Minutes-PC 1978/12/04~
~ ~
Ctty Hall
Anaheim~ C~iifornla
pecember ~~. 1~78
REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
, .._.__
RECULAR • The reyuler meetirg of the A~ahcfrr Clty Planninq Canmissto~ was called to
MECTING order by Chelrman Herbst st 1:35 p.m.~ Decamber 4~ t97a~ in the Council
Chamber. e quorum be(ng prpsent.
PRESENT - Chairman: Herbst
A~SENT
ALSO PRESENT
PLEDGE OF
AILEGIANCE
- Commissionars: David~ King, Tolar
Commissloner ~arncs
Commissloner Bushore
- Commfssianera: Johnson
- Jack Whtte
Jay Tltus
Paul Sinqer
Roneld Thompson
Phillip Schwartr~
Annika Santalahtt
Jay Tashiro
Joel Fick
Pam Lucado
Robe rt Henn i n~e r
Edith Harris
errived et 2s35 p.m.
errived at 1:45 p.m,
D~sputy City Attorney
Off(ce Enginecr
Traff(c Eng(neer
Planning Depa~rtrn~nt Directar
Assls2dnt Director for Pla~ning
Assl~tant Director for Zoning
Aas4clate Pla~ner
Associate Planner
Assistent Planner
Assistant Planner
Planntng Commission Secretary
- The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was lzd by Commissloner King.
ITEM N0. i PUBLIC IIEARING. To constder: I- Alternate
E R NEGATIVE DEGLAaAT10N (1) propossls of ultimate lend uses including.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAGT REPORT N0. 222 (Ilj but not limited ta. singlt and multlple-
GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT H0. 1 family ~esidential development for approxi-
mately two acres o~ the east side of Knott
Street~ approximately 660 faet north of the
centnrline of Ball Rosd; and
II - Noise Element of the Generel Pla~ - o~~tlining obJectives~ paltcics~ standards and
criteria which are applicable to the noise environmeni of the City of Anaheim.
It was noted that Item II. the Noise Element, would be contlnued to ihe meettng of Jenuary
3~ 1919.
ACTION: Cvmmissioner Tolar oFfered a m~tto~, seconded by Cemn~issioner David end MOTION
~- (Gommissioners Barnes~ 6ushore and Johnson being absent)~ that consideratton of
Pc i of General Plan Amendrnent Ido. 149~ Noise Element. be continued ta thg
re~. •. ,-scheduled meeting of the Pien~ing Canmission o~ Januery 3, 1979.
78-999 t2/4/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITIf PLANNINC COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 4. 197E3 18-1000
ITEM Np. 1 PUBLIC HEAkING. OWNER: PLOTKit~-RO5EN UEVELOPMENT
~R~T1~ DECLARATIUN COMPANY~ 13352 W~shingt~n Boulevard, Loa Angeles, CA
0, 192~ 9qn66. AcENT: FRANCf~ISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP,,
"'-'-""' 1~960 WI ishi re doulevrd~ los Angeles ~ CA 9002i~.
Petitiener requests permissla~ to E~TAOLISN A ORIVE-
Tf1R0UGH RESTAURANT on prope~ty described as e rectangularly~shaped pr~rcel oF land
consiating of approximatcly 0.8 ecro havtng a frontage of ap~roximetely 1?.5 feet on the
east slde of Eucltd Street~ having a meximum depth of appraxtmatcly 272 feet. and belnq
located approxtmately 9~y feet norCh of the centerllne of C~escent Ave~ue. Property
presnntly classifted CL (COMMt:RCIAI~ LIMITEU) ZONE.
It was noted the petltioner had requested a continuance.
ACTION: Commissloncr King offered a rrotfon~ seconded by Commissloner Devld and MOTION
~D (Commissloners ~erncs~ 6ushore and Johnson bctny absent)~ that conslderation of
Co~ditional Use Pertnit No. 1920 he continued to the regulerly-scMeduled m~eting of the
Planning Commtssion on Decembe~ 1R~ 197~i~ at the request of the petttloner.
ITEM N0. 14 PUBLIC HEARI~~G. PLOTKiN-iiOSEN ~EVELOPMENT CO.,
R N I E DECLARIITION 133~2 Weshington Boulevt+rd~ Los A~qeles~ CA 9~a66.
U5 0. 505 Petitloner reyucsts APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS on
property described as 4.6 acres on the east stde of
Euclid Street~ north of the centerline of Crescant
Avnnue. Praperty presently classiflcd CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of November 20~ 197~ tn order to file a
Negative Declaration.
It was noted the petitloner has rPquested a cnnttnuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Talar offered a motion~ seconded by Cnrtm(~sloner Oavid and MOTION
~0 (Gommissione~s Barnes, aushore end Johnson being absent), thai constderation of
Conditiona) Use Permit No. 505 he continued to the regularly-scheduled meettng of the
Planntng Commission on December 18, 1978~ at the request of the petitioner.
ITEM NQ. 1 CONTINUEQ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ANAHEtN REDEV~L-
EIR-CATEGQRICAL EXEhiPT1AN-CLASS 1 OPME~IT AGEPiCY~ 106 NArth Claudina St., Su(te 40Q,
WA R COUE REOUiREMEN7 Anahcim~ CA 92~5• AGENT: EJ SCNNATZMEYER,
D U RM . 19^9 111 East Lincoln Avenue~ Anah~im~ CA 92805.
Petitioner requests permtssion to ESTABLISH AN ADUtT
900K STORE WIT11 WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES on property desscribed as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of
approximetely 6750 square feet h~ving a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue~ !~aving a maximum depth of approximately 135 feet~ be0ng located
approximately 105 feet west of the centerline of Phlladelphia Street, and further
described as 238 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified CG (COMMERCIAI~
GENERAL) ZONE.
SubJect petition was contlnued from the meeting of November 6~ 1978, at the request of the
petitloner and from the meettng of November 20, 1978 at the request of the agent.
It was noted the Redevelopment Agency has requested that this item be withdrawn.
Robert Lyons~ Redevelapment Manager, was present to answer any questlons.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offerad a motfon~ seconded by Commissloner King and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioners Ba~nes. Bushore and Johnson betng rbsent~~ that Petition for
Conditianal Use Pe nriit No. 19og be terminated at the request of the petition~r.
(THE FOI.L0411NG HAS dEEN TRANSCRIBED FROM TAPE N0. 1 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OECEMBER 4, 1978.) 12/4/78
~
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~, COMMISSION~ ~ECEMBER 4~ i978 78-tA111
Item N0. 2 -
Chalrman Herbst - This was held over from the lnst hea~iny. The hearing has boen closed
and I think we would pr~fPr to postpono this untll - I know Jerry will be here very slv rtly
and wc~ w~~tack and Iswau Id 1 ke(tojholdsthatWOVeenuntWl wcegeh~as nanyCCornmi isspore rs"here
a heart ~ t
a; possiblf .
Jay Tashiro - Associato Pl~nner - Mr. Ch~~irman, wa do have some correjecond paragraphe
pn Cha staff report at this tirne. Under p~ge 2k - undtr 21 - in tho
where it says fo,,nation of roimbursdmant agreemanl~ yct to be rcview~d arid approveci" -
"and approved"^s1hauld be daletud.
Gomnissioncr David ~ Say that. ayain.
Jay Tashiro - O.K. ThaC would be undcr ?.I, it is the 3rd linc which s.3ys, "reimbursement
aqreements yct to be review~:d ancl approved," "~nd approved" should bc daleted.
Page 21 - under 2, first par~~yr~ph, line ~+, which slates, "a deficit of 518.9 million in
1978 dollars". O.K. now -"of $18.9 million ir~ 1978 dollars" should be deleted.
Chalrman Herbs~ - Wh t line was that, Jay? ~
Jay 1'ashiro - that would be at the end of line 4.
Commissioner Kiny - Wh~t are you putting in the place of the S18.9, or are you str~king
the whole thing.
Jay Tashiro - That is totally taken out.
Commissioner King ~ The whole ser~tence.
Jay Tashiro - No, just that portion tl,at states "of $18.9 million in 1918 dollars," and
Page 2q - under 3, which is lhe 2nd line, which says, "Public Utility Board's approval,"
that should read, "Public. Ucility Roard review", and also under 25 where ~t atso says
"Public Utility Broad review, or rather, approval'; it should be revie w~ and under Page
2u, under 2, in the last paragraph which is underlined -"however, if City Council and
the Pub lic Utility Buard approves", now, "and Che Public Utilicy Board" should be deleted
so it should rsad, "howevE~r,if City Council approves reimb~irsem~nt agresments."
Chairman Herbst - Temporarily we will g~ on to Item No. 3•
ITEM N0. 3
RECl.AS51F1CATI0N ~'^. 78-79-22 - Melvin ~ Marriam Schantz -!~s the applicant present? Do
wn have anyons in the audience in opposition to tt~is propc~sal?
Commissioner King - Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict of interest regarding this item.
Chairman Herbst - We can't hear it. Have to wait. Have to move on to Item No. 4 until
we gat four Cormissioners. ihat was I~em No. 3, but we are going to have to continue
it for one more Commi3sioner b~causP Mr. King says he has a conflict of interest. Just
a few minutes. It would not leave us with a quorum.
Chairman Herbst -'le w~ll mcwe on to Item No. 4, Variance ~:o. 3061 - Is the applicant
present? Imperial Associates - Is the applicant present on Imperial Associates?
Commissioner Tolar - You're doing good, Lou, wa are getting right through them.
Chairman Herbst - We will be through this hearing before we know it. 12~4~~8
Commissioner King - This is 5640 E. La Palma.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~AI~NING COMMISSION~ pECEMBER 4~ 197$ 78•1~QZ
Gheirman Herbst - This is a sl~opping ~ur~tcr, ragardin~ illegal si~ns. Move on to It.em
No. 5.
~„T~1 N~~,~ PUBLIC HEARING. UWNER: DEnN R. JONES, 4~30 Cerro
EIR C/~TEGORICALLY EXEMRT -_CLASS _ Vista Driva. Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT; PERRY R.
VARIANCE N0, 30 MANSELL, 15536 Lcahy, Bellflower, CA 90706
"-"-!" ~ Petitionor requests pormission to construct a
tennis court with a woiver of MINIPIUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK on an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land cansisting ~f appr~ximately 1.0 acre, having a frontage of approximaeely 18 feec on
~he south side oi Cerro Vist~ Oriva, having a maximum d~pth of approximately 247 feet.,
being ',ocated approximately fi92 feet soutl~wesC of the centerline af San~a Ana Canyon Road
and furCher describdd as 4530 Cerro Vista Drive.
Ther~ was no one indicatinq lheir presence iri opposition [o subject request, and
although the staff report to the Planning Conxnission datQd December k. 1918 was noc re:ad
at tho public hearing, it is reFerrc~d lo and rnade ~ part of the roini~tos.
Perry Mansell~ ~^neral Contractar, agent, explained su~j~~t propcrty is approxima~ely
one acrc~ iri size a~~d they are locating tl~e tennis coure in th(s partir..ular location
because of the use c.~ tho re~t of the proNc~rty f~r a swimming pool; that. thc swirnming
p~ol plans have bcen ~pproved by the Buildin~ Dapartment; that chcy would haYe likad to
locate the tennis c~~url furlfier from the propcrty linc, but it would not fit with the
planned swimming pool, that they have mainCained the 5-Foot setback which is actually an
easement; that the main reason Mr. Jones, chc owncr, had bough~ the property was to build
a tennis court and that: m~~ny of the adjacent horr~es on (.u~r~ Vista and Lakeview have tennis
courts.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner David stated hc: undcrstood the slab has alroady bcen poured for che tennis
court.
Mr. Mansell replied th~t was correct; that tl~cy had submilted their plans to the Building
Department and did not have any idea they would bc in conflict until the slab was poured
and the Engineering Department had indicated a variince would be n~cessary for the fence;
that the tennis court w~th a 6' fence would not require any permits~ but there would be
problems with a 6 ft. fence with balls going into the neiyhbor's yard. etc. Ne stated
he dici not know whether che error was due co negligence or an oversight; that [hey actually
sent their• plans to Plan Check three or four mo~~ths ago.
COMMISSIONER BUSHORE ARRlVED AT 1:45 p.m.
Chalrman Nerbst asked Mr.Mansell if the tennis court had been discussed with the
neighbors.
Mr. M~nsall replieci they had talked with the immediate neighbors; that there are two vacant
lots; that ali the neighbors have signed heir petition stating tFiey have no objections
and are pleased the area is being cleanec± up.
Chairman Herbst stated he had viewed ene site and it backs up to nothing but a boat in a
back yard, with a row of trees on the other side ~nd he saw no objection.
The staff report noted the Planning O~~~ector or his authorized representative has ~etermin~sd
that the proposed projBCt falls withi+. the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5~
as defined in Paragraph 2 of thc City of Anaheim Environmental {mpact Report Guidelines
and is, therefore, categorically exempt from Che requir9ment to prepare an EIR.
~z/4/~8
~
MtNUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING LOMMISSIAN~ o~c~n~~a 4~ 1~78 7~~10U3
EIR CATEGORICAI. EXEMPTIOt~-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0._3pb4 (~~nt(nuPdl
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar oftered Rosolut~~n Nu. PC7 -279 ~-nd n;oved for it~ paasa~~
and adoption th~C the Anahoim City Pl~anning ;,ommission does horeby grant Petition for
Varlance No. 3064, on 1hc~ basis that donial would ba dnpr•iving this prv perty of privil~ges
boing en,joyad by othor propertit±s in tho same zone and vicinity, and on the b~,~is of
the irregularly-sha~Pd p~~rcal, and subJect to Intordepartmanlal Canmietde Rec~~+nendations.
ON ROLL CALL, tho faregoing r~:solueiun pasaed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSNORE, DAVID, NERBST, K.ING ~~~~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AdSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES ANO JOHN50tv
Chairman HerbsC - Shall we qo back to Itam No. 2, I don'l knaw if~ Cvnxnisslor,er Barnes
will be here or nAt.
Commissioner Tolar -~ We c,an't wait for her - let's ~o.
