ Charles
Kanenbley.
George Warner~ 1419 North State College Boulevard~ A~ahcim~ stated he owned the adJacent
property which the easement passes through and that he hed not recetved notificatl~n of
thls hearing and had learned about it when he had found the public nottce lytng in the
drlveway. Ne stated the whole problem is that subJect property is b~hlnd his p~~perty and
they will have to pass through 20 fcet of lils property to c~et to their property. He
indfcated that at the time the easement was given to that p~operty. there was a small*
famtly-type operetlon using the property and he felt there would be a lot more congestion
if the property Is used for a truck and euto paint shop with seven employees and trucks
going in and out. He was also conce~ned about the responsibility of payi~g the taxes and
upkeep of the driveway with trucks using the eascment, and also the r~sponsibiYity if
there are accidents~ painting out th~re have been near-accida~ts because of the blind
corners. He did not feel thls prope~ty wauld be suitable for thts use a~d indlcated there
would be a lot of nolse from th~ body shop and there woulci be an over-sp~ay with the
painting that would go on outside. He stated as the ~vr-er of the property which the
eaxement passes through~ he would 1(ke co see this use denicd.
Chairman Nerbst explained the C(ty Is required to give only one ;~ottce of the public
hearings but do three and they do that by posttnq the praperty~ adve~ttstng (n thc
newspap~er and direct matl~ and normally all three a~e followed, and he dtd not knor+ what
had happened to the mail.
Mr. Warner p~esented a photograph showing the driveway be!ng dtscussed.
Annika 5a~talahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, expl8ined there is a condltlon that a
parGCl map be filed on this property. and because it Is a landlocked parcel~ an easement
will have to be provided to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's Offlce.
Mr. Warner stated ~hPre ls a recorded eascment on the property and the forme~ owner of
Universa) Plumbing hed given the easement to subJect property.
Commissioner Tolar asked who maintAins the easement at this ttme, and Mr. Wa~ner replied
that he does.
11/20/78
~
~,
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITZ' PLANNING COMHISSION~ t~VENOER 2U~ 1978 78-947
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAitAT10N AND CONDITIONAL USE PEFtMIT N0. 1912 (co~tinued)
Mr. Nletzey stated the ma,lorltY nf his work is on U~ited Parcel vehlcles and thoy pick up
and dellver th~ units thamsalves and they are not looking for business off the st~eet; In
fact~ If someo~,e came in off the street, they would not work on thelr vehlcle, He
explalned they do work for companles such as Ssv-On~ Hertz~ etc.
Commisstoner Tolar esked Mr. Nlatzey to dlacuss Mr. Warner's co~cerns re~arding the
pelnting and outstde work.
Mr. Nietzey repited he had checked wiCh the Fire Marshal and asked to be eble to put In an
enclosed water-wash system en~ tl~ere is no alr pollution wh+~tscx~ve~, and they wi11 not be
dotng any actual painting outside; that they m(ght dc~ a little prtming outstde.
THE PUBLIC HEAa1NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner f3usho~e asked the size of vehicles to be aorked on~ and Mr. Ntetzey replled
they will be work~ng on t~ail~rs and t~ucks.
Commtssioner Tolar pointed out the staff report states thc petiCione~ indlca+tes that
generally all motor vvhicles are sto~ed ind~ors. and asked for cla~ification of the word
"generally."
Mr. Nietzey replled it would be difficult to get a 40-foot traller into the shop ttself
and the trailer would be lefc outside, but that the property is completely hidd~n from
State College ~oulevard.
Cocxnissioner 6ushore asked where the sig~s would be but~the~ad,jacent propertyrownerdhas
understood there is a stgn allowed by the driveway~
taken the pole dvwn.
Commissioner Bushore esked Mr. Werner if he had qrantad the easemen: or if the c:asement
was extsting whe~ he had bought the property a~d stated Mr. Warnerkc~dthepAssistant~Cl*.y
looked into seeing what type of easement this property had~ and d
Atto rn~ay if this is a standard tas~ment and if anyone could use it.
Mr. Low ry stated it is a recorded. non-exclusive sasement on the prope rty which allows
ingress and egress for public utilities and tncidental uses.
Commisslo~er King asked whosn responsibillty it v+ould be to maintain che easement, and Mr.
lowry replied iC would be the resportslbility af the person to whom the easement runs to
maintain it; that thc ter~ant v+ho is burdened does not have to bear tha burden of se rvitude
of maintatning the pavcd area; that the tenant who receives the be~efit Is required to
meintain the burden. He stated, a,yai~ for clariftcation to Mr. Warne~~ the parcel which
has the easement runninq ln its favor, the applicant !n this partEcular case, is requtred
by lerr to malntaln the easement runntng to the strect.
~ommission~r Bushore asked the petitione~ and the adjacent property owner tf they could
live with this arrangement, and Mr. Ni~tzey asked if he would be requtred to repair the
road if Mr. Narner brought tn a vehicle loaded with plumbing supplies ~and broke up the
road.
Cortmissioner Bushore indicated he would be willing to continue this matter for two weeks
in order for the two parties to get together and discuss the probl~ms.
Chairman Nerbst stated he has other reservations abaut the use andlfefacilit Pi~bad for
n~r SIII*A~fIP fer this use: that the ingress i~to the plumbing supp y Y
~~/zo/7s
~
MINUTES~ ANANfIN CITY PLAFlNING CO MMISSION~ NOVEMBEa 20~ 1978 78-9~p
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND_GONDITIONAL USE PCRHIT N0. 1912 (contlnued)
nven his bus(ness; that you are cr~ssing thc frcew~y on-ramp ond it is hard to get Into
the p roperty under the best of c:onditions. He stated hc did not feel the property is
sultable ~r thls truck-type operatlon and polntcd out tl~ere t~ vlsiblllty of thls
prnperty from the nn-rart~. He felt it would be Coo heavy a use wtth the easement across
the freeway on•ramp and fclt problems would be created. Ne ststed hc was surprtsed the
p~titioner had chosen this site with lim(ted access for this type of businass~ pointing
ouC there are times of the d~y from about 4:00 p.m. on when you cannot qet tn or o~~t of
the property.
Mr. Nletzey stated~ agaln~ he ts not looking for business off the street. He stat~d thRy
finlsh r~n average of one wslilcle per day; that thei~ plnce of business has 5~00 square
feet and they gancrally do most of thelr paintin~ tn th~ lnte afternoon so the vehicles
can dry overnight~ be detalled ln the narning~ and generally delivered between 10s00 s.m.
and 11:00 a.m.
Chairman Herbst stated he could not suppo~t the usc wtth the limlted eccess.
Commissioner Tolar explained that whlle this partlcula~ business ts primarfly for the btg
opera~tions~ !f a condlttonai use permit is approved~ economics dictate changes and if
business falls off~ the petitloner could actually start Adverttsing and brtng people in
fram anywhere.
Mr. Ntetzey indicatecl I~e was basing his request on his performance over the last three
years.
Cha3rman Herbst explained that this petitioner migt~t destre to sell the bustness and the
next owner might not follaw the same procedu~es.
Commissto~er Toler stated he would like to see thts business l~cated in Anaheim, bu~ this
is a ve ry unique piece of property and it is a very difficult location~ especially for
this use~ since the parcel Is landlocked. He stated if he supported the use, tt would be
on a limited time basis to s~e haw it wo~ks out.
Mr. Nietzey ind(cated that would not be practical because of the expense going into thc
property.
Commissionc~ Bushore tndicated he feZt the same way, that it should be granted on a
ltmited time basis.
Chairman Nerbst indicated agaln he felt this would be a pAOr use for this property with
tle access crossing the stacking lane of the o~-ramp to the freaway.
AGTION: Commissioner Bushore affered a motion, secanded by Commissloner King and MOTIQN
~D (Commissioners Barnes and Johnson being absant)~ that the Anahetm City Planning
Gommission has revlewed the proposel to permit s truck body repair and palnt shop with
watver of the requiremene that all lots abut a publlc street on a rectangularly-shaped
parcei of land consisttng of approximately 0.5 acre located no~th of the Ri~~erside
Fre.Cway, approximetely 22Q feet west of the centerline of Statc College Boulevard, having
a maximum depth of approximately 233 feet, being lacate~i approximately 223 feet w~st of
the centeriine of State College Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negattve
Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact raport on the basis
that there would be no significant individusl or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of this N~gative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates
the subJect property for general industrial land uses commensu~ate wtth the proposal; that
no sensitive environmental impacts are involv~d i~ thQ proposal; that the Initial Study
11/20l78
~ ...~<.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOV~MBER 2Q~ 19J8 78-949
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND LONQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1912 (cc~ntlnueJ)
submitted by the petttloner lndicates no siqnific~nt lndlvlclual or cumuletive adv~rse
envl~onrr~ntsl ir~acts; and that the Negatlve Decldretton substsntiating the foreqolnv
findtngs is on file tn the Ctty of Anaheim Plann(ng Department.
Commfssloner Bushore offered a motion denying tho request for watver of code requi~ement
that all lots abut a publtc street on the b~sls t~at traffic problem~ would br. c~eated.
Cheirmen Herbst stated th~ property hes an easdment snd there Is no way to correct the
situetfon~ a~cl he has no Quarrel with granting the watver.
Mr. Lowry expleln~d denylny the waiver request could be (nterpreted as preJudice oF
another applicer~t at annthcr time for a use that might bc considered s~proprlate for this
property~ a~~J yrenlln~~ che rayurst wo~1J be an inJicallun to statf that (9` an approprlate
use were found. the Commission would be wllling to go along with It and felt the
Commlsslo~ fs basically aga(nst the condition~l use permit and not thc watver~ a~d stated
there is n~ way thts property could be developed without the weiver.
Commissio~er Bushore asked if it would be better to make that declslon at a later date
wt~en anothcr request comes In.
Ghairman Herbst indlceted he could not suPport the motton for denlal.
Cammissloner Bushore offered a motion~ srcondecl by Comm(ssioner King and MoTION CARKIEU
(Commissioners Barnes and Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commissinn
dc~es hereby grant the ~equest for waiver of the code ~equirement that all lots abut a
public street on the basis that an easement is existlny and the Farcel is landlocked.
Commissioner Bushore offered Resolution No, PC7~-2G~~ and moved for its passage and
;,doptlon~ that the Mahefm Ci2y Pla~ning Commisslon does he~eby grant Pttttton for
Conditiona! Use Permit No. 1912~ in part, granting the requcst for waiver of the
requirement that all lots abut a public street and denying the use on the basis that the
locatlon of subJect property ts not suited for this use and traffic problems would be
created because of the freeway access.
Chairman Herbst stated he thought ~ht rear of this propcrty would have to be developed
with some type of 1(ght use and felt a truck body repatr and paint shop would be too heavy
for this location because of the one dr(veway into tt~e property~ which also supports the
~+lumbing supply business.
Mr. Lavry stated [his property has a,ong hi5[ory of problems; that one of the tenants
adJoining Mr. Warner's propert~e is a highly technical laborato ry with some very dellcate
instruments and this Yype of use adJaining chat property could cause greater problams than
Mr. Warner fias already experienced. and because a body shop can be qutte naisy ~nd could
interfere with the ins:ruments and also the driving of heavy trucks could be a problem.
Chairman Herbst stated che property avner of the front portion shouid buy the rear portlon
to clear up the prob lem.
Mr. Warne~ indicated he has t~led to buy that prope~ty.
On roll ca11~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CaMMiSSI0NER5: BUSHORE, DAVIO, i1ER8ST~ KItVG, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ JOHWSON
11/20/78
k
MIt1UTES~ ANAI~EIM CITY PLANMINf: ~pMMIS510N~ NAVFMRFR 7~, 1~1~~ 7~3-950
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT N0, 1912 (continuod)
Frank Lvwry presented thr written rlght to appeal the Plannin~ Commtssion's d~clsl~n
withln 22 days to thc Clty Councll. N~ nlso exploined to the prop~rty ownor that khe
propnrty Is xo~ed ML for 119ht menufecturing end ltght rru~nufACturtnc~ usos would bc
pormitted as e- mattcr of ri,yht.
Mr. Warner indicatcd hc would llke to leave his address wttli the ~raper party so that he
will recolve futurQ noticos.
RECESS Tliere was a fifteen-m(nutc rcccss at ~:1~ p.m.
i
RECONVENE The mceting rccanvened at 3:25 P•m.~ al) Commtssioners beinq present except
"""'~"~'-'-' Barn~s and Johnson.
ITEM N0. 12 PURLIC HEARING. OWNER: GULF OIL OF CALIFORNIA~
EIR NE.GATIVE DECLA;tA710N P. 0. Box 54~64, Termtnal Annex~ Los Angeles' CA 90054,
C NDI I ONAL USE PE~ N0. 1~13 AGEI~T; U-HAUI. COMP/1NY OF ORANGt CQUN7Y ~ a6~ South
Placcntia~ Placentia~ CA 92670. Petitton~r requests
permission to ESTAQLISN A TRUCK AND TRAILER RENTAL
YARD on property described as a ~ectangularly-shaped parcel af land consisttng of
app roxirt-ately 0.5 acre located at the northwest cc~rner of Qranc~e Avenue and Knott Street,
having approximatc frantages of 11+9 fect on the north side of Orange Atienue and 147 feet
on the west side of Knott Street~ and further descr(bed as ;27 South Knott Street.
Property presenCly classifled CL (CONMERCIA~~ LIMITED) 20NE.
There was one perso~ indtcating their presence ln oppositlon to subJect request~ and
although the staff repart to the Planning Commission dated November 20, 197a was not read
at the p~ltc hearing, it ls referred to and made a part of the mfnutss.
Georgo Nelson~ President of U-Haul of O~ange County, ac~ent, steted thts !s nat a rPntal
yard; that it is a do-it-yourself household m~vi~g truck and trailer r~ental yard and
basi cal ly tliat is a) 1 thcy rent other than complemcntary items to go v~I th househol d
moving; and that they do not rent Jackhammers~ chalnsa~ws~ ar any other equipment. He
referred to the reference in the staff repo~t that the two existing drlvcways located at
the intersection of O~ange Avenue and Knett Street be ren-~ved a~d replaced wtth standard
curb, gutter, and sidewalks snd indicAted they have no objectton to closing the closest
driveway on Knott Street, but feel closing the one on Orange Ave~ue would create a
tremendous traffic hazard for people trying to crass Knvtt Street to ya left, and they
would llke to see the Orange Avenue driveway rematn. He felt peoplC would bn trying to
cross left on Knott~ trying to go north, and the O~ange Avenuez driveway bei~~g open would
allaw them to go out on O~an~e Avenue to go either direction.
Tom SeufPrt, 212 South Ridgcway. Aneheim, owner of the 31-unit apartment complex to the
west on Orange~ stated it seemed a re~tal operatlon of this nature is completely out of
plece wlth the surrounding area which is hlghly concentrated with multiple•famfla
residential units Kith ltght indugtrial on only two corners; that there ts a two-sto ry
apa~tment complex directly to the north and those people would be looking down on the
renta) yard. He asked haw many parking spaces will be provtded and pointed out there is
an ongoing parking problem at the present time. He stated his bastc obJectlon is the
sesthettcs and indlteted he w as also conce~~ed because his carport structures abut
directly agatnst the subJect property and felc they would be unprotected, and even during
11/20/78
~
MINU1'ES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEM6Ek 20, ty78 7$-951
EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AND CONDI?IONIIL USE PERMIT N0.~1~1~ (continued)
tha use of the property aa a~ ge~oline station~ the carports were subJected to ell kinds of
pl~ysical damage and he fclt these trucks and trailers. If the use ts qranted~ will be a
hazsrd a~d felt there should be son~ requiremcnt for protection of his carport structures.
M~. Nelson stated they propose bumper stops alang the property adJacent te the carports.
Ha also IndlGated adequate parking is proposed sfnce nqst people rentfng thls do-It-
yourself moving equipment are prtmarily 80$ one-way and most ~f the traile~s are att~ched
to the users' personal tars, so there is n~ cungestton of eddittanal parktng other than
occasiona) ten-minute (ntervals whe~ cu~tomers are getting c~uotes or buytng boxes relat(ng
to their move.
TIIE PUdLOC HEARIt~G WAS CLOS~D.
P~u1 Singer~ City Traffic Engtneer~ steted he belt~ved the drtveway on Knott Street
closest to the lntersection should be clused end that the 38-foot driveway should be
reduced to 3Q feet~ if allowed.
Commlasianer Tolar stated most uses which have been allaved at thes~ gas statton corners
have been llght and sometimes even constdered to be lighter th~n a qas station; that he
had looked at the site ag~in and was inclined te agree with the oppositian that these ~re
heavtly-traveled streets and felt there would be more trafftc o~ that corner and people
would be rent(ng the trailers for local moNes And vehicles would be parked on-site. He
stated at this point, after lookinq a: the site~ he is baslcaily oppased to the usa.
Chairman Nerbst stated he is also very much apposed to the use; that we have allowed U-
Heul rental in conJunction with service s+tat(ons~ but they could ~at protrude past the
buliding site and this p~oposal is liter~lly satu~ated wlth trallers, and he could ~ot
support this type of rental yard o~ two maJor artertal highways.
Mr. Nelson stated staff hdd instructed tiim to show the maximum use and this is not what
normally would bc located an the site.
Cha(rman Herbst indicated he felt what could happen aould be that there would probably be
this many trailers on thc site.
Commtssioner Tolar st~ted there are a lot of gas stetion corners where the stations have
gone out of busi~ess and the uses which have been allow~ed have been required to provide
on-site ctrculation, anJ he did not think on-site clrculaiion could be provided witl~ the
amount of trucks and Lrailers proposed. He stated~ tn fact. he would not support the use
fo~ half the amount proposed bacause ~~c did not think this would be the right area for a
truck rental operation and it would creatc quite an impact on the corner~ which is already
~ prob lem.
Chairman Herbst pointed out this is no longer e service statlon and that we normally
requlre the canopies and tanks be removed when servite stations are converted.
ACTION: Commtss(oner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded bv Commissioner King and MUT10N
R ED (Commissloners Barnes ~nd Johrison being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Co-miission has revi~wed the proposat to permit a truck and trailPr ~ental yard on a
rectangulsrly-shaped parcei of land consisting of approximately 0.5 ac~e located et the
northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Knott Street, having approxtmate frontages of 14~
feet on the north side of O~ange Avenue and 147 feet on the west side of Knott Street; and
does hereby app rova the Negative Declaration fram the rcquirement tn prepare an
environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental tnpact due to the app~oval of this Negative Declaration
11/20/78
tl
MI NUTES ~.~1NAHE IM C I TY PLANNI NG COMMI SS ION ~ NOV~M~F R 2u ~ 1~ 18 78~y5'=
EIR NCGATIVE pEClARA1lON AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~(c~ntinue d)
sincn the Ana{ielm General Plan de3tgnate~ th~ sublect property for gen~rel comn~rcieil ls~d
usoa commenaurate wtth the proposal; thst na so~s{tlva envlronmente) l~pacts are Involved
!n the proposal; th~t the Inltial Study submttted by thc petitioner Indlcete~ no
slgniflcant Indiv(dual or cumulstlve aJvors~ anvironmenta) Impects; an.~ thet the N~gcttve
Decl~ratlon substantlating the foregolnc~ findings Is on ftle tn thc Ctt y of Anahelm
Planning Qepartmont.
Commisslone~ Toler offesred Resolutlon No. PC78•270 and movod for (t~ passeye a~ adoptlon~
thst the M aheim City planni~g Commission daes hereby deny Petitl~n fo ~ Conditional Use
Permit No. 1913 on the basis that the prc~posed usr. would create a trafflc prablem and on-
site cfr~u!atlan cani~ot be pr~vlded a~~d thie usc would not bc compstiblc wlth thc
resldential area.
On roll call~ the forcgoing resolution was passed by th~ f~llow~nn vot~;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BUSHORE~ DA'IIU~ HERBST~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIO~IERS: NONE
ABSENT: CQMMI SS I ONERS : BARNES ~.IOi1NSON
Frank Lowry~ Assistant City Attorney~ presonted the written rl~ht to appeal the Planning
Gummisston's decislon wtthln 7.? days to the Clty Council.
FRANK L(ridRY LEFT 1HE COUNCIL CHl1HtSEft AND JACK WNITE RE-ASSUMEU HIS C-+A1R.
ITCM N0. 13 PU~LIC HEARI~~G. OW'~ERS: NARR1r S. RINKER ANU IJALl'ER
~i-C~:~iCAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 A. FROME~ P. 0. Bex 7?.~t)~ Newport Oeach, CA 92h5'.
COND QN L US • MI 0. !3 1 AGENT: COL . ~ELL BANKER PROPERT1f MANAGEMENT COMP.WY ~
40~0 MacArthuc Boul~vard~ Newport Be~ch, ~A 92663.
Petittoner requ~:sts aarmission to ESTAf3lISH A
CNIROPRACTIC OFFICE IN THE ML ZONE ~n property described as a rectAng ularly~shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 3.ti acres having a frontage of a~proxlmately 516 feet
on the south side of La Palrt~a Avenue~ having a maximum depth of appro ximately 7a2 feet~
being IocatEd approximetely 563 fect west of the centerline of Imperi a) Hlghway~ and
further descrii~ed as 55~+2 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently c lassifled ML(SC)
(IF'~USTRIAL, LIMSTED-SCENIC CORRIDAR OVERLAY) ZONE.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request~ and althouqh
the staff ~epo~t ta the Planning Commission dated Movember 20~ 1978 was not tead at the
P~bllc hearing~ it Is referred to and mede d part of the minutes.
D~. Rr~bert Atger~ 20 North Royal Place, Anaheim~ tndtcated he was as k ing for a conditional
use permit to permit a chi~oprect(c office in the ML Zone.
THE PUBLIC ~IEARING WAS ClOSED.
Commissioner King asked what a gravi ./ guidance system is as referred to in the staff
raport.
Mr. Alger replied this is a piace of e:quipment designed to aid in spreading t~~e disk
spaces by putting the patient in an upside-down positic,~, and it is operated by an aide in
the office; that it is a bed that is counte ~balanced by the welght af tha patient and the
patient hangs upside-down and exercls~s. He stated h~ intends to have four or five of
11/20//8
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 20~ 1~78 78-9;3
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTI ON-CLASS 1 ANU CONOITIO~~AL USE PLRMIT I~O. 1911 (cnntlnuad)
thaae unlts In eddition to his reguler oqulpment encl sn exerclse area tn the seme room~
and indicetod the plans wil) refiect thts.
Chslrman Nerbst asked why the rcquest for a medical offlc~ (n the tndustrlai area.
Dr. Alqer explalrted he Is primArlly Interested ln industrtal trade bacauae there are so
many people with seve re back problems snd larc~e Jotnt ~rabloms, and that thts locetion is
on ttin fring~s of one of the prlmary i~dustrtal ereas in Andheim snd medlca) emergency
clinics ~re allawed in the indust~lal area~ and this Is a therepeutic-type p~actice. He
statcd thls is a prime loc~ti~n for the Anahelrn Illlls anu Yorl,a Lli~de arcas.
Chalrman Herbst asked t~ow much ~f his buslneRs would be servicing the industrial
commu~tty.
Or. Alger replied he would expect it t~ be ~rpbdnly 5~~; r.hat he wlll be aimfng his publlc
relettons work toward the Indust~lal nreas.
Commisstonor Tolar stated he coul~l not. nec.essarlly agrec. ~his use belongs In an Industrial
area and felt it pl'obebly bel~~ngs in a conxnercial zone. N~ stated thc~re have been
problems in the past with c<~mmerctal offtce type uses in the (ndustrlal zones. He statnd
this is alsa e ~ather large area o,,J asked thc petitioner to explain why hP should have
the prtvilege of locat i~q the co~r+nerclal usa 1~ the industr(al zone.
Dr. Alger stated he fe )t it would be beneficlal Lo the employcr to have hts empleyees who
a~e inv~lved ln an Indust~ial inJury t~ bd able to go to this location br..cause it would be
closer to thelr place af employment end there woulci b~ less time lost from the Job. He
stated most employers do allow thclr employees time off witt~ reasan.
Commissioner King stated the petittoner ~hould be stressinq the polnt that hc is needed in
the tndustrial arca fo r employees in the Industrlal area who liave tnJuries ancf
emergencies.
Chairman ~lerbst stated when a~ employee is hurt on thp job~ most employers send them to an
authorized industrial eli~ic ta starc off witf~~ and (f it Is recommended later that they
go ta a chi ropractor~ tfien they can gn there. Ne stated he ck.as not know of any
chi ropractic cl inics i n tt~e industrial area.
Or. Alger pointod out the ~e is a chiropractic clinic in Placeneia at Mel mse and
Orangethorpe.
Chatrman Herbst state d he knows thC;e are medical clinics in the industrial area fo~
emergencies~ but !~e Just could n~t see the need for a chiroprectic office in the
industrial area.
Dr. Alger pointed out the employer and the insurance carrier can sena an emplo;~ee wherever
they wish~ but after 3O cfays tf the e~layee Is not happy wttt~ his t!C~lCrnert' , h~. can go to
any doctor he des i res .
Chairman I~ei~b~t indicated he realized this~ but he was discussing emer5ency treatrt~nt
which (s needed irtmediately and he dId not feel a chir~practic office wouid fit that need.
CommEgsio~er Tolar fel t that s(nce more than 5~~ of the peoplp ~~ld no: be from the
industrial area, the offtte~ shouid be located in a commercial rne~, ,1 center since they
wouid be brinying peop le int~ rhe area~ and he dtd not Nant to see them brought into the
manufacturing area.
~~ 0/78
Ti i
%
MINUT~S~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, IIOVEMBER 20~ 1~7~ 78•q54
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CGNDITIONl1l U5E PERMIT N0.__1911 (co~tinued)
Dr. Alge~ palnted ouc he (~ going to try to qet tho Industrial-type businees a~d pein tod
out medical cllnics are oxert~t In the Industrinl zone.