Chairman Herbst - We'll go back lo Item No. 2. Item No. 2 was h~lct over for - because
of a 3-2 votc, The hearing has be~n closed and wc are goiny to listen for a motion at
this point in time to - of what will bc naw.
ITEM N0, 2 CONIINUED PUBLIC HEARING. OW"~ERS: MABEL J, BAUER
ENVIRONMENTAL 111PACT REPORT N0. 216 A~JD UNITED CAIIFORNIA BANK, 707 Wilsfiire ~oulevard,
RECLASSIFICATION h0, 77~8-b4 Los Angeles, CA 90051. AGENT: KENT LAND COMPANY,
~ 17881 Sky Park Narth, Irvine, CA 9271-~. Pet:icioner
requests reclassification of pro p~rty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting ot approximately 375 acre~ Incated sou:heast and ~ uthwest of the intersection
of Che Riverside Freeway and Weir Canyan Ro~d, having a frontage of approximately 6920
feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approxirnately 34UQ feet, and
further described as the Bauer Ranch, fram the County Al (GENERAL AGRICUI.TURAL) DISTRICT
TO TNF PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY) I.ONE.
Chairman Fierbst - W~'ll ge back co Item No. 2. Item No. 2 was held over for - because
of a 3-2 vote. The hearing h~s been closed and we are going to lis[en for a motion at
this point in time to - of what will be now.
Commissionor David - You are not going to reopen it, Mr. Chairman~ are you? Tfiat me.ans
that nothing new and different can be added to the deliberations, therefore, previously,
I guess, right?
Conxnissioner Talar - I would like to ask in rslation,hip to Chis proposal, is there anything
new in relationship to information that has come about. to the staff in the last two weeks?
Robert Henn~nger, Planning Department Staff - Basically we have altered the staff report
to clear up any confusion t.here might have, been with roqarcl to the fiscal impact study -
since the last pubtic hearing, the Engineering Department has provided us with a memo that
appears in the revised staff report with regard to the costs of streets and in that -
regarding streek costs, maybe it would be best if Pam Lucado would - if you have any
specific questions on the numbors could answer [h~m for you.
Commissioner Tolar - I have no problem with the numbers.
Commissioner Bushore - Do we have a revised cost?
Pam L~cado - Referring you to page 2t of tha staff report.
Commissioner Bushore - O.K. we are not changing - no deviations from that at the present
time? 12/4/78
:~
MII~UTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLA~ININf; COMMISSIQN~ OECEN9ER 4~ 1~78 ~8"~~~~+
FIR N0. 216 AND RFCLASSIFICATIUN N0. 71'7a-6~ ~~ontinued)
Pam Lucado - Those revisions w~re incorpora[ed~ r~long with tho clarificatiu~~ uf f~ir
sharo vorsus total City 4xpendiluro,, I beliove it is explained in detail in the st~iff
reporc. If the Planniny Ccxnmissfon has any questions with respc~ct to the sl.aff report~
I will bcs morc ~han happy to holp clarify thoso.
Canmissioncr David - P~,~~, I don't undorstand - thore is sc~i~ changc, in the scaff report.
Is that what you are saying - because of the sr.reot costs?
P~~~ Lucado - Corroct, Wo madc some rovisions tu thc~ fiscal impacc analysis that was done
by planning st~ff.
Commis~ioner 0~'~vid - F~rom this report to tho one thac w~is two weeks ago, i, that correct?
Pam Lucado - From the last time~ correcl, per tf~e exi;.ting City r~licies.
Commissioner D~vid - And khe one that we have, the staff report, is the CQ~I'~CtE:d update.
Pam Lucado - Carrect.
Ccxnmissiener David - So you are asking do we h,ive any questions regar-ding that.
Pam Lucado - Correct.
Commissioner David - Then tfie figures that we have t~ere, accurcling to staff. still stand -
the necessary City crpit~l axpenditures and all that, st~ll stand ~~s far as staff is
concerned~ which differs from tlie t~iscal an~lysis impact. report fran Ashley Economic
Services, depending upon the premise with which yo~ begin, is that correct?
Pam Lucado - Right.
COmm155ioner Tolar - Mr. Ch~irman, in relati~nship to this par!icular item, I don't know,
I understand it is the Chair'sprerogative and desire not to open the nub'ic hearing again
and I agree in part with ;hat; howeve~,the addition~l problem that bother~ me
is lhis is the second~largest project that we have had cume before the City Planning
Commission and Council, to my knowledge - in many, many years, if any have come in any
larg~er other than Nohl Ranch property. This being 375 acres and there are a lot of fhings
in relationsF~ip to this that I still have problems with and som~ of the problems I would
like to express and mayb^ there are some ar~swers to it a~d so forth. Now as far as the
annexation proceedings are concerned in relationship to this 375 acres, I woultl have to
say at this paint in time I favor an~exation proceedings of tlie 375 acres to the City of
Anaheim. 7yinct that to some other thinys, however, I am reluctant to say th at I would
like to see it come in the basis of costing the City of Anaheim anything. I think any
project should stand un its own merit and that is one of the problems I have in trying to
understand the numbers and magnitude of a prnJect this large. The second part of my problem
erea that I am having a problem with is in relationship to tying it to a spetif~c general
plan. If this part~cular parcel of land wer~ com+ng into the City of A~aheim and they were
merely ~sking for annexation proceedings to come into the City of Ara heim into an open
space zone or a holding zone where we could look at the project as it is designad or as
its brokon down in certain segments as its developed or propased development, I would
feel a lot more comfortable about it. 1 even hesitate to make the next statement, b~~t
I am going to go ahead and maka it anyway, and that is in relationship to one p~articular
area of the plan which calls for 21 acres of C-1 proper•ty which is Item C-7 on here,
same 21 acres. The reason I am reluctant to say ir. is because it is aasy to get stoned
up here and ! am really thinking, my mind mentally hasn't been made up in relationship to
haw I really feel ab~ut the general plan of this area ar~d I am thinking that trying to
draw a conclusion in my mind s to how 375 acres are going to be used this far in advance
is really a big decisinn in my mind~ at least, to make. The reason I say th+s and talk
specificaily about the C-1 p~operty is, that looking at the fiscal irnpact repoi~/4%~8 trying
t
~
MINU7E5~ ANIU~EIM CITY PLANNINr, Cow4IS5tQ~l~ QECEMQER 4~ 197E~ 78•10~5
~IK NO^,~21G ANU kE:GLASSLFICATION f10. 71-78-f~4_(c.nntinuRd)
to docipher what it is goiny to cost the City ot Anehoim, il wuul~ b~~ n~y content1pn that
if it costs Che City of Anahoim anything, I would probably be opposed to it. liowever,
there are somo oth~r aspects in ralationship ko this which shc.w mo lhat the irnprovemenCs
w hich are; going Co be nQOded out in that araa ragardless of whoth~r the aauer Rancli goos
ahead or not, thoso improvement:s and these coscs are going t.u ba offset by th~ (acl that
lhe dovoloper is goin9 to share (n theso costs on a porportionatc basis for sana and
many of them. If this p~~rticuiar project, for example, had been desi,yned more or the
markel:in~ surveys showed mare that possibly a regional shoppinc~ centor that far out wcra
something that thc developer was interc:sted in and rnare irtiportanl~ was on this Genera)
Plan~ tying ie tho annexation proceedings, I wcv ld say that pr~bably I wo~~ld look ;nore
favorably upon it, primarily because oi' the fact Ch~it I t.hink ~ regional shoprin9 center
not only would support the area, but would bring Uack into thc Cicy a lot of dallars ehat
I think are looving the City now and goiny to sane of the other• re~ic,n~l shopping cen~ers.
Now, I don' t know wt~at tJ~u ~1evc 1 opcr has done w i rh the i r marke t i nq survoys , bu t I see
while wc t~lk about ~approxirnately 2700 residents, more people o~at in that are~~ and 900
more units, a cost to the City of Anaheim which I am not really satisfiod we nead, and
when we lalk about thc highest and h~st use of the land which is our functi~n and not
econcxnics, I have ~~ problem with the f~ct. that the demand an that arna does not shc~w m~
that we naad more homes out in that ~zrea specifically in today's market. We have a
tremendous supply of property on the market ou~_ there today. However, I know in years
to come that's going to change. But more impor[ant, if there were something to support
the ad~litional 900 units and more important entice more dolla~s into lhe City of Anaheim
to pay for chis type of development, i think I could handle i[ betcer. Let me decipher
for you what I just said because it sounded very politic~l. What ~ am really saying is
that I~m in support of this project, or the Bauer Ranch,caminy into the City of Anaheim.
I can honosCl~ say I feel in my own mind, ic would be a very big plus factor. ht the
cost ta the t.~xpayers of the City, I am upposed to it aC this point in time and believe
me I cane to this thing very mixed up, after all the d~scussions we had, I still think
the magnitude of th~s project is a tre~~~ndous project. I would like to see it annexea~'.
but I can honestly say ~ can support it and r~ake the resolution For annexation into Che
City of An~he~m, if thc developer would come in and ~~sk for ~ holding zonc ar ~pEn space
zone rather than a specific PC on this project, bec.+~~s~ I think ?here are going to be a
lot of changes that ~eed to be made out in thae canyon. Kaufman 6 Broad histor~cally
have built two general plans rathc~r than to come in and ask tlie powers ±o be for a change
in specific planning and while a general plan is general in nature, wc have also found
that developers will certainly put aur b;,cks to the wall if, in fact, we design a projFCt
to a general plan and pret:ty soan it. becomes a speciTic pian.
I don't necessarily ayree with the plan in its entircty as it stands, as I say the
commercial part I would like to see cxpanded, I don't a~ree with thp estate - where they
have the estate zon~; I think thal should have been n,oved ov~:r into another arc:a wtiere
they have some of the RS-7200, eliR~inating 9o me of tlie ~rading and some of the problems
in relationship to the hillside and estate zoning. I think they have got the estate
toning down where it is more flat where I would like to see that up more where the RS-7200
is related in this particular project. So, I guess, where I am is in terms of annexation
proceedings, I would like to see lhis property come into the City of Anaheim, but I am
reluctant at this point in tirt~e, and I know we are talking about a number of issues here,
to see an approval by this Conmission of the specific planned community that is on here
no~v .
Lou, I~ill 9o a step further, I think if anybody wants to talk to those specifics, ~ would
be glad to ask them a question.
Chairman Herbst - Well, you can certainly ask questior,s. We can ask questions without
opening the h~aring, unless it gets to that point.
Commissioner Tolar - I would like to ask the applicant to c ane forward, 1 would like to
ask them a couple of questions. 12/1~/78
~
MIHUTES~ AI~ANIIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION DECCMbER ~-~ 1~7a ~~'~n~6
EIR N0. 'l1G ANU RECLASSIFICA7I,Q~ aQ,,._7Lj~~~! ~continued)
ruce ripp - F~y name T~rucc ripp. I r9presenr Kautmon and Broad Hanes a~~J we ara thc
appli:ant.
Commissioner Talar - Now, Hr. tripp, in relationship t~ yaur markeling sur•vcys and I am
sure you have spent a lat, as I understand, some 2'; years wich marketing survc:ys i~,
ralationship to tho wholo 375 ~+crc proJact. In looking at this and in lookin~ at your
marketin~ survc~ys, lat me ask you this, have your marketlny surveys indicated that 21
acres is all you are c~oing to be intorested in in relat~an5hip to cammercial developmene
out thcrc,
Mr. Tripp - I tl'~ink ehc ar,swcr to that - Whan we ori_yinally started look.ing at thc projc~ct,
obvious~y our initial stc;ps were marketing studi~s. Thcre was s~mc indicat~on lhat thcrc
might be room for rnore ccxrxn~rcial than 21 ~cres. I Chink whae our re~~i consrraint was,
was thc fact .ha[ w~ had to cun~e ii~ under an .~lrr.ndy ex~s! ing Genc*ral Pl.~n ~ind we tricd
to adh~~ rc: ~5 mu~h ~~s pos~ i bl c to that ex ~ s t~ n~ ~~ I~n wh i ch ~howed approx i ma te 1 y 20 to 25
acr~s ~f commercial. So even thuugh there might havc be~en roa-~ or there migh[ bc room 1'or
more oommercial, we did not re~.~11Y explore it further trom ~ regional standp~inl, numbcr
one. We looked at ~k more frc~n~ a neiqhborhood typa o( shopping center because that was
all lhat was aliowed per thc Gener~l Plan that existed. That is obviou~ly a very diffic~ill
answer to cc~n~~ up with at this point. Except. thcrc was a possibili ty of a region~il out
there. I t:hink tissuming ~~ coup~~ of things, No. l, I knc~w when we looked at i[, this
was some year or two ycars ago, in updating our studies we did noC re~lly concentrale too
much on the canmercial as~~ects. Mostly for sing(e ft~mily cluster an~1 virious t.ypes of
re~idential products, but o~~~ rUnCe~n was, Che total population in che c~eneral area,
that is how many peopla werc in thc are~a, how many werc needed for a reqional center~
~hat type of t:hing. At that time, th~re r~~~lly, at tl~ t cime rhere was really not o large
enough population base, but I lhink in th e lasl couple uf yea~s or a year ~t least yuu
have scen ~~ lot of expansions out in the Yorba Linda, they are expanding out Esperanxa
Road and tN~ey are increasingly moving inland and eas*.ward. Corona has grown to some
degrce, the Chino - Chino Hills has grown to sorr~e degree and anather consideration, just
from memory, was the fact that Wcir Canyon h~~d not ~ecn or was not extended ~hraugh over
into the other parts of Orange County, down into Or•ange and thac area. Possibly with
and once again, I rcally dan'C, I can'i. speak for the extension of Weir Canyan, I don't
know what other landowners or what developers bet~ind us -~ave planned co do what with ',Jeir,
b ut I know one major concern that was voiced was the ex~ending Weir Canyon on t`~rouqh
and number c~vo was the overall population base ~r~ that immedia~e area~ how many wauld use
it. So I rcally don't know how co answ er that~ except it was expl~red and there was some
potential for more commerciai, but it was dra~ped mainly because of our in[erna! decisions
to conform to the axisting Gener~l Plan and try to adhcre to that plan as best as possible.
Commissioner Tolar - Let me echo to the Corm~is4ion one of rtiy concerns and Mr. Tripp has
just confirmed - a G~ner•al Plan ;~hile it is supposed to be yen~ra) in n~ture and supposed
to have flexibility, you have just heard a developer, I<aufman and 3road, talk~ng about a
375 acre parcel of' ground that, in my opinion, is tfie ver•y reason that I am reluctant to
pass a PC or vote for thi, particular PC on this projact. Ar,d tha~ is~ I think that
every plan must ha~e versati~ity to b~ effective and secondly, if there were ever- an
opportunity for any type ~~ laryer commercia) or regi~nal sh opping cPnter, it is going to
have to be in this general aroa and one af my r•eluctants to support t!~is particular pC
zone, when we are talking about this large a projec[, is I'm f~earing the d.~veloper say
to us they don't plan to vary that PC zone one iota. They plan to live with it, in fact,
what I am hearing Mr.Tripp say is they are actually planning to develop this project with
the existing General Plan on the project and that's where I ~m having a lot of discomfort,
baeause 1 think it should have flexibility.
12/4/78
.,
~ '
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM GITY PLANNING COMh115510N DfCEM~C~ 4, 197g 78-IA07
~,JR N0. 216 NA D RECLAS,~,~F(~ATION NQ. 77-7 -64 (a~ttnued;
Mr•. TT our reasoninq or a~ aasl, ~ nk, when w~ fl:-st came in on thc project
and ~tarted dts~~isstng this wiCl~ staff, I think, staff allowod us as much ~~s thc~y coulii
the flexibilities th~t were attempted to bo built into the General Plan and in the text
of tFio General Plan. 'That is, we havr instituted some flexib~liti~s tf~at ware allotted
by tha Genqral Plan inlo our land plan. cryiny t.o conform as much as possible to what
was alre~~dy in the General Plan and yet trying to relate as best we c~uld to the different
lari~l uses, topoc~raphy, hills, c~ny~ns, that s~rt of chinq, So, at least, I can't speak
for staff in this er~a, but 1 t~elieve the rc+ason we camc up with the Goneral Pla~ of
Devel~pment which is a litele moro specific lhan the Genera~ Plan, was th~~c it provided
sane sort of framework, c, yroundwork, which conformed tu the General Plan ~yet gave the
developer flexibility in at least trying to attompt to develop the property as bost: he
could in the t~ramewc~rk of the Ge:noral Plan, yet give sorne flexihilities, which we utilize~l
by thc way, wc did do scxnc shiftings, some minor altcrations frc~n~ tl~p pxac:t Crn~r~~l Plan
that has ~een adoptod, and at least I khink iZ was our opinion and Staff's opinion that
we utilize these f~loxibilities tliat came up with this plan, so this is a littlc~ more
ric7id I think, but yet it is not at all, I don'l think it is concrele, ~ut I ani sure of
one thin~, it forms a base ~nd it t~orms a forn~at lo where I think anymore flexibility would
probably rcquirc a Gener~l Plan Amendment and one j~~st simply because o1~ time constraints
one thal we avnided. 1 think that's our reasoning, we frissd ta use as much flexihility
as possiblo, but yet keeping as mur.l-, in confarmance to ti~.: existing Plan as possible and
it f~rms a framework fran which the City can work from and frorn which we can work from
and plan and that sort af thing.
Co+nmissioner 7olar - Why in your init:ial studies, as ! rernember looking back aC this
for somc time back, the hillside esta~c density in rclationship to I believe it is shown
as No. 1 an your map where you '~ave got hillside estatc density, why would you convert
~hat into hillside estate density and mave the RS7200, lhe hillside la~i density, lhe No. 2
t.he RS7200, why would you re~.~~rse ~hosc two particular things when thc property along
Santn Ana Canyon Road is more flat and rnorc conducive to less grading than you would b:, f'or
examplc,if you got up - rnoved the hillside e:tate der~sity up in the No. 2 area. I don'l
understand that switch.
Mr. Tr•ipp - I think to answer that, there was a little bit of history involved. Originally
when the Task Forc~ first s[art~d hearing and adopling the General Plan, there was many
many alternatives that the Task Force: came up with. We had .jusC acquired the option to
the Bauer Ranch in a relatively iata staye of this Task Force~ but wc still attended the
Task Force hearings and were pravided~ through the Task Force members, some input. We
voiced that same exact opinion to the Task Force m~,mbrrs at tliat time. Unfortunakely,
they adopted a pl~r~ that at that time had totally estate ~iensity from Weir Canyon westerly.
We voiced our objections at that time and tried to do some minor modifications, as best
we could. I think our big problem was that we were rrore or less latecomers. The Task
Force had been formed and in operation,many of the citizens and Planning members, and
Cormiissioners al~ke that worked on this thing for years and we were a little reluctant
at leasr coming in at the last minute, saying ,"Wait a minute, change everyth~ng, let's -
ycu'~~ doing it all wrong,'! We tried to give our input as best as possible. based on
yo~~r exact reason. That was the first Froblem. S~c.ondly, when the Commission adopted
the General Plan, we, in fact, t stood before you and made that very same plea and tried
that same reasoning, it is tha flattest, most usable part of the ranch that Weir Canyan/
Santa Ana Canyon intersection is probably the most conducive to higher intensity uses.
There was some hillside medium den5ity and some hillsi~e low medium, and hillside low
densities on the eastern parts of the ranch, easterly of Weir Canyon. We pleaded at that
time to transfer some oF the~e to the weste--n part of the ranch~ that bein5 the flat area
and the Commission did make a modification at that time on the General Plb~ to move some
hillside low.medium densities westerly of Weir Canyon Road. That being dane, it was
always expressed to us, number one, by staff~ we got a distinct impre~sion from the
various citizens of the cortmunity that they wantE~j as much ;r t~• ;- ~ity as possible
on the western part of the ranch and that westerly se~li.~~ r~ .~~;ss of topography.
So we attempted to do that, but once again, the Generai ~1 ..,.,, ~'-~~ed and once, again,
I don't want to speak for staff, buC I think they w~rre t~ v~r~ to ~dh~;re as much to the
12/4l78
r-~
1
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANt~ COMMI~SION. UEC~MBCR ~~~ 1h7~ 78~1008
EIR N0. 216 I1f1U RECLAS:IFICNTION N0. 11-,~,~78-G4 (continued)
Ganora P an as ~055 b a and furthor infr•~ngomoncs of smailer lots inlo chat ostate denslty
Aro~ was somath inc~ thet, ~it l~ast wc werc told, .~t this c imo don' ±! ry unless you want to
c~c, lhrough ~a Gonur•al Plan Amandmonl, whic.h bc~ausc of ti~nc cc~nlt'~.~ints, oncc .~gain, w~
didn'r_ want to.
Ccx~missionor Tolar - I guass in p~~rt~ here ay~iin, what I am relAt inq to is in the idoa
lhat when the Task f~orcc~ did chis, and it was rll ~vel) and good, th~ lima t.hat th~y spent
lrying to do this, I think it is ver~y obvious lo mc theil th~rc wero some mistakes ,nade
in rclations~~ip tu pl nnin~ a pr~joct this size thre~~ or four years ag~, as I feel it is
tod~~y. I can't - I c.~nnot see why, in fc,ct, let mu ask yQU ~i question - why didn't
Kaufman and Broad come into the City and ask for annex~tion proceedings into the City af
Anaheim with a holding zone on this wh~l~ property sa that the~y could come before this
Commissi~n and the Cuu~~cll on each individual parce) .~s it developed as happens in just
about every case. We did it on 4100 acres in the Nohl Ranch ;~ , ~nd while it had a
gcneral plan in relationship to what upen spac.~: was y~ir,y to be and sa forth~ in rela~iunship
to the type of development that we aro going to have out there. I~ had a'ot of flexibility
and thoy hQVe come beFore this (:omr~issiun year after ye~~r now in relationship ta speciflc
p~ans. Nad Kaufman and broad, for exampl.•, con~e beforr_ this Commission lode~ talking ab w t
annex~ti~i~ praceedings, I would bc the first one to support them a~d I wouldn't be a5king
all these q~.~estions. If you werc askinc7 for a holding zone on the Baiier, or all the
pr~perty and comc in with specific plans on parts of rhe ranch as you develcp those parts
of the ranch. Why economically couldn'i that be done or did your marketi,~g surveys say
you ksad to have the wh~le PC bcfore you c;ould come in.
Mr. 7ripp -I don~t think it was ~ much of ~~ marketing decision. ! think it was more of a
internal deci~~on where wo had lime perirneters, option prablems and financial considerations
oF which wc took all inco considcrali~n and wc, at that 4imc ard after discussing ic with
staff~ at that time thought it jusc b~st that wc; corne up with a general plan of development,
plan the entirc ranch and bring that in as n,oro ar less oncc ~3g~in as a framework or
same kind of a base from which to come in with more specific plans later.
Chairman Hcrbst - I think maybe I can help you herc a little bit. When you r.ome in with a
General Plan Amendment or just a general plan, it is general in a way, but if you also
don't knav what's g~ing to yo on that property, in scxne resp4cts, such as so much housing,
so much ccxnmerci~l, you hdvc no way of planning your services, sewer, wate~', elecirical~
fire department, police department, roads, and wh~t have yau, all you have is a biy piece
of ground and when you ~sk, - or a person yoss out and buys ii - they are going to wanl
co know something ab~ u; wh~t thc:ir expenditures a~ g~ing to be or whal they are going
to be allowed by *.he City t.c put on it. And I think our General Plan is general enou9h
to whe~e this is what it is all abouc - f17ey will come in with specific zoninq plans on
ever•; parcel lhaC khey build, just like Anaheim Hills does today. They have a general
plan.but when they come i~~ with specific parcel connected with tract maps and we have to
revic~,r the whole thing as it is caning in on a~ie,:emeal basis, but at least ~hey have
baen able to plan their roads, they have been able to plan their sewers, they have been
able to plan their whole and have some idea what the City will b e involved in, where the
connections are, and what size lines you are going to hava to run to servic.e how r~any
people are going tu be in thai area and yau gotta start with a g~neral plan and to ask
them to come in with a holding zone and not knowing what they are going to h ave, I think,
is just looking at a lot of blue sky. I don't think any developers wo~~ld want - could do
that, in my opinion. I think they have to come inco the City and say, "This is what we
have planned," and that is why wQ are having the public hearinys here today~ ar we had
here last weak, is to - they are telling us what they are guiny to do and the land use
they have here, thoy are meeting the zoning ordinances, they are rneeting the general plen
we have on the board right today and ~hat is about as far as a deuelcper can go and he
h as also come in with his fiscal report tF~ei I think should be passed onto Council because
of the environmental things ttAt are involved an d the agr~ements that if t'~• C~uncil sees
12/4/78
~
..
n1~iUTE:S~ AIIAHEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION~ oECENpEa 4~ ~~78 78-1009
~R N0. 21G At~U RF.CLASSIFlCATION NQ. 77•78'~~+_ ~c~ntinued)
f I t and must make, wo don' t h~ve tha[ pr ivy to rnakc thaso kinds nf corrnni tmonts to tho
de~~elopor that ho is going to bo ~~Ilowed reimbursemont thinys, lhal's gaing have tr~ bo
Cnuncil policy, whatevAr they d~cicfo t~ do, if they da it at all, We ~ro hera ta dc~termino
the lond uso and I think that this Corm~iss~on has the nuthority, if you fec~l chat you wt~nt
to m~ke a mc,tion and only zono p~~rl of chat for re~idential and part of it for morc
commorci~-~1, you havc that prerogative. Am I correct th~re, Jack?
Jack Whitc, poputy City Attornuy, y~u have tFiree choices, you can approvo the deve lopment.
plan as propased, you can modify it or you can deny it. A modificotion would
necessar i I y on ta i 1 s t:1 1 I 1 o~k i ng a t th~ en t i re~ dev ~~I ~~m~:n c nncl m,ik i nq ch.anges i n t h~
lacations of the porticulnr densities or zones, but you ~~rr st~11 lcx~kinn ~t thc~ e~ntire
~iec~ of pro~~rly.
CF~airman Norbst - Also too thac thc Plnnniny i.anmission ha~ tha prcrog~tive if it is
ch~nqod to lhe point whr.re a Gen~ral Plan Amtndmenk is necessary to n,odify tho
Gonera! Pl~n t.o mc~et wixh thc; canmF:rcial in ic thac you aro t.alking ~~baut, the Flanning
Comrnissian h~s tho authorit.y to initiate that.
Commissioner t3ushorc~ - 1 ba~ically ayrec with Ccxnm('.ssioner 'Tol~r. I havc gat to ask a
cauple of questions hur~ to mako sur~ I understand what's comir,g off. It wo~~ld be
impossibl~ at this point for ~, resolution or rnatian designating pr•e-annexacion optn
space?
Jack White - WhaC you have in front of you torlay is an applic~tion for plannad devalopment
zone which is predicataJ upon a gener~l plan of dev~lopment, as its call~d, whi~h lays
out the ders i c ies and usas af the var ious areas wi th in the boundar ies of the proj ect.
You do not have before yau today an appl icat ior, for a reclass i f icat ion to open space,
thal could be done legally, but it would require first of all denial of this application
and then initiation either by the Planning Conm~ission or by the develaper of reclassifi-
car.ion to that specific zono, bul what has been notited and advortised for today's
hearing is tFie reclassification to planned development zone.
Commissioner Bushore - O.K. Let mc say what I- I 1 ike everythinq Ccxnmissioner Tolar
had to say. It takes inco account my concerns [hat I raised in the past when he was not
here. I 1 ike che flexibil ity involved and I think It's j~~st plain good planning a: this
stage and I think by doing something alony that - whether it takes a Genera) Plan Amendment
or what, I could support that wholly.
Cummissioner Tolor - Jack, is it in ordor in rel3tionship [o an applicant, le['s say that
the General Plan or the Genc:ral PC as it is shown here was approved, is there 3n yway that
an applicant can stipulats to seme modifications ar changes to a specific ~lan i~ rela~.~on-
ship to taking some of the acreage out, for example~ or some of the estate. I ha ve two
major problems - the m mmcrcial and this hillside estate which is more or less flat land.