Jey Tashiro~ Assoctste Planne ~~ verlfl~d industrir,l cllnlcs a~e pe~mittod In the
industrtal ~ono.
Commissione~ Bu~hor~ pointed out the Csnyon General Nospital would be claser for
emergency•type si tuatlons. He pc>inted out there ero a lot of beck inJurlts At his pl ate
of business and the ~mrl~yer.s cAn yo t~ eny cMctor they desire~ but tf there is ~n
emerqency. they are taken to a h~~spltal end he did not feel rm an emergency basls fo ~ an
industrlal eccidant a chtropractor's office wo~:d be beneficinl and ~ointed out it
probably would belony (n e corm~rcial zonc.
It was noted that the Planniny Oirector or his authorixed r~~resen[etivc has determi ned
that the t~roposed proJect falls within the def(nltlon of Categorical Exempt~ans~ Cis ss 1,
ss dn`Ined In paragraph x of the Ctty of Anahcim Envlronmental Impact aeport Gutdeli ~es
and is~ the~efo~o~ catr.norlcAlly exempt from the requtrement to prepare an EIR.
Commissioner King offered e.esolutfon and rtr~v~d for its passag4 and acb ption that t h~
Anehelm City Planninq C~mmissian does hercby qrant Petition f~r Conciittonal Use Pe rm it No,
1911 on the basis that it fs needed in the Industrtal area for emrsrgencies, especial ly for
back inJurtes.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution FAILEO TO CARRY b•,~ the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIO~~ERS: KING
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSNURE~ DAVID~ HERBST~ TOLAR
AIiSENT: COMMISSIONGRS: BARNES~ JOIINS~I~
~~mmissioner Toler offered Resoluttan No. PG7~3-271 nnd moved for its t~assage Tnct adoptton~
tiat the Anahe~m City Plenning Conmission does I~erehy deny Petit~on for Conditional Use
Permit No. 191'. on the basi: that it would be a~ tntruslan in an industrfal area.
On ~~11 call~ the foregoing ~esolutian -~as passed by the fo114wing vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: 9USNORE~ DAVID~ HER85T, TOLAR
NUES; COMMISSIONERS: KiNG
AEiSENT: COMMISSICfItRS: BARhIES~ JONNSON
Jack White~ Deputy City ACtorney~ presented the petitioner tl~e a~~itten right to appeal tl~e
Pianning Commtssion's dectslon within 22 days to the Clty Council.
11 /20/78
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ NOVCMI~ER 20, 1978
r
~s-9ss
ITL'N N0. 14 PUDLIC NEARING. OWN~R: LAS TIENDAS DE YORDA~ 363
~t C~EG~ORICAL EXEMPTIO-~-CLASS 1 San Miguel Orlve~ Newport ~each~ CA ~2G6~. AG~~~T;
1 DI ON E PERM N0. 19) TRI-K FOODS~ II~C. ~ 1887 Wost L(ncn)n Avenue~ Anahelm.
Ca. 92801. Patitioner reGuests~ ON-SALE aCER ANO WINE
IN A PROPOSED RESTAUaANT on property descrlbed ss a~
Irreqularly-shaned parcal of lend consisting o~ approxtmately 5.0 acres located at the
northwest corner of Santa Ana C~nyon Road and Impe~~e) Highway~ and havinc~ appraxlmate
frontages of y00 faet on the north side of S~nte Ana Canyon Road and 52Q feeC on the west
slde of ImporlAl Highway. Prnpe~ty presently classffled CL(SC) (CGMMERCIAL~ !1MITE0-
SCENIC COitRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
There wes nu one Indir.Acinh thelr nresence in oppositlon to subJect request~ and although
the staff report to tl~e Planning Comm(ssion dated t~ovembG~ 20~ 197~ was not read at the
public heartny~ it is referred to and made a part of the minure .
Don Krumwlede wrs present to answer Any qu~~stions.
TH~ PUf3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was noted that the Planning qirector or his authorized reFresentative h~s determined
that the propoaed p roJeGt falls w(thin the definition of Cateqorical Exemption:e, Class 1~
as defined In paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmen .1 Irt-pact Report Guidelines
and is, therefore, categortcally exempt from ttie requirement to arepare ~n EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner David offered Resolutl~n No. PCJ$-272 and moved fnr (ts passage and
a~opt~on~ that the Anaheim Cfty Planning Commission does hereby grant Petltlor or
Conditlonel Use Pe rmit No. 1914, subJect to Interdepartrnzntal Corrmittee recommendatlons.
On rull cell~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY4:S: COMMISSIOIaERS: E3UStI0RE~ DAVID, NERDST, KING~ TOL.AF
NOES : COMMI SS I O~~EHS : NOF1E
A(3SENT: COMMISSIONERS: EiARNES, JOHNSOt~
( i t~:m 17-A was heard bcfore 1 tem 1Fi. )
17EM N0. iG PUB~IC tIEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~
E t'I IVE DECLARATI01: 204 East Lincoln Avenue~ An~heim, Ca. 92305, to consider
GENEitAL PLAf1 AMENOMEti7 N0. lA~i Alternate proposals of ultimate land uses ~single-
- family and multlple-famtly residential, commerclal~
offlce an~' industrlal) and combinatio~s of these fo r
the following ereas:
I Recta~gularly-shaped area consistin~~ of appror,imately 17.0 acres on the e3st slde
of pale Avenue~ bordered an the north by the Santa Ann Freeway.
II Irregularly-shaped area conslstiny of approximately 11.9 acres at the northwest
corne~ of La Paima and Magnolia Avenues.
Itl Rectangularly-shaped area consisting of approximately 31.~ acres on the eas[ and
west sides of Webster Avenue betwe~n Oranqe Aven~~t and Ball Road.
11/20/78
a
MI NUT~S ~ ANAHE IM CI TY PLANNING COMMI SS IUN ~ NOVEMBER 20~ 197~ 78-9~6
~IR NEGATIVC DECLARATIOIJS ANO GE~~EML PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 1~i8 (continuod)
IV Rectangulerly-ahoped area consisting of approximately 10.5 acres botween Muller
St~eet ~nd Crescent Way~ located approx(metely ;0~ feet north of the centorline
of Ltncoln Avanuc.
V Irregularly-shaped erea c.~nslsting of ~pproximately G7 a~:res an the west side of
Manchester Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue.
VI Rectanyularly-sl~~+ped aree c~~i~sisting of approximately 14.7 acres on the west slde
of Walnut Street. l~~cated ap,~roximately f~5~ feet north of the centerllne of
Cerri tas Avenuc.
Y11 Rectany~~',~rly-shapr.d area onsisting of approximAtely 1`;.5 ~cr~~ ,~~~ the east s(de
of Acacia Street, I~cated ~nproximately 13~~ f~~t south of the centerline of
Orangethorpe Avenue.
VIII Rectangula~ly-sh sped ares consisting of aprroximately 17.f, aGres at the southeast
corner of Vermont Avenue and East Street.
IX ~tectangularly-shaped area consistln~a of approximately 3~+.?. acres on the west side
of State C~lleye Buulevard. located approxtm~~tely 715 feet north of the
centerl i ne of lia 1 1 Ruad.
X Irreqularly-shaped area cansisting af approximately 37.~ acres at the ncrtheast
corner of Wagner Av~nu~~ ~nd Stat follege Doulevard.
XI Irregularly-shaped area c.onsisting of approxlmately 2.~ acres on tt~e north side
of La Palma Avenuc: between thc Oran~c and Rive~side Freeways.
XII Rectangularly-shaped area c~n5isting of approximately ~.7. acrrs at the northwest
corner of Lincoln Avenue and !tia Vtsta Street.
XIII Ractang~larly-shaped sreas cansistiny of approxtmately 27..9 acres at the
northwest corner of Oranqethorpe Ayenue and Kraemer Boulevard and 1+.1 acres at
the southeast corner of Orangetf~orpe Avenue a~d Kraemer Boul~vard.
XIV Irreyularly-Shaped area consisting of approx(mat~-ly 28.8 acres located on the
east and west sides of Tustin Avenue, north of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
XV Rectangularly-shaped areas consisting of approximately 3.8 acres at the northwest
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drtve, 13.5 acres at •he northeast
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Orive, 3nd 1.4 acres at the northeast
cor~~er af Orangethorpe Avenue and Post Lane.
Amendment to the Circulation Element evaluating the following areas:
XVI Lakeview Avenue/Crescent Orive l~etween Sanka Ana Canyon koad and Nohl Ranch Road
(propused deletion).
XVII "Fantasy Way" between Ball Road and West Streat (proposed deletion).
It was explained that Ite-~ 16, General Plan Amendment No. 148, ts basicalty to take care
of housekeeping problems ~nd br(nging zoning (nto conformance with what the existing us~s
on the p ~r~pe. r ty .
11/20/78
MI~~uTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~~N~ r~ObEM~ER 20~ 1978 !~-`~S1
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND GENER~~L PLAN AMENUM~NT N0. 148 (contlnued)
Tl~e staff repnrt to the Planning Commisslon dated Novertt~er 2~~ 1g78 wus prosentcd~ noting
this General Plan ame~dment consists of i~ separate land use cases~ Areas I thraugh XV~
and twa sepnrat~ circulatinn cases~ Areas XVi and XVI1.
Joel Fick~ Assoclate Planner~ suggPSted that the Planntng Commisslon cc~~sider and discuss
the lend use and ctrculatlon elements separately.
The staff report nc~ted this is a City-inltiated rec~uest to bring the General Plan
~esiy:~atlons for these 15 erAas (noted above) within the City Into conformance w'ch the
exi ~. r. i ng zon i nc~ and 18nd uses ; that the p roposc:d s tuciy areas we re chosAn due to the i r
substantlal size And/or signlficant locatlon; that the proposed land uses olements are
ch~nges to the General Plan land use designatlons only and would not oltr,r cxis:ing zoning
desl,yr•~atlons; and tliat ~ny reclasstficatl~ns of zonlnn for lndivldual parcels would
requlre subsequent public I~~arings.
Mr. Fick noted that ly exh(blts were prepared and labeled Exhibit A for each area an.~+ al)
reflc:ct the existfny zoniny and land uses far each area.
ACTIt~N: Commi~sioner David offered a moti~n~ seconded by Commissloner King and MATI~tJ
~~D (Cortmissloners Barne~ and Johnson be(n~ absent)~ that the Anahelm City Plannin~
Commisslon has revtewed the proposal for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the
Genera) Plan on Area~s I through XV as described above and dnes hereby recommend to the
City Council that a Neg~tive Declaration from the req~irement to prepare an environmental
impact report be approved on the basis ti~at there would be no siqniflcant indivlclual or
cumulative adverse envlronmental (mpacts due to the spproval ot this f~egatlve Oeclaretion;
that no sensittve envi~onrt-ental Irr~acts are involved in the proposAl; that the lnittal
Study submitted by staff (ndicates no siqniftrant indlvidual or cumul~tive edverse
envlronmental irrp acts; and that the Negative Declaratian substantiating the foregoing
flndings is on flle i~ the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
Commissioner David affered a mo[ton~ seconded by Commiss(oner King and I~OTION CARRIED
(Carnnlssioner~ Darnes and Joh~son bein~ absent), that Exhibit A be appruve~i for Areas I
through XV.
Lirculation Eiement Anal sts. The staff report ~ndicated the Circuiation Element of the
G~:rrera P an sets orth the , arametcrs (roadway ,~idth and general tzed location) of
arterial highways wltf~in the Clty of Anaheim and tl~e ultimate sphere of influence {areas
anticipated to bP ar.nexed to the Clty). It is proposed by this amendment to change the
Gu~rent designations of the following existiny and proposed h(ghways: Area XVI - Lakeview
Avenue/Creacent ~rive betw~::cn Santa Ana Canyon Road and Nohl ~anch Road (deletl~n) and
Area XVII - Fantasy Way between Ball Road and West Street (deletion).
It was noted one p~rtion of this req uest (Area XVI) wa5 initiated by City Counc(1 members
during the consideratlon of General Plan Amendment No. 146 on June ~0. 197II. At that
meeiin~~~ the City Gouncil et the recomn~ndation of the Qlanning Commisslon approved a
revised Circulation Eiement to the General Plan. Altfiough this revis~d plan proposed a
nurrber of chanres~ one itesm w~iich had not Geen previously discussed at the Planning
Commission meet(ng was the ~elction aF Lakevtew Avenue/Crescent Orlve between Santa Ana
Ganyon Road and Nal~l Ranch Road~ and C~uncil members at the pubiic hearing provided staff
with direciion :o proceed with said de~etion. Subsequent to that rneeting~ staff in the
City Attorney's Office pointed out that Section 9Q6(a) of the City Charter reyuires thai
the Plannir~g Commission hold a public hearing and make a recomnendattan on such an
amendment prl~r to its conslderation and adoption by the City Councti.
11,~20/78
MINUILS~ ANANEIM CiTY PLAI~NING COMMISSIGH~ NOVEMBER 2.0~ 1~78 1~'95a
E l fi NECAT I VE DECLARAT i 01JS AND GENE RAL PLArI AMENDMF.NT N0. 148 ( cont i nued)
Joel Fick explained that the Ilil) and Canyon Municlral Advlsory Conxnlttee (11ACMAC) had
reviewed Area XVI at their meetinq of November 7th and racommended deletl~n of th~+
Lakevlew Avenua extanslon~ and that a lettor has been ~occived from the City of Orange
retommcnding egotnst th~ deletlon~ and from the County af Orengc racomm~nJing agelnst the
deletion u~less an overpass ts provided at Kn;logg D~~ve. Fle ir.dicated the Traffic
Englneer would ilke t~ make addltlon~l corrwn~+nts concerni~n Lakeview Avenue.
Peul Singer~ City Traffic Englneer~ stated the Engtneering Department at th~e present tirr~
has no obJection to the remc~+al of I.~keview AvRnue alfSnrr~nt from thc General Plan
provlded~ howevar~ considerAtlon be given erid thls removal not bc made final unt11 the
County Agrees to remove It fr~m thcir Gener~l Plan in ~rder n.~t to ieopardlze fundinq for
hiyhwbys and road ~_anstructi~~• rom the County.
Chairman NGrbst clarlfled~ In other words. If we delete it frc~m our Goneral Plan and the
County does not deletc It frani cheir General Plan, thr,n the funds would b~e i n.~rdized.
and stated tl~e Planning Commisslon sl~o~ld racommend the Clty of An~~helm remc i.akev{ew
Avenuc frcxn thel r General Plan sub.~ect to the County removinq i t fram the County of Orenge
General Plan.
Commiss~one~ Tolar indtcated he felt this Is a political f~otball and did not know why the
Planning Commission (s cuns~dering ft, and Jack Wh(r.e, Deputy City Atrorney~ clar(ficsd the
City Charter req ulres a publlc hearing.
Cha) rmarti f~e rbs t s tated the P i ann i ng Commi ss ion recommends that i t~e de 1 eted s ub Ject to
the County's deletiny it from thelr General Plan~ and the declslon wlll be up to the Clty
Counc(1 as t~ whether or not to remave it and _ieopardlze the fu~dinq~ and that the
Planning f.~mmission wants to brinc~ this to thc Councll's attention,
There was a brief dtscussion between the Commissfoners regarding deletion of Lakevicw and
whether or not it sl~ould be deleted from tl~e General Plan. Chairman Nerbst indlcated if
the Plenning Comrnlsslor recammends to the C~ty Council that it be deleted, it should not
be deleted untll tt~e County deletes It from their G~neral Plan in order not to jeopardtze
funds for other areas.
J~el Fick clarifie~ his understa~ding of the Planning Cartmisslon's desire that there be no
change to the General Plan for Area ~(VI at the present time.
Chairman lierbst replted that the Plan~ing Commisslon will recommend to the City Counctl
that it not be removed from the General Plan until the County remaves !t from thelr
General Plan and that we recommend to the County that it be remaved since the City wants
to remove It.
Commissioner Tolar indicated that loqlcally he did not feel It should ever be removed.
Chairman tierbst asked hvw far dc~nstream is the develapment of che Kellagg overpass?
Paul Singer indfcated theoreticdlly the Kellogg overpass would relieve congestlon at
Imperial Highway.
Commissioner Tolar asked Mr. Singer, in his ~pinion, do we still necd Lakeview to go
th rough .
Mr. Sing:~ replled obvinusly Lakeview Avenue between Sar~ta Ana Canyon Road and Nohl Ranch
Road w~s put there for tfie reason of providing circulation in the qeneral hill and canyon
area, and that was the original concept and the conc~pt has not changed; however, due to
tt/20/78
M I NUTES ~ A~~AI~E I M C I TY PLAN~~ I Mf, COMM I SS I ON ~ NOVEMBC R 1A ~ 1~ 7(i IA~9S9
~iit NEGATIVC UECLARATIUNS Af~U GENEML P1A11 AME!IDMENT N0. 143 (contlnueJ)
other consickratlons besides traffic. that de~letlon is beinq :orside~ed bec~~use of
nelghborhood dlsrupclon~ etc.~ but it was pla~~d thare to ~~roviJe clrculatlon,
ACTION: Cha(rman 1lerhst offered a motion~ secondcd by Commisaloner tula; and MQT1011
~~ (Commissioners E3arnes a~id Junnson boing absent)~ tl~et th~e Anahelm C(ty Planning
Commisslon does hereby rr.command to the City Cauncll that Lekevtew Avenue in its present
configuratlor. on ri~c City of Anahelm General Flan b~ cltmin~t~d. hut only eliminAted
sub,ject tu the County of Orange making their recammend3tinn that it br. ellminated from the
C~unty of Oranye ~enc~al Pl~n~ and thet some altcrn~te ~~utr.~ such as thc Kellogg
overpass. bQ desiyned tc~ I~elp rellove traffic circulatl~n in that are~; and approvinq
Cxli(bit A f~r llrea XVII of ~ene~~l Plen Arnendment ~~o. 14u.
Commissionr,i• David offureJ ~ mutiun~ sec~~nJeJ ~y Comm(ssl~ner King ~nd M~TI~-1 CARRI~D
(L'orrmiss(oners ~erncs end J~hns~n bPing AhSP.n~~ ~ that the Anat~eim Clty Plannin ~ Commission
has reviewed the subJect pr~posal for an amendrnent to thc Clrculation Element of the
Gen~ral Plan for t!~r_ arcas of Lekevicrr Avcnue/C~escent brlvc hCtween Santa Anr f,~ny,~n R~ad
and I~ohl Ranch Ro~d and Fantasy Way between Ball Road and West Strcet (Areas XVI and XVI'1
and does iiereby recommend to the Clty Council that a Negative peclaratton from the
requlr'ement to prepa~e an environmental impact report be a~,proved on thc basis that there
would be no slgnificant lnclivldual or cumulatlvs environmentAl tmpacts due to the approval
of thts I~eyattve Declaration; that no sensitive environmental tmpacts are invalved in the
propasal; tf~at the Initlal Stu~iy submltted by staff indicatps no si~nificant Indivldual or
cumulatlve advnrse envtronmental impacts; and tl~at the hleoative Declarat(on sub~tantlating
the fnregoing find~ngs is on file In the Ctty of Anaf~eim Planntnq Department.
Cummissioner flerbst offered Resolution No. PG7II-27} and moved for (ts passage and
aclop[lon~ that the Anahelm City Planninq Comm(~s(on dacs hereby rec~rn~nend ta the City
Counctl that Exhibits A b~~ adopted far Areas I tt-rough XV of the Land Use Elemen[,
reflecting exfsttng ~r emr~rqing zoning and land «ses; that n~ ctrange be adopted for Area
XVI at the present time, hck:e:pr. that Area XV~ b~ deleted from the Clrculatian Element ak
such tirne as the County of Ora~~~• has maJe a recorm-endetion to delete subJect arteria)
highwey from the Qrange County Ge~cra) Pian and that an altcrnative route~ such as Kellogq
overpass~ be designed and approve~' to help relieve rraffic congestlon in t~~e area; and
that Exhibit A be adopted for Area XVII~ reflectinc deletion.
On rol l cal l~ the foregc~ing resolu ion was passed hy the fol lc~wing v~te:
AYES: C011NISSiONERS; E3USHORE. D,~VID~ NERBST~ KING~ TdLAR
NOES: COM~ilS51QNERS: NONE
Ag5E1~T: COM~•11 SS I ONERS : BARNES, JONNSUN
ITEM N0. 17
REPOR NU RECOMMENDATlONS
A. CANDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 155$ - Request for ret~•oactlve extension of tlme.
The staff report to che Planninq Commiss~on dated November ?.f1~ t978 was presented~ noting
subJect property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of la~d c~nsisting of 3ppreximately 1.3
ac~es located at the southeast corrar of Santa Ana Street and Atchison Street, and that
ti~e appilcant (Ray Sieyele; requesta e retroact(ve extension of tlrtr for Conditional Use
Permit No, 1$5d,
Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ pointed out two letters were recelved endorsing subJect
requesx~ one from MCP Foods and one from Kwikset which are adJacent to subJect property.
ttl20~78
4
MINUTES~ l1NAHEIM CITY PI.ANP~ING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBf.R 20~ 197H 78-9fiQ
REPUaTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - 17CM 2(conti~ued)
~---~
Ch~lrmen Ilerbst aaked if any informat(on I~as b~en received fr~m tho Fire and Poltca
Departments rngarding whrt ls being done to satisfy th~ eondittons.
Ja~ T~:~;iro ~xplainod that the staff re~ort Indicates the exact v(olr~tians And actlons
taken to correet thes situetlons.
Commisslonar Dav(d .~skecl f tl~e vlolattons cited in tl~e staff report are uld~ And Mr.
Tashiro replted that i Fire Depertment has Indfcoted thc citatlons were issued through
Decen~ber 1G~ 1~77 anci che conditlons have bee.i rrx~t; t~owevcr~ they have also indicated the
nature of the busln~,s (s messy and in the past they have hacl problems with the management
1n qetting some of ~he re~ulrements taken care of; that house'eepfn~~ has been ~n ongoiny
problem and thcy ave to remind the mana~cment of the _ondit(ons and this has been going
on for the pASt !ear or su. Ile uuln[~~~1 out thc Zoning Enforc~mrnt Offiter has issu~d four
v(olations wh(~~ are list~d In the staff r~port. ~nd he has also Indlcated tt has been an
ongoing situat~on.
Chalrma~ Herbst polnted out there h-~ ~ been about nine violetions slnce 1~77. F~e sLnreA it
is not the purpose of the Pl~nn(ng Conrnission [o put anyone out of business; that If this
business coulcl be operated witl~ gc~od hause~:eep{ng~ wl~ich seems to be the ma.jor problem~
this wauld not be necessary~ and asked I~r. Slegele whet 1~~ plans to do to correct the
situation.
Mr. Sieyele indicated the Inspectors will be coming to his nl+~~e of bus(ness on a reg~~lar
basis because that is thetr Job~ and he I~as n~ obJecti~ns ta that. Ne stated a btg
prob lem has been that tl~cy I,ave had a prob lem wi tl~ housekcepi n~ and ttiey have made a lot
of progress In that regard~ but the b(ggest prablem has been a lack of specifics.
Corn~nissioner Dusl~ore stated he had yone to the pro~erty with the Zon~nc~ Enforccmnnt
Officer and the Flre De~artment repre3entative and they had related prior vlolatlons and
made recommendat ions co hi m, and lie u~ul d not di sagree wl th the recortmen~~at I ons si n~e they
seemed to be lagical for eve ry body's safety; that thev had expressed thls opr_ratlon is
taktng a great deal of their t(me away from other areas and businesses in the City; that
they have told the petitione~ to qec th~ operation clcaned up and they have t~ keep going
back to remi nd hi m. He stated tl~e Ff re Department woul d 1 i ke to see tlie pe. ~ni t revoked
because of the ongoing p roblems.
Commiysiu~~er aus>>~re felt some speciflc yuidelines must h~ rr~de for the petit(oner to
follcw and lf he does not follow them~ then the pe r~ni2 sh~uld be revoke~~ but if he does
follow th~m, then the Fire tlarshal and Ioning Enf~rcement Officer wtll not have to qo back
to his operation so often and it will nct be a burden on the City and he can continue to
operate with a conditional use permit on a time period~ wltt~ a review evcry year. Ne
stated he wou1J offer some specific recommondations to become part of the conditional u~+e
permlt and if hlr. S~egele is willing to ablde by those conditions~ f~e coul~ come back next
August lf3th and asi~ For a~~other extension of time, and he felt the recommendations he
would make would benefit the petitioner in the lon,y run.
Chairman Herbst aslced if tl~ose rec~mmendations included in tt~e staff report would be part
of th~se recommen~fations.
there i s
Commissioner Eiusi-ore indicated he-r~en~d-*eee~nMend•tl~e!-tF~e~e-be no on-site parking due to
storage of rags and materials; that there are supposed to be 17 parking spaces. but you
cannot get 17 cars there, and felt those parkiny spaces needed to be marked and kept clear
at all times Px~rpt f~r err~loyE~ and customer parking and th~t there ~iould be no storage
of any type ' •ose parking spaces. He stated the prohlem of large trucks parking on the
public righ r~ay would be so{ved by t~aving an area specifically marked for loadin;
11/20/7$
~,
MII~UTES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNINC. C~MMISSION, NOVf.MDER 2(1~ 1~7A 18-961
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIO~IS - ITEM A(co~t inurd)
It4ms or mat~rlals inat are to go off the site~ and that area would I,e within the
boundaricss. IIe steted tl~e fence needs r•ep:~i r elong tfie r~~l 1 raad track on the east
property lino and the~e is also a getc that needs rcpalr on Snnt~ ~e Street~ and he
thoughC that gate was blockecl on tl~e other side witf- stbred mat~ria~s; in fact~ khe wh~le
prnperty ts blocked su that i~ fire truck of tndey's sixe could nat ~von g~t (nt~ Che
property. Ne steted paper trash is not Falletized o~ baled and the Zaning Enforcement
Offlcer has furth~cr Indicated the t~forementloned has 5een an onc~oing problem on th~~
SU~)3CCC propcrty end It Is goinq to be an ongaing problem, b„ felt if there is .~
rocQivlny area marked for each separate material~ such as paper, aluminum~ et.:.. thot
problom would bc cllminated.