Jack White - What you would then be doing is, in fact, approving a madified aener a) plan
of development and requiring him when I7e canes back with a specific plan of development
~o incor~orate those changes in the specific p~an, That could be done.
Cortxnissioner Tolar - the only Qrublern is, I don't know where to draw the lines.
Chairman Flerbst - If thay deviate too much, then a General PJan Amendment cauld be
initiatcd to ~ake care af it. Is that what you are say:^g?
Jack White - I thi~k we heve a problem oFsemantics along the way here too because we are
talking abo~~t General Plan in two different c~ntexts. The City's General P~an which is
what's on the wall and what's called a General Plan of Development which is really a
rathAr precise dccument that applies to a particular piece o' property under PC zoning,
12/4~78
` 76-1010
DECEMSCR 4~ ~978
MINU'TLS~ lWANE1~1 CITY PLANNING C~MMISSIONB+ ~(cantin~~n~)
EIR NQ. 21fi ANO itECLASSIFICATION N ~i~r ;eview. Thee-G is no requiremont
which is what the appl {cant hos Subml tted ror y
at the present time thot a Cht+rter clty's zoning be in conformi ty with the City's
ulalion, but
GenerAl Plon. The ono oxcepti~on t~ that bocause 1itnistovefU2r n ill~ont in popy ~
Las Angelds w i 11 h,ve to c-onf
as o1` now, wc+ do not h ~ve any raqu i rc~mant that x.un i ng and t he G~n° ~'rovedan thatc thatsmapl
Tharu is o requirement, howover, that whor~ <~ subdivision mAp ~s ~iPP
musC be consistent with thc General Plan, 9o it kinda bacl~. doors it, sa that a devoloper
roved
can~~t ccxno in with a subd' itF1~oh~n'~PtY~~ ~~~ Qial P1ai~PraN~tUndcr tour~PDi2aPPn9~ tho
unless thot plan ccamplic~s w ecitically sets
appl icant submi ts aand ~alegorGcn~r~'Thcren i~f no~reqQprementh th ~t t hat Genoral Plan of
forth cc~rlain usos
Oevolopmenl, since it i5,in facC, a recl~SSificalion, lhat tha t be consist~u~~W~ta~Prove
City's GanuCal Plan~ Eut a7ain, there will be a problem dc~wn the 1 inc: i(~ Y
,hat noC in conformi ty with thc C1 cy's General PI ~n becausc ~i ~u~d ivision r~~p th~*n
could not he a{~proved ~mt i 1 the C i ty's Gener~il P1 an wcre am~~n~~'~ to conform [~ what the
p~~ec,is~; clcvclopmcnl, ~5 ipPr~ved~ would bc.
Chairman Hcrbst - Wn could i~i tialc tha< <~t this -~:vul i
Jaclc Whitc - The CiCy Planniny Commission cruld iniciatc that, y~s•
Mary Dinndorf - M~~+y I~sk .~ y4esl~~~~?
Chairman tlcrbsl - You may ask ~i question of lhe Planning Comn ic~sion. We are not opening
t~ie hraring, Mary.
Mary Dinndorf - I know. I'rn nat asking you to open thc hear i ng. But 1 am concerned about
the facc that we were here two W~'ekare9~o n 3to~change Ehe~ ru lesQr i ght now~anddchanye,~~
publ ic hear ing was c.osed. I t you 9 9
rosent
to something else from what wc workc~d on andO~ianiWy th~t~th~tdeveloperthas tolP SnA`~~
be contlnued a~~d we should have the same opp
our views on what you are acting upon bocause it see.ns ~rossly unfair when I persoo Y
feve s~ent t.wo weeks r~~adi~9 ~n1 Suddenlyrnevcryone says.'"we~ 1,~waitAa mi~utenwe mi9h~he
he~ring an~i come here +.oday a d r it Atcorrey to see how
p~lay thls by a different rul,staWant~to knoweCfl thisl is real l y fa~r to the people who have
rules can be rnodified: ~) ubllc
worked on this from the standnnint of thSLdjskiingtyou~toccontW~ueawith,~he sarnempnot asking
you to open the public hearing. ! am ~u
hearing that was continued from the m~tie~~byf~iffe~i'ent'planrofCactio ate and ~ thin
if you are yoin9 to stai't hearing a c p
let me int~rrupt yo~. I am the one tha[ brou ght this up and
Crxnmissioner Talar - Mary~ Na~~ and as far as the publ ic hearing is
(Mary Dinnda;f - you can always interrupt me, nor have you, so if I
concerned, Kaufman 6 Broad has nevor heard ~'h~ovalJoftaschange in these specific plans,
support or mako er offer a resolution for app ,~ian ~f this Commission, if, in
it wi11 not be with their o.k., it will be with the op'
fact, its passe~ and ~ believe ~f ~~herCthanGthefones~presented hereanwhich weehaveethe
plans to a different genaral plan~ ot oin to ~ave t o g~ before che Council and
precoget~ve of d~ing,~ believe +t is still g 9
still have to be heard and, in fact, Kaufman and Broad wo~ld still h..~ve to ayree to it.
estion of changing the plans, not one of new rules by
We are merely talking about my sugg a su estion an my part that there are
them or by the peoF~e out there. It is merely 99
some things in th~s general plar~ tha;~~ clonaftnWC~~ls~~e q~noral~ph~ ~ have to share wit
lan out there, but there
you that I do agree in part or in a 9 P
is certainly some of it thak I don't agree with and the tt~ose I don't agree with wou
support these economic fac~ors which make i t a def ici t rather than a posi tive out therP
,2~a~~a
~ ;
MINUTES, ANAHE:IM LITY PI.ANNING (.OMMISSION. D~CEMR[R ~~~ 1~78 78-1~11
E I R N0. 216 AND RCCI.ASS I F I CAT I ON N0. 17~ 78•64_ (co~t 1 nued)
end I think sumo a1~ t.hese chonges could be suppor tod end thoy show thoy could be supportAd,
i don't think we would hava the fiscal e~• a of rssponsibil ity that possibly the C ity
might be charged with if, in fac.t, we brought in tl~o Bauer Ranch, So I think you under-
stand whore I am cominy from, I morely am trying t~ pt this point fn tim~ sugges t ta you
that ti~ere arH some~ th ings thet ~re very pos i t i v~ and t,hit I 1 1 ko abuut th i s and there
ore somE things that I don't llka about 1t, sa if I msko or offer a resolution to AccApt
a goneral plan or a spocific plan on th(s PC, it will hevc some modif(cations, but that
is ~ew, a~ naw t~ Kaufman and Broad, I am sura, as it is to y~u and thare will be plenty
of opportun i ty, I am sure, to hear those. In faee, i f tho appl lcant wancs to step for•ward
~nd they would lika lo mako same mndifications to this yenur~~) plan and ask for a tbo^
wAek coi~tinuanc;e, or whatevor, predicated on scm~ uf tt~QSe suggestions and s~e i f t~ey
ere fe~sible, I wil) even considur t.liat, but whes'e I am wirh thi~ thinq mentally is,
it is very difficulc fAr me to s.~y rhat I am for it. other than the fact than I am totally
in favor of the Bauor Runch bcing annexod into thc CiCy af Anaheim, w(th the reservalions
that economically ie dur5i~'t ~:ost the tar.~ayers ~f thc City of An~heim anything to
clevelop it and I think it can be done.
CommissionFr David - I suppart a t:hrust like that, absolutely, if that can be dc~to.
Cort~iss ioner Bushorc - I said thac. l agreed wi tt~ what h~~ was say ing ~7nd I agree now
with everything he has tolci you.
Commi~ •,loner David - But Mary is s~iying, you know, here the publ ic hearing was ~~ot rPOpened
yet we are talking about a ganeral plan amendme ~t or change, sa shouldn't that be also
on a public hearing?
Chairman Nerbst -1t is the prerogetiva of the Commission, after we hear all [he hearings,
wt,ich 1 ike I said, we heard scvernl hours of i t, and I th:nk Mr. Tolar has brought himself
up to s eed by reading all the minutes of the 1 ast meeting, lhat any m~difications ero ative
changes that this Canmission wants to recWnnend to the City Council, it has that P~ 9
and what the attorney has told us that Chis a~ it goes on to the Coun~ai~th ses e Wh~a~o s
can be incorporated by Kaufman b 8road or the can conte back anC app
this on many projects.
Commissioner Tolar - One of the other problems I have - i have a lot of empath y for
a developer that spends the amounC ~f money th at Kaufman and Broad has spent out there
and their marketing surveys and the 2-; years tt-~ey havE got invested in looking at this
ranch to give them anything less than our very best look at thislnn tsrthatfla donatnwant
community out there, a PC zone, but what I gue ss I am really say' g
them to make any mistakes and I don't want us to make any either, rECOgni=ing we are going
to make soma mistakes~ let's face it, we are g oing to make some, we have made a few out
there already. witness trying to get out of tt~at shopping center on the northe ast corner
of Imper+al and Santa Ana Canyon, takes ~ lat af couraye iust to go out thPre in a car.
That being thQ case~ what I am saying to you i s I think the magnitude of this thing while
i ts 2-~ years for Kaufman and Broad i n th ~ mak i ng. i t i sn' t 2~ years for us and wh i 1 e we
have had some time to look at this, I th.nk it really rcquires a little m~re time to
look at il. I can't have a lot of sympathy in relationship to waiting for an y other reason
other than Che fact tl,at we are not dealing w~th the econanics et this level, we are
talking about land plann~ers, that's our role, and I think the economics has to be worked
out by the Councii. What I an talking about is, 1 don't want to see us jump too soon and
then possibly have some mistakes that Kaufman b Broad has already told us the y are going
to live with because they are going to develop it pretty much to the general plan that we
~prove. That's the nature of your developmen t company and I can't say that's not in
agreement with what we normally want. Mosu,~imate toal Wb tain thisdparticulartc~se.e ~n
and build to the General Plan~ that s our 9 ~
you are taking that General Plan and as I en v ision it, and we are going to ma ke somd
mistakes w~tli it andl w~uld like to see us work out those mtstakes now rathe r t12%4~7~P
into this.
MINUTES~ ANAl1E1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, dEGEMDER 4~ lyJB 78"»~~
EI R NU . 216 AI~D RECLASS 1 FI CATI ON NO -~•6 (cont f nue+d)
Mr. Tr ~pP ' ~ 9Ue~s I am askfng a queslion mor~ t.han anythinq and liko you said, this is
nll n ew tv us and onco again our biggest problom is thal af ciming ~nd o Inl of tinan¢~a)
cons i dcra t i ons have to be made i n th i s th i ng and a 1 ot of t irna and moriey has a 1 r~ady been
SPo~t, Q~ce ~iyain~ its jusl a quQStion - bur. i~. tho~e a possibilit.y thAt tho Commission
could approvo this wich sane kind of condition ar re sorvaxion resorving the commercial
oreas or -
Commissioner Tolar - Well, here'~ the problen, wilh that and I think Mrs. Dinndorf is
ric7ht in this respoct, ~t~ we sfart movinq lines and su fart.h and stare s~yiny we are
yoi ng tc~ hold o~.ic anoChor 20 or 30 acres. No, 1, I don' t know how tliesl ~~~avorr~annexa-
f~el about this, but let mc just bring you up to sper.d un where I am.
Cion proceadlnc~s for the Bauc~r Ranch. I would like i~ see the Cicy ~f Anahc~im get them.
2, I w~~ild 1 ike co sp~nd sanc tiine in r~l~+tionship lo more time lookiny at some al chese
areas ancl idcas that I havc talked +a~out and maybe thay arc not feasiblo, maybe ~I~e
hut I would 1 i ke to soe that PC, ~ 1~
alher C~nissionors don't fcel tl~at way ~baut: it,
wo are going to put a PC zone on ch~~t propcrty aut there, thAn I would 1 ike to spend
a litLle rnore timo looking at it ancl a litlle further discussion in rclationship to
mnrketing survcys whether a re9~onat shopping cencer is convr.nicnt, whethor it would
make sensr. an~f whechor it would suppore lh~t area. I also don't neressarily like the
hi 1 1 s+de est..+[e dens i ty ehat you h~~vc got in 1, wherc: yau revc~rsed i t f rom I and 2,
from the original plan, ~s I vi~~w it, I think the hillside esCate densicy shauld be uF
h i ghc r i n Che h i 1 1 s as I sa i d b~ fore, so I don' l want t.o bc repe t i t i vc, but these arc
tho two major arcas as Far as a third arca which I have divided them into, is the fiscal
impaet on the City. I think with scxr~e of thc rnudi f ications I am talking about, wouldh~t
havc a def ici t fiscal impact, i t would havc a pas i t ivc f isc~~l irnpact down th~: raad,
~ c: c d w e m i gh C be pu t t i ng up f ror7 t, or Y,au fman and B road has ag redd to advance the C i ty,
woul d be worked out in a return rather than a def ic i t down t he roa d t ha t i s p r o j e c t ed
~nywt~ere frcxn S9 n,i11 ion to $32 rnill ion dep~nding upon whose reporc that you've read.
Sa tt, arc lhc thrce arcas that I am talking about and I would not h~:sitate to offer
a resoZu~ion i•iyht now in relationship to annexat.ion proceedings far the 6auer Rancf~,
but 1 would be reluctant righL now to make ~~ - to off,~r a resol~itian approv+ng this
spec i f i c PC because af those coupl c~ of m i nor changes and I am af ra i d wc are go i ng to have
l0 1+ve with those if we apFrove it tliaC w~y, so that's where I am with it. ~ am one
CorRn iss ioner.
Chai rman Herbst - Hal, I agree with a lot of what you are saying and cv~n rr~y own thoughts
have been, and I have d i scussed i t w i th yo~, bEfore , t ha t I th i nk we have one pl ace thats
ideal for a eegional shopping center and that flat land is prabably the most accept.able
p ieee of ground we have left out there for any type of a development. Of course, i~ does
create some problems for ~he Traffic Engineer and Cir:.ulation Element, that sort of thing,
ahen you look at something chat large, and also too, would require market su~veys to
probably talk to some of the larger canpanies, Sears, Broadway, whoever goes into these
reg ~ onal shopp i ng centers and f i nd ou t t f they' ~i be i n te rested. I do recogn i ze that
the Tyle~ Mall is 22 mil~s fran my house, t.he irler Mall, and then you have your Brea
Mal 1 and your Orange Mall and prob~bly 9~`%, of our si~opping is going out of tovr~, which
it doesn't help Anaheim's lax -~ase any and it is ~ice to have a regional shopping center
there, and recognizing that if the Weir Canyon bridge is ever built, which I think it is
then you have your circul• ~ ion
on the General Plan to be built by the C~unty Plan of Roads,
from Yorba Linda and on the other side~ but I also have thu empathy for the developer that
has cnme ii~ with a p'.n in accordance to our General Plan and our zoning ordinances and
they ha~e worked w i th s taf f and p~ t in a lot of hours w i th the pl an. '~Je have th~ prerogat i ve
of coming up and making some suggestions and recommendations on that plan about we feel
there shuuld be 40 acres of commercial or 50 acres of cormibrcial rather than the 24 and
the stipulation that the rest of it is to be built according to the General Pian, then
12/4/78
MINUTES, ANNIEIM GITY PIANNING COMNISSION. DECEMBER 4~ 1!~78 7a-1013
EIR N0, 216 AND R6CLASSIFICATION NQ~ 77-~7~~-G4_ (co~tinued)
they would than hova [o modify ~r if thoy wtsh to appeAl Chat ro Cnuncll, they have that
prerogative~~, but you also hav~ the prerogativo of making t.hat motion and I think -
Commissionar T~lor - Whan you change tho rul~s, chis is what ~~aould like to understand
if you said~ "O.K, ther•e is 21 pro,jec`,ed acros of commercial lancl out thare," and we
wcr~ to a;bitrarily say ,"We fael that lhcro should ba 50 acres held in ab4yance for
commercial,", whero do you draw tha lines on that or how da you chango tl~is pareicular
PC because what you ~re saying is whoro do you take t.he other 2q acras from,
Chairman Herbst - Naturally you aro talking and I assumed you are talkiny about tha
flat land along tho Sanlu Ana Canyon Road.
Commissioner Tolar - Yes, adjoining the 21 acres I would ~~ssun,e, samewhere in there,
Chairman Horbst - I~~m noc sure how many acr~~ aro thcra - Now rnany acres, Mr. Tripp,
do we have along the Santa Ana Canyon Road, do you know approximately alnng Santa
Ana Canyon Road in tht~t flat placaau wF have in there - near Weir Canyon.
Commissioner Tolar - Yeah~ f'rom thore wost is more or lass -
Chairmar Herbst - Of c~urse~ you have quite a~rade in there too as you go up ar~d
Aver the hili,
(The preceding was taken frorr Tape //1 of the Anaheim City Planning Cornmission meeting
of becember 4, 1978. The recordiny equipment was seC for C180 lapas and ~ C120 tape
was used;thorefore, the following notes ane taken fram the Planning Cammission
SecreCary's notes taken at the moeting.
Camnissioner Tolar - Where do you get the other 29 acres. How do we change that on this
Planned Community zone?
Cortxnissioner Busl,ore - What you aro asking him to do is almost irnpossible. I have empaChy
for the developer, but have a little more er~~pathy for people who have to pay for this. 1
stil) have questions which have not been answer~d. I am not going to support this as ,nuch
as I want to see this annexe , I'm not going to support it, it doas not make sense to me
right now and I realize a lot of time and money have been spent. I support thP idea
we need more commercial. i think the general planned c rnrnunity is very yood and little
more commercial there won't hurt that area, but putting in a little m~~re commerciat
will make the project look more sensibie as far as cost~ to the Ciry.
Chairman Her'bst - asked staff if tha Genera) Flan rigt~t now roflects the approximate
amount of acreage they have on that sitc~ noting they have moved it around a little bit
and asked if it would require an amer~dment to inci~ease it to the amount be+ng discussed.
Ron Thompson - Planning Director - Yes~ I think it probably would require a General Plan
Amendment. Probably the most practical location for a canmercial development or any
ragional center would b~r the SAVI property which would be nort~i and east of the freeway,
pointing out it is the largo area located in the green on the map; that it would probably
be the most lagical; that it is under private ownership; that is the right size, and
shape and topography and access. He stated this was diseussed at 57 meetings by the
Santa Ana Canyon Task Force and it was discussed probably at the Planning Commission and
City Council many times. He explained that area was indicated as green on the General
Plan rather than indicated for a largg regional shopping center; that would probably be
the most idea) location and would be off the Bauer Ranch complex and probably have the
least impact on the residential development. It would be southerly o* the Riverside
Freeway. It would certainly change the fiscal impact on the City.
Chairman Herbst stated it would change + fiscal impact if a regional shoppingi2~{t~~a
were developed and asked if it would be .,i Anaheim. ~'~
~.
MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ QECEMBER 4~ 1978 78-1014
~IR N0. 21G AND RECLA~ SSIFICATION N0. 77~18-~ (to~tinued)
Mr. Thompso~ - That property ls iri Anahaim's sphere of influonce; that ulkimatoly
thore will bc a bridgo going over and will ~xtond into tha Yorba Linda area; the property
is southorly of tho river and eastorly of what will be lhe extension af ~leir Canyon;
it is about 90 acre~s ancl would bo the righc sizo for what would really be neodod for
a regional shopping cencor ~nd is fairly flat; ie is north ~F the freeway and would not •
Impact the res(dantic-1 araas sauthorly of the freeway and :.~nc~ Ana Canyon frontage road
and is in private hands right now. At such tlma as Weir Canyon doc~s go over the river
~nd Esperanza Road and into lha Yorba Linda ar~a which has 10,000 re,corded lpts a~ t:he
presont Cime, tho shopping center could draw frun, that area of influence and the erea from
the north and from a pianning standpoint is e better p1ACe f~r• ~ regional shopping conter.
COMMISSIONER DAP,NES ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 2:35 p.m.
Mr. Thompson - This plan was dcvaloped by a Commiltee~ and tl,e Canmittec:, Planning
Commiss ion and Counci I saw f i t lo indicale mur.t~ of thac ~~rea in groen because i t ~~s
under' the SAVI.
Cha(rman H~~rbst - If a regiona) shopping cerr~~ W~~i•e, cf~~.velr~ped, it would have a
defiiiitc fisc.al impact.
Mr. Thcxnpson - Ye~, it would if it wero ever dcveloped. lhere is a st~ong possibility
you could designate it for a regi~nal shopping center and sarneone would be in here wanling
lo4i dc;nsity. I think B.~uc:r has developed ~a General Plin thal is in eccordarice with our
General Plan in terms o~ den5ity, locar.iun t,nr~ land uses and the fiscal impacr. was just
anocher tool [hat i s be i ny oFfered t.o the.~ P1 ann i ng Con~n~ i s5 ion and the C i ty Counc i 1, w ~ th
some staff recommendations as to how we r.nn ~iinimize the n~,yative effect.
Chairman Nerbst - Does thal answer scane of your quesr+ons?
Commis5ioner Tol.ar - Ycs.
Commissionor Davicl - Now does it tic tU t.his ~1-.:velopmenl?
Chairman Herbst ~ You crjn't. If this is wf,at the forrvnission desir•es, we can initiate
a General Plan Amendment ~o change that property t~ :~ p4kential regional shopping center.
Commissi~ner Tolar -!t is another piece of property :~rd you can't tie it to tt~is. It is
not an ar~~~i of conver~ation. 'st is nice to see it there and there is a p~ssible chance
for i t tU be ~~ reg i Una i sliopp i ng cen to r.
CommissiUnt!• [iu~h~re - If' it ended up in Yorb~ Linda we would be in trouble,
Mr. Thompson - It is ir our spher.n, of influence, but it might end up in the City of
Vista del kio.
Commissioner Tolar - I ur~derstand ttie EIF, has been certi fied.
Commissioner BushUre off~rcd a resolutiar- calling for the denial of Reclassification
No. 77-78-64, becaus~ca nf tl~e f~ sc~ 1 in+pac t on the c i t i z~ns of xhe C i ty of Anahe im.
Chairman Herbst -! fAel this way about it. 1 feel we ha ~ a developer that has spent
2~ years eo develop a picce of propor2y acr.ording to the General Plan and met all the
zaning ordinances and I think r.~e fiscal iia~act cart of it is the responsibility of the
City Council, we are here for tne land use~ they have the option of making the agreements
in accordance with the fiscal impact reporc. looking at zoning, they meet all the
requirements. As ~ar as the c~st to the City. that is the responsibility o~ the elected
officials to determine whether ar not to do this. They have to make the agreements,
we can't do that. 1'herefore, when ~ developer comes in and meets all the requir12~~~7Q
~
MINUTES~ ANAt1EIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, DECEMBER 4, 1~78
"IR NU. 216 l~ND RECLASSIfICATION NO 77~7~~bW (continuoJ)
d' nces ~^~ Gennral Pla~~> I foal it
of' the C( ty' s zon i r~g u~ i na
look at: it favorably.
*
r
78-1~15
is up to th~s BocfY lo
Commissioner Kiny - I agre4 with your stat~man4.
Commissioner David - I don't~thWekshould have d~iscussadyithwf"'~SHa~ W~Seth°aoneywho
is not a valid icom, and may e
requesCed it. I don't thiik willh~os~t th~aCity1Andhtha`staff~reportYandro~herd~oport
as ~o tho arnc~unt ~f manoy t w
are far apar~• Hov+ can we wash havehthe5knowledgel th.~tWthaWirrpact~will bosadverse, cy
because we do havo it and we do
Consequently, I do intend lu support ttie resolution, There ar~ gaals and objectives
in tho General ('l~n -"Urb~~n cievelopment should occur where pro~er facilitles, ulililies
a n d s e r v i e e s c a n b e provided economic~abcy.iv~n~~o°i~ h~s~ de~v~ l ~ pm e~ n tt py ~ p a s a le f o rcwhichng~Y
on the General Pl.~n. Priority shou 9
urban ~erv~cr5 and puh~ic utilities are rradily avaPlAble. ~WorhUand'Y~ron~tihatebasis~
no m~~~ur capilal outlays p1a~~ned should Bauer no ha pen. C q
~ wi11 support the res~lut.ion,
Chairman Herbst - I ihWnihbtheudr.veloper that wouldWnot requi~enihe C~ty todspend~~anye
ment~ they could make
money. We have r~o power• tc make those decisions. "The r~con~mekdahi~on'SauPbeo,the Ca~~ncil
made that appro~~al be subJect ko no costs to thr. City. rera ative
and when they siC down w+th [he developer and draw up agreements, they have thc p 9
ta make those dec.isions.
Cortmissioner Bushore - That question of fiscal ithecPlanningPCommisaionls~~ould look
subject will never be a~swered in time and cha~
at it from a realiscic standp~int. Call for thc question,
On roll call, the toregoingresolution for denial FAII.ED TO CARRY by the~ following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bushore b David
NOES: COMMi5510NER5: Barnes, Nerbst, King ~ Tnlar
ABSENT: C~MMlSSIONERS: Johnson
Commissioner Tolar ~~ffered Resolution No. PC7g'8164abe m~rantedosubtectatoa9onditiansPt~on
J
that xhe Petition for Reclas~ification No. 77-7 9
as spelled out in the staff report and subJect to the condit~ons and stipulatian for
reserva[~on in relationship lo the conmerc~al a~ea and the hillside estate density
area. I want the Council to know as far as the fiscal impacts ~re concerned, we have
considered them. I am offe~-ing a resolution for approval and if these modifications
are considered with Chis PC zone on thi~ larqeypieceg f property, the proje~annin
become econc~mir_ally a viable project and a ver inte ral part of the City p 9•
Chairman Herbst - YO~' madttles~lore?~nt regarding t.he commercial parGel~ would you like
to elaborate on that a 1
Commissioner Tolar - From the general con~f~rthis~partacularmPCeaone ifylndid notsthink
repetitive, I~~ould be reluctant to supp
there was an economical WaY f thlseistdone'wbth Kaufnan.~ Broad,onhthe basasWOf what~ it.
I w~nt the Council to know i
they have agroed to do in so far as paying for additic-nal services and 1 want modifications
to make the project economical and viable. I am supporting the property coming into
the City of Anaheim. 11 'ak~t 1Ce'Sinutes to reflect exactly what I am saying so that
is why my resolutior~ s 12~4~~8
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4~ 1978 7a•~p~(,
tltt Np. Z16 ANQ_g~c~.~-sSIF1 -,~j~(contlnued)
Cha rmen HerbSt - Wnuld you cons er a Genera) Plon An,endmer7t is necessary lu increase
th~ acr'eage on the commarcial thAt thr. Planning Commission would initiate chat ~-ction,
Cortxntssioner Talar - I woulcf be glad to do it.
Jack WhiCa - I don't think that is appropriate As a pArt. of this action, I would likc
t.o clarify vrhether tho intont. of your resoluclon is to appruv~ the Ganerol Plon nf
Devclopment. as praposed or whether you are makir~q sane ~.pecific modification, at this
t~me.
Comm(~.yioner Tolar - That is lhe problem. Wherc do wc havc to draw tf~e lines7 I can't
do that, I undcr•stand your stalement. I am, at loost rny resolution is, I suppnrt this
PC zane on the majority of th(s projece wi th :,omc rescr-~~,~; inns. I am talking about 50ft1C
additiona) c~mmercia) that would prabably :,upport thc projc• ~ su~h as .~ regiona) shupping
center or a total of 50 acres, thr.n I am in suppor~ of that, That is r~hae I want to
show thc Council.
Jack Whlte - You havc~ ta draw thc linc.
Commissioner Tolar - If I said 50 acres of commercial and further specify sane rninor
modifications in the hills:de eatale density, partic;ularly in Ar~~~ 2~ is that specific
enough?