Commi ss i oner 8ushore fe) L those re~ommendat (ons by the FI re Department wt~ i ct~ ~re
speci f(cal ly mention~d As part of the Ft re Code sl~oul d t~e incorp~ratPd Inco the
recommendations and the petitioner must obide by th~se recummendAtions~ and if ~~e ts r-Ut
wl 1 1 1 ng to rio Chat ~ then the permt t can be revol:ed. Ile fe 1 t the Ci ty has t~een ver/
Ienlent from what hc has obse~ved and th~t the petitioner h~as made a va) i~ e. `ort to clean
up the place~ but three and one-half years of accumulation couid n-~be corrected in a very
short perlod oF time. II~ state.d tl~e petitioner needs to do some asr~r,a~c pavlnc~ bQCause
since the heavy rains thcre Is still a lot of water and cars could not yet throu9h and the
big trucks coi~ld not get In. He felt there needs to be some r•oaJways lined through the
property and people wl~o are trying t~ makc deliv~riPS kept Ir~ those areas.
Chalrman Herbst asked how much cime should be qranted the petitloner in order to meet th~
conditions.
Commisstoner Busf~ore stated if the petitioner could vet th~ operatlan into order by Au~ust
i$th~ 1979 and :ome back for review~ the Commisslon w~utd havs a leash on the operatlon
with the Flre Marshal~ etc.~ and if there are no further vtolatlons or if there is a
vlolatlan and he carrects It~ tl~en wr will knaw he Is making a valld effort to co~r~ct the
situat(an; that the first time he ~ets a violation there is nc~ problem~ but (f he does n~t
correct It and gets a secnnd vi~latlon~ (e would be a problem. lie scated ths extension of
time cnuld be granted to August la~ 1979 to determine whethPr or n~t the petittoner Is
go i ng to cor ~ec t the p rok~ 1 erns .
Mr. Siegele asked what are the conditions being referred to. Ne indicated he has reached
the point where he has ta deal witl~ speclflcs. He tndtcated lie would be more than willing
to do whatever he could within reason.
Ghalrmen Nerbst asked about the problems which have been mentloned by rhe 'lontn~
Enforcement Officer regardiny the drtNeways and on-site parking.
Mr. Siegele indicat=d fie daes have semi trucks in and out of the p~operty ail the tfine.
He i~dlcated t~e has 17 parkinq spaces, but only six pc le who drive cars, and asked lf he
would have tu keep all 17 spaLes ava(lable.
Chairman Herbst ~ointed out h~: would need parking spaces for customers, and Mr. Siegele
indicated the custor^~rs do not park, they drive in one qate and out the other.
Cammiss(oncr Bushore pointed out the reason the custort-ers are parktng on the strr~x and
unloadtng thelr matrrt~l is because they cann~t get into t,.e property. He felt if Farking
spaces were provided and ic was madP mare convenlent by having designated areas '~or
lo~ding and unloading, then the custorners could aet into th~ p roperty and th~ parking
spaces shnuld not be considered as wested spaca, He stated by having these designated
parking spaces. a buffer would be provided between the area wherc the material is unloaded
and t: areas wf~ere the people are ~~ot supposed to go. Ne indicated he did not see ve ry
11/20/78
~
MIMUTES~ Ai~a~flM CITv PLANNINr, COMMISSION~ NOVEMBFR ?.0~ 1~78 78-962
aEPOaTS At~D RECOMMENQATIONS - ITEM A(contin~ied~
much o~qenizatlon et th~ operrtion. He stated if the materlels that are to g~ ~ut could
be staeked in a doslynated arna~ th~n other mat~rlals would not have to bc moved in ordor
to take those metnriols out.
Mr. Slegele stated some of the Ideag mentioned by Mr. ~ush~re werP good And some were not
practical; that he neods latltude in hsving des(gnr~ted areas for all the materiels; that
he admlts he has not ha~f an iJeal organiration 811d F1A5 hed same pe~sonnel problems and
ctlnnot find anyone to take some of th~s responsib(Ilty; that lie has had efficiency oxperts
who cema in with somc good ldeas which he had abendoned; that over th~ last thrnc years I~e
has had nn specifics; that the City representa'ives ~~a•~ him e letter fndicAtt~~g h~ had
three wecks to correct cr.rt~in problrms and then thre~ ~inys later had pulled the rug out
from under h(m; that he ha~u comp) led wl th 7~;~ to ii5x nf al l recortmendations. but could not
spend thousands of cfollars ta rrwke these improveme~ts witn tl~ts thrP~t hanging over h(s
heod.
Chairman Herbst pointed out there are cercain conditions which were part of the oriqinal
condltlona) use permit and there ore the ca~~ditions af the Flre Department which the
petitionor is awarc of~ and tl~ese prc,bl~•,ns cited arc (n viotation of thr. origlnal
candttlona) usc ;-ermit, but that Commissioner Bushore Is wtlling to offcr a rnotlon for an
extensio~ to August l~i~ 1~J9 in order to give thc petitioner suffic(ent time to correct
these ittms and to mect the conditihns of the F(re Uepartment.
C~mmis~iuncr 6usl~~re stated before e ~ffered a mation for an ext^~sion of time. he wanted
addltlonal condit(~ns added ta the ~~rfgfna) perm(t ~nd the conditlons rnust be spelled out,
such as 17 parking s~aces me:ening 1J parF.ing sDaces and not a place to store recyclable
material. Ile poin[ed out tl>> petitioner is shreddin~ paper wl~lch is in vlolatlon of the
oriqinal permit, and It sl~oui,i he amcnded; tliat he has no obJections to the stireddf~g
since he (s ooing (t at a desi~natad area inside the facility and It is prof;t3ble for
h i rn .
Mr. Siegele cr^lalned hc had stipula[e~1 to not shrec! on .~ question frQm t;~c Sanltntlon
Divisan reyarding Chc baling operation and thcir c~ncern that pape~ would bc blowing from
an outdoor operation. He explained the baling operat'on is o~~:doors, but 'che sf~redding of
newspapers for wrapring purposes is not an outdoor ope~Atton and is done Instde.
Chal rman -lerbst sald he had nc~ obJec[ions to this operatiun as lon9 as I~c mer.. the Fi re
Department's ccnditions~ and Mr, Siegele indicdted tney have bpen d~ing this for two years
and the Firc Department was not aware of it un~il r~cen;ly~ so they have been doing a
clean opert~tion.
Annika Santala~iti. Assistant Dlrector for Zo~ing, ~x~:lalied the specific cond(tions of ttie
cond) t ional use permi e- tated any ~~.~tc -i al s stored c~uts i a sii:il 1 be baled and pa) leti zed
and none of the materials shall '•~ sliredJed, as stipulated to by th~~ petitioner.
Chairm~n 1lerbst stated since t~~ shredding opcration has 5een 'nside, the Commission could
state that ts 1~ compl(ance with the origtnal condition~l use permit.
Cw+xni~sioner ~'ushc~re asked ~~r. Sicgele if he has a designated area where hc uses a welding
torch r.o cut u~ material~ and Mr. Siegele rep'ted that they do not cut up material. He
stated the only t(ma they handle anythiny large ls when someone br'ngs in an old washing
mar.hine or something similar to that alcng wtth other materials~ ind(cating they thought
this was a one-stop recycling center.
Commissioner Bushore indi~ated he had se~~m some welding tarches and felt those should be
in a designated area because of the fire hazard.
11/20/78
MINUT~S~ At~PHEIM ~iTY PLANNINf, COMMISSIUM, NOVEMBEH 20~ lo7A 78~q~3
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - I7EM A(c~ntlniied)
~
M~. Siegele Indlcated thc welding torches are for repalrs. He stated It would be rathe~
difflcult tc~ have e designated area for usirg thc~e torches sinc~ they take the welding
torch to wherevar tl~c equlpmr.nt Is broken down.
Commissiar,er t3ushore polntc~l .~ut if the matcrtals were separated~ thls would not be a
problem, fie statecl if they are not using the welding torch to cut up materinls to be
y.:ng out~ then he would have to say It Is Alrtght~ but if they arc usinq Ic to cut up
recyclable mater(als, then it must be in a design~ted area.
ACTIQN: Commissioner Hushore offered e motion th~* ~' ~~~iuest for an extenslon of time
~e granted, subJect to the following: 1) that ~ ioner cnmply with all conditlons
of tli~ orl~ilnal wnditic,nal use prrmit w(lh the c on of thc shrndding which will h~
allawe~~ in a desiqnated area inside the facillty~ ar~u sa~ci erea so marked; ~) that all
recommendattons noted by the Fire Inspector or the Zoning Enforcement Officer s!~all he
complled with w(thin such tirr~ ~+s deemed arproprtate by sald inspector ~r enf~r .ement
officer and~ under no c(rcumstances, shall the petitlonc~r be cited for thc same vlolation
twice (clar(Fied that ~nce a violatlon has bhen c~!c~ and the petitloner has corrected It.
he shoul d~-ot commi t the same of fense aqa i n) ; 3) tl~at the F i re 1 nspector and Zon f ng
Enforcement Offtcer shall furnlsh the Planning Cortmisslon witti all (nformatlon recyarding
violati~ns and the approprlate corr~ctions made~ Includtng all p~~.t recommendations; W)
that the lJ parkiny spaces requlred under the origlnal t~nditlonal ~~se permit must be
marked and kepr clear at all times except for ernp;oyee or customer veh{r.les~ a~d there
sliall be no automoblle or material storage in cliose desiqnated spaces; 5) that a:~peclal
tustomer unloading area shall be de5ignated In order to keep the customers from roamtng
all through the area; G) tha[ the dtrt portton ~f the property shall be black.topped with
yellow-~lined areas Lo designate thc drive-thr~ugh for customers and the c~~stomera thrll
not be allowed out of those design~ted dri~~-th rough arcas excepc fn the par~in~~ areas and
recelvl~g areas. and the roacfways r 5~ be malntained at 20 fer.c a~d kept clear at AI)
three gates (n order to accomrrodate emergency vehicles; 7) that employec-only areas shal!
be pASted and no customers allowed in that arca; and 8) that the property shall be posted
so that no one will be allowed on the ~ropcrty barefoot.
Mr. Siegeee asked wh~t he should cb when somcone comes on the propertv barefoat~ and
Commissioner Bushore replied he should tcil them t~ put shoes on ur leave.
Mr. Siegele indicated he has a limite~ a.~ount of control over the people wha can~ on the
property and that peopte ~jo smoke~ and asked w{~o would enforce these conditions. Ile felt
tt r~uld b~ Ju:,t his luck that the Zoning Enforcement Officer or a Commissioner would have
to con~e on Che property at Just that xact time.
Cummissioner Bushc~re added tl~at the entrance should be posted for customers only in
desig~ated areas e~nd that no bare feet would be allowed. !le stated, and not es part of
his motion, that ~n any areas posted for no s~roking the petitioner could not expect the
public nor his own ernployees not to smokc if he ls smoking. lie included as part of the
motion that there will be no smnking by ar~, employec or cusio~er nnd painted out he
considered Mr. Siegele as ar~ empioyee of this bu-iness. He stated ail of these conditions
must be complied with by August 18~ 1~~79, and if any conditions I~~ve not been met ar there
have be~n any v(olations of tha same cude or violations which have not been co~rected, he
would recommend at that time that the conditional use permlt should not be extended.
Comnissioner King seconded the motion.
Commissioner David asked Mr. Siegela if all these conditlons are acceptable.
11 /20/ 7~3
.
~
MIIWTES, ANl1W~IM CITY PLANNING I,OMMISSION~ NOVEMfiEF '~~ 1~,~~3 JE3-964
RCP04T5 AND RECOMMCI~UATIOf15 - ITCM A(conti~ued)
Mr. 5legele statc~l the C~nditions are all acceptoble with the exce~~tinn of the blacktop
eiid it wou'd be very dtff(cult to achieve that hy Aunust; that he has to spend a~reot
dcai of money at the present time, anJ hc dnes Intcnd tc~ b'a~~.to~ Lli~ entire are~~~ t~ut lt
wc~uld ~e dlfflcult to do et tlie present ttme.
Commissioner fiushore esked haw m~ch he could accomplisf~ by August lt~, 1~179~ and Mr. Stege~~
(ndicatec~ It waulcl nat t:e prACtlc~l to do part of the ~AVinc~ hec.ause of th~ dralnage~ etc.
Cha i rman He rbs t s uye~e, ted dec~mposecl ~ rAn i te wh ( ch wnu 1~I ~~ i ve r~ ~~nod hASC fnr b I~cktop
latcr on.
Mr. Siey~le indicate~l they di-1 nut in sonr; ~~ravel ttnd indicate.l he has a su(table
alt~rnativc to blac4:top~ wliicl~ is as~>halt rur~f trim t~hs which wUr~;s out we11. Ne
indlcated the rc~commenJ~~tions maJc hy Cornmissi~ncr Uushorc Are rcason~ble If a certain
amounr, of carnm~n sense can be ~pplied~ such as to the desi~nete~l I~ading anci unloa~ing
are~s~ polntfnq out he h~d discussed this ~1itl} Carimis4loner l3usl~~re.
Corxntss(oner Tolar indicated he was going to abstain ~n this hearinc~ since he was nat
presenc at the Navcrnber E~th ~r-ectin~. Ile pointed out he has been on the Cornmissipn for
f i vc yeArs ar~d has neve r sesn any rr~re i en i ency ~ t~~en towards he 1 p t n~ a,;ynn~ And has se~n
conditiunal use perrnlts revo~;ed fc~r Ics3 than tt~(s, He qucst(uned wliether or not this is
a good locatlon. He f~lt if the petitt~~er had more sp~ce hP w~uld not have so many
problems. fie stated unless everytliing Is complted with~ hc will not suprnrt an ex~enslon
of ctme. Iie Inditatcd ttiat mayhP a better locatla• for the amount of money Mr. Siegelc
indicetes he has to spend would ba a yood idea; that hc would not spcnd $10~~~0~ on a
{ocation if he was n~t sure he wnuld be thcre for ~ long timc.
Mr. Sigete :ndicated this is hrecisely why a lot of t1~c work has not been donP; that he.
has no intention of spendina [hat kin~i of rr~ney ~~nless he Intends to sta~~ there. He
indicated i! he cuutd itnd a larger facility~ hc~ woulci be interested~ but in the C{cy of
Anaheirn there are no such areas, Ile indicated he had ~,vorked for about flve years to find
thls location and lie has no tntention of p~~tting any mcmey into it if he isn't sure he tan
make it work. He stated it has bPen exceed(ngly difficult f~r him co get credit and spend
mon~y never having an3• specifics In regard to recomn-endetions.
Comnissioner Tolar pUlnted out he felt tfie~c conditions are very explic:it.
Mr. Siegele indtcated the condition requirinr~ bl~cktopring would be extremely dfffic~~lt
fnr him to handle at Chis time~ and Commission~r Bushore indicated he was will(ng to amend
his rrbtlon to reAd the back 5~ feet~ or sometl~ing like that, but i~ fs goinq to be all or
a portton~ not all or nonc.
Mr. Siegeis suygested tliat the motion reac; a csrtain perceRtaye and let him pick the spot~
or the souLherly ~+0 feet to be paved wlth blacktop or concrete.
The fore9oing MOTION GARFiED (Commissioner Tolar absta(ning a•.J Commissioners 6arnes and
Johnson beinq absentl.
t1/2~/78
M 1 f1UTCS ~/1fl~tlC I M C I TY PLAPIN I ~i~. COMM I 5S I 0~I ~ NOVEMUE R 2~, 1~?78 7~'96S
B. Nt1~K~RK DUMP SITE - Proposed salc by llie County af Orange.
Assoclete Pl~~nner i:ob I;e~ l~sy presentcd the staff repor~t to the Planntnq Cortxnisslon dated
Novr.mbr.r Z~~ 197'i. which indlcates tti~ County of Orenqe Real Estr+te Ulvisinn propases to
sgll tl~e lanc1f11) known as tlie Newl:irk Dump Slte and tl~ta prapertY conslats of 20.'~ acres
locAted i~twdcn tlie Santa Ana Rive~ and the Riverside Fre~way~ west of Tustin Avenue; tliat
tiie area is indicetnd es Oper Space o~ the City of Anohelm Generel Plan and Is within the
erea of Pro)~ct lllpha ~i~d is als~ tndlcAtNd es Oper~ Space on the Redevelopment Plan; that
ttie site r-,~ld gr,nerally he used for agricultural or r~creatiorel purpnses unde~ the
exist~ng open spece dcsiqn,~ti~n; and chat i[ wnuld ~e necessary to obtaln approval of a
~~~•ieral "'an arnendment befr,rr. tl~e nr~pcrty could be sold for any other use.
Chairman Herbst asked ~~:~~~ut the soll ~:ondltlon al the ~+resent time r~~gardinq meth~ne qas
and if the County lntr.n~'s to sel) chis, whnt do they incer.d to use it for~ ~nd what can it
be used far?
Mr. Kel ley repl icd thot tl~e County do~s not liave a customer~ but is proposinq tc~ rut the
propcrty u~ for bid~ an~l stat~d tfiey I~avc (ndicAted t~ h(m they are yen~ralty atqua(niPd
with the problem~ but have not prc,iided srecific soils re~orts. Ile stated the C(ty of
Anal~e(m has advised tliem that tlie pr~perty~ If it is to be us~d for arything othcr *.han
Op~n Space. would require review of an envi~onn~ent~il ii~ar_t and much more extensive
docurn~ntatian Ir~ ad~ltic,n tu a Gene~~al Plan arnendment, and as it is nc~w~ it c~uld
generally be used for oaen snace purpos~s,
Chairman Ilerust ~ndieatpd hc recoe~nizcd the State some[in~es sells prap~~ty and lets the
buyer bewere~ ard felt we should specific~illy inclicate the County should advtse any buyer
that there is a posstbility of inetliane gas; that even tf it is desiqnated for Open Space.
they might want to use it for storage ~r something of thot sort which could sttil have
problems, and r~ferred to a dump in Orange ~.yhich actually cauqht f(re and hurned for a
long t(me.
Mr. Kelley indtcated f~e believed this dump sttc was used for inert refuse~ and Chairman
I~erbst replled it was used as an ord~nary dump sitc and t~e has dum~~~1 things there
himself,
Mr. I:ellev (ndicated it would be appronriate to include a reconxnendatlon of this sort in
the r~c~runenJat(on to the Orange County Real Estatc Division.
Ct~airman Ilerbst felt thc p~operty could possiblv be designed for some type of storage,
sucti as a b~ Ick yard ~r sometf~ing of ti~at sort~ but that i t takes a lon~ ctme for the
methanP gas to dissipate.
P1r. Kelley stated [t~at during a p~evi~us Ge~era) Plan amendme~~t hearing, this land was
considereJ as a candicJate for industrial purposes~ hut that proposal wa5 dropped. Ile
stated it is conceivable the site could be excavat~d at considerable expense.
ACTION: Commissianer King offered a motion, seconded by Canmissioner David and MCTIQIJ
CAR IEU (Corn~nissic~ners Barnes and Johnson being absent), tnat the Anaheim City Planning
Commtssion does hereby find that the proposed sale of ttie Newkir4 Dump Site will not have
a siyniffcant effect on tfie environment provided that developnsen± plans~ includinc~ sigtit
screening~ are sub)ect to approval of tlie City of Anaheim Planning Canmission; that ~he
proposed saie af the Newkirk Durr~ 51te is in conformance with the City of Anaheim General
plan, provideJ that any subsequent use of the property is in conformance with Cf~apter
1~,~8 - Open Space Zone of the Anal~eim Municipal Code; that any proposed use of the
praper*.y whict, is nat ir~ conformance w{th Chapter 1~3.3~ - Open Space Zane of the Gtty of
!1/2~/7$
MINUTl.S~ AP1ANk.IM GI ~Y PLANNIIJC, GOMMISSION~ HOVEMBF.a Z~, 197~i Jt3-~GG
RLPORTS AI~U RE.COMMENUATIOIJS - ITEM !i (cuntinued)
Rn~lielm Munictp.~l G~d~ shAll he sub.)ect t~ Approvnl of e GenerAl Plon arr~ndn~ent and on
assass~-wnt ~f tho environmenta) ir~pact in conformanr:e; with thr. Callfornia Envlronmcntel
QuallCy Aet and the Clty of Anihclm EIR Guidclin~ti; t~nd tii~~t tlic huyer af thr. nr~pe~~ty
shall bc alertod ss to the s~~il cnnAltiqn .~n~i any huil~ltnc~ sit~: wauld f'~~ve to l~c
excavatcJ.
C, GO~IU1710!lAL U5'. PLRMIT N~), 1)~~ ' RCqUCS[ f~r .in cxtenSlnn c~f time.
Tlie st~~ff r~~,nrt t« tl~~ Pl~nninc~ Cornm(SSi~~n d~tcd N~~~~rnher ~:'1. 1'17~; was ~~resented~ n~tlnq
5~bject p~~~~~rty is an irre~~ularly-shAned ~,t+rcel of l~~nd cunsistinq of ~~(-~re~x(mAtrly ;.~
ee~es locl~tr.~ on the no~th side of Katella Avr.nue b~twe~~n Hastr.r Street And M~fn~.hester
Avnnuc; tliet the applic..int re~~ucsts n rr.troactlvc ~xtr.n5icm of time for C~nditlon~l Use
Permi~ No. 1~G3; that sut~ject conditional us~ (~ermit (to estAhlish a h~ill for vnrlety
sl~~ws~ Iectures, n-e~:tln~~s, dr~nci~s~ etc.~ 4~Ith an on-sal~ Ilquc~r est~~Glishment In an
exlatiny structure at 1 J11 Soutii Mencf~ester llvenu~) was ~p~rove:~ t~y the Planninq
Comm(ss(on on Octoi,cr 7~ 1')f+o, subjcct t~ tf~e cor5dltlon that Ct~e pctitic,n is granted for a
pcrlc,d of ~nc~ year, aftcr which timc (t shall k~e rev(ewed by thc Plb~nin~ Oepartment staff
tu determ~ne what effcr.t thc uses ~f the pro~erty havr. had nn the arca, whethcr parking
has been adequate~ whether dedtcatlon of Ilaster StrGCt is ~ecded. and whether further
~ublfc hearinqs sh~ula be scheduled to determinc whethr.r t'~e use should be contlnued. If
n~ public heoring ts held and the petitfoner de~ires t~ continue the use of the property
for the purposes requcstc~i~ he m~~y rc~~ucst an additional one-yc~r r.xtenslon of tlme for
the uses `rom the~ f'l~nninq Commisslon; that no ~PP~irent d~l~terious effects have occurred
bnd parktny appeArs tn bn adequaite; And that ten ~revious extenaions of time have been
grented, the last one ex~irlnq on Ottober 7, 1~71~,
,1ay Tashi ro~ ASSOGI~~t~~ Plann~r~ pc>Inted out the refcrenc~~ in thz st~~ff re~ort under the
recommendatlon concernin~~ the Code vlolati~n sliuul~ t,e eliminAted.
ACTION: Commissioner lCing offered ~ rnc~tiun. sec:onded t,y Commissioner David and MOTI01~
C~RRICU (Commissioners Uarncs and .lohnson heinc~ absent)~ thni the Anoheim City Planninq
Gommisslon does hereby yr~~nt a retrc~active extension of timc for Conditfonai Usc Permlt
T~a. tOG3~ tU cxpi rc October 7, i`a7~).
U, VAItIANI.E N0. 2iS4~1 - P.equest for ai- er.tension uf time.
The staff re(~ort to the Planning Cammissfon dated November 2~~ 1y78 was prPSented~ nating
subJect Nroperty ls a rectangularly-shaped parcel ~f I~and consistinq of aprroxl~tely ~.~
acre located at the norttri+eet cnrner of La Palma Avenue arid Fountaln 41ay. having
approximate frontages of 12~ feet c„~ the no~th side ~f La Palma Avenue and 15~ feet on the
west side ~f Fuuntain Way; tl~at the applicant requests a one-year retraactive extenslon af
tirne for retall sal~s of sandwlches in the ML Zone; that subjer_t variance (.o permit the
rctail sales of sandwiches in the ML Zane with walver of mintmum number of p~rking spaces
and permittod us~s) v~as granted by the Ptanning Commissian on September 27, 197b. subject
to the cond(tlons that there will be n~ coc~king of food ~n the premises, that there will
be no sit-down facilitles~ and no food will be consumecl on the premises; that the hours of
operation will be between 9;0~ a.m. and 4;00 p.m.; that inspection of subJect property by
steff indicates conformance with the afarern~ntioned conditions; and that one prevtous
extension of time has been granted which expi~ed on September 27, 197g, and no complaints
have been recctved about tha subJect use.
11/20/78
MINUTkS, ANANEIM CITV PLANNING COMMI55;01~. NOVEMQER 2A~ 197Et ]8-9h7
REPOaTS ANO R~COMMEN~~ITIONS - ITEM D(cantlnued)
ACTION: Cammisstc-ner King offr.red a mcatlon~ sec~nAed by Cammissi~ner ~avid and MOTION
CA'RRIEU (Con~;~~ssloners BA~nea end Johns~n beinq nbsent) ~ tl~~~t th~e An.~heirn C Tty Planninq
Commisslon does hereGy grant a retro~ctiv~ ext~nsion ~f tlm~ fpr Vartrnc.~ No, ?.G~~9~ to
expi re Srptamber 27~ 1979.