Jack White - As long as we have some concrele plan of what has been approved to
increase the commercial to 50 acres or whatever and ta show what o[her changes you
want. I am conc~rned about making gener•al policy type statem~nts where h~ don't know
exactly ~rhat the general plan of development is. It has to be fairly specific,
Commissioner Tolar - If I said co increase lhe acreage ~rar~ 2) to 40 Ar 5~ acres of
commercial which would prob~bly support a regional shopping center and sorne m~nor
modifications in the hillside ~:staCe density Area 1 and hillside Ivw density Area 2.
Jack White - The 50 acres is fine, but we need more clarification on the other modifications.~
Comnissioner Tolar - Maybe we had better strike ttiat, they still have to file their
normal gradiny plans, etc.
Chairman Herbst - The Council and developer r.an decide to change the cortmercial !.~yout
anyway.
Jack,White - Yuu want to approve their plan as submieted, with the charige af the
commercial to 50 acres and where that par-ricular 50 acres comes from you are not sur~
at this point.
Commissioner Tolar - Since I have made ttie resolutitin and in support of the resolution,
I would like to clarify a couple of questions. I think this action will bury those
plans enough to give us the latitude to see them again. Secondly, in rPiationship in
the fiscal impact, if the commercial is developed it is going to bring money to the
City.
Commissioner Bushore - I will support thaC.
Commissioner King - After hearing Mr. Thompson's description of his thAUghts.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, Bushore, Herbst 6 Tolar
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: David b King
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson
12/4/78
~
~, 'r
MINUTES, MIANEIM CITY Pt,ANNING COMMISSION DECEMBkR 4. 1978 ~8"~~17
j1 ~Q. 216 AND iEC ASSIFI •-l~ ~c•onttnued)
Jack W t.c - ou now ne~. tA n t er mac~ a mot on thot the mudi ficaliuiis ~pprovcd arc
not a substantial doviation from thc EIR that was spprovod lwo weeks aya, or that
a new ~IR shoulci be preparod since the previous EIR raferred to 21 Acres uf c rnxnercial
instead of a~ acrcis.
Conxnissioner To1ar - I thlnk it will reyuire a mndificotion to the EIR, not have to
ba a full EIR, but should address tho tra~f~c circulation, etc. The kIR has been
certified for cha project.
(The following was lranscribed from Tapo No. 2 of tF~e December 4, 1978 Planni~g
Corn~niss ion meet ing.)
Jack Whitc - You can do two things, You have to find that thc ariglnal Elk is not a
deviation with the pr~jdcc chanying the commercial tu 5U acres, or if y~u (atll you
should have a naw EIR or ~~ modifi~d EIR, then lhal shnuld bc addressed before you
approvc t.he modificd projcct. You can't ~~a th~~ othcr way around. Yau can't approve
the prolect and then have the EIR. That defeats the purposc of the EIR.
Chairman Herbs[ - We are back to square one agai~.
Commissioner Tolar - it isn'l often 1 disagree ~a~th ~ttorncy~~, Jac:k, but iC seems like
lo me that if this is the case, this would bc refcrred back to the EIR - as far as
reporting of their• determinatior~ wheth~r ~; modificatiun should be concerned. You have
got a EIR that was certified las~ week and I undcrstand frnm what you ~+r~' sayiny now,
but I can't see how this variation is going char.ge that action by the Commi,s~on two
weeks ago.
Jack White - Well, if this variation doesr.'t change the action on the EIR, then you
should simply F~ind that there is no additional environn,ental concerns present which
w~uld require a new EIR. If you find that, then fine, we will proceed from there.
The Planning Commission has to be the final say on the E1R, just iike you are on the
project and staff can't do that.
Commissioner Tolar - I'll offer a motion that the ~iR be certificd as substantially
not changed from the one approved two weeks ago. I feel a little reluccant to do this,
in fact, I am going to withdraw my motion, I wasn't here to act on that particular EIR
so I am not g~in g to make that motion.
Chairman Herbst - Well, we have to have a moti~n hPre for or against.
Ccxnrnissioner Barnes.- O.K, what 1 urderstand is thac we are supposed to either approve
what we approved last time, or ask for a new one.
Jack White - To be on the safe side, I think it would be appropriate to have a motion
finding thal since you have already approved the projeGt now that yo~, do not need an
additional EIR. If you don't have any motion, fine, then we'I1 ju~.~ proceed on that
basis that the original EIR was adequate and did cover the project, including the
modification. I think to tie everything up, it would be nicer to have a motion from our
standpoint, from a legal standpoint, reciting the fact that no additional EIR is necessary
at this time b~cause of modifications that have been made today in the plan.
Commissioner Bushore - I think we could say that because we haven't approved any specifics.
Commissioner Barnes - RighC, I'll so move.
Commissioner David - I think Ron wanted to say something - Ron~ before or after.
12/4/78
~t .,
MI~IUT~S~ AI~ANEIM CITY PLIWI~ING COMMISSIQN~ DECENBER 4, 1978 78-1~18
Ela N0. 216 ANO aECLASSIFICATIQN ~0. 77-78•64 (continued)
~~• Thtxnpscx- ~ YeaFi, I think I cl~. l'rn not 5o surc tht~t - w~11, in my opinion, and it
is only an apinion, I would !'ind it vory difficult to ba able to ccrtify an EIR with
z9 additional acrea ~~anewhere on that ranch and call it being in substantial cnnformanccs
with tha ~'~ that was arigii~ally ratified two wceks ago. Qulto fronkly, in the event
that y~u dc~ that, I sec s~mo major Iegal problems.
Commissioner Barnes - Which area5 aro you mostly concerned with.
Mr•. Thompson - 29 ~dditional ~cres on the Bauer Ranch were not even addressed and I
mean lhat's better than a 100'i; increase in commercia) ~ver what their dovelopment pl~~n
i nd i ctates.
C~nn~issioner Qarnes - Wc~1, I was just ~ettiny to schools, eec, that would not have to
bc addr~ssed specific.~lly~ but traffic and poll~tiori and those kinds of t.hings would,
and could that be taken care of with an amcndrnent. to the EIR.
Chairman Herbs[ - Could wc make an addendum to this in the manner of~ the fact. Since
Commission has approved this~ couid we add to that motion ~ha~ if the Counr_il agrees
witl~ us on thc; application of the addition of tl~e 29 ~cr•os and then also the Bauer Ranch
agrees with it, Chal we would reca~unand that an additional EIR be made after it goQs
through the C~uncil hearing?
Mr. Thompson -'fou arc the fina) authority. Th~t's the problem.
Jack Wh i te - The ~~unc i I do~.s not autrxnat ical 1 Y yet th i s.
Chairman Herbst - This is a rec.lassification. Don't they ge[ it autumatically.
Jack White - No, this is tf~e final action, unless its appeaied or taken off the agenda
by one of the Council ~n~~mbers. I have a fecling they may very we11 end up hearing it,
but from a lega) standpoint~ you are the final authurity at thi~~ po~int in time unless
someone does appeal it, or a Council membcr requests ta rcvie-v it.
Mr. Thompson - There is an alternative that might be available ta the Planning Comrt~ission.
Possibly it would be to have staff direct - d~rect staff to consider alternative locations
for a regiona) shopping cencer, some of which may be on this proper[y, some of which may
bc off or the property and at such time as a General Plan Amendment and an EIR would be
completely separate and differcnt from this proposal were brcught back to your Body~
you would have the p'erogative of reviewing the General Plan Amendment, the EIR anc~ even
initiating zoning on that appro~riate property~ whether it is on or off this ranch as
either pre-zoning or zoning should this property be in the City at that parCicular per•iad
ot time regardless of what you do here today. For instance, if those alternative sites
~hat we might be considering for a regional shopping center that might be considered
appropriaie for a regional shopping center, e~ther on or off this property, you could
approve the General Plan Amendment, the EIR and say~ "Staff~ we want a resolution of
intent for zoniny on "x" property which might be on this praperty or off this property
for a regional shopping canter, so that our fiscal irnpact fior development in the canyon
is going to be more on the positive side. Now ttiat would be a separate and distinct
action from this, b~at that doesn'[ bother me nearly as much as saying better Lhan 100%,
increase of cortrnercial on 37> acres, which is all thar EIR really addressed, because
that's the type of thing I think you realiy go to jail over. I yuite frankly would be
very unccmfortable with that.
Conmissioner Barnes - Naw from what i understood, you said that we could approve~ for
example, the EIR nnly on what - that won't work because we just approved the addition -
in addit+on to the other that we had so we can't do that.
12/4/78
~
MINUTES~ IUTAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DCCEMtitR 4~ 1978 78-1019
EIR N0. 216 AND RCCIASSIFICATION N0. 77-]~-64 (contlnu~d~
Ron ThompSOn - I dc~n't bel(eve you c~n. Jack, what is your o~inion7
Jack White - You can rascind your previous actic~n and ~~pprove che General Plan of
D~volopmant as subrni!ted and then al~o at lhc s~mu tim~;, by ~eE,urate mol(on, take
action to direce staff to consider the altern~~lives for the locatiun of a regional
shopping center in the ~~re~ and so forth, as outlined by the Planning Qirector. Thc
probl~m is, if you lct your action st~nd as it is now, with Che amendment t~ increase
the cammercial up to 5~ acres, but [hcn you havc to make some explant~tion of how chat
oithcr i~: con,istenl with or somchow tied in witt~ the EIR you appruved two weeks ago.
Commissianer 7olar - Co~~ld you tie an amendment to thc original resolution that I made,
Jac:k, subjecl tv t.he addition of the nev; EIR rc~port direcely rr.l~iting to the resolution.
Jack White - No, because you have to approvt !he EIR hetorc you cake acci~r~ on the
projecl. You can't make it subject to, so mayhe a~hal wc are saying is that yoiar option
loday really is t~ either ~pprovc tl~ {~rujecc as prescr~tcd. or deny tt~ project as
presented, or a! this point in time from what I am h~aring, ask for an EIR study to be
made to see what amondmr.nts would be netessary to increase it up the 5~ acres of
c~rrnercial area. Now, the ~~iternative, of course, would bc ~I~c route s~.~,yg~sted by the
Planning Director, to act on what we h:~ve t.oday, t~uc ihen sep~~rately study ttie other
as a separaCe maCter 2s to where that shopping center may be located, whether it is on
ttie Bauer Ranch or on other pro~ert.y.
Chairman Herbst - Ron.
Ron Tl~ompson - Since the Planning Commissio~, has thc power to rezone, yau could either,
as Mr. White noted or pointed oul, eiCher approve or dcny this projecl and direc[ staff
tc~ do a GPA and an EIR for a reyional shopping center in the vicinity and put Bauer
Ranch on the on notice right at this hearing that if in the event that ;heir project
would be approved, we arc going tx~ have a regional shupping cent~r and it may be on
your property and should it be on your propercy, part of what we are approving today,
we may come back and change by rezoning "x" amount of acrcage for a regional commercial
shoppiny center at some period in titne.
Chairman Herbst - I woulci like to ask the applic<ant then if tt~cy would agree to that
condition in as far as the approval of their project is concerned.
Mr. Tripp - Mr. Chairman, wo would have no problem agreeing to that stipulation. In fact,
we would even, if Staff would be avail~-~ble, we would even be willing to woric with them
Cegarding plann+ng and/or land u:~es garding lo;.ation of the center out in the can~~on
aroa. We would have no ob,ject~on t~ thaC.
Chairman Herbst - I feel it is a much finer approach than what we approved, Hal, as
long as the applicant understands that we can change it.
Commissioner Talar - I have no discomfort with that with their stipulation. In fact,
it is probably even as good o~ better than the resolution we passed beca~ise it gives
us more versatility.
Chairman Herbst - Do you want to withdraw your previous motion and taSce a vote p~~ it.
Cortmissioner Tolar - 1'll offer a motion to withdraw the resolution.
Jack White - It would be resolution to rescind the previous resolution.
Or roll call, the foregning resolution (No. PC78-2?5) passed by the fallowing voCe:
12/4/78
~ ,
MINUTES~ ANAliE1M C1TY PLAt~NING COMh11SSI0N~ DECEMBER 4~ 197d 78-1020
Elli N0. x16 AND RECI.ASSiFICATIOt~ N0. j]-78-E4 (contlnucd)
~ -
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 9arnos, Bushore, David, H~rf~st, Ying ~ Talar
NOES: COMh11SSI0NERS: Nono
ABSENT: COMM1551UNER5: Johnson
Commission~~r Tolar - Offcred R~snlutlon (PC78-276) ~nd movod for its passaga pnd adoption
that tho An~~halm Citv Plannlnq Commissi.~n do~~s h~+reby grant che Pet(tion For
Reclassi('ic.~tion No. 77-78-64~ subjo~t to che Interdepartm~nl.al Gommittee Reconxnendations
and stiaulatians,in relaCiQnship of tho applicant in rc:lationship to tho change in
Commercial u~~.~. Is that ~~11 we noed? Is t.hat goiny eo get us where we wnnt t:o ga1
Jack Whitc - Wh~~t you are doing, yau ,irc ,~p~roving tha Gencr~l Plan of Development: as
submitted by the applicanc, Thpn hy ~i wr.p,irr+te action, as I understand i[, you ara
g~ing ta ~+t~ect staff to consider al[ernatives far conxnercial.
On roll call, the Foregoiny resoluliun was passed by thc following votc:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, B~~shore, Herbse, King ~ 1ol<~r
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: David
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson
Commissirncr Tolar - Is that a rnotion in rclationship t~ the comrnercialZ
Jack White - Yes, it is.
Commissionar 'folar - I'm goina tD offer a motion directing sxaff to pr~pare a General
Plan Amendment on that specific aroa including tha Bauer Ranch as well as the additional
site mentianed previously, with the stipulacion added to the n,otio^ that we talked about
by the applicant in relationship co their disc:ussiny this rrith staff and thpir help in
changing the modifications.
Chairman Flerbst - And if this particular piece of property for a regional shopping center
Nould be on their parcel, it would be subject to rezoning as such.
Commissioner Tolar - Anything clse you want to add co ~t.
Commissioner King seconded thc motion.
The motion carried unanimously (Commissioner Johnson being absent).