C. LONU~TIONAL USC PERMIT N0, 1Q7?. - Rcquest for an extensi~n of ti~~e.
The staff report to thc Planning Comm(sslon dAcr.d Novembcr 7.c1~ 1.37Fs wns presented~ n~ting
subJect ~rop~rly iy aii irrug~larly-shaped parcei ~f iand c~nsistinq of npproxlm~~tely !,,~
acres locatad on the n~rth side ~f Katella Avrnu~ betwoen Nestcr Str~et an d Manchester
Avenue; that the eppilcent requests a retroactive extr.nston nf tin~ for Co~dltlonal Use
Permit Wo. 1~72 which was approved by thc Planniny Cammissfon c~n f~overnt~er 4~ Ih(~1t (to
establ(sh a bus Jepot in an existing structu~e wtth waiver of the maximum n ermltted
projectlon ~f a wal l si~~n) suhJect tn the condttlon that the petttion Is granted for a
period of one ycar~ after whl~h timc It shall he revtewed t~y the Pl~nnlnq Dep~irtment steff
to dotermtne what effect che use of th~ property hes tiad on the ore~~ wheth er park(nq has
been adequAta, wliether dedlc,aCian of ~iaster Street ls needed, And whethCr further public
hearings shall be Gonsidered. If no publtc heArinq is held an~l t.he petitioner dcslres to
continue the usc of the prorerty for the pur~ase reqursted, he may rcquest an additional
ono year for the use from the Pl~~nninq Commisslon.
ACTIOt~: Commis5ioner Tolar offered a rnation~ secc~nded by Commissioner K(nq ond M~TIpN
A~tR~IED (Cortxn(ssioners ddrnes and Johnson being absent) ~ thnt the Anaheim C(ty Plannlnc~
Cammission does hereby gra~t ~~ retroact~~v~ extcnsion of time for Condition al Us~ Permlt
No. 1~)72~ to uxpire on Novembcr ~+, 1~79,
F. VARI~>NCE N0. 2G~~3 - Request far en extens;on ~f time.
The staff report t~ the P 1 ann i nq Commi ss i on dated November 2~ ~ 1~37f~ was pr~scnted, not f ng
subJect property is an ir~e~gularly-shaped ~arcel of land conslstinq of App roximately 0.4
acre~ lacated on thc n~rtheast corner of Center Streec and Manchester Avenue; that the
p titioner requests an extenslon of time fo~ outdoor storage of used automobile supplles
and parts; that subJect varience (xo perm~t the outdoor storage af used a~~tomnbile
sup~iles and parts with watver of off-street par~ing requ(remr.nts) was app ~oved by the
Planning Cammisslon on October 3~~ 1974~ for a period of two years~ sub_~ec t to rev{ew and
consideration for an extension of time.
ACTIOt~: Commission~er Tolar offered a mation~ seconded by i,4nmissioner David and MOTION
A~IEU (Commissioners Barnes and Jolinson beiny ~bsent), tt~at the Anaheim City f'lanning
Commiss(~ri does hereby grant a two-year extensian of time, retroactive to October 30~
197~, to expi re OcCober ;0, 13E0 f~r Vari ance No. 'LG~i s.
G. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. ~05 - Request f~r approval of revised plans.
The staff rsport to the Planning Comnission dated No~ember 2~, }97Q was p resented~ noting
subject property is approxirn~ately 4.6 acres haviny a frontage of 3;2 feet on the east side
of Euclid Strpet~ havtnn a maximum depth of approximately 6~7 feet, and being 982 feet
north af the centerline of Grescent Avenue; that the applicant requests ap pru~~al of
revised plans; that subJect conditionai use p~rmit (to establlsh a theate ~ and ten-story
11/20/78
MIIIUTC~~ A'1/111EIM CITY F'L/~~INING COt11115S10-I, IIOVCMf1f.R 2f1~ 1~7~j
RCPORTS AN D_ REC OMMENDAT I ONS ~ I T€M .G (con t i nued)
~t~-~~~,1;
offlce bulldiny wlth walver of p~rking requlrarn~hts) was approved by the Pl.~nning
Commisyian on Navember 27~ 1°,',~~ and chat the revlsed plan~ I~dlcote th~~ appl !cent Is
propasing ta const~uct tw~., tw~-story office bul Idings r~~ther than tht ~rlglnel oroposed
tc~-story ~ffice b~lldln~.
J~y Tashlro~ Ass~,ctr~te Planner~ po(nted out since the c~rtginal r~quest d(d not ~equlre
rovlerrr ~f the envi ronmental impect e~~d . 1 th thc~ prop~sed ch~nge~ staff woui d' ~ke the two-
waek cont(nuance in order ta rav(ew the envlronmental im~act.
ACTIOIa: C~mmissl~ner Tolar off~red a motion, seccmded by Commissloner Davtd and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner~ Bernes and Johnson be(ng absent) ~ tl~at c~nslder~tlon of revised
p lans for Cond i t i ona i Use Pe rmi t No. ;Oy be cont inued for tvm weeks ~ to the reguler ly-
scheduled mee[ Tng of December ~i~ 1??8~ for review of ihe envi ronmenta) impact .
11. ABIINDONMENT N4. 7G-22A - Request to absndon a portion of dedicated roedway
tommo~ y nc~wn as oronado Street batween Van 9uren Street and La Palma Avenue.
The staff report to tlie F'lanning Commisslon dat~d Novorr~er 20, 1978 wes pres~nteJ, noting
subJect roquest ko ebandon e porclore of e dedlceted roaAway commonly knc~wn as Coronado
Straat betwee~ Van Buren Street and la Palme A~enue; thr.t tt Is recommended the Planning
Commiss(o~ epprov~ this requcst and recommend a~proval by the C1 ty Counci 1~ subJect to
reserving unto the Gity of Anahelm a publ (c utl l ity eesement toqether wt th an eesement for
sanitary sewer itne~ storrn drain and water line purposes over, under end ec~oss all ~f the
roadwsy area prop~sed for abandonment to accommodate extstin~ facil(t(es and resarving
unto tho Pac( f t c Te lephone Company an ea~ement to accortxnodote thel r existing facll i tl es as
deflned (n the legal description over~ under and across the northerly ; feet of the are~
of said roadway; that th(s request has becn revtewed by al) depertments of the C(ty and
affected outside egencies and approval Is recommended sub)ect to khe abave reservatton~;
that sn ~nvlro~mentel revlew of tt~e ebandonment (ndicates this request to be categorlcslly
exempt from the requirenrent of filtng of an EIR; and thet the dedtcacion of sald Goronado
Street was acqui red at the ttme of recordatfon of the Nazard Subdtvtsion lots es shown on
a map recorded i~ Book 2~ pagc 2~ OffiGial A.~ords.
ACTI~N: Cor.^~issloner King offered a motion, seeonded by Commissiona~ Dav(d a~d MOTION
~~1~D (Cartmi ssl~ners Barnes and Joh~nson being absent) ~ that che Anaheim Ci ty Pla~ning
Commtss ion doe:s hereby recommend to the Ci ty Counci 1 that Abandonment No. T6-22A be
approvcd.
TEMPORARY ApJ7URt~MENT The meet(ng adjourned for dlnner at 5:1~ F•m•
RECO~~VENE The moettng reconvened at 7:00 p.m, ~ Cortrnissloners Johnson and Tolar befng
absent.
11/2Q/78
a
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 20~ 1978 1$'969
IYEM N0. 18 CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARIN G. OWNERS: MA6EL J. DAUER
E1~11 ~MEN~AL IMPACT aEPORT N0. 21G AND UNITEO CALIFO~tNIA BANK~ 707 Wi lshi re Boulevard,
~ Los Angeles~ CA 9c10;1. AGENT; KENT IANQ COMPANY~
~ 17a81 Sky Park Norti~y I ~vine~ CA 92714. Petttioner
rey+~ests reclassifica~to~ of prope~ty described as
an irregul~rly-sh~pnd pa~cel of land consist~~g of approxrmetely 37S dcres located south-
east and sou~hwest of the Intersection ot the Rtverstde F~~e~way and Welr Canynn Raad~
having a frontage of approxlmdtely 6~20 feet on Santa Ane Canyon Raad~ having a maximum
depth of epproximotely 34~0 feet~ and further described as the Beuc~r Ranch~ f~om the
County al (GENERAL AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICT t~ the PC (PLAN~~E'h COMMIJNITY) ZONE.
Subject petltlon was conttnued f~om the meetings of June 19 and October 23~ 197$ for the
submisslon of revised plans.
Robert Nen~inger, hssistont Planner~ explalned tlie Bauer Ranch proposal was first
discussed before the Planning Commisslon on June 1g~ 1978 and at thAt timc thc r~atte~ was
contlnwed in order for tt~e petitioner to f(le revised plans ~vhich were in conformance with
the Cenyon Area Gene~al Plan; [hat the praposel is f~r a plai~n~d co~rtnunity (PC zoning)
which alla~rs the Planntnc~ Commisslon to approve an integratec' land use plan for a large
parcel of land conslst(ng of a number of dlfferent zones; that sometlmes these are all
re±sidantial zone~s and sometlmes a mixturc of reslde~itial and eomir~rclal ~ and thls proposal
has a mlxture of restdential and commerclal. He stated the P~anned Community zontng~ once
lt Is granted~ ls an intermr.diate step toward the final building permit process and
betwe~ , t t and the I ssuance of bui l d i nc~ permi ts ~ there i s neec; Por approva l of spec l f t c
plans ~nd in the case ~f most resident(al areas~ these specifi c plans would eonsist of
tent+~tlve tracts wh(ch narmally are conditlo~ed or, !+av~ng flao~~ plans~ elevatfons, etc.y
approv@d.
Mr. Henn i nger preson ted s 1( des wl~ i ch cons i sted of a 1 ocat ton rr-~~p of the Baue r Ranch wh i ch
is generally south c~f the Intersection of ueir CAr,yan Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. He
polnted out the approx(mate Itmits of the extsting ufban asea, the Eucalyptus Drlve area,
and the parcels between. He stated at the present time there is an annexation pendin~q
befo~e the Local Agency Formatton Commission (LAFCO) which repr~asents the biggest
annexatlon i~ the history of the City, which would include the i)auer Nanch and the
remalnder of the Anaheim 1~1I1s development and portions of th~ ~lal lace and Bept(st Church
p~opertles, and he polnted aut thase areas. He presented the Ca~nyon Area General Plan~
with the 8auer Ranch property included~ and polnted out the w~stern portian af the
propcrty is dGStgnated hiilside estate denstty w(th highcr density land uses clustered
around the intersection of Santa Ana Ganyon Road and Weir Canyon Road~ with comnercial on
the ess t s i de of Wei r Canyon Road and to the ~as t h f ghe r dens i ty res ( den t i a 1 and open
space. t1e s tated the pet i t i one r has taken the gene ra 1 1 zed 1 oeat t ons shown on the Gene ra 1
Pl~n and through a process whtch included review of the site, engineering a~d topagraphic
considerations~ etc.~ cart-e up wlth a development proposal whi eh the petitloner feels
~eflects the lntent of the plan~ both in terms of preserving the natural envtronment and
developing generally in a manner thie plan foresaw. Ne presented the original proposal
which showed hillside estate density to the west~ law-medium dens~tty uses also west rf
Welr Canyon~ and open spece Lo preserve Weir Canyon as a natural area~ with cc~mrnercia)
areas between Santa Ana Canyon ibad and the RI vers i de Freeway . Fle stated the general
al location of land uses from thosR as shown exactly o~~ the Gener~il Plan were wel l wi thin
the flexibi l lty the Plan would al low.
He presentec! the revlsed plan graphic which is a further refi nement of the orlginal
proposal which tncludes the maJority of the hillstde estate d~nslty west of Weir Canyon
Road and the h I i l s 1 de 1 ow dens i ty re 1 oca ted to the wes t of Ne i r Canyon ~ 1 ow-med i um dens i ty
wnst and east of Wei r Canyon, and the medium densi ty reiocated tf~e furtherest easterly
11/20/78
MlNUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PL,ANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 20~ i978
1~•970
EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATIOM N0. 77-78-6~+ (continued)
portlon of the property~ snd stated basically they have nbved all hlgher dena(ty uses
furthar eaat and ~o~centreted low4• denstty cx~ the westerly portlon of the property.
He then p~esonted the origi~ally-propnsed zoning end IndtcateJ a maJor problem ~t the
o rigina) hearing on June 19 had beon with the zoning dnd it wds gene rally the feeling thnt
the land use eliocations were not Inappropriste, buc that the zoning was nat an effective
way of Implementiny the land uses propased. Ne palnted out thr. proposal was to Implement
the hillsidc eatate density on the western pa~tion of the property, with RS-HS-22~000~ RS-
HS-10,000 and RS-7200~ wlth qultc a bit of RS-72t1~~ ~nd It was 9ener~lly feit the RS-72Q0
was not what tlie pld~ h~d cencelved. Ile stated the other problem was that the hillslde
low-rtw dtum density srn~s had baen proposed for RM-2~~00 which is more dense than generally
considered for the hillside low-med(um dpnsity l~nd uses. He stated the current proposal
for zoning rerresents a considerable change from the original proposal which was for 1~35Q
untts and the present proposal is for only 900 units. He pointed out a chanye In the
staff report In that prevl~~usly staff had found it ve ry difficult to say~ and, in fact~
dtd not say~ the proposat was In conformance with the Genaral Plon~ and now thsy are
sayiny~ (n staff's opinlon~ tl~e reductlon from 1~J5Q to ~00 unlts is enough to bring the
plan Inta conformancc with the General Pien. He stated the zoning now ts perhaps more
app ropr(ate to Imple ment the land uses planned.
He stated a maJor tssue othar than land uses is that access along the maJor arterlals has
not been addressed~ and indic~ted it Is possible fram the grHph(cs presented on the wall
by the petitloner that that issue could be discussed later. Ne stated a complete element
dealing wlth the phasing of the dcvelopment has also bcen edded to thc revised proposal
whieh indlcates construction would start N~vembe:r 1979~ with the flrst occupancy proposed
for Febr..a ry 1381~ and construction of the ftnal phase proposed for occupancy in February
~986~ and that the phasing generally starts with the hillside estate de~slly a~'a~~ on the
wester~;-porCian of the properGy and nwveu tow ard the east.
He preser~ted the aerial photograph to the Commission and pointed out the property in
questton and Wei r Cenyon Road whtch has to be continued~ which (s the maJor artertAl
planned by the Gounty to go inta the soutt~crn portion af the County. He stated the
property has Mo large reservolrs and some falrly fl~t area along Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Phtllip Schwartze~ Asststant Dlrector for Plan~ing~ pointed out the staff report has an
extens(ve discussion of the ftscal impact of the proposed development and stated thts
fiscal impact report is a sinples tool which is the best Infarmation ava(lable regarding
the cost of the development of this proJect~ both to the developer and the City~ and other
Jurtsdictions. He explained Mo fiscai impact reports were prepared per the Planning
Commisslon's request: the first one fo~ the developer by Ashley Economlc Se~vices~ Inc.
and one by the City utiliztng its cost/benefit model which is computer programmed. He
stated there was a great dea! of difference between the methodology used by Ashley and the
City; that if a numbe~ of conditions are imposed as proposed by the developer~ which are
carefully detalled in the staff report~ relating to special districts and surcharges.
etc.~ that the City would st~ow a net benef(t from che development through time, but that
the Ctty's computer-aperated model Indicates a very negative sttuation as can be expected
of almost all resldenttal situations where the amount ~f revenue generated from the
reside~tlal proJect doe~ not meet the narmal requirements for pol(ce, ftre~ etc.~ and the
model shows~ witf~ the ref(nements which were donc this morning, en S8.4 million loss over
a ten-year period. He polnted out. again~ this report Is strnply a tc~ol for the Planning
Cnmmission's use and hoped they would use this information in conside~ation with the land
use praposals~ topography~ etc. He indicated staff is available to answer any questions.
Bruce Tripp~ representing Kaufman b Broad Horr~s~ Irvine, Callfornia, stated varlous
consulcants were present. those who prepared the engi~eering~ ecnnom(cs~ environmental
11/20/78
MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ NOVEMBER 2A~ 1974 78-971
~IR NQ. 21b AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-1~-64 (wntinued)
impact report e~d land plans, end that they would be happy Co answe~ any queatlons of a
technical ~ature.
Mr. Trip stated after comtng before the Planning Commisslon in June, they were also
eoncerned eb~ut post • Propositlon 13 problems. th~ cost to the Ctty~ etc.~ and In en
attumpt to work with the City staff and wtth the gc>vcrnment And communlty to resolve some
of these problems~ they had employed Ashley Economics to prepare a fisca) tmpact repo~t,
He steted, In summary~ the report Indicates the resfdenttal elements of the proJect will
generste a total annual revenue of S~53~5~0, in 1;~7a ciollars~ and correspondiny expen~es
wauld be $8Q5~3E5~ 9~~iny a surplus of S43~19;; that the commcrclal elemenc ef the proJect
will generete total annu~l rcvcnu~s of S3u2~~57~ in 1978 dollars. and corresponding
expenses would bc S2G7~33n, with a surnlus of t7k~327~ g(vln~~ a total annual surplus from
both sectors of $123~Q22~ in 1~78 dollars. Ile stexed fram al) the analyses that Ashley
Economlcs came up with~ these flyures nre a summa ry of the total beneftt to the City.
Ne siated they had presented a General Plan of Development tn June after consultations~
aralyses. etc.~ for 1~3~0 units and they at that time had thought the proposal was In
conformance with the General Plan and tfiat it was a good plan; that they did not Intend to
propose Genert~l Plan changes anc! request varlanc~s and~ consequently. after further
analyse~~~ consultetlons end many. many mectings with the staff and guidance from the
Plsnning Commission~ have come up with a land use efe.ment and General Plan of Development
which~ (n theEr opinlan~ is in conforrt-ance with the General Plan of the City; th~t they
feel it would be a becterment of the City General Plan because they have attempted to
utilize the General Plan as a frart-ework o~ text and came up w(th a land usc r_lement that
is in conf~rmance with the General Plan~ not ~nly in land use t~ut in overall denslty; that
they also tri~d to take into constderatlon many of the existing top~grephicel constraints
(htlls and canyons); that thoy attempted to leave the western area end moved the dansities
toward Weir Canyon. the on-offramps. and the flatter arees, and palnted out the htllslde
estate density on the graphlc displayed. I~e stated maJor changes were the hlliside low-
medlum and hiliside low density arr.as wlth open space down the existing canyons,
preserving o~e of the existing major canyons th~ough th@ proJect and putting a park ln
that area and preserving one of the reservoirs on the site and getting a good break
between hlllside estate densiCy and hillside l~w-medium de.~sity areas; that they kept Weir
Canyo~ natural, untouched~ and ungraded witt~ ~~:- structures of any kind In the open space
area. He stat~d another change was that instead of leavinq the commerclal develnpment In
one of the Islands and in the canyon. they had made both islands commercial because of the
frontage roads, etc.; that another change was the hitlside n-edtum densicy behind the
commercla) area and instead of putting development on the hills they had transferred the
green space to the hills and left thc hllls natural wtth development on the flatter~ m~re
dnveiopab!e land~ tryiny to prescrve the hills and canyo~s as much as possible.
Mr. Tripp stated they tried to come up with some sart of p~elimina ry layout to show what
they intend for each of the lend uses and have attempted tn come up with a master pldn
which is very p~elimtnary and presented an exhibit Indicating the various land uses. He
stated they have never exceedtd the maxtmum de~sity allowed for the 1.5 units; that they
had used a causter concept in the hillstde low density and hills~de low-medlum density
areas, trytng to keep as much op~n space as possible and keepi~g the single-family
d~tached concept~ and the same concept applles on the hillside low-medium density on the
east side of Weir Can~on Road; and Wafr Cenyon is being left open wtth no structures or
g~ading wtth the same concept of single-family datach~d units; and with hiiiside medium
density with an attached proJecr concept.
He stated whe~ they had gr~ne before the Nill and Canyon Mun(cipal Adviso ry~Committee
(HACM~IC). some of the members and staff had asked what the proJect will look like looking
up from the freeway~ and from Santa Ana Canyon. He indicated they have attempted to come
~~/zo/7s
1
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ NOVEMB~R 2Q~ 197;' 78-972
EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-18-64 (continued) ,
up1with a pictorial of tlia sectlan or vertical angle~ and po~nted out the displry and
stated this ls ka scale and is a fairly represuntative pict~rldl of ~jpy~ the projact will ,.:{
~
look.
He atatad another a~ee of major conce rn was the ridl~g and hlling tralls and open
sreas~ and stated they have a tralls and open space plan whlch shows haw the tre~~~d
open npace rei~te to tlie proposed units and the exist(nq topography. Ne stated r
l~tent was to connect and coordin~te with the existing trails~ utiltz,~^ ~ the Mester Plan
of Tralls~ and to blend tn harm~ninusly with the existtng landforms that will be
preserved~ such as the rldqelines~ scQnlc vicrvs. res~rvoir. park tite~ and the cenyon arem
and utilizing Welr Cenyon.
He dlscussed the phesinq which was not presented a~ the June hearing and which is provlded
to glve the community ~nd the Commission an idea of when they plen to stArt canstruction
and a most ltkely schedule of tonstructior~ and prohression; that the preliminiry
constructlon which waulcf include finalizing plans~ workinc~ drawings~ bulldtng plans, etc.,
may sta~t In November 1~17~1, but tl~at actual construction to any great degree would not
start untll early or middle 1980. with occupancy prabably in early 1981. He stated they
look at the proJect (n nlne phases. completiny somcwherr. a~round Feb~ua ry 1986~ and this is
dependent upon weather cond(ttons~ the market~ economic conditt~ns~ etc.
He stated the environmental imp~ct report was prepared by Ultr~ystems~, Inc.~ and was
amended per the changes reflected (n the revised plan. Ne stdted they agree wtth the
staff recommendation: and request the Gommission to cert(fy-the environmental impact
repnrt and approve the Planned Commun(ty 2one. Ile stated they h~ve reviewed Lhe
conditlons recommended by staff and agree with all conditions recommended. Ne tndlcated
the consultents are present and would be happy to answe~ any questlons.
Mary Dinndorf~ 131 La Paz~ Anahcim~ Presicient of the Santa Ana Canynn in~rovement
Assoclation~ Inc.~ stated their association ts o~posed to th~ annexation of 375+ acres
east of the Anaheim city 1lmits at this time; thac she was a member of Che Hill and Canyon
Task Force which spent two years in revising and updetln9 the General Plan for this area
of Anahelm anJ they had made a determi~acion that thc land norl fn question would be
annexed to Anaheim tn the yea~ 1985• and asked why the thrust for movtng that time up
seven years; that the developer could not say ¢here is a need fo~ housing because there is
a large lnvento ry of unsold h~uses in this part of Anahetm now and with higher I~terest
rates the demand for housdng in this price range wfll be furth~r llmited; that she has
talked with the tenants In comnercial ~enters end they are having a difficult ttme now
because they cannot compete with the largP commercial centers in nearby cities; that no~r
Dial-a-Ride is available ln the canyon and this is furthe~ compllcating the sttustion;
that with the uncertalnty of the economy and inflatton teking ~nore spendable Income.
families are exercising caution and on June E, in tha pr(mary election, voted to send
government a message to do the samt; that the City Manager got the message because his
lmmediate reaction was to recomnend the elimination of the Itbra ry in the canyon~ close
the Anahetm Hilis Golf Course. not build the Anaheim police substat~on in the area, and
cut back on the number of traffic signals. She stated now the Commission is being asked :
to add more development and provlde more serv! us far khat devel~,~ment and put the cost on
all ~asid~ ~s of the City of A~ahetm; that resldents in west Anaheim have been asking for
alleys to be paved, better drainage~ improved sewer lines and sidewalks~ and asked if
these resldents should pay for developmen~ whtch is opposed by most of the people who liva
in the canyo~ area and give up much needed Imp rovements tn their part of the city. She
stated if this pro,ject is app~oved~ the Commission will be responstble for endangeri~g the
health and safety of the people by increasing air pollution, detertorating water quality~
insufficie~t fire protection~ and less than adequate police service.
11/2Q/78
~
_~. .
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COM~.MISSION~ NQVEMBER 20. 1318 ~8-9~3
E~R N0~,2~6 ANO RECLA5SIFICATION "~0. ]7•7~64 (contlnued)
She stated. ~ccording to the envir~nn-~ntel Impact ~eport addendum In reference to Prado
Oam~ the avidence presented fs nx~re theory than sclontific ¢act; that ch~ecking with
aeismlc angineers~ they stateJ earthquakes havo a rlpple effr.ct and d~mage does accur at
tho eplcentor~ but shock waves c:ause severe damege as they ~ipple away from the maln fault
zone and ddmage ca~ be wo~se as the Impact gatns momentum from the oric~inal shock energy~ ,,
and llquefactlan whlch is usurlly present near a dam was not dlscusse~i and thc whole dam
slte could be destroy~d an~ th~~ resultant catastrophe toa dfre to think ebout; thAt the
EIR d~ortatlonncorridor andtrth:istlsrgoingCtonhoveieCSeverenenvl onment~lmimpactionCix,ise ~
transp
and alr.
Si~e retsrrad to the alternetives section of th~ ~e~~rt and lndicated she could accept No.
5 whlch Is for lower denzity; that she woulc! like to see a fiscel Impact model and compare
lower densitY costs with thc costs of thc existing proJect. She stat~d a yeer ago she had
discussed the rapid develoRment takin~ ~IAr,r In Orange County wich a Statr. Senator and he
had sald everyone wants to live in Orange County~ but environmer~tallsts do rx~t want them
to teke lend and she had told him eve ryone wants to c~o to he~ven. but ev~ryone does noc
want to dte, and their Assoclation would llke thc Commisslo~ ta deny this project; thus~
whlle not giving them heaven~ tl~ov would ot least havc che haven af their homes here.