Commissioner David - Mr. Chairman, I want to make a slight statement, I want to pul my
posture very clear here that I am not negative to the development. I am concerned,
however, that the development might cost the other city resid~nts of Anaheim same money
and that's not fair. 7he magnituda of this dovelapment, fcllow CarKnissionors, with
an approximate total just for the ha~~es, you know $143 million in gross. I think this
kind of developmcnt can afford to front. exactly everything thar is necessary so th~at
the other ciCizens wili not have to pay anything. That's my posture on it.
Chairman Herbst - This is what we hope it turns out to be.
Commissioner David - I hope so too.
Chairman Herbst - I'm going t~ declare a 10 minute rec~ss, (3:10 p.m.)
RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 3:20 p.m.~ Conxnlssioner Johnso~ being absent.
.~~
12/4/78
~
,~'
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIOH~ DECEM~ER 4~ 191~ ~8-~~2~
iTEM N0. 3 PUBI.IG HEARINf. OWI~ERS; ME:LVIN ANU MARRIAM E. SCHIINTZ,
E K N~ IVE DECLARATIQN 123~+2 Harbor ~oulcvard~ Garden Grove~ CA 92h40. AGENT:
RECLASSIFICATI~N N0. 7-79-2~ FLOYD L. FARANQ~ 2`.~;~ East Chepman Ave~ue~ p70S~
~ullerton~ CA ~12631. Petttioner raquast~s reclssslfl-
cation of property described ns en trregulerly-sh~ped
pa~cel of land consistiny of approximately y.3 acres located south~east of the intersectlon
of the RiversiJa Frerway and Impurlal Highway~ havinq a fro~ta~e ot approxfmrtely 2100
feet on thc south side of the Rtverside Freewey, hevtnq a maxlmum dcpth of approximately
260 feet~ and being located approximately G75 feet north of tha carte~line of Santa Ana
Canyon Urive~ from thc R5-A-43~000(SC) (~ESIdENTIAL/AGRICUL7URAL-SCENIC CORRIpOR OVERLAY)
ZONE to the. CL(S~) (GOHME.RI;IAI~ LIMITEU-5CLNIC CORRIDOR UVk.RI.AY) ZONE (PORTION A) and to
the RS-5~00(SG) (RESIDE;NTIIIL~ SINGLE-FAMILY-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE (PORTI~N ~).
There were four persons in~ilcating their presence in orposltl~n to sub)ect request~ end
althou~h thcs steff re~ort to thc Plannfnq Commission dated December ~+~ 1~%8 was not rea~
at the public I~earfng. it is referred t~ ~nd made d rart of the minutes.
Gcxmnlssioner Kiny declarec~ to tfie Chatrman that I~e had a confllct, of Interest as defined
in Anahetm City Plannin~3 Commi~s(~n Reg~lution No. PC76-1;7~ adopting a Conflict of
Interest Codc for thc Planning Commiss(~n~ and Government Cod~ Sectlon 3625~ et scq.~ (n
Cl~at the applicant and his wife ars assoclaied with Katella Realty~ Inc.~ and~ pursuant to
the provisions of the above codes~ hN declared to the Chalrman that I~e was withdrawing
F rom the hear i ng ( n connec t I on w 1 tli I tem No. j of the P 1 ann i nq Conxni ss i on age-~da and wou 1 d
not take part in either thc dlscussion or •l~e voting tliereon~ and that he ~~ad not
discussed this matter with any member of the Planninc~ Comrnission. THEREUPON, COMMi5SI0NEK
KING IEFT TNE COUNCIL CHAMBCR AT 3:2.', P.M.
Floyd L. Farano, age~t~ presented a renderiny of [he proposed dev~lopment ~nd indicated
this is a sirnple apvlication far CL zu~ing or thc western port~~n of the praperty and RS-
5400 on the easterly portion of ttie property; that both zones tonform to the f,enerel Plan;
that they are not propasin!~ s~e~ific plans at this time; and that thr. conceptual drawing
presented Indicates the desi~~n of thc building$ be.ing proposed; a~d that they do not know
at this tlme whether ar not they witl have all cort*~ercfal office buildinus ~n the property
and think at least a portion of the prop~rty will be for o~~•~eral offices of a rather
slgnificant real estate firm. Ile stated they do not have specific plans because of the
size and shape of the property; that they expect there ~rill be s~ne va~tances necessary
and they are goiny to need a circulatlon elem~ent~ especlally for the easterly partlon of
the property, and before the applicant gets into speciflc plans and obtains a user for the
property~ he wanted to request that [t~e Planning Commissien allow the rasolution of intent
only with the requested condition by the applicant that any approval be made subJect La
review and approval by the Planntng Commissiun of all plans~ circulatinn plans, etc.
Camnlssioner Nerbst ask~d Mr. Faranp to speak to thc question of the circulatlon, stattng
this ts a freeway remnant end he reco~nizes it is e hardship pa~cel.
Mr. Farano replied this is the reason no speciftc plans are being presented at this time;
that the western portion immediately ad)oins the Rlnker development Co the north and at
the present time the access is an easement that adJoins the Rtnker and subject property a
distance of approximately 1~0 feet~ and At the present time that is the only Ingress and
egrass they have; Chat tFie eastern portion of the praperty doa~ adjoln and abut a public
street; and that it is their intention to b~ing this item back before tt~e Planning
Lommission for a circulation study because they do not believe the property c~n be
developed in its present state witP~out the Commission having another look at tt to
determine exactly what the circulation should be.
12/4/78
1
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ DCCEM(lkR 4, 197~
78- I U2'l
EIR NEGATIVE DCGLARATION Af~O n::Cl',SSIFICATION N0. ~~-79~22 (cont(nuod)
Mery Dinndorf~ 131 La PaT~ Ane;~el~, otr+tecl she thinks b~fore this metter con be conslde~ed
or approved by the Flanniny Comn~ission~ something has to be I~Gked ln c~ncreCe about thc
~ccess point. She referrr.d tc•: thr existing ~hopc~inq center and the horrtblr traffic
prublems and stat~~d shc w~~lks t~~ thP sto~e heceuse it ig sefer thAn drlvinc~. She steted
there had be~n a hearinc~ beforr th~ Clty Council re~ardtnq Camino Monze~~o and It appears
they plan to oxtr.nd Sol~np~~ Drtve, and tl~Mt wt I1 impact ttie aret+ r-+r~e and thcr~ hAVr been
ehi l~lron k) l led there. S~he stated the homea~ners are nuttin~; ~~p apprnxlmately $3~0('i0
thernselvos t~ p~t In thc brca4;a•ray -ael I t~ hplp ~roteck the chi Idren In tha[ area. She
felt a s~rlous look sNuulJ h~v~ becn taken I~nq .~qo at all the nrohlPms in thi~ area and
stateJ~ aqaln~ the shon~in~~ centc~r tr~~ffic situati~n is a<Jist+ster nrea. Sh~ s[atN~l this
t s a hazerd i r~ a ve ry wn~~es tr.J ~rc<~ t~~ the ch I I Jrcn f r~m thc i~ 1 qte sch~o I who p~~y ve ry
litllc dtl~iillun t~, ti~r sl~iiia{s. Sh~ stattcl, ayaln~ before t~~is ..an hc cons!dcred~ an
exect cir~.ulatlon e;lament must be submitted, She felt Apnroval of thit rP~uest would br-
Jus~ yivlna the develop~r a blank check.
Hr~zei Maao stat~~ shr awned thc nrop~rty south of the sub ject pr~perty, whi ch was part of
her pr~ncrty whlch was returned t~ the Ulvision of H(ghways. She asked if Solomon Drive
is ext~ended~ will it ~~o throu~al~ hcr property; th,it tlie cnd housc on Solomon Urive had
const-ucteJ a wa11 ar+J natio anc7 1f the road is extended they ~yi I1 have ~~~ rernctivR the
patio~ and askcd if Vla Cortez w(11 go across her piaperty. potntinq out sh~~ hns a sllve r
of pro~~erty on [he wesc sid~ of Solomon Urivc and Solomon Ortve deadends riqht at her
pr~~~rty Itne~ and asked who will compansate tie~ if Solomcn DrEve o~ Via Gortez does go
throuqh her property.
Mrs. M~ag pointe~l out Solomon Urive is a very congested strcct and ~ is ~ot safe for h~r
to d~Ive her car there; lhat she d~es not go tu the sho~pinq center oecause she Is afrai~
sfie wi 1 I bc ki t led,
Chairman Herbst aske:d wtio owns the front portio~ of the p~•operty. and Mrs. Maag ~e~lled
sh~ awns all the property~ ap~roximatsly iFt or 1~l ocrt.s~ and p~Inted out sewer~, storrn
dralns, Edisan~ etc., a!I go thrau~h hcr oropcrty ,~d a st~rm drr~ir~ Is also proposed An d
tf.: Metr~politan Water Olstrict wants ta go thr~uqh F~~r prnperty. She asked tf her
praperty would be shut off with the prot~~ased chanqes.
Chairman Nerbst stated there probab~y shoul~ be a clrculation study Includlnq the back
portlon of the property and all of hcr property because when she is ready tu develop he ~
property~ it will impact the situation more than this proJect.
Mr_. Maaq stated sf~e had coo~erated with the City and had been :old that when she was
ready to develop ~~er propcrty~ they w~uld ~ive her a good deal~ an~ then when she had
asked about it, was tuld those persons we~e no longer here.
M~s. Maag seated a flood wouid w1E~e the property out and asked if a wall would be
c~,-structed. She pointed out tier property was under wacer (n the t364 flood and there was
quicksand in one portion of the property. She referred to the s uhdlvislon east of he~r
prope~ty~ pointing out it would also have flooding problems. She stated she had livtd
here for 30 years and her family had owncd th~ proper[y slnce ~9e9; that she had h~d a
cattle ranch here and the State had takPn about 17 acres for khe freeway and she felt s he
has been crucified; that she ~as coooer~~ted 3nd tried to understand p~ogress; that she hes
a cho~ce piece of property and has had approx(mately 350 ca{ls regarding thls pr,oerty, 15
to 17 calls per day~ and she i~ not reac~y to move.
Lynn Buffi~gt~>n~ /05S Columbus~ Anaheim~ stated the Hill end Canyon Municipal Adviso ry
Cc~mmlttee (tiAGMAC) had felt the request of the applicant was premature and that thc
circulatio~ Is a maJor issue becaus~ it doe~ impact two critical traffic areas and the
12/4/78
~ f
MINU7ES, ANAH~iM CiTY PLAI~NING COMMiS510N~ oEC~MeEa 4~ 1978 7$'1~23
tIR NEGATIVE dECLARATtON AND RECLA551FICAYION NU. !0-]y•22 (cAntfnued)
Commtttee had felt It sl~ould take s look et this ance the precise pla~nir-~ had been done
and tt~e tratflc circulatlon element presented.
Mr. Fare~o ( nd 1 cated he was surpr I seo st thc comments and fe 1 t there was a
mtsunderstanding; thet they ere noe asktn~ for nppmval to turn over one shovelful of di ~t
untl) tha Commission see:~ th~ plsns; th~t they +~re rr.questtng the lowest possible
intensity or d~nslty use the Genera! Ptan alla+s; thAt they arr not asking for any
dev0atlon fram the GenerAl Plen; that from the standpol~t of ~1~nnlnq. they have ta knaw
oxactly what the Planninc~ Corrr~isston thlnks this property woulci be sultable Por before
they spend any money for development plans; that thcy src asktng for a resolutlan of
tntent which IndlcAtes the PlanninU Commissi~~ thlnks this property would be appropriate
for RS-500Q on the eas t s t dr end C L on the wes t s t ck ~ and be fare the p ~ope rty can be
developed~ ti~cy have to havr e ci rculation elemcnt and the wcstern pa~t ~f tFie property
has to be raised abou[ 12 feet. He statcd ihey ~rc not asking ta bc allawed to do rny
development wi thout brlnqlnq the p lans back befor~ r-,c Commisslon; that HACMAC ~ t 11 get b
chan~e to give their Input.
TIIE PUBLIC HkARING WAS CLOSED.
Canmisstoner 7olar stated as he sc-r,s thc property rigtit ^~v, I t wt I1 prabAbly stay in
llmbo for the rest of its nntural life; that he could not ~uppart even a c~eneral concept
toward ifmlted comrnercfal and/or RS-50~0 un[il the de•ielope~ of the property rect(t~cs and
shows some type of circ.ulation eic~~~e~~t relievin~ the responsibtlity of ~ettinq edd(tiona)
people out onto the strer.C; that he is rot opposCd tr anyone developing tiheir property
provlding they do nut do it at the ex~ense, healtl~~ safety and welfare of other oeople.
He felt he could not support even a qeneral resolution of intent to anything other than
open sp~ce at this time wi thout some type of c) rculation element showina how you cen get
even flve mnre people ln .~nd c~ut of th~ prn~erty.
Mr. Ferano stateJ i t depen~ls upon what comes f i rs t~ the ch i cken or tt;~ reyg~ and remindr.d
the Commission that they have oone what is beln~ asked and he fai led Lo understand how
anyone :.ouid thtnk they are goin~~ to ~fo anythlnn without the Commission's app~oval, and
stated they need the CI ty's help on th(s property for tl~e ct rculatton element snd they
cannot d~ i t on the i r avn; that the Genera 1 P 1 an spec i f i es low r~ens i ty on the eas cern ha 1 f
and I(mited commercial on th~ western half, and tndi~;.,ted he did not know how the
Commission could deny it.
Conxnlssianer Tolar replied the General Plan does nnt include a remn~~t parc~l of land
obteined tt~rouyh CalTrans wt th noxhing more th +n an easement for access; that he does not
agree the Gity or the Co~*~~.~°•sion actually cr~ated the problem; that he thought the buye~
of the property had ful l dis~:losu~e t+ecause the owner was ccrtainly aware the proper[y was
landlocked and aware of the fa:L it could not be devalaped bec.AUSe it does not have access
to Solomon Drive unless they coutu ac~utre additional prorerty. f1e did not A~ree that the
property is eveci c~enerall;~ zoned ~or anvthinn oiher than open space because It is a
remnant parcel of property; that it would have been zoned g~~pral tommercial lf (t were
ti~d together wi Lh the otl~er property and he r.i~ought i t was up to the develaper tA prepd~e
a circulacion element and show t~e Commission what they want tr put on the property and,
mc~re important~ how they are yoie~g to ge[ in and out of the aroperty.
Mr. Far~ano stated this property is diffic~lt to devclop and he did not know what the best
d~nsity is y~ing tc ~e; ~Chat the Genera) Plan, unless steff is wrong, says It is law-
med i um dans i ty res i den *. i a 1 on the ~as t s i de and cqmme rc i a 1 on the wes t s i de ; tiiat i t i s
too difficult to spend thc: tin~: and expens~ to develop plans or what would normaliy be
required to do ~omething likE thi;, only to have the Commisst. or Counci! say the
property is~ not suitable,
1214/7$
wn
k! , ~
NINU7L5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBCk G~ 1~78 78•1~2~
EIR NEGATIVE OECLAMTION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78•19•2~ ~~ntlnued)
Commissloner Tolar lndicated t~e v~ould b~ relucto~t to qlve the qenerel resol ut(on of
inte~nt on this pruperty because he felt t~~e daveloper would come bnck 1~ wtth a plan and
say they have devoloped in accordan~e with the general plan of developmont. and requlring
a circulatlon element is the only t~andla the Commission has at this time.
Mr. Farano suggested that cr,nditions he Included whic.h would not allow thnm to develop
without plans end the~~ wou1J have ta have a circulati~n element, etc.
Cha(rman Herbst stated tl~is property has bcen discussed besf~re by th~ Planni nq CaTMnisslon
and the Commission is aw~re oF the circulation prnblems a~d felt whatever ci rculatlon (s
developPd fo~ the ~roperty will detcrmine the type of dGnslty ellowed.
Mr. Fa~ano stated tl~e auestlon is haw meny ~mlts wauld be r~llowed and whether or not It is
eppropriate fur RS-',~~)0 density~ pointing out the Commisslon could declde i~ ts only
sulta5le far RS-10~A00 development.
Chalrman Herk~st stated I~e would yu~stion whether o~ not the property coulu be dcvelopad
Into suitable residential because of the freQway with the nolse factor. tie fGlt the
Planning Commi~sion has to know how tl~ay are going to get tral`fic in and out of the
deve:lopment before determining whet ls goinq to ue put there.
Mr. Farano Stated tF-r Corwnission is putting the developer (n a posltton of having to spen~
$50~004 to S100,G00 for dPVelopment plans and havlnq the Cammissln say no; ~hat they are
t~ying to gct an indicati~n whetf~~er or not tt~e Commlsslon thinks the property is sultable
for RS-5~~0. He felt he was no[ makinr~ hlmself clear; that he could not te 11 the
Commission more strongly that they are not rec~uesting a riqht to develop th~ nroperty
without Commissian appr~val.
Commissioner Ts.lar stated if the Comr,i3sion grants a general ~esolution of intent to RS-
y0Q0 and the developer submits plans and tF-e Cammission den(es them~ then t he f(rst thinq
he will say is Lhat ~.he hardship was create~l by the Commission, and he did not agree the
i'ommission creat~d the hardship; that the property is a hardship and was 1 ~ ft b~ CalTrans.
f1e stated any ~ther developer who comes (~ with a request draws out the plang and requests
to take tl~e property from a holding zone to RS-5QQ0 or whatetier and presen ts valid reasons
why it should have a zon~ change. He felt the reason this resolution cf inte~t is be(ng
requested in th!s case is to allvw the developer to come back and say they have a hardship
piece of prope~ty be.cause it is zoned RS-5000.
Mr. Farnno stated this ls the way it is sliown on the f,encral Plan.
Chairman Nerbst stated th~ freeway is shown through there on the General P lan and the
Generel Plan was made with the freeway in ;here~ and the Stete still owne d this proper'y;
that the Genersl Plan is 9eneral, but this particular portion of property was designated
for a freeway and he fel; thls would be backing into the zone~ He stated the p~operty was
purc.iased as aS-A-43,000 which i~ the designatton right now.
Mr. F~irano asked if Chairman Ner~bst was saying there is no irdicatlon on t he General F;an
of how t~~ i s p rope rty shrau I d be deve 1 oped.
~hai rman Herbst repl ted that when i t comes to freeway strips, and this property was a
fre~way right-of-way when the Gencral Plan wes made, it does not indicate how they should
be developed.
12/4/78
~•-
,
MlNUiE~~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING ~t1NMISSION~ DECEMBFR 4~ 1978
EIR NEGATIVE UECIARATION AND REGIASSIFICATION NOi %8-l~w 2(cantinued)
Mr. Farano repllad that staff says tt~e Gencrel
for Iimited commercinl on th~~ w~st side and 1
waa being told now this waa noc co ~rect.
78-1025
Flen indicetes tlils nr~perty Is sutieble
ow denstty on the z++st stda~ ~nd asked if he
Commiss(oner Tol.~r repl ied tl~~-~t wes not what he was say(nq~ end Chai rnu~n Ilerbst repl ied
that wos nnt what he was SAy~n~! cither.
Commtsslone~ Tolar stateci if sos*~e plans we~e brought In wf~lch mel•e sense In relationship
to the ckvelopmcnt of tl-at prap~rty, alonq wi th a ci rGUla:ion element that wc~ula heve an
open mind, but right now this i s iust a lon~ piece ~f nround wlth n~ accass other than a
20-foot ersement.
Ghbi rman Herbsl slated he woul d I i kc to di rect staf f to work wi t-~ the dc•velo~er t+nd Mrs.
Maag on a ct~culotion ~lrn for thp(r propertl~-s ar,d polrted out i the future thc Mat+g
property will come before the P lannina and ~ome sort of clrculatlan should be ;:ianned ~n
the entlre area. He felt if M~s. Maag~ Katella Realty and staff would be agr~eable~ this
is the place Co start because wA knaw there Is A problem there becaus~ af the shapping
center which has been very suceessful ond ha~ creat~d a lot more traffic than antictpated.
Ne stated the City Traffic Eng i ne~r has ind~cz+tr.d Via Cortez is going to requlre maJor
redoing on any future developmenC, a~d that involves the Maeg pruperty. Hc fclt Mrs. Maag
has to be involve:d in the plans in c~rder to create circulatt~~~~ for her property because
someday she is gai ng to want to Jeve lop i t and a wi dcr road ~ s needed. He thouyht thmse
propertles mlyli! be Jointly worked tc~qether In order to have circulatlon f~r both parcels;
that Mrs. Maag lias a problcm wi th no acctess to Santa Ana Canyon Road and al l hr.r aeeess
wi 11 have Lo be taken off VIa Cortez or Solor~~n Urive, ~nd dev~l~nment of her ~rr~nerty
w11) impact tl~e r~ads more Chan the subJect request unlPSS the roads are widene~-~ etc.
Mr. Farano stat~d this Jiscus~ io-± Is provinq his p~int; that they do ~~~t know wh~t is
goin,y to h~ppen until they dE[ ermine what thc general attitude of the Commisston is noing
to be rega~diny the use of .r~ i s~ropertY.
Ch~! rm~n Nerbst stat~d the use of [he pr~ >erty ~-i I 1 he predi cated on whet type of
circulation element can be prc>vi~ed to service the property; that noinq ia RS-500~ the
densl ty is known a~d l imited commcrr,ial is the t~i~tnest use. Ne stated the request is for
a hi~~her density than he fclt shcul~ be allowed on thi4 property.
Mr. Farano stated if they prepared plans ir, accordance wtth the f,eneral Plan for CL c~n the
western part and low to medium densi:y on the eastern part~ the Chairman has just
indE~Ated ~ie doe~ not agree wi th those uses and this Is ~recisely the reason he is trytny
to find ~out tlie Gommission's attitude beforc drawing up the ~l~ns; th~t maybe tl~e
Commission tl~inks this proper~y is only ~uitable for R-1 devclopment~ RS-)200 development~
etc.~ whic~i is fine~ but [I~ey would like to kn~rr.
Commissioner Tolar stated he dic' not think the property was suitahte for any use other
than what it Is current~~ bci ~q useJ for with~.u[ some additional inqress and egress to
Santa Ana Canyon Road; that he did nat want to sc:e one person move onto the property untfl
the clrculatfon problems are resolved.
Commissianer Davi d pointed au t the staff repore indicates the project conforms wi th the
Aneheim General P lan artd sugge~ted the developer go ahead and draw plans.
Mr. Farano stated if plans are presented for an aS-50~ development and CL, they would
probably not be appraved.
Commissioner Tolar stated there would be no way to provide circulation at this time.
12/4/7g
~
~
MINUTl:~~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING ~GOMMISSIUN~ ULGEMBER 4~ 197~ 78-1~26
Elli NEGATIVE UECIARATION AND RECLASSIFICAT~ON N0. 7A'79'22 ~~ntinued)
Mr. Fareno stete~ If ti~l:~ request is c~ranted~ they would be coml~g bsck and asking fo~ an
actua) circulatlon element and pointed out 35 studies h~ve beei~ done on thls property
already and none of tl~em are sultAble.
Commissloner Tolar stated tl~e Ctty does not awn the propertv and asked how th~y ce~
Inltiete a circulation element on praperty they do nat own end on whlch they d~ not hdve a
public straet.
M~. Farano st~ted thr, City has 35 exhibits for ci~GUlati~n on this parcel of property.
Annike SantalefiCi, Asststant Directoi for Zantnc~, explatnPd there was a study ci~ne by
steff In conncctlon wltt, sp~.cific square footages and a develapment plan had been
submitted.
Commiss(onr.r Tolar stated that study was on Rlnker's property only and ~Id nc:t Includn
this additlonai prape~ty or the f~~eeway property.
Mr. Farano stated the study was done before ths zoninq on the Rlnker property w~s
finalized.
Annika Santalahti replied that was not rcally true; thae whe~~ the zoninc~tiad o~lglnsily
cnme In in 1972~ or whenever, it was filed un<ier so-nc ve ry conceptual~ sGhematic plans and
subs~ ently ln connectlon wlth preclse plan app~oval of whtch the CommisstQn actuelly saw
eight~ there was conc~rn with the actual cfrcula~ton~ so it was prior to the zoning being
f(nallzed~ but not in conneccion witt~ the origtnal znninQ actian.
Mr. Farano stated the stucly was done in ~.~nnection with thls property to the north; that
this property has had a histo~y and it is ve ry oifficult for anyone to plan anything
because of the nature of the property; that they w~nt to work w(th the Ctty ln connection
~vtth the c.lrculatlon for tl~ls proper~• . He stated he agrees with everytliing th+at has besn
said and it has to be planned in order for t~~e circulatlon element to be intelligently
prepared~ but they have to have somc dir~ctiun from the Carn+-isslon as to whA~ densities
they [hin~ are appropriate for this land. He stated thc Commisslon wents to turn him
dawn and do nat tl~ink the property is appropri~ste for limiCed comne-cial end RS-5000~ he
wuuld rather have tht~t than to come back in with plans and heve them denied.
Comn(ssloner Barnes referred to th~ west side of the p~operty pro~osed fo~ 1lmt ted
canmercia) and indicated this problem of access has beer, discussed tn th- past by the
Planning Commission for hours and haurs. She asked if a developer f~as that access to Vta
Cortez at tl~e p~esent timc an~f i f ttiosc ncyottations have been completed.
Mr. Farano replied at this p~int the access they have into Jia Cortez i~ via a Joint
easement betv~een thc ainker development and subject property and this iy part of Lht
probler~. He stated that until they get somc se~stble c(rculattan plan~ they are not going
to do any th i ng wl th tt~e p rope rty .
Commissioner Barnes statrd she cauld not think of anything that could be built on the
westerly portion of the propertv other than Iimited commercial; that it is certeinly not
suitabie for residential and sh~ •~as sure it was not going to sit there as open space a~d
she did not think ':alTrans wants it back and the Clty of Anahe(m does not want (t, and it
is going to have to have something on ft. She was not sure ab~ut the RS-5000 portion
because of the circulation and did not think until some circulatlon plar+ including the
ad,joini~y property is s~mitted that she would want to act on that portion. She indicated
she would not mind voting on the commercial portion at this tirt-e.
12/4/78
u
~
MINUTES~ ANANCIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~I~N~ nECEMBER 4~ ty/8 78-1~~~7
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARAT101~ AND__aECLA~~IFICATION N0. 78-79-22 (contlnued)
Pa~: Sinqer~ City Trefftc Engl~eer~ steted he has been Invfllved in thla piece of property
for e long time; that Vie Cortcz wa~ primarily ~nd solelY develaped with its present
capaclty ka se~ve thc Rinker pruperty and that pnrtion ad.~c-ining whtch ts now Grtswold's~
and a roadway casement was plACed behlnd the Rinker praperty a~d tf any other development
is to ga behtnd or north of the Rinke~ propcrty or to M~~. Masg's propcrty~ obviously
addttione) capacity would have to be prov;ded from somaplace~ na matter what the nature of
the use; Lhet it would be quite dtfftculi to parcel thes~ out end felt the antlre e~ea
should be looked at~ ~v$n as `ar es Solomon Drive is conce~ned~ beceuse he ~elleved Mrs.
Maac ~ould h~ve s~me serlous concern about clrculation onto he~ property and he belleved
it ~~ the responslbt{ity of the develop~r tc~ laok at the circulation of thp enti:r~ area.
Commiss(oner dushore esk~d Mr. Farano (f he had talked with 11r. Rtnker~ and he replied he
talks with him all the tlme and he daes not have tno much concern on thts pdreei; that
they have a Joint easemtnt th~[ wlll servc thelr parce) and thty are ~oing to keep him
informed, but at this point they do not have rny iden as ta I~cw the property will be
developed. He stated~ again~ he fincls (t difflcult to disAgree w(th enythln~ anyone said.
G~mmissloner Oarnes Askpci Nr, Far~n~ if f~e has an easem~nt to the .illeyway behind Via
Cortez ovcr to Griswold's.
Mr. Farano replleci that ttic easement extends norti, ~f Grlswcld's about twa-thlyds of the
way down to Vta Cortez and ehat it actually nives