Murlel Reed, 6721 EucAlyptus Drlve, AnahGim~ indicatrd 5hereclate'thehextensiveiworks time
bein~ proposed as the City of Vista del Rlo; that they app
and large amounts of dollars which have yonc into the p~olcr.t Plnnntng; that they cennot
even ssy they are totaliy adverse to the plan~ but that thry have bccn wqrking with a
concentrated effort for the past few rtanths In trying to o~•ganize a ctty; that when they
had started they were told there wes one chance in 10~~00 thPy would get it th~ough, but
now the odds have changed and thty fpel chey havc a fair ~~hance of gettinq the clty and
are optomisclc and feel tl~ere must be an oppo~tunity for a grou~ of peaple to do somekhing
llke this; that they have had an environmental impact report prepared tsy Envtronmcntal
land Planners which has been s~mitted co LAFCO~ and on January IOth they will have a
hearing and, hopefully~ w~ll get approval far the formr~:lon ~f the City of Vista del Rio.
She stated they have accompiished what they fee) is al~Y~ost the Imposstble and need tlu
forebearance and cooperatlon of the Plannl~g Commissi~>~~; that the developer has sald they
do not plan to canstruct untfl late 1977 or late t93o., so they ~fo not feel tt would be
damaging to the devel~per for the Commission to hold off making a dectsion untii efter the
Januery iQth lAFCO hearing; that they wa~t the oppor~;unity to govern developn+ent of this
aroa to help it devel~p in a manner chey feel ls as near heaven as possible; that they
knvw (t is a bi~ Job and they cannot accor~lish everything and have everything exactly the
way they want it; that it is gol~g [o take some bl~; money and big tompanies to accomplish
all of these tt~ings~ but everything th~t could be a~compllshed for the Cfty of Anahelm as
related by Mr. Tripp could bC accomplished for th~s Clty of Vista del Rto; and indicated
they would bcneflt by the tax base for the commercial area. She stated they feel they
couid sha+ LAFCO on Ja~ua ry 10th that thc;y have gotten thei~ act toc~ether, that their
enginears have gotten the informati~n together~ that they have their water and sewer
problems solved and they are Nell on their way +~o shcywing the problems are being solved
and they will be able to gove rn themselve~ as a city. She stated they hav~ developed a
Itfestyle in this area and they do not care wh~.ther there is a strcet light on every
co~ner; that they like tl~e rurai atmosphere and tl~at is one of the reasons they h~ve
requested this incorparatton. She stated she wos~ld like to impress upon the Commisslon
again that they know they cannot have the 12~000 ac~es d~v~loped in the way they would
like to se~ 1t developed ideally. but t~ey feel they should havt thr, opportunity to spe If
they can get thelr city before any decisions are made that are going to be harmful to
thelr getting the citY, and they felt this decision would be very harmful. She state~
they feel a body such as the Planning Commission is really involved with all the people
and not Just the Clty.
tt/2o/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ t~OVEM9ER 20~ 197P 79-974 ~
EIR N0. 216 AND aECLA551FlCATIQN_N0. 77•1$•b4 (cnnttnued)
Larry Voyer, 6~8?. Eucalyptus Orlve~ !-nahelm~ stet*.d the eddendum to the enviranmental
Impact report tndlcet~s th~re will be a h~aring bafore LAFCO on Decenber 13th concerning
the Bauer Ranch and Texac.o-Anahelm Ilills proprrtles; thQt ~his annexatl~n was not even
thought of untll after thelr plans for ii~curporation were presented; that on the 1.5th of
October they hed submitted their environmentAl In~ act report to f.AFCO, meetine~ the
requl r~ements for thel r ft rst round af an incorporatto~~ attempt ~ and thrce days later
Kaufmsn 6 Broad and Tcxaco-Anaheim N(lls rep~es~ntativ~s had submilted thefr Envlranmental
(mpact report and~ subsequently~ recelved a hearing date of Decen+ber 13th~ while theirs (s
January tOth, whlch is en Issus they would i ike to addrr~ss ~+ith LAFCO. He steted they are
a small group of peaple who have met all the requlrements and poi~ted out looking esst
from Nohler Drlve there is a whole Jiffcrrnt world and they are going to do cvcrything
they can to kcap it that wey by kr.~piny the density to wh~-t th~y fPAI ic ma~ageable In the
canyon In this kind of tcrra(n; that they have self-dete rn~inUtlon ~o that they cen be
there argutng emong themselves (nstead of 1S miics nwry~ pointtng out they do not feel
they have a lot in cnmrmn with the arr.a f~om Nohler Drlve; that they do not want to become
an lsland~ which Is a possiblllty;th~t they want to preserve a way of life; th~t they have
half-acre minlmums In thls arr_a with minlnwl grading~ a~d this Is ane of thetr g~als. H~
stated th~y havc tt warked out wlth a lot of professional help; that the environn-ent~l
irnpect report wss preaared try~ educated people wha have hed a lot of experlence (n ~o(ng
EIRs and feasibility studi~s who ~~ they can make it and LAFCO says they ought ta bP
hQard; that they are now ~5~nbattt..~ two multi-m(lii~n dollar companies who have teamed up
agalnst them; that they -~~~r did ,ry to incorporate a~y af Texac~'s property because they
a~e landowners~ but Ke~ "'"~tr~ r, Droad is n~t a landowner, that they have an o~tlon. He
stated (f the annexat~ ~3suer Ranch and Texaco-Anahetm Hills) gaes through December
13th, it wilf he a w~-~ ~f °~rne when they go bcfore LAFCO on Janua ry 14th b~cAUSe the
annexatlon wouid cut t• ar~~Ye~y in half. He stated they are asking th~e Planning
Commisslon to let tM-^-~ ~h~~ • w-~°i r say and i f they lose out to ~AFCO, f ine, they have had
Chely day~ buc. i' ^~~ ,_~~ ~_~rnr maneuvertng they get cut in half and are sllenced~ they do
~ot feet thls is `- '~r •~tatcd he is asking for the Fricnds af Vista del Rto that the
Plannl~~g Commissin, °,.~- : =f on this hearing until after January 10th and lf they lose
their intorpo~atio~ ~~•~-~+c~t, it wi 11 be up to everyone tn Anahelm to pitch in and say what
thcy want done wir~> -•~~ area. Ne polnted aut [hey have a lot of people who are
support i ng them I r :'~+M . Af1Y011 and i n other parts of Anahe t m who th I nk they shoul d be g t ven
a chance to form '--rr -^~wn city if they wlsh~ and if the mat~er gets to a vote and it (s
d-~ctded by the pea~~~e °~~ney do not want a clty, thcn they have had t~ei~ say. He pointed
out he felt the Ptirn~~~~c Commtssion has the power to say a[ least that these people should
be heard.
Sam Gaylord~ 283 Et+ei Eiorgio Road~ Anahcim~ Board Member of the Santa Ana Canyon Property
Owners Nssociat~o~. ~zaied he wished to cnnftrm wfiat Mr. Voyer had said; that the peaple
in the area waWld 1 Ke to ee this LAFCO heartng proceed and felt it (s very unfair that
these developer~ t-,a~e pul `d this kind of ~hing on those people who want to start thcir
own city. Ne stacrd he knew it dld not sound too good~ standtng ln Anahsim saying this~
but these peaple had started thls long before the other developers had and he felt they
ought t~. be hearc,
The fallowing is a verbatim transcript taken fr~m the tape:
"~Mr. Chairman~ members of the Commission, rtry name is Blll Kott. I reside at 52z ~y+Yer
Urive~ Anaheim~ and 1 am an official taxpaye~ of the Cfty. Now~ hooefully, all fhe
membe~s of the Commissiors have read thr yellow pages. As a taxpa~re~ I am very unhappy
about what 1 read. Now I am going to review very briefly some of the things that I
see. Item 22 states that tn revtewing t~~e Baue~ Ranch ~tscal Impact document~ whlch 1
have not read~ it appears, see. it appears~ staff c~an't seem to make a determination
as to if it i:~ ~~ if it sin't, but it appears, whatzver that means~ that Kaufman b
11/20/78
~~
MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM f.ITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ NOV~MBER 20, 1978 7g~975
EIR N0. 216 ANI~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-64 (continued)
aroad~ Inc.. ~rQ proposi~g the City create severa) naw roimbursRment districts for
repeyment tn Kaufman b Broad of the pro reta coat of Instellatlon of v~rious new
public facilit(es. 41e11 -- I personalty don't cere for th~t attitude. I don't thtnk
that Kaufman 6 Broad or anybody who cames fn to devclop is In a positlon to say they
would ltke to sen new dtstriGts crea[ed for their benefit because~ as a taxpayer~ I
don't feet that I sm here for the benefit af developers ~r~d I~~downers to meke money
on taxes that I pay out and that vrould f~ave to put up frent. I don't IIkG th~t plan
at all,
If the City Cauncil desires to enter Into such an arrsngrment, It w111 be neceasary to
creete and ado~t new ord(nances bnd resolutlons~ chenge your whole system; In other
words~ Gnabling tl~e Gity to impose a portion of said .c~sts on subsequ~nc devetopers.
Well -- let thc dcvclopers put the rnoncY up fr~nt and thprr won't be any need for It.
The method of appr~rtionment and district boundaries would also have to be determined~
thus werraniiny ell capital expenditure flgures clted yubjact to negotlatlon. Such
ordinences would be a necessery prerequtsite [o execut(on ~f eny relmbursement
agrer.mants~ and the Subdivlsion Ma~~ Act stipulates that said ordinances must be tn
effect for a period of at least 30 days prlor to tl~e filing of a tentative map,
No. 23 states~ as presented~ the [iauer Ranch Fisct~) Impact document represents the
fis~al impact to the Clty contingenc on the conditions of reimbursement districts.
They are not even (n existence. Thsy are not even in exlstence and yet they are
continyent on that. So you havc got a fiscel impact report that Is really meaningless
under the present setup as proposed by Kaufman 6 9road and do~s noS refleGt~ ren~embcr
chat~ and does not refler.t tl~e fiscai Irr~act (n terms of present Gity poltcy. What
gc~od is lt? Just come ln and make your own rules.
No. 2~~ Kaufman b Broa~i Is requesting reimbursement for land dedications madc to the
Clty with respect to utility substatlon, fire station~ parks~ llbrary placements.
Kaufman 6 D~oad have c~ndittoned this retmbursement req uest furthcr by stipulating
that the land would be set aside for the various faciiities, and so o~, with sald land
relmbursemants to Kaufman ~ Broad to be equivalent to the land's market value at the
ttme of dedication not at the timc of reservation. Welt, you knaw. that, too~
kinda goes against my grain~ who Is going to ssy what it (s warth at the time of
dedicatton~ is It going to be worth~ or at r~servatton~ either onc. is it goin~ to be
wo~th raw - what It is raw - before water~ befare Dlemer intertie or afte~ Diemer
lntertie. As I remember, Anaheim Hilis not only gave most all of thesc things~ but
also gave school sites.
I am not going to bore you with ~~c+ing on. I can go on here. Uh - it just appears to
me that the whote attitude in this staff report to the Planning Commisslon Is one that
states tv me that the staff has ,acted as a transmtssion belt wherein the developers~
la~cJownars~ consultants~ moneymakers have sald~ "This is wh~t we want." i don't see
anything In here thaz says. "This is the waiy it is~" buc this says. "This is what we
want and the way we want to w~rk (t." In fact~ staff didn't even have the courtesy to
shvw thts item along with otl-er items to the public hearing. That Is why this -
that's why these people are here, It ts a publlc hear•ing~ but it was shawn that thesc
thingF had to be made clear to you~ all of you sitting here. Ne did~'t worry about if
anybody in the audlence saw it • the hell with them.
Relatlve ta reimbursement districts end the advancement of funds by the developer for
capital expenditure. it goes on - snd then it says these ftgurns cited are an
assumption - are an assumptlon/best guess by Kaufman 6 Broad and City staff as to what
woul~ bu Bauer Ra~ch's fair share for necessary vs. optional capital expenditu~es. Is
that what staff is for~ to glve you a bast guess? I think staff is here to say "This
11/20/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2~. 197A 7~'97~
EIR N0. 216 AND aECLASSIFIGATION N0. 77'78•6k (oontinued)
is it." 1 could mak~ a best guess myself, Thet is not why st~ff is here. Maybe we
need ~ new staff. I think that tl~e staff shauld act In the best tnterest of the City
and the t~xpeye~a snd shoul~ not act in the best Interest of the lnndowners and
developers. Wo w~nt them here. Ne want landownars and we want developers. I am not
saying we dun't want them~ but we feel~ ar I feel~ that they are hare to make money
and that is good~ but 1 don't think they should do lt et th~ expense of people who are
alreedy in the city wha would have to put their money up front, and then (mposc or in
any way say thet you should change your whole system to accnmmodate our plan. I think
that ls presumptuous ar,d I thlnk lnsulting.
We loak at Item 27 or 18b~ Just above. Item 27~ and witl~ nll tha ftne numbers that have
been givon by :t~~ff~ I sce down here somrthin~ th~c seys total deficit after ten years
of S9.17 mllilon. although It was said that lt would be SB.A mtllton In ten years;
however, for some reason or other sorr~thing has yone ~stray between the report now.
naw we drop~eci to $R.A mllllon, but here it says S9.17 mlllion in ten years. That is
a hel) of a lot of r+xaney tn ten years and no inte~est. Ic is more than that when you
count Interest. Ilow much is It tn all of their. how much interest is Involve!d in t1~at
59.17 m111ton~ it mtght come maybe cl~ser to S12 mi111on - see. Uh - who pays for
thisl Now~ Prqposition 13 was mentioned by somebody who sald that he w~s con~erned
about it~ so what he did was went out and got a report or some snrt of Impact report
and he didn't say what was done ~baut it~ Just 9ot the report. Weli - 1 am wncerned
about Prop 13~ I think there is a message in there. This City represented 70$ of its
voting public whc~ voted for Prop 13 and lf this money is to be taken from my taxss and
other peoples' taxes, then I think xhis Body ts not acting in the bnst inicerest of the
people~ nor tn concart witt~ the wtshes of the people or the majority of the people
anyway.
Mow there are those who might say~ "uell~ that is the way we have d~ne lt." Well~
that's all rlght. A lot of things have been doRe in a lot of ways over the years, but
It has been changed. Thtnqs aren't done the way they have been donc much anymore.
dtdn't have to lock my doors noc too many years ago.
It should be recogni2ed~ No. 27, In the event yo~ are interested In follawlnq thts. It
should be recognized that current City budget and cash flow may be able to absorb the
probable expendltures which would be incurred during the develapmont of the Bauer
Ranch. What if 1[ isn't? Where is it going to com~ fromZ Who has said where !t is
going to coma from? I don't see it here. If road funds, if~ that Is a small word
with a big meaning~ if road funds, as an ~xample~ are used to extend a road, then
those funds would be precluded from the opportunity ta be used in other areas.
This same prtnclple follows to schools~ parks~ libraries. and sa on; however, if City
Council and Pubiic Ut(lity Board approves~ an~ther if, reimbursement dlst~lcts such
fiscal impacts to the City can be minimtzed. Weil - again~ all this says is tax the
people who move in sn we Gan have a reimbursement distrlct~ whlch Is fine, I guess, as
long as they know when Yhey do the purchasiny. But still~ my princtpal obJection is
in vlew of Prop 13~ 1 don't want my tax money to be used up front to develop any area
from now on, until I see that we are or~ a more stable basls, the eCOnamy is better and
the people aren't in such an uproar about taxes which I hope they never glv~ up.
Rersonally, I was delighted with 13, ny taxes fell abaut 60$ an my home~ down to where
they werc about 1963~~+~ and 1 like It that way. sn I am asking this Body to give
serious consideration to nothtna else, if nc~thing else, to the document they have in
fro~t of them and see if it makes sense to you, remembering that you're acting, or
supposed to act, in the best interest of the taxpayers of this community. Remember
that, fisc:ally. See if it makes sense to you to pass on this praJect. Thank you."
it/2o/78
f
,~
MINUTE:S~ ANAHf,IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2~, 191g ~a"977
Elii N0. 216 NND RECLASSIFICATION H0. 77-7~ 8_64 (~ontinued)
Mr. Tripp indlcsted he wauld llke to re.spond to n couple of areas: first~ to the peopla
of Vlste ~el Rlo; that Kaufman ~ Bra~d have never been oppc~sed ln any way to Ylsta del
Rio~ that their posltlon slm~ly Is that r.hey had gUtten tnvolved In thc Rauer Ranr,h
development somc two and ane•half years a~o and hed wo~ked initlally with the City of
Anehofm; that they have sts~ted workiny wfth the staff and with many of the canyon
canmlttecs~ who at that ttme where In t"ie process of coming up wl tli e nRw Canyon General
Plon; that they trled to wnrk the bRSt they could with the plan that wss being proposed
and aft~r the plen was a,lopted~ tried to change their plens and amend th~m to the General
Plan that Nas adopted by the Clty Councll. h~e stated that Vlste del Rto had come eiong~
at least to their knawledge~ after they had st~rted wo~king wlth the Dauer Ranch and with
the City of 11na~elm. He tndicated the conn~en[ was made that e delay would not affect or
damege them~ and~ on tl~~ contrary, any kind of drlay ~t this potnt and atl delays~ of
course~ are dama~ln~ ~nd the~ would not be (n fav~ir of eny kind of delay slnce thls Nould
ba the first step In the approval process and they would Ilke to continue tr work with the
City anJ work ttir~ugh thc governrn~ntA1 r~oc~sses of the City of Anahelm.
Ile stated a lot of co~ranents were made re~ardi~g the economic impact report~
reimbursemants. c:tc.~ and painted out that~ strangely enouqh~ the comments that were made
and thefr intent are virt~arllY compatible; that is~ the rcimbursements were set up for tt~e
strlct purpose of the B~uer Ranch fronting the capital expendituros so the taxpayers would
not be bur~enad; that these reint~~irscrt-ents would ge witl~ futu~e development and gruwth as
It continued out in the cenyon area; that retmbursements would ride with the land, with
the p roposed developers snd development~ He stated they are proposing to front any
capltel expendtturos that would be needed for the developmer~t of the Bauer Ranch and if
any capital expenditures are needed for the total canyo~ arr.~ ~r to expand bryond the
Dauer Ranch, they were seek(ng reirtb ~rsement for the extras tl~ey wnuld pay that are not
allocated to the Bauer Ranch so that they would front them and they would ride with the
land and future development in the canyon area to be paid back whe~ the arPas are
d~veloped by the respect(ve developers and not by the taxpayers. Ne stated that was noC
thelr intent and that was not reflected in the report. He polnted out an economtst was
present from Asl~ley Economics and would be happy to answer a~y questlons.
Mr. T~(pp lndicated he would like to apologize, that he did not mean ta shirk the
audlence~ but that the exhibits presented had been presented to them and they have all
seen them before. that they have been before NACMAC on three different uccasions a~d many
Feople have attended those various meetings. He pointed out they had ~ gather•-ng at the
ranch on Saturday afternoon at whict~ these exhthits were ;here and many of these people
were prese~t and saw the exhtbits, and so would ~ike to apolaqize if he appeared to shirk
the ~eudiance and he did not mean that, but thought all exhtbits had bee~ ~een before.
THE PtJDL I C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
The following Is s cranscript taken from tP~e tapes:
"Chalrman Herbst: I dm going to have to make a statement at tF~is time. Mr. Kott~ this
is the first ttmn I have been on the Planning Cornmission that I have ever had a
Councilman appaar oppc-sing the proJect before we had a ct~ance to hear it~ and I don't
thlnk i~ is falr to the rest of the Commissioners to heve the palitical pressure
brought to bear before this Body which we have alway~ tried to keep out of It. You,
at your Body~ wl11 have a chance to hear anything that is said hsre and revtew !t and
1 Just don't thtnk it is fair for you to come here~ as a Councilman~ and apply
polltlca) pressu~ on this Body. I have been here a long time and this is the first
ttme this has ever happened and I want them to keep an open mind in regards to what is
inwived here without the pressure of thc Council. I don't Yhink tt's prope~ ~nd t
have to make that statement~ sir.
il/20/78
~
MI I~UTES ~ 11N!-~IE 1 M C I TY PLANN I NG COMM I55 I ON ~ NOVEM6E R 20 , 1978 78'91a ;
,
EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 17~•7__ 8~64 ~conttnued) '
. _._. _- -------
Or. Knttr Well. since you did say that~ 1 thl~k 1 shnuld be entitlad to rebut.
Cheirman Nerbst: You cen heve a rebuttal.
Dr. Kott: First of all~ 1 would Iiko to tell you the fact that anything happe~ad the
fl~st time doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I cbn't hnve much rogard for peaple who
sey~ "Well~ tt didn't happen befor~~" because anythtng that ever hes happenad in this
worid a~d in your lifc and my lifc. thcre has been a ftrst time. Now, No. 2, I~n a
taxpayer. I was a texpayer holl of a lot longer before I w~s a Councflman ~nd 1 think
as a taxpayer 1 have the rlght tn be here at +~ publtc hearing end I have a rlght to
sp~ek and 1 am going to do so anytime I feel strong enaUqh about It~ whether I sm a
Counctlman ~~r not. OK. that's it.
Chatrmsn Herbst: OK~ Mr. Kott.
Commissloner Darnes: 1 wouid Itke to say sUmething, toa. I agree wlth Mr. Nerbst and ~;
not only do I~gree with Mr. Nerbst~ but I found it insulting what you said~ Dr. Kott,
about the staff. I think~ and I have ncver takcn such a herd stand In my life on any
sub,ject~ but I thlnk It Is asin(ne for you to cort+~ here and do whet you Just did to
ou~ stt+tf. It is lnsulting ta them and t have neveP been so embarraased for a Body
bsfore. I am ashamed that you are our C~uncilman In our ~1ty.
pr. Kott: Well~ you knav~ I probably have :f~e seme feeltr~gs about yau. I am ashamed
that you are sitting in that seet bacause you don't shaw too much {eadershtp or
initiat(ve. Now~ 1 didn't set the stage. 1 read merety w~hat was in hcre. 1 didn't
give rty opinions of whet Is In this pape n~vork. I read what: was in here and I
explalned the way I saw it and whet it said and as far as 1 am conce~ned, that is what
(t says. Somnbody comes uN here and aays there is no front. but here it Is - total
deficit efter ton years is S9.17 million. You ask me nc~t to believe that. }ust read
it. That's the problem w3th you. you don't read the paperwork.
Commtssivner Barnes: Oh~ no1
Chalrman Ne rbst: You see the paperwark -~e've read it verba!im. I think this
Commisston has been charged by the Clty Counct) --
Commissic~ner 9ushore: Could we get back to the business at Iiand7
Chairman Herbst: This Commission has been charged by the G~ty Council end I wa~t them
to make a decision on thelr nwn without polit(ca1 pressure beinq involved.
Commissioner David: t don't thtnk that you can be speaking for ail of us here. I
don't feel any p~iitical pressure from htm coming to speak and have his mind as a
private individual. 1 think you should bn speaking for your own self~~~w.-
Chairman f~erbst: All right, 1 am speaking for myself.
Commissioner David: OK~ you sh4uld qualify that.
Chairman Herbs~: I feel this way, that regardless of what Mr. Kott thinks as a
prtvate citizen~ he ls a Councilman.
Commissioner David: He came here as a private citizen and as a taxpayer, and more
people should come here as private citize~s and taxpa~eers.
11/20/78
.~
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION, Nt1VEM8ER 2t1~ 1978 7$-9]g
EIR MO_216 AND REC_SSIFICAT ON t~10~. 17~78-b4 (contlnued)
Chairman Herbst: ! can sgree with that.
Commissloner Davtd: 1 feel ebsolutely no pressure rt all with hlm coming up hnre and
I think tt kinda opened my eyes a I(ttle bit, ta~~ on rc~ding that report and iia~vtng
second thoughts about It. I thlnk we can tek.~ it and I thlnk ~taff should b~c able to
tekQ that~ too. 1 think tt is conxtructtva end i think end I am going to ask thern for
thatr comments on It.
Cha(rn~~n Nerbst: I feel this wsy, in other words~ th~ statement was made that maybe
staff should be replaced and I don't thfnk that was a proper staterr~nt.
Cunwntss(oner Devid: i am talking abaut the items u~der ti~at. I think that statement
was a persona) comment and mriybe I don't share that. I wo~il~i llke some answers from
staff ebout these ifs~ mays and whys snd so forth~ and I thtnk thts should be
addressed, I think it ts very (nportant.
Chatrman Herbst: I havc no quarrel with t~iat.
Commiss~~~~~r Ba rnes: I thlnk they alweys have~ Amin, that (s the point. Staff is
supposed to - we can do tt like the Counct! does it (n tlie County where the staff
comes in and praettcally dictates~ and tn some other cittes~ dictates what happans ln
eve ry c(ty. Thet Is not the way Anohetm Is. I think we are R~ore than fair to all the
people and usually we do ask staff why this~ why that~ why is it said this way, a~d I
thlnk they alwa~ys renort factually and that ls tha reason those words are therc~ they
don~t want to swsy us elther way. They want to givc us the facts and let us make up
our mind and I thtnk they do that in the tiest way they can.
Commissioner Davtd; I have no quar~el with that.
Commis~io~ier 8arnes: But what I resent is, Geez~ the whole time 1 have been on the
Planning Cona~isslon we have never had thts kind of thing here. Nobody has ever
Ins~lted a~y member of the Commiss(on or the steff~ and I have not only respect for
the staff, but great respect for them. They spend long hours of hara work and I can't
say enaugh about them~ and they have taken ftap before. I Just hate to see it. for
gasti sakes. can't we rt least look at thtngs factuallyl This ls the first tir-~ (~
Chree a~d o~e-half years sitting here that I have ever seen this thing happen end that
is why we are so angry~ because tt had to comc from Cha{rman Herbst: Let's get on
with the heartnq.
Commissloner Davtd: I would like to hear staff's rebuttal to Dr. Kott's cortiments. Mr.
Chalrmen.
Planning Director Ronald Thomps~n: I thlnk the obilgation of the staff in a situation
of chis nature ts to potnt out the facts as we can determ~ne them and try to stay (n
en obJectlve mode. Reaiiy, our Job ts to give as much facts to the Planning
Commission and the City Council as we can ascertafn at the tirr~ that we have Che facts
and put tham in th~e staff report. I think at the public hearing both the Pianni~g
Commisston and the Council have additional input where some of thc statements that maiy
have been written in a proposal are either clarified by tht propanents or they a~e
brought to the attention cy Pnybody that mlght be concerned abou~ a particutar
development. So~ I thtnk st the time we prepared our report we tried to give you aa
much obJective, faGtual informa~:on as we passibly could and felt that the public
hearing you were holdi~g on this matter would also allow and afford the Plannl~g
Commission an opportunity t.~ have input from the citizens of Anaheim and the people
representing the p roposal so th~t an obJective dete nntnation could be made with
11/20/78
M I NUTES ~ ANAl1E 1 M C 1 TY PLANN 1 IIG COMM 1 SS ( ~N ~ NOVEMBER 2q ~ 1~ Jb /8-y8~
~ I R N0. 21 G ANU REClASS I F 1 CATI ON N0. 71-78 ~c:4 (con t t nued)
reapect to tl~e pro)ect. 1 thin~: with respect to ~ome of tlie - tt would appenr r~ther
t~~an saytnq lt certe(nly is~ I fnrqet whst p++~~ Counc t lman Kott w~s referring to, bu~
pert of ihc resson fnr strff's statement~ "I t would epneer" wes thet rether than e
retmburscmont ~tstrict tn xonm uf the instances, It e lso eppeered thst there we~ e
surcharge~ so the~re wa~ rQ~lly pus~lbly two mathodoloc~ie~, end we felt thet by
bringing this to the Plenninq Commisslun and Ci ty 6ounci 1's attentlon thot thPy wQUlcl
furthcr clari fy ! t wi th tlie petl tinncr and that If cont inuing on under tho prese~t
City policlPS~ thrre woul~l certs~fnly be n rAther Inre~r deflclt. I think the
difforencc betwcsen the $9.17 c~nci Sd,~~ milll~~n was tlie fact that we were stlll workin~
on ttie computer this morninq, Inng r~fter tl~e repnrt had gonc out t~ yeu o~ Frlday~ and
w~ w 1 I 1 pr~~Lab 1 y l,~ re f I n( ng tl~ 15 un t i 1 th~ ma t ter goes beforc ch~ C 1 ty Counc 1 1. Dut
qulte frankly~ we ere neitfier, we are not ln an advocaey posftlon in the Gltv of
Anaf~eim. 41e are try(n~~ to Jusc glvo y~u the bPSt Inform~tion that we can because w~
feel tf~at pl~nning really (~ n p~lit(cal pr~cr,ss inorder to n~aE.e the best posslble
declslons for thc cl tixens of tlie CI ty of llnaheim, yc~u havo to have the best posslble
informetlon. You gec part ~~f tl~ls inf~rmatton from us, we try to do the best )ob we
can~ you' 1I get the rest ~f tha inforn-~tion from tha ci tizens ~ both for end eya(nst
the project, and tli~t ts the moclc we cry to stay (n,
Commis~lo~r.r Uavid; Thank y~~u, Ron~ and the purposc ~f r~y askinc~ for ~ ccxnment is not
to 1 eave somc th i nc~ up i n tlic a i r. I th i nk ( t was nrc t cy wal 1 up i n [hc a( r and I
khink you brouyht It (nto a pretty yood perspect(ve, and I hope this r.vaning~ Mr~
Gl~airman~ ~s Yt~e meeting progresses~ we can yet into ~ome do) lars and cents.
Comn(ssloner Bushore: i would Iikc Lo give at this point my im~ression of the staff
report. 41hen 1 f(rst re~+d the article~ I felt maybe therewere some [hinc~s, as
probably Or. Kott did, that shouldn't really havQ br.en put ln there~ but when I read
1 t the second t i me ~ 1 rea 1 I zed that s taf f had gone kh rough an d unde r 1 1 ned the th i ngs
that they felt were important and should be kind of h iyhliyhted so that we could qet
the t rue mean i ng of i t. and i fe I t by doi ng that nnd when I•cad i t the second t ime
and saw that. I thought that both sides wer~ getting more than a falr shake. In other
words~ the staff was do(ng wt~at they should do for us and thr_ staff Nas dotng what
they si~o~ld d~ far the developer o~ the citizen out Lhere, end I~ perr.unally~ can't
disagree with the items that the Councilm~n brougt~t out~ but 1~ too. had questfons
about those things as I read them~ but i do wish tliai we could get on with the heartng
now end ask the othe r ques t i ons I have and I am sure the res [ of the Comrn i ss i on has .
Chatrman He~bst esked Mr. Trtpp to come back to the podium for Guestions.
Canm(ssloner David: You have heard two or threes persans harc ask a~d suggest that~
you know~ nothing rcal ly harsh would befal 1 Ksufman ~ Broad i f they watt unti 1 January
for LAFCO's decision; would you addtess that suGga~[ ion by these people~ Ferticularly
what aF ~ irs to be the representative of the VTsta del Rlo group.
!1r. Tripp; The or-ly problem with delay~ once ayain~ is the fact that it ls a delay.
We have been on thls prnJect for almast two and one-half years. I know Mr. '~.oyer
indicated, and he iias brought that up to me pe~sonal lY, why are we betng heerd before
they when our EIR was tn after theirs? This is not a tvtally true statement. We had
f) led ou~ a~ppl icatio~s and, in fact, fi led two EIAs wi th LAFCO way before thc(r
appl(cetlons and E.IR went in. We combtned the Anaheim Nills, Inc. EIR that was
ex i s t t ng and our Baue r Ranch E 1 R and we f i 1 ed and pa i d our fees wi th LAFCO. The
f i 11 ng was then taken by LAFCO. 1 t was 1 ate r detarm i ned by LAFCO s taff chat we had to
prepare an amendment brtnging the two EIRs together. so what came in a cou~.te of days
aT te r the t r E 1 R, i f that d 1 d happen ~ what came i n ef te ~ thoi ~ E I R was an artrndment to
the o~iginal submissions and the origi:~el two EIRs that were sent in. I thf~k in
11l20/78
~-
~~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ NOVEMOER 20~ 1978 78-981
EIR N0. 216 ANO RECLIISSIFICATION N0. 77~78~64 (contl~uad)
actuelity whl~e ou~ appll~ation and two EIRs were in~ I think what they are referrinc~
ta that came in letor was sn addendum or an amandment to the EtR that t(ed the two
together~ so we heve been on thl~ thing for qulta aome timc and our pocember hearing
wea. once ac~~in~ LAFCO's hearine~ date a~d when we tI1Gd~ we Just simply requeated a
hearing es sc~on as possible ea we did with Anaheim and anyhody else. We f11ed~ we
wero in~ our ffling was accepted and we wented to be heard. I am su~e the world won't
and on snother delay~ but~ likc 1 seid~ we heve been on this proJect for some two and
one•helf years. We wer~ back befora you In June end it he~ been e long time and we et
leest are of the poslcton that we heve donn virtually everything u~der ou~ control end
~vc rythiny posatbl~ to work with Anehelm and to work wtth LAFCO to get everythl~g in,
and wR would Just l ike t~ rrncP~rl In An ~rci~rly m+~nn~r. Del~ys rr~ ~lw~y~ c~stly end
ttme consuming.
Gommissloner t;t~gs I have n question for D~. Kott. Dr. Kott~ would you please Gane
to the mlcropt~one7 I f 1 u~derstood the eppl icant correctly. he sbid th~t the existing
taxpayerg wou1J pay nothing taward the proJect beceuse of rr.imbursement. Are you
satlsfied with that answerl
Dr. KotC: That is not wliat thls says. Thfs doesn'c sey that.
Comm(ssloncr Ktng; He stated it, (ts on record.
Dr. Y.ott: I kr.;~~ but that doesn't say that in here. I arn gotng hy what this says.
Cammisslo~er King: So tf~ere is a confllct there.
Dr. Kott: I don't ~:naw tf there is a r.onfl{ct~ it Just doesn't say that here.
Commtssioner King: You heard his scatement.
Dr. Kott: Yes~ I dld.
Commission~r King: No additional taxes for you to support the proJect.
D~. Kott: Neli~ it doesn't soy that."
Chalrman Herbst explained that in proJects of hts own where he has put ~n a sewer or ~ater
line or some[htng for an enti~e proJect. when anyone e~se edded to it downstream the re was
a reimbursement. He indicated I~c did not knaw whether or not th;s was what the report was
talking ebout, but assumed it was. tle felt Anahetm has probably done this in the past.
He i~dtcated he did not know exactly what the wordl~g hes been. but he knew It has been
donc in the past for refmbursement for people who started the proJect off.
frank Lowry~ Assistant City A~torney~ explained tl~at thc Subc~ivisl~n Map Act for the State
of Caltfornta r.~akes speciftc allowances for certain types of assessment distrtcts of th(s
particula~ type and the reimbursement agreements. Ne stated he felt the problem staff Is
encountcring here is tt~at there arP several dtfferent forms of these agreen~ents and also
several dtfferent taxing-type euthorities that can be set up for this, plus there a~•e
tl~ings like basic area surcharges such as has boen done with the high-altitude pumpi~g
statlo~s at the top of the h611s where a surcharqe has bee~ placed upon certain wate ~
uttlities and things like that; that this is different tha~ an assessment dfstrict s~d
different than a relmbursement district; that there are, to tine best of his knowledge,
about six dtfferenc ways these things can be accomplished and stnce tho devnloper has not
been specific as to whlch one is desired~ he did not believe staff knows at this point.
tt/2o/78
~
4
7fi-482
MINtITES~ ANNIEIM CITY PLANNII~~ C~IIMISSI~IN, NOVEMgER ~4, 1~170
EIR ~~0. 'L1G AND RECLIISSIFICATIQN N0. 77-7$•64 ~continuod)
Ph1111p Schwartte rafcrra~~ to the dlscusslon between Commissloner King and C~unci lman Kott
and referred to paqo 1~;-o end relterated that thn developer is prnposing e reimburseme~t
on capitel expGnciitures and that might indicete there are numerous other expenditures
other than capital axpenditures tinvolvrd (n land develo~ Netp^~~Ledsout~essent~allyrboth
servlce~ po~~ce service~ and numerous o ther activitles,
gontlomen wer~ correct In their stetemc-~ts; that the dlfference is that one is capltal and
the ather ls all the otl~or costs which are involved and (ndicsted he dld not ht~on~~ those
applicent stateci tie w~u1J b~ willln9 t~ pick up the ~thar deflc{t expendltures. Y
which could be directiy tled back into some sort of relmbursement distinCfactF,ewouldc~{
that a deficit in :erms of cost/bonefi cs would continue an~ the Cfty~
continue to be tn a deficit situstion in terms of flnenciAl ~~d fiscal fn-pact fc-r the
Clty.
Rc~ ~Id Thompson~ Planning Director~ ac:ded tha: while the Gity in ti~e p~st has had po~icl~s
with respect to rein~burgen+ent for drain~~qe d(stricts, for example~ the type~ of E~roposals
that the d~eveloper w~uld appear to be makin~ here would make a signiflcent impc+ct on
whethar the Glty mtgl~t liav~ a deficit of S~i, mlllion or Just a few hundred thousand over
a ten-yca~ peri~~d or possibly going In the black. Ile sl'atcd if thc City is very much
concerne~ about having Che citizens that are already Iiving In Anahelm fronti~g
developrnent ln the hill and canyon area and if lt is ulttmetely detcrmtned that we are
going to expand In the canyon area~ 1 t may be well to the citizens' adva~tage who are
Itving herc for the City to get involved witli tlie relmbursement di~trict so that the
developer will actually be fronting this and It won't be a burdcn to the P~~°~n thetrntly
living here. He polnteJ out rhis is whaf the staff wa4 really trying t~ ssYa~d ~f the
roport; that this would be a significant departure fran the present policy~
Planning Comnission wcrE to recommend thfs fevorably, at some pertcd in time they wauld
probably want t~ reccxnmend that the C i ty Counct I consider this refmbursement propose) by
the developer, so~ in fact~ the new ci~velopment would not be a burden t~ many of the other
people ilving in Anahr_im.
Commissioner Bushore indicaked hc had asked two questlons at the rrbrning Pla~ning
Commi ss ion sess io~ and one had been a~swered regardinc~ an update f igure on the def icf t
cost to the CI ty~ and ttiat v~as wherc he t,ad heard about the $a.4 mi 1 l ion rather than the
5~.17 mi111on over a ten-year period. Ne stated. taking Into account everY time someone
bul ids a bui Iding. there ls a negati ve cost to the City whether it is real i zed or not~ and
i t takes time to recover i t through property taxes; that us Ing round i tgures , wl th 9~0
uni ts into $9 mi l l ton, he had come up wi tl~ a S10~000 cos t per uni t to the C i ty a~d polnted
out this ls a large dGVelopment~ and asked if $10~OQ0 shoul-.i be considered as a high cost.
Ronald Thompscn explained in those ~rees of the :.annun{ty which al`~a~r~;a~ oretndustrlal
infrastructures such as s~wer. water Ilnes~ Showevera1on~thecfringes where these have to
development rt-ay well be a b~:st for the City;
be extended~ it is very signiftcant who actually pays for them.
Commissioner Bushore indicated he assumed obviously wo are discusstng sort+e precedent that
hss not been done before and pointed out there has to be some guldel ines for him to
follaw. Ne tndicated he recnembe~ed going to Maheim f11 lls some five years ago when there
was nothing thcre, and realixing those were 1913 prices~ felt there musc be sane
correlation he could make. He stated he would st) l l 1~^Cd ~QntQhtstton answered whether or
not S10.OQ0 per u~it is high~ re~ardless of wh~t happ 9
Commissiancr BushorP asked Mr. Tripp the posttlon of the developer on Vista de) Rio's
proposal for incorporati~n.
>>/2o/7a
.,,
'~
~
~~78 7a-983
MINU'fES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2Q~
EIR N0. 216 ANO R~CIASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-64_ ~~~tinued)
M~. Tri pp stated th~y are ~ not r I t 10~ bas I cAl ly 1 shonnn thet~thoy~hednstertednwi tht the C i ty
the~e; that the develo~er s pos
of Anahe i m some t ~^b °9° ofdAnahte i m as thetveh I c 1 e andk thatway`~ to proceed.^~e t tated i f
always did see~ th~ Cfty
Vista del Rio does incorporate~ he~'1~~0 ~d 1 ike to,come tacAn~heim andnthetrthis, thei ~ wey
conterd with~ but et this time t y w ill
of prt~ceeding~ but If the Incorpor~tlor- does go~ they are not opposod to it and they
have to deal wi th them i f I t is app~oved.
Commisslaner Bushora polntre ort a~dMtheTClty'shstaffe~~+po~tQu+~nd askedclfpthey triede to
the S~•~~ rni l l l~n in thAl r p
coord{nate those two fiyures with the Clty.
as wes elready -nGntioned~ tn c~me up with And
Mr. Trtpp staCed they werc attempt t ng~
c~eate new wt+ys to front capital expendtedrthey~doinotuagreetwlthtstaffCstnumbprspney~ and
would not burden the taxpayers. He stn
would like far Ns. Kelly McDer otteonformsandYtocexplainswhateshethasebeenddoingUinthers
o~ ha+ and why the numbers .o n
atttmpts to work with staff~ etc.
oi nting
Gvrrmi ss loner l3ushor~ i ndl c~ted h I s next ques' i on t~ad to ~O Wand hehhAS n~tn~eads i tpan d so
out he had received this fiscal impact repor. ~oo~;~but~heywould ~Ike to know who Ashlev
responses to the d t f fc~ rences wou 1 d n~t Jo any 9 but the re
EcAnomic Services is before e~ersadinyhASrfarras he~washconcerned`slncelhe d/dknot know
Is no credence to what they Y
who they are.
Chairmen l~erbst stace~ neturally ~t is very Important to get this type of input; that
~taff has their mcti~od of compute ~laonitthese things and the Commission would certai nly be
interested In I~ow you are goiny to
Kelly McOermott. Senior Associate with Asl~ley Economic Services, 5~~ N~''~p°12 i~~~~banr~and
Newport Beach ~ stated she has been i n the f i e 1 d of resea~ch for 20 years ~
economics; that she has worked wi ti tMann ~Johnson~btNendenhallmsa`d herSawnecomPa^`11
Estate Research Gorporatio~, Dan i e. +
Ashley Ec~nomic Services anJ th~[ she has Joint-ventured wi[h t~•~o ~~~h~~statednp~ior t~ t~er
Research Institute of Palo Alto and The Arthur D. Littl~ ~ur;~a^y. •
12 years in urban land econo~i i~•thtee~~dfamousssatslliterconcept~whlch'ar~t~inatedt inn
requirements which culminate
Housto~; tha: she also conducted original en~eotherfretirement cartm~ ities~from deatl~
resul ted ! n the i mage change for Sun C1 tY ~0 1 e t n the mi ddl e and later years of thel r
traps fur elderly peo~le to plaGes where p P
livey could enjoy a fruitfulnCa;s~~"~he studySOfttheWWindowtRock~ ~rlronaRaraarfor the
Gor~oration she was instrume
Bureau of Indian Affairs inte;d~Ve°op~ntmprogramdfor the Wattsgarsanfollowing th~ 1965
instrurnental in the Industria
Watts riots and was instrumen~thnson bhMendenhall,sheRwasvtotallytresponsibleSas P~oJect
that while at Daniel, Mann, J
Economist for the analysis of 3.4 mlllion acres of land in three states fa~ot~e~m~ ~esulted
Pacific Ral lroad on c~seu~c~n~~e~°L~ideterm~neathettimingeand~st~ge=ofsd~velopmer t for
mass i ve +nP ent i re ervnomi ~
in a rather
each of those parcels of land. She stated she Nas responstble for t e Utah's
input for the Laguna ~agheGdidrallPtl~e~economic lnput~foratheEMasterPPlanCfor~~lartna del
Feasibility Study; that
Rey; that she was entlrely responsible fo~ the Fox lillls RedeveloF^~nt Program; that s e
t ~ /20/78
i
MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 20~ 1970 78-984
E 1 R N0. 216 AND RECLASS I F I CAT I ON N0. ~~• 7g-64 (con t i nued)
conJucted a highesc and best use atudy for a maJor anrospace ftrm relAt(ve to excess
acresge In e number af areas In the state; and that she has conducted axtensive hotel and
motel tourism and rocreatlon studles throughout the 11 w~stern states. She stated while
at Ashley Eeonomfc Servtces she has sprzlaiized In three things: fiscal tmpact analysis,
mejor developmenc plans for dcveloprt~nt ranging up to 3.~0~ acres Involvinq residenttal ~
conKngrclel and industrlal uses~ and she has spectallzed in growth manaqement studles
i~volving recomme~datlons of no•growth~ such as in Cerlsbad wt~ere there is nvw a sewer
mo~atorlum. 5he stated also whi le at Ashley Ecnnomic Services she has benn solely
responslble for all research for the Irvin4 Company which involved a yearly economic
review of tha entlrc natlon~ CallforniA~ Qranga County. and the ~rvine Ranch; and that she
hos concluctad an ~xtensive industriAl ~ commercial and apartment co~dominlum study for al l
of Ora~qe County~ San Dtego County. and parts of Los Angeles C~unty. She stated among
maJor residential developers they have re~presanted ere the Lusk Company~ Warmington (all
of tl~el~ companles), Pardee Construction~ New West Development out of Albcrta, Canada~
Dion Corporetion out of Canada~ Cov~ngton dros.~ and~ of course~ Kaufinen b Broad~ and thcy
have alsa c~nductad extensive industrial studies for Warmington Company, Shaw b Talbot~
and Cov(n!~ton Bros.
Sho stated she wanted it read into the record the following hrief statement: First, that
a f(scal impact documen[ ls not a political document; it does not purport In any way to
ad~i~~~_ '_`.c (ssur_ of whether growth is desirable a~d does not purport in any way to
~rddress Che speclfic Jesires of residents of any area regarding what they want In the way
of devclopment. The only thing 1 t d~oes Is purport to show wl~at wt 1 I happen if development
occurs. She p~ln~ed out he~ company meint~tns an extenstve bibllography of articles An
this aubJect and tl~ey wi 11 be happy to share them wl th anyone in the audience or the
Commission ~vho would like to educate rhemselves further on the growth management issue.
She stated the second point ahe would like to h~~ve ~ead into the r~cord Is that a fiscal
impact analyst~ ~•; a v. iyl~ly theorettcel document; that it is intended ta tllustrate~
not cause of relati betwePn revenues and costs~ but rether correlations between t~~
tvio; that t' ~s is dur. ~ '+~ct that the fiscet impact analysis dealing with a project
'.a be carr) ~~ut over a e. .vd of years ts based ~n known data extrapolated into an
essenttelly ~.~s~~known tlme frame and is thus sub)ect to adJustment for such factors as
aetual versus presumed inflationary trends~ meterial shortt+ges whtch result in higher
costs, emergence of additlonal revenu~-producing sources and the ltke. She stated the
tt~ird item she would like to address~ in p~rticular to Dr. Kott~ is that no~e of th~
eapi~al costs discussed in thelr report were in tl~e City's computer pragram or are the
sart cust~mari ly paid by the developer; rather they are the costs which prior to
Propositioi~ 13 wcre pa(d by tl~e municipalitics themselves~ then~ therefore, by the
~axpayers. She stated one of the most far-reaching and important consequences o~
P raposition 1; has been to put all Callfornia ~:tics in a tenuous position witF~ ~egard to
deflcit spendin~ for capital in~rovements. She stated therefore it is the expressed
i ~tent of ttie devtloper to advance tn the Ct ty on a reimbursemeni agreem~nt basis the
monles requi red to fu~d those cap) tal improvements necess i tated as a di rect resul t of the
Bauer Ranch project. She gtated~ of course, tf~e developer wi I 1 not be reimbursed for the
portions of thuse monies which repr~esent his actual "faf r share" of the improvements made.
She stated the fourtli point she would like read into the record is that wc r~yuest in this
rega rd that i t be rea 1 i zed by tf~e Gommi ss i cxi and by ths commun i ty ai I a rge that ~he re
deficits exist relative to capital expEnditures, they wiil not be caused by the Bauer
Ranch If thts plan goes through. She stated long before the (ssue of the Bauer Ra~ch came
alony~ the City beyan to entertain the notton of annexing the J,OOn acres east of the
present city llmits ~nd~ following upon this motion. created a general plan of development
for the area. She stated particutar mention must bc ,aslc in this regard to the City's
eurrent schedule of park in-lieu fees which are of ~.~~.h a nature as to provlde funds for
park development or fnr land acquisitio~~ but not for both. She stated the developer does
1i/20/78
MI~~UTCS, ANANEIM CITY PLA~~NINr, CoMMISSION~ NOVFMtiER 2~, 1978 78-985
E1R N0. 216 ANO RECLASSIFICAT10~1 !~0. y7-78-64 (continued)
not now, nor haa he ever considered hirnself the adversery of the City; rathesr It is and
has beon hts aole (ntentlon to create a planned cnmmunity developrt~nt In An area al~~ady
destgnated by the City for restdential uso~ She stated~ finally. she wouid like it to be
reed into the record that the consultant~ while under contract to the developer~ Is
ncithar en ernployee nor an advocate of the develaper; that the role of the consultant is
slmply that of an Impa~tlal chird p~~rty wtioso task tt has been to Indicate not the
desirability of yrowth~ but simply what will happen fiscally if growth occurs,
Stie addrnssed Dr. Kott's conccrns and stat~d that prlor to Propositlan 13~ ev~ry tlme e
doveloper wished to devclop and the City agreed to this development~ the developer did pay
for cert.~ln r_eplta) costs. For example, these (ncluded in-tract Ilnes for electrlcal snd
wotcr~ etc., and one uf the in~Yt Im~,ortant resulls of Prop~~sitlan 13 has been the City can
no longer afford to front the money for such thtngs as fire stati~n~~ police stAtlons~
water and electr(cal fac(lities, libraries~ etc. She stated she belirved tl~e proJect they
are contert~plating is proto•~typical of nro.)ects that will taka place oil over Caltfornia in
the future; tt~at is~ they wlll not come to frultlon unless developers are able to advance
the cities the rnoney necessary to pay for those cnpltal Impr~vements whlch ~re
necessitatsd strlctiy because of tncir proJect.
She indicated she would itka to makc A distinction betwoen capita) trrprovements
necessitated by a pr~Ject and capital (mprovements generaily planned 6~y thc City. She
stated Anahetm has for s~me timr contemplated development of this 7~~0~ acres and~ in so
contemplating~ the sub_ject of costs has naturally come up. Some of these costs are going
to be necessitated strictly because of the Oauer Ranch and some of the tosts would occur
whether or not the Bauer Ranch came into ~:xisterce~ and rhis is the distlnctlon they have
trled to make. She indicated they havc held extenslve mectinys with thc Planntng
Department and with eve ry single department (n thc Clty to m~~e a determtnatton of thefr
understanding ot this polnt (n cime af what the c~sts witl be~ what the the ~auer Ran~ch
"falr shAre" of those costs will be~ and what portion of those costs over and above thelr
"fatr share" will have to be fronted by the developers so the City can make the capital
lmprovements. She stated, obvlously, rhe City at this time does not heve the
reimbursen~ent districc agreerr~nCs n~ ~,4ary to aceampllsh thls; that they do have
reimbursement agrcements. t!.e kind tt-at has been used for years r~lative to in-tract li~es
and that kir,d of thing~ but Propositiun 13 is very new and this has never happened befo~e~
to the best of her knowledge~ and this is thc first time in the state thts has happened
and she Hxpected to see many other cities coming to Anahei~n should this proJect bP
approved for edvice on f~ow to go about working out this kind of thing~ and she hoped both
Kaufman b Broad and her firm would be of help to them. She indtcated she would like to
get the City off the hook far scxnething else t~-ey were cancerned about. She felt Dr. Kott
had been confused when readtny t~ •<>cument from the City by the foct that the statement
Raw~ Ra~ch Summery and Plannin~ -:• .x~ tment Summary Nere not set apart by capitai letters~
underl ined~ or something 1 tke tt, ., . ;~at al 1 the Ci ty did in thts report was to fi rst
summar ze their rsport and then to surm~artzr thei~ a+n ~eport, so that what you were
reading as parts of the same thing were really not. She Tr~ted that on the basis Nf
Kaufman E Broad paytng for the capital expenditures neces ~~ ~~ the project will show a
smal) surplus. She referred to page 18-q In wl~ich the City had stated that acc~,rding to
their computer program~ the total deficit after ten years wlll be 59.17 milticr. r~d
pointed out if you read the bottom paragra~,h~ it states, "It ts noted this camp>>~r
Frogram was not conducted according to our assumption which was that the City wo.~ld
approve the reimbursemencdist.rici and that Kaufman ~ Broad wouldn't pay fo~ their capital
expendituras, The City. of necessity stnce these reimbursement districts have not been
approved yet. had to create thei~ compute~ program on the bssis of laws and ardinances now
in existence." She indicated they do mention that should the reimbursement districts be
approved~ the effects of thiS proJect woufd be minimized.
il/20/78
MINUTE5~ ANAIIEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMb~R 20~ 1978 7g-98G
EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 77~78-64 (continued)
She stetad (t is ~t this polnt that tho Planning steff end her campany have some degrea o~
dieagreement an this proJect and huped *.hey would be able to work this out; thet accordinc~
to the City's camputer prog,~am which she had exemined over the wenkend~ a deficit of S9.17
million Is the result of total cASts and we are talking in 1978 dollars~ not InflatRd
dolla~s~ of S2Q~~+27~008 with corrosponding rcvenucs of S11~249.4Q3. When the flrst
computer program came out In June an~ they examined It~ there was en Item of S4.4 militon
for streets and In subsequa~t dis~.usslons wlth each depertmant head and eech depertment
stsff~ and she referred particulerly to a meetinq held on th~ 22nd ~f September wtth Jim
Maddox~ City Engineer~ anJ members of his staff lncluding Art Oaw~ and Mr..Oaw~ with Mr.
MAddox's approval had made a statcmr.nt that current Clty policy Is not to pay for any
stroeta whatsoever; thet che develo~er Is to pay for all of tliose~ and M~. paw further
stated that poasibly there wauld be instellation of trefflc signals thet mfght b~ a cast
to the City~ thAt~ on tl~e other hand~ the bullder wauld ~e assessed f~r those at the time
the bullding permit w~s issued. She lndtcated members of th~ Planning staff were present
at that meeting and tiearJ Mr. D~w ~ay this Item should come out and Indicated she was
going to assume~ unless stir Mcard oti~erwise, ch~~t tn the hurry of getting the computer
program out~ that Item was (nadvert~~ntly left tn; that If thts 54,~~ million is subtracted
from the 520 mililan tost~ the reviaed t~tal costs would be SIfi~A12.~G~6~ and (f, fu~ther~
the cepi~al costs, ayaln In 1y~~ dollars~ whlch Kaufman 6 Droed intend to pay~ were
remeved from those costs~ tt~e costs would furcher I~e reduced to S13~395~~+~+(~~ wi th thr sarr~
revenues~ S11~2~~~1.~~3. Which would give a revised def(c(t re~resenting only an op ~tlonal
def(cit of S2~1~~6~043.
She indicated~ in essence~ she bolieved the Plan~(ng Department staff would agree wtth
them up to this point And that they :r-~y wtsh to respond as to why the 54.4 milllon for
streets wes left In~ tl~at the dtsagrr.ement that brinys about an oper~tional deficiC of
$2~1~~6~043 over a ten-ye~r period is due to the dtfference between the way they vtew
revenues and tlie way the Ct ty views revenues.
She stated municipal revenues may be dlvided into Cwo baslc categortest those that are
under Clty controi for ralsing revenues and those that are outside City control. She
stated this dlstinction of reven~~es~ either under or outslde Clty crmtro{s, is cruclal
because it reflects tl~e degree of local discretion that maY be exercised in ral~ing
revenues to rn~et dema~ds for expendicures generated by ~rowth. She stated that part of
the mu~lc(pa) budget which is under local control offers morc f~exibiltty for adJusting
and maneginy internal resources t~ produce nesded revenues.
Ms. McDermott entered on her behalf a disclaimer; "I arr ma4%ing no attempt whatsoever here
to suggest to the City or any of its departments ~rhat tt should ar should not do about
raising revenues to meet the cost of nc,w development or, in fact~ ev~n if tt should do so.
Ti~is discussion is merely an academic discus~fon intended to acquaint the public a~d the
Planning Commission witt~ the nature~ derivation and use of municipal revenues as defined
by Californta taw."
She stated revenuss mainly under Cit~; control formerly incluJed property taxes, but we all
know what I~appened to that; that other revenues under City controi stlll arc under the
headtng of other local tAxes; that other local taxes that accrue to Clty governments are
sales and use taxes~ tra~sient occupancy taxes, franchises, business ticense tax~s~
prnperty transfer taxes~ and u4ility uscrs taxes; that thc sales tax is actually a State
Lax and as such it is outside City contro) to the extent that it comes to the City from
the State, and it is (n City co~trol to the extent +ihat cltfes maximize every opportunity
to bring wlthin their borders business enterprlses subJect to sales tax and f~om which
they will ultlmate{y benefit. She stated~ for example, a city which falls or is unable to
acqulre for itself a maJor regional shopping center aF one million square feet or more
will lose sales tax monies ta a neighboring municipality which has one. Sha pointed out
11/20/78
M1NUTf:S~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMM1S510N~ NOVEMdER 20. 197$ 78'a87
EIR N0. 716 AND RECIA~SIFICATiON N0. ]7-7~-f,~ (continued)
~~._..__~~.._~.._
on thc City's computer pr~gram~ sales tax is listed a~ a per capit~+ Incoma and tndicAted
this Is truc to thn cxtent kh~t salas tax (s spent within the city where the person 11ves~
but. unfortu~ate~ly. whilc Anahelm cio~s have a coupl~ ~f lerge shopping ce~tera~ ft does
~ot have A N~ee Mall ar 5uuth Coast Plaza and is losinc~ a ryreat dcal of rtnn~y to th~se
shopping centers. She stated they have not recentlY done ~ shoppe~s' survey et South
Coast Plsza ~~~d the ~~e currently botng dane at Brea Mall wlll not be r.ompleted for two
wceks~ but when the study was dona two years wqa at South Coest Plaze~ they found fully
two-thirds of ~I1 the sh~ppers were from the narrhe~~~ portl~n of Orange County which
would include A~ahGim. She steted since the Brea Moll has open~J~ th~sc numbers would
have ch~,nged.
She expla~ned that sales tax is in sume senscs a per capita revenue and in some senses Is
nnt; th~+t transient occupancy taxes are under the contro) af the Clty and are levied by
tl~e C i ty of llnohe I m on occup~,ncy of F~ote I rooms ; tl-at f ranch ( se texes A re unde r the
contro) of the ~Clty a~d are actually sales aqreements w6th corporations~ qivtng them the
right to ~onduct certain activicies on or belc~w City property~ and that th~se fnclude
utiiltics, cable TV~ etc.~ wliich se~~ve th~ entirs City~ as well as ratlroads~ oll
cr~rporations~ etc.; and ti~at annual charges may be assessed as ~ ~ercent of gross receipts
or xame factor per unit of ~~hysical structure ar type of structure or tend use; that
b~~siness ltcense taxes were granted ~s re~ulacory devlces to pr~tect puhlic health~ safety
and mora3s and naw the iss~ance of such 1ic.:nses tiAS becomc simply a s~urce of revenue and
Is within City control; that property transfer taxes are slmilarly under f,ity cnntr~l and
are dcrived from sales of real property and camr. into existence during the 1~160s to
provtGe a nr:w .source of ~evPnue to help with the problems of local financing.
Sh~ stated Charter clties are also empuwer~d to enoct a tax on users af utllity servlces
and khis tax it levie~' as a percent~ge of the billing che~ge and in most cttles which levy
thr tax it applies to gAS~ electricity and telepliane serv~ce; that uttl(ty users' tax also
has been increasing in impcrtance in recent yea~s as a sou~ce of non-property tax revenue;
that a city also has control over r~venues f~am licenses and permits~ and these are
fntr.nded tn cove~ and con~unsate: the ~ity for the extra expense incurred by the regulatory
act(vity tnvolvad or from tl~e banefit ~ec~ived from the servlce~ and these fees may be
revenue-prnducing; chat rate structures mey be r~viewed perlodically ta determine if they
sre adequate to cover tne cost of admin~stering tl~e ordinance; that the city alsa controls
revenues from use of money and ~roperty and rentai of faGilit(es and these revenues accrue
to the ctty at the discretlon af thr_ financial manager and is strictly a mana9eria)
functton attachcd to the res~~urces availabl~ and haw they may be manipulated In the most
efficient way. She stated a city has contral aver turrent service charges and this
catego ry of revenues is generally related to constructlan activity and the provlsion of
special servicres not accounted for In the yeneral operating budget, and these include
zoning fees~ subdivision fees, sale af maps~ other filing fees, speciat fire and pollce
servlces~ pl~~ cl~eck fees, anima'. shetter fees, engineering~ street and curb repair~ local
assessment~ ett.. and there a~e also miscellaneous revenues the ctty ~as control over
which include contribut+ons fr~~n cicy-awned enter~rf5es such as, in Anaheim. the Stadium~
the Conventton Center~ and utillties which are alsn sold to outside customers as an on-
going act~vily,
Chairman Herbst asked Ms. McDe rmott how her rePort cortpares with the City°s computer
p r,gram regarding the deficit.
Comm~ssioner Bushore stated he woulci like to read the re~.~ort first.
Ms. McDermott expleined the City progremmed Into their computer model o~ly those incomes
that are gathered on a per capita basls~ plus utiiity revenues, constructlon revenues such
as construction fees and pArk fees, property taxes, and businesa licenses. She stated
11/20/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVFMOER 2f?~ 197R 78'98g
EIR N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFIGATiON N(1. 77'78•~4 (contlnued)
thdre are many other revenues that are withi~ clty control and mr~ny other revenues outside
city cantrol~ but wi~ich •re expcnded upon the populatton in o~e way or another~ end they
(Ashley Economic Services) count rt~at reve~ues whicl~ can be directly related in their
expanditure to elther the industrial~ commercial. or residential developmant of the city
and they excluda such fees when dealing strictly wlth a residential project and if they
come fran and era expcnded upon only for industrl~l land use. She explained this Is why
there Is a diff~ronce - tliat Chey count many more ~evenucs then thc C1ty and show a very
sllght surplus beceuse of lt.
Chairman 1lerbst stated he f~lt one of the ma.lor problems was that the Cnmmtssion had
recetv~d tl~e document toniqht and haci n~t had a chanc.s to analyze it.
Gommisslo~er Barnes asked ~~r. Voycr if ti~ere was any chance tf~e VIscA dPl Rio
incorporatlon hearing would bc hrld before .lanuary l~th with LAFCO~ and Mr. Voye~ replied
fram the audlence that there was not a chance of that happening.
Chalrman Ilerbst e xplalned khe hearing for Kaufman L Brot~d and Anaheim Nilis~ Inc. ts
scheduled befo~e LAFCO on Uecerr~Rr 13th snd that would probably still be I~eld at that
time~ and Mr. Voyer InJt~:ated they w~uld be going to the meeting and asking for a
continuance.
Commisslonar Nushore asked Mr, Voyer haw much had been spenC so Far In the preparatlon~
and Mr. Voyer replled they had comnitted in chAt area S2A4 per family and some have spent
as much as S400. Ne poinCed nut the area on the map.
Cha(rma~ Herbst stated Kaufman L 6road has becn wnrking on thls proJect for two and one-
half years.
Commisslaner Barnes po!nted out when the Task Force had done a cost/benefit study It
shawed that. even if no~hi~g is developed~ It wlll cost moncy. She thought the
Commisslo~e~s needed to read the fiscal impact study before making a declsion~ hawever.
Mr. Voyer explalned he wanted to set the record stra(ght; that they have been working on
the lncorporetlon for a lo~y time; that their funds are limited; that they ~ad had to
start moving fast last May; that they handed LAFCO their check tn July and it was
accepted~ but they dtd not get a certificate of filing because LAFCO de:ert+ed a full
enviranmental impact report ~s a necessity.
Mr. Tripp stated one of tlie reasons thcy are before the Planning Commission requesting
approvel of their planned community zoning and certification of the environmental impact
report is to get some ktnd of guidance on what the feelings are regarding the growth in
the cAnyon so they can relay that to LAFCO and evaluate their positton.
(The following is a verbatlm transcrlpt frem the tsp~.~
Dr. Kott: May i speak4 7he main purpose I wanted to make some remarks Is beceuse the
lady who was here made remarks to me and I did~'t know that's how yo~ conduct a publtc
hea~tng~ but 1 suppose people he~e can talk to Che people In the audience after its
closod. So I would like to respond to her o~ that basis. Now, I agree with a lot af
what she satd, and before I enumerate the points, I would like to state that
partlcularly this is what gave me the idea~ she said it isn't a politica) documient.
Now~ I agree with chat and 1~ in no way~ thought, the thought ~ever occ~,rred to me to
come here to make it a polit(cal document or in a~y way to influ~nce anybody here~
except as a taxpayer. or to brtng political pressure as I was accused of doing; that
thought neyer occu~red to rne. In 18-q. wfien I read 1a-q, I said~ "Uell, 1 gotta go
>>~2o~7a
t
~
MIi~UTCS~ ANAIICIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQ~1, NOVEMBEk 2~, 1~78 7A•989
~IR N0. 21fi AND RECIASSIFICATIQN_ N0._,~~78-64 (ca-tinuedj
.--..-
bcceuse I Ja know ebout P~opositlon 13 and 1a•q says to me tt~at thls Is not canslacent
with 1~." And kh~t's (t. 1 tl~ink 1 still feel 1 am entitled to lt. gut: I aq~ee~ I
don't tl~ink it's a political documcnt because~ os she stated~ It's realfy en academlc:
one and 1 think it Is very goc~d. Yau have to have acadr~mics to reach a ciinlcal pl-flse
of life or to reach a practical ~r r~alfst(c phase of life and I thlnk tf~e ecAde~nlcs
are flne~ but (t should be cakon for what It Is. It is acedemic nnd I ac~ree with f~er
pi~i losoptiy regarding the document. I heven't ~ead the docurr~nt. She, tc~o~ (s aware
af Propositlon 13 and ~d~lressed most of her issues relative to 13, cxcept that she
says tf~at developme~~t was contemplated in the canyon area for the 1~~~~ ~cres end so
on a~d so fortt~. Well. that rnight be~ but J~~n't farget~ that was before 13 and I
tl~ink th~t what you conternplate befare a flnanclAl disaster, y~u c~rtainly must take
anuchrr look aC aftcr the disaster hits, She mentioned th~ir fafr share which ts
rtx~~ti~ned throuql~ this document cxtensively; however~ nothing was sald es to how you
arr~ye ai fai r siiare~ who makes th~ ,judgn~ent of f~i r shere~ an~f what cri teria are
usc:d? I am sure sh~ hA5 it all down somewhere~ so dan't ask her to come back. Now~
if I was to take the attitude af a couple of ne~~~t~ on th(s Commisslon when she said 1
was confused when I was reading some of the stotements, 1 cc~uld take It as An insult;
howevet~ I didn't an<f I knc~w what she me.int hecause these documents are confusing and
can be confusir~y~ but my mind isn't that small. A South Coast Plaza and other areas,
well~ I don't Lhink 1'm 100$ and 1 don't tlilnk anybody in this room Is and I don't
think Anah~im Is, and I don't think Anaheim has to apologize for not having a South
Coast Plaza with all its other resources. The ledy went inco a lot of saurces of
taxes and that really is th~ crux of this wholr. thiny. From an academic polnt of
view~ sure~ we kna+ tl~at we have all these sources of taxes~ but that's what I don't
want to face. I don't want to have to look at c-ther sources of taxes~ use taxes or
otherwise~ to mtike up deficits f~r wh~tever and thAt's you knuw, my own thinq. Now~
far the record~ I do feel that I want to reiterate again that I didn't came here with
any malice. 1 di~in't come here to influence anybody, except to qtve my point Af view
as a taxpayer. I think as a taxpt~yer I am entttled to dc, tl,at and 1 just would like
to make one other short cortxnent and [hat i~~ that I think it shuuld be noted by Che
record~ by the Commissio~~ the au~lence~ the press~ tli~t the obJections that were
heard here as to rtry appe~rance never addressed the issues. rather~ attacked me
persanally. OIC. and I think that's important ~n shav you the mentelity.
Chairman Herbst: I could respond to that. Mr. Kott~ but I won't. I'11 just have to
cansider the soures.
Chairman Nerbst stated he had some input from tht re~t of the Comml~sion that they do nced
to study this doc~~ment wlitCh wos Just handed to them and, also, he felt there should be
dlscussion regarding the possible annexation involved.
Commissianer Bushc-re asked Mr. T~ipp if he had un~erstood hIm correctly~ that he would
ltke an answer toriight.
Mr. Tripp replied thet they would like an answer; that they came to the meeting requesting
approval of the planned community zoning and certification of the envirortmentai lmpact
repo~t; that he r~:alized there has been a lot of carments invoiving the fiscal lmpact
analysis~ but he ~aould still llke to request an answer: that there was not a lot of
cortrs~ents directed toward the EIR or even the planned community zoning on the General Plan
cf Dcvelopmcnt, a~nd he would like to request that thr Co~m~tss(on certify the EIR and
approve the planned community zoning and possibly ~evie,wv the fiscal impact report. or Just
send it ~~ ta the City Council for their review.
,~~2o/7a
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2Q~ 19J8 78-990
EIa N0. 216 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. - 8-b4 (contlnuad)
Cummis~toner Bushnru eskAd whother or not the Commisalon could approve the plan~ed
community zoning~ but not tha specifics~ at ~hls tfma and hnv~ it subJ~ct to the conditian
tliat mo nbre service-related items be provided to such zone as Chere are nc~w avnilable,
Frank Low ry~ Asslstant City Attorney~ rcpli~d that could not bc done; that you csn't have
p{ecemeal~type xoning; thet if the PC zoning is approved~ it Is zon~•d; thet Che Commtsslon
would have e chanr.e for detalled revlew of dev~loprt~nt et a leter ~.ime as e~ch t~act rt-ap
develops~ es ln the Anaheim Htlls PC zanlnq~ but the zone would ex~st~ of course~ subJect
to City Councll ectlon. He puinted out olso that the Ctty Charter specificalty delineates
the power of tt~e Planni~;g Commission~ elong with certnin ordinances of the City and tho~e
dutles pcrtatn t~~ ler~d usa and lend use devclopment and land use ordinances. and xhey do
not concern themse.lves wlth fiscal matters; thet ffscal matters are reserved excluslvely
for the reapor-stb(lity of the Ctty Councll. tlowever~ in ligt~t of varlous proccdures thAt
have happened in some cases dealiny wlth the fiscal studies on the environmenx~l impact
~eports under the State I~w, he thought it was a factor the Commisslon cuuld consider~ but
their primary duty ~s imposed by the Gherter and three ordinanccs of the f,ity and those
deol with land use and land use development~ preclse z~ning~ buildfng, and var(ous othcr
enforcement codes. He stated he was charging thr, Commissinn with the fACt that those are
thelr primery obligations to the City afelththe'tcauldryconsider thegfiscaldreport!i~ation
under the environmental impact repc~rt~ Y
Chalrman Herbst clartfied that the dc>cume~t being discussed could very well be considered
and included into the envlronmentai impact re~ort.
Mr. Lvwry stated the report is for the purpose of the Co;nmission's study as part of the
environmental impact st~~1y.
Gommissioner Bushore indicated he had two questions rtgarding the env:~onmental impact
report, one dealing with thc fault as referred ta by Nrs. Din~dorf and one on paoe 13,
[hird paragraph~ and read the following statement: "The high water ma~k prabably rose as
high as could normally be anticipated during thls past wlnter season. The rlse was not
alarming and the discharg~ was rnpid." 11e stated ht remembered in 19~9 when it almost
overflowed and almost went onto the side roads. s~d he didr~'t think those it~ms had bee~
really addrsssed. Ne also thought there would bp a problem with possible floods. even
though he realized it is not a reservoir and is a flood control facil!ty, but indicated he
has seen it high twice In tr.n years. He also felt there is a problem with the fault. 11e
asked if those two things would ne~~ate the entire document.
Mr. Low ry replied he could certainly cali for clarification ~n those particular items.
Chairman Nerbst felt the Commissiun could call for ctarific~tton on che fa lt area and
stated he thought eve ry part of Anaheim is in a fault area; that he was here in the 1933
earthquake and in the 193~ flood. and that tl~e 1~338 flood did not reach the Baue~ Ra~ch.
He indlcated the report states the property does clear the 1Q0-year flaod a~d that he has
n~ quarrel with that portton~ but as far as the earthquake faults are concerned, he felt a
report should be prepared on that subJect in all of the Anaheim Htlls area.
Commissioner Barnes asked if the Commissio~i could constder the fiscal impact report as
part of tlic environmental impact report.
Mr. Law ry rdpiled that recent rulings have indicatPd *_hat social, economic and ffscal
impacts can be consider~d; that originally the Code conce~ned (tself solely to the land-
type environmentat issues, but they have expanded upon that concept under the present
regulations to permit Planning Gommissions to consider social, economic and fiscal
matters, but the charqe under th~ Charter is slightly different than the charge being
11/20/78
MII;UTES~ ANAIiEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMHER 20, ig78 78•991
EIR N0. 21G ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-64 (continucd)
given under the Stete l~w+s~ so th~ duty to the City Counc(1 and the City under the Charter
deels sulely with la~d use and land use development. but that this ts a document the
Commission can end should consider in ligl.t of the Enviro~menta) Impact Report No. 21G.
Ne steted this was why hr. d(d not stop the presentetlon on this subJect because he felt it
shouid be presented.
Commisslo~Qr Barnes (ndicated shc would lfke to know whethe:r it is the wish of the
Conmisaton to consider this f(scel (mpact report as pe~t of the EIR and polnted out Chey
have noc rcad it. and she dld not thln~: the Cnmmisslon could vote on It.
Mr. Low ry indicated since the Commissic~~ has nat read the report~ he wauld eeivise them not
to takc ectton on it.
Commissioner Oavtd asked haw th~ Commission addresses the issue of the Vista del Ri~
people who are asking the Comniss(on nat to act until afte~ their hearing date. He felt
the me!etfn~ ~f January 1~~ 1979 should he c~nsidered as a possil~le date In ord~r to meet
thei r request.
Com~~issioner Barnes stated she felt a conflict in this issue because the Plenning
Commission ts supposed to do what ts best for the citizens of Anahetm and here is a group
of people who do not want to be citizens of Anaheim and are aslcing for Planning Commission
consideration.
Chairinan Herbst poantnd out thcre is a le,yal problem in c.~ntinuing the matte~ and that the
Commission (s legally bound to make a decision.
Mr. Low ry indlcate~i there is a problem if the developer will nat consent to a cont(nuance,
then the Comnission would be limited by the 40 days and that the proJect ts now well over
the possibllity of a continunnce withaut the consent of the developer.
Commissio~er David poin[ed out the first hearing date was June 19. 197a.
Mr. Low ry pol:~ted uut without the consent of the developer, a continuance would be a
problem; however, the Commisston does nnt have al) the informatian required~ which is the
f~ault of the devel~per. He fclt the Commission could probably grant a tr+o-week
cont(nuance witt~ the consenc of the developer, but Jld not thir~k. they could go beyond two
weeks.
Chairman Herbst asked when the fiscal impact repo~t was made ava~lable, and Mr. Schwartze
replled the document was given to the Planntng Departme~t l~te Thursday evening and it was
inadvertently left out of the Commission packe[s which were provided on Friday. He stated
both the staff and the applicant feel that the analysis of the report submltCed is
probably eccurate.
Canmissione~ Oavid stated it is not uncommon to have staff revtew documents such as this
snd mAke a recapitulatton, a~d Mr. Schwartze. replied that staff does that on almost every
document that comes to the Cfty and the same would be true with the fiscal impACt report,
the environmental impact report. the general plnn of development~ and all other documents
which are submitted.
Cheirman Herbst replied if the CommiSSion feels they do not understand the anatysis of a
report and want to read it. they cen do that, and if they feel they have had enough
information in the staff report~ they can accept 1t, but he thought the Cam~ission
probably could noC go alang with a January continuance dt~te because they are mandated by
il/20/78
~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN(i CJMMISSION~ NOVEMgER 2p~ 1:~;8 78'992
EIa N0. 21b ANO RECIASSIFICATION N0. 77'7~'6y (contini~ed)
ordi~ance to glve a ruling withln A certaln time period unless the applicant wil) aqroe to
a cantinuances.
Mr. T~Ipp steted whetnver actlon the Commission takes tonight, whether It be approval~
denlal or co~tinuancc. wiil not preclude LAFCO fr~m taking son+e sort of actlc-n; that they
dlso have alternatives, and the fact thet the Ple~ntng Commisslon approves~ denies or
conttnuas the Bauer Ranch proJect wili not stop LAFCO from m~king thefr d~cislons on
December 13th and Januery 10th. He stated~ secondly~ the environmental tmpact report end
the addendum were prepa~ed soparately from the flscal impace anatysis because of
Propositlon 13 and the intr(cacies and the p~ablems th~t we are all tryfng to face
regarding tl~e impacts to the Clty from an environmental standpolnt and from a fisca)
stendpotnt; thaC they i~ave yone to greet pa(ns to prepare the envtronn~ntr) ImpACt report
~nd thcy tliink it Is adequete anci a~e se~king ap~ roval of It. Ne stated, aqaln~ that t~ny
kind of conttnuanco would be a definlte hardship and casts oro aGCUrring. He stated they
would respectfully rQqunst a decislon tonlyht regardfng the environmenta) impact report
and the plann~ed communlty zoninq and apologizeci for the Commlssion not hevtng time ta
revidv thc document. Ile stoted the documents are scparate And he did not think th~ere was
ever an intent to include the two together; that they both are very lcngthy~ detailed
documents regarding two different issues and the purpose was t~ nr~vide the fiscal Impact
report for the Commiss(on's review.
Commisslonsr David stated he felt uneasy that Mr. Tripp was speaking for LAFCQ and that tie
wauld rsther hear it from them that a declslon will have no bearing on thr.ir dccis(ons.
Mr. Trfpp stated the annexatlon is a different attian and (ndlcated he did not mean to
speak on behalf of LAFCO; that Vista del Rlo has an application in for incorporaxion and
they have an application in for ann•xtion to the Clty of Anaheim. so there are two Issues
before LAFCO and one before the City of A~aheim~ and that his comme~~t was that LAFLO could
take whetevsr route tt chooses regarding annexation and incarporatton~ ~nd whatever comes
about tontght wil) not necessarily preclude any action thaC LAfCO may take.
Chairmen Nerbst asked if the EIR presented to LAFCO was simElar to the one presented t~
the Planning Commission,
Mr. Tripp stated part of the Bauer Ranch EIR was used and part of the Anahelm Hills EIR
was used~ an~f there was an addendum tying the two together.
Ronald Thort~s~n stated since some of tlie Commissioners are new since the Locai AgeRey
Formation Commission estabitshed Ilnaheim's sphere oF influence, he wauld explain that it
was established in 196~f or GS a~d at that time Anaheim and Yorba Linda boundaries were
establlshed~ and it was determined that all thc area southerly of Espcranza out to the
middle af the rlver ancl on out to the County line would fall within Anaheim's sNhere of
influence and~ based on that. Anaheim has done two General Plans~ the General Plan in 1969
and the FI~I1 and Canyan Plan. so basicaily the area right now is in Anaheim's sphere of
lnfluence ur~less LAFCO determines othe;rwiye,
Chairman Herbst indicated Oranye Caunty did ask Anaheim to prepare a Gensral Plan.
Mr. Voyer stated he is not a citize~ af Anaheim~ but is a neighbor~ and he hoped to stay a
nice neighbor. He referred to a letter from lAFCO to City Manager William Talley and
stated the last part of the letter says that Bauer Ranch in its entirety is within a 19-
mile area that tias been unofficially (which ts now officially) proposed to be incorporated
as the City of Vista del Rio, and that (~clusion of the Bauer Ranch within Vista del Rio
should be dtscussed as one of the alternatives to the proposed p roJect. Ne stated they
really would like to see tt discussed as an alternative to the pro,ject.
11/20/78
MINUT~S, ANAHE IM C I TY PLAtINI NG COMMI SS IOfI, t10VEM8ER 2~, 1978 76'993
EIR NO 216 AND RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 77~78~64 (continuad)
Ch la nr-en Herbst stated~ unfortunately~ as the attorney hns stated~ the Commisslon does
have a charge ~y the Charter to give a rullnq wit'rin 40 deys and unless the applicent
cansenta to a continuance. the Commission must abide by that ruling.
ACTION; Commissloner Busl~ore offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Barnes snd MOTIQN
K ED (Commtsstono~-s Jol~nson anJ Tolar betng absent a~d Commisslaner Davld vot(ng ne)~
that tlio Anaheim Ctty Plsnning Commisslon, having reviewed draft Environmentel Impact
Report No. 216 for the General Pian of Davelopment of the ~auer Ra~ch on this date ~nd
evidence. both wrltten and orel~ heving been presented to supplement draft EIR No. 216~
finds that potentlal proJett-gencrated cnvironmental Impacts have been r~duced to an
(nsignificant leval by c:onfurmance with CICy plans. palicies e~d orciina~r.es and draft EIR
Nn. 21~i is tn campl iancc wi th the Ct~l i forni r~ Envi ronrr~enta) Qual i ty Act and wl th C i ty and
State EIR Guldolines; therefore~ bas~d upon such tnformetion~ the Anahelm Ctty Planning
Commission does hereby certify EIR No. 216~ and that the fiscal impac:t analy3ls is not
tncludod as part of tl~e EIR,
Commissloner David tndicated liis negative, vote was not an the basis of the contents of the
reporc, but merely because he felt it miyh~ taint the V(sta del Rio effort and felt it
would have some effect.
Commissioner Dushore offered a resolution for denial of Reclasslfication No. 77-78-6~+ on
the bas(s of the information Uresented. He stated lf you can show me how wc tan annex it
without p~ovldin~ sprvices to what's out thcre~ I'll go along with it.
Commtssioner Nerbst steted Anaheim has had a Genera! Plan on our board for a long time;
that they have had the Task Force hearings on this for many~ many menths~ and now we h~vP
a plan that corr~s in that conforms to the General Plan~ that conforms to the zoning
ordinances~ and recognizing that we do have some ftscal irr~acts which he did not belteve
the Planning Commisslon should be interested in; that we are interested in land and land
studles, and as far as he was concerned~ it meets all requir~ments of the General Plan;
that predicated on what LAFCO cbes and by admission of ths Vlsta de) Rio people who stated
:hat it would probably fit into their gene~a) plan (response from the audience - wt dldn't
say that) and Chairman Herbst indicated that was what he haJ lieard; that these maps would
probably fit i~to their plans, but, anyway~ he felt when we have a Gonera) Plan on the
boc~ks and the Commmission~ as land planners. lay down thc rules, that to have this Body
change their rules after somebody spends two and one-half ycars with them and to have
sanebody come up hcre and say thix is premature when the ppople that ere putting the money
up front~ their awn r~nay. he felt if it's premature~ it's their maney and they're making
tt premature; that if this land can be developed in accordance to our General Plan and in
accordance to ~ur zoning ordinances~ it's ewfully hard for him to deny them that right.
Commfssloner Bushore stated the man says he wants a dPCis(on tonight based on the
information he has been given tontght and the matertal he has read; that he has no other
chai~e in good conscience in the matter; that he would certainly keep an open mind for a
~ontinuance~ but if he doesn't want that~ then that's the way his resolution will read;
that you can offer ft tl~e other way and he will vote the other way; that he does not like
making decis(ons on recortanendatlons of property that he has not really ser.n~ ~hat he
doesn't like stuff thrown at hlm at the last minute and h~s a whole list of what he
dcesn't like about it, and he doesn't like befng hemmed (n at 90~ unlts~ meaning that if
we dor~'t approve one tract at ly0 that I~e wants and we apprave it for 1~i0, that he can
make !t up 10 dow~; and he has to get somc~ more informatton on that kind of thinkl~g and
there ars some other things~ so if somet~;~..~; wants to offer a motio~ of resolution~ that is
fir~e.
11/20/78
t
MINUTES~ ANIIHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSIUN~ NOYEMbER 20. 197~ 78-994
E 1 a N0. 216 ANO RECLASS I F' 1 CAT I Q~~ N0. 77- 78-64_ (cc~t i nued)
Chalrmen Herbst st~ted this ts what a Plannlnq Commisslon Is ell about; thet thoy have
dlsasreeme~ts and argua among thomsclves and qa oul frtends; thet eech has hls awn (Jeea
and discusses them and you make th~ motlon, (f (t passes~ it pns~ee; thet is the wey it is
hore~ thot's tl~c way It has bean here for years a~d th+~t's the, w~v he wants to keep It.
Canmmisalaner Uushore stated he has no nbJ~ctions ,. the pla~ned communtty =onlnq.
Commissloner ~ar~es asked Comm~~siane~ Bushore If he would be concerned if the fiscal
impact study hnd not been presented And polnt~d out the Conmisslon ts suppos~d to look at
tlie pla~ r~s lend planners and decide whether or n~~ tt~e plen cunforms wttti the Intent of
the General Plan, She feit ttu CoRxnlsslen fiad lc+st stght of thelr rRSponslbllity.
Cheirnu~n F1~rbst explatned since thts would be A planned community development~ zoni~c~ mt~ps
will be brouyl~t before thP Plsnnlny Commission wtth specific plans~ includlnq the houses
for each tract~ and that ls where the Comml~ss~an wlll hnve the hondlo as t~ the numbe~ of
uni ts i n eacl~ onc; tt~at th i s 1 s a re~ucs t for a;: 1 enned commun i ty de ~elopment; end th~st
the zoning is nnt finalized unt(1 tl~e maps are approvr.d And that could be three or four
years from now.
Commissioner dushora inul~:atEd he reallzed tl~is and that he has na ob.~ection to thc
planned communlty, but hased on the If1~A1•mation presented tonight~ he coulci not vote for
it and the petitloner I-os requ.3stec: a Jec(s(on bss~d nn the information hcard ~i~d read.
Commissloner King asksd Cnrtmissioner Husho~c what other Information he would like to have.
Commissioner eushore rcplied Chat hc wanled to read thc ftscal imprct study presented;
that the four other Commissioners could qo aliead and vote for tt; and that it Is a
reciasstficatlon and It will bc ~ut of the Commisslon's hands.
Commisslnnnr Davld asked what 45 days' delay would me~n to a qroiect that has vraP*.ed two
anJ one•half years In ord~r to give little people thcir day tn the iun and fclt tt was
unthinkable that we cannot chi~k in those terms; that they have wo~ked very hard and havc
put the money where tl~e heart is and felt it is reasonebl~ and we csn w ait~ and in that
tlme the Commission would have plenty of exposure to read snd study the reports.
Commissioner Bushore asked tf the proJect would auiomatically go to the Council if the
Comm~ssion takes no action~ end Mr. low ry explained the Conrnission must take an actlon.
Chalrman Herbst explained fou~ votes would be required in order to epp~ove a
reclassificatlon and alsa ~xplained tfiat ane of the Commissloners was absent after
sufferiny a heart atteck.
On roll call~ the foregoing resoluti~n FAILEp 70 CARR'! by the following votc:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUS110RE. UAYID
NOES: COHMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST~ KING
ABSENT: CONMISSIOI~f.RS: JOHNSON, TOLAR
Mr. Low ry explalned the matter would be continued for two weeks.
Chairmsn Herbst explained the Commissio-~ had voted tonight because the Charter n+andates
that they must vote within a ce rtain ~ime period; that he wo~ld have bcen agreeable to a
continuance.
Mr. Low ry explained tf the matter cannc~t ba ~esolved in the naxt meeting with a ful)
Commisslon present. that it would autometically go to the City Council.
It was notnd the next Planning Commtssi~+~ meeting is gcheduled for Decernber 4, 1978~ and
that this hearing wtll be he~rd in the afternoon session. 11/20/78
MINUTES~ AI~AHEIM CITY PI.ANNINC COMMISSION~ NOVEMHER 20~ 197A )8-995
ITCM Np. 1
•E, 0 N RECOMMEIIDAT i ONS
~. LOCAL AGErICY PORMI1T10~1 CoMMISSIQ-1 ENVIRONMEI~TAL IMPACT REPORT
b. SANTA ANA CANYQfI N0. 7 ANNEXATION TO TNE CITY OF AN NIEIM
Phllllp Schwartze~ Assistent Director for Pldnnin,y~ presented the steff report to tiu
Planning Commission clsted November 20~ 1978~ end potnted out this Is a xeparnte but
re;nted Item and r~ lot of it h~d bee!n discussed at tl~e prcvious hearinc~. Ne steted Sante
AnA Cenyon No. 7 Annex~tton to the Clty af Ana~heim includes npp roximetely 1.26~ scres end
(t has been requested by varlous property owne~s~ Wallace Ranch~ An~+helm Nilis~ Inc.~
Baucr kench~ Douglas Ranch~ 8aptist Church property~ etc.~ anei this annexatlon w(I1 be
gc~ing bef~r~s the Locel Agr.ncy Formatlon Commisslon (LAFCO) December 13th. lie stated a
pr~vious request has becn tn process for in:orporation fo~ the City of Vtst~ del Rio. ~le
pointed ~ut the area that would be the Clty of Vlsta del Rlo~ if approvad~ on the Gen~ral
Plan map displ~ayed on tl~e wall. Ne steted the Friends of Vista de) Rlo hove submltteJ
khoir request ta LAFCO for thelr consideratfon~ t+n~il.AFCO has requested that any I~put by
any cities involved be presenteu to thcm prior to the hearing date~ which is January 1f)th.
He pointed out they elso discussed ;here is e dlstinct possibility the Santa Ana Canyon
No. 7 Annexatlon which would incl~~de all of the proper[y Is now sched:~led before LAfCn for
December 13th. Ne indicated it was his opinton e~ a staff inembcr that this request for
annexattun will be continued until after the hear(ng for the Incorporatlon of Vista del
aio. He stated if the City is going to h~ve any comn~rts to LAFCO~ th~y have requested
that they bc made pr(or to the Decsrtber 13th meeting~ which ts for the annexation. and
(ndlcatad ha has prnpared a ~eFort which is Item 19 which discusse~ the vari~us
occurrences as the result of both tl~e i~corporetlon and the annexacton. He stated he
would be taking this matter to the Ctty C~uncll in the ve ry ncar future and asked for
their res~onses to wh~ether or not he should r~present the City at the LAFCA meeting in
favor or oppositlon of the request~ and the Planning Commi~sion should make a
recommendatlon or comrt~ents to the Ctty CounGil.
He indlcaeted the City has received one copy ot the envtronmental Impact re~ort for Vlsta
d~l Rio and have been promistd copies of the Santa Ana Canyon No. 7 Annexation repart~ but
that staff dots not have any probloms wtth the EIR submttted.
Commissloner Oavid pointed out the City of Orange has indlcated thcy are ready to provide
s~rvlces on the 2G0 acres of Anahelm ~Itlls and asked if the City of Anaheim has made any
cannents regardiny that.
Mr. Schwartze indicated we have not; that both Items are takiny ~lace without the City's
involven~e~t snd we dtd not I~ave much Input Into the annexatlon rec+uest. that It came
directly fram th~ property owners. Ne polnted out a piece of property on the map which ts
ln the Oranc~e sphere of influence and is part of this annexetian request. He stated the
proposal which is being presented by the prope~ty awner is saying, "Ne want this to go
into the City of Anahelm~" and the City has nnt had any input.
Chairman Herbst pointed out the only time the Cfty has ever sol(cited annexation was
~egard(ng tlie weigh stati: , but the City does not normally snltcit annexation, and the
property owners ask to come tnto the C!ty.
Mr. Schwartze stated normally the applicant comes to the City first and activities are
done here, and then it ts referred to LAF'C0; that there is a second alternative, whtch is
for the prope~ty a~+ner to qo straight to LAFCO~ which is the p~oc~ss being used for Santa
Ana Canyon No. 7 Annexation.
il/20/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM{SSION~ NOVEMBE~ ?.~~ 197~ 18-996
SANTA AHA CANYON N0. 7 ANNEXATION (continued)
Commtssloner Dsvld i~dicated thot ev~n thou~h wa do not solicit annexetlons , we do include
tf~ese a~ees in our General Plan and stuctles with our Tssk Force~ etc.
CI») rman Herbst st~ted wi th ref~-rence t~ the Santa Ana Co~rf dor~ the City of Ar,Aheim was
aaked by the County of Orsnye t~.i prepare a gener~) plen of dev~lopment snd it was done o~
the besis of ridgellnes which flowed to O~ange and Aneheim, 7he City of An ahetm wes the
logical city to servlce thet aree because of th~ fic~w af the water~ sewer~ whataver. and
what power we had in the ~rea~ anJ ihc Gounty of Orancle h~~cf asked us to prepare a genF~e)
plen.
Ronald Thnrnpscm~ Pianninq Dlre:c.-.ur~ exNl~~(n~~d lt Is very irr~ortant from a publi~ facll(ty
stendp~int, b~cause If y~u plan for the entire area~ you can stze your wate ~ and se~wer
lines wltt~ aome assurance you will not have to come beck latr.r end put In a dditlonal
facll(tles.
Commias(oncr Uarnes added that plus LAFCO has alrcady told the Clty of Anahelm th{s is in
our sphere of influence on tlic basts of who could loc~ically service the ~re a, and thls is
rQally why e General Plan was devel~ped. She stated if th(s area Is develo ped fnto the
City of Vista del Rlo~ she did not think any othe~ eity could service it; t hat it wauld
have to ~tay in the County~ cl~c City of Anaheim, or th~ new Clt~~ of Vista dr;l Rio. She
stated one of the raasons they had gone ahead and developcd w(th thc plans, the Clty did
not want anything to happen to khat area to detracC from the value of thc~ o ther property
owners; and tfiat the County has d{fferent stAndards~ the City of An~hetm h a s better
standards~ and stated she did not knaw what the standards for Vista del Rio would be wh~n
they run Into flnancial troublc. She felt if the~~- do run (nto financlal t~ ouble~ they
would be mo~e 1(kely to allow dcvetopmc:nt of a lesser quality than the City of Anahelm
would requi rc.
Chalrman 1lerbst stated Anahelm ts tlie largest city I~~ Orangp County~ is the eighth largest
city In the State~ and Aneheim does have a sizeable industrial vacancy and some amenities
coming into the area~ such as hlghrise office buildinys~ etc.~ and stated i n looking at
the overall picture In Anaheim. we must create housing and tt~e~e has never been a housing
tract that has paid its own way; that P~opositton 13 has opened peoples' ey es~ but that Is
~ot yoing to c:hange, it might slow down the growth pattern. f1e pofnted out Anaheim is a
balanced cfty~ prob~bly one of the best balanced clties In the Untted Stat~s, because we
have long-range plans and did not feel because Proposition 13 has passed that we should
stop growth; that we still have a lot of growing to do in Anaheim and stil~ have to supply
housing. Ne stated as the cast af houslt~g go~s up~ so does the cost of de velopn~ent and
income from other ~reas.
Commissloner David ~ointed out at the prices quoted he did not see any rooa~for mode~ate
and low-cost housing.
Chalrman He rbst pointed o~~t r,hat right now the industrial property tn the Northeast
Indusr.rlal Are~ is in excess of $100~000 and figuring taxes before Proposi tfon 13 or after
Proposition 13~ you stiil go up and felt the Planning Cammissio~ must look at the overall
picture and not just that particular development~ and that we have to serv ice the
communtty aiong with it; that we hsve to supply hous(ng for the industrial grc~wth.
Commissione; Barr,es pointed out the Gity is not in the bustness of acquiri ng land and did
not think a~y of us were enxious to Just acquire land.
Chatrman Herbst pr~inted out that cortments regarding whcther o r not this an nexation (s
prematurn~ the developer is going to be putti~g money into the p roject a~ a would not be
putting his naney i~ unless he was sure tt is time to develop it, and he would have to go
11/20/78
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2Q~ ~978 18'')~7
SANTA ANA CANYON N0. 7 ANNEXA_ TI ON (co~tinued)
alonq with the froe enterprise systam and ellow ~he developer ta mnke his awn
detarmination. Ne felt this e~ eiexetlon is eaolny along with wh~t the Taak Force spent two
end one-hslf yeers preparing.
Ronald Thompson st~tod he belie ved it was tho Tesk Force and the City Cou~cil who h~d
we~ted the fiscel impact report . rnd that it Is a toal.
Chalrnian Ilerbst asked staff If they a~e looking for 9u!dance from the Planning Commission
and a recommendetion that we p u rs~c this annexation.
Mr. Schwartze repited that tf t he Plannin~ f.ommtssion has any thouqhts o~ the ma~tcer ~~d
would iike to offer any recomn~ ndatlo~ t~ the Ctty Cauncil abaut this matter. so thet when
he appears before the C) ty Coun ci 1 he can say what the p I ann i nq Cortxnl ss i on' s thoughts we re
a~d then he w(ll be seeking th e Ctty Councll's directlon for his ~ositton before the
LAFCO hearings on Dec~~er 13tF+,
Frank Lawry~ Asslst.Ctty Attorncy, fndicated since this actlon ts so closely tied with the
previnus actlon which was cont inued, iie would hate to see the Planning Canmission take an
actlon on it.
Phi ll ip Schwartze Indicated he wauld be going to the City Caunci 1 for di rect(~n wei l prior
ta any pr~sentation a~t thc IAF~J hearing,
Commissioncr Barnes suggested lhat the Planning Gcmmisslon make a recommendat(on that the
annexatlon b~ approved in (nte nt if It seems~ or the City Council de ms~ the City of
Anaheim can afford co service tl~e area.
Philiip Schwartze pointed out rn~st of the area of 1~z65 ecres is Anaheim 1lills, Inc.
propcrty and they have made no similar proposal to that bein,y given by Kaufman b Broad;
hawever~ ha would be ha~py to ~ePresont tt~at to the Ci ty Gounci 1.
Chalrman Herbst suggested tha t nc~ actlon be taken u~tll the next meeting on ~ecember 4th~
and Mr. Schwartze could take [he recormiendation verbally to the Council on the Sth.
Mr. Schwartze i~~iiceted hc could present the Commission's recomrnendattons orally at the
Council meettng the following day.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushore offered a mofion. se conded by Coexnissloner David and MOTION
C~R~D (Cortmissioners Johnson e~d Tolar '~elnq absent) ~ that the Santa Ana Canyon No. 7
Annexatio~ be conttnued t~ th ~ Planning Comm(ssior, meeting of December 4~ 1978.
Commissioner Bushore indicate d he would 1(ke to discuss information being submitted late
to the Planning Department an d to the Planning Gommissiun and would llke to set a policy
thet it not be accepted.
It was noted the Fiscal Impac t Report was given to the Plan~ing staff on Thursday nlght,
but not put into the Commissian's packet, and Mr. Schwsrtze pointed out staff had not a
good chance to tevi ew the report .
Cheirrnan Nerbst offered a mot ion that all materials must be submitted to the Planning
Department staff on the F~iday prtor to the meeting dat.e end that any material submttted
afte~ that time will be subjact to a continuance, beca~ise staff doas not have adequate
time to review the dacument.
Ronald Thompson pointed out this report Is very significant and lt may well set a policy
as to future development in t he City of Aneheim.
11/20/78
MINUTES~ ANIWEIN ClTY 'LANNING COMMlSSION~ NOVEMDER 2Q~ 1978 78'938
SANTA ANA CANYON N0. 7 ANNEXAT I ON (cont i nued)
Commissloner Bar~es saconded the motion ~nd N,.)TION CNiR1ED (Cammtssione~s Tole~ •nd
Johnson beinq absent) .
Phillip Schwartze indicetod staff h+~s certelnly endeavo~ed to give the Plenning Commtssto~
the best possible ~eport; that thls entlr~ actlvity wtth the Bauer Ranch has boa~
ext reme 1 y en 11 c~hten I ng ancl s ta t f has 1 ee rned e 1 ot flbnut themse I~v~s end the t r ab 1 1 I ty to
~sact snd maka decisions~ and polnted out they are going to propose a nur:~er o` chanyes in
the Clty's methods ot operetlo~ snd its scc:eptance of certain documents end thet~ validity
•nd wlio has the responstbl Ilty.
Chalrman Herbsc esked if the S~+ million referred to far ro~ds was taken out of the rnport~
and Mr. Schwartze stated he wi 11 be getting e vesry accur+~tp r~s~+~ns~ from the approprtate
party.
Commissio~e~ David esked if anath~r steff report w{ 11 be preparpd ~n th(s.
Mr. Schwsrtze stated the report w(11 be put in a different order for clArification and
certaln modifications wlll be made.
Commissione~ Davld asked for a definittan of "tair share"~ and Mr. Schwartze replied that
that information will bc provided.
Chalrman Nerbst referred to the a~nexatton~ and studics of growth Indicate that Anahelm
and Orenge County are not e~oing to stAp growing and is sti 11 one of the hlghest growth
areas in the United States~ ~nd he thought whatever g~awth we do hav~s should be good~
controlleJ gravth~ reco~nizing tt is not gaing to be "0" g~rnvth. He stated Orange County
has a Master Plen of Rodds end Wel r Canyon is scheduled co ga ov~r and part of this
development takes care of that~ and at some polnt Chis area is going to grow. Ne felt
Anaheim should be proud of what (t has~ which Is planned~ controlled growtli.
Commi ss i one r Osu( d asked that the s taf f raport di scuss the comments :nade that th I s
pr~posel Is unique and could set a precedent.
Ph( ll lp Schwartze stated staff wi 11 ~nin~ out th~ differences between the numbers used by
the economist end the Clty~ Indicating the City's numbGrs are based on fact of things
happan i nq i n tha Canyon.
ADJOURNMEN7 There being no further business~ Commissloncr King oFfered a motlon~
seconded by Commissia~er David and MOTION CARRIE() (Commissioners Johnson and
Tolar being absent) . that the meeting be adJourned.
The meeting edJdurned at 10:k5 p.m.
itespcctfully submftted~
~fLc,c~ ~ %4!~.~:.
Edlth L. Na~ris~ Secretary
Anah~tm ~ity Planning Commission
ELH;hm
il!20/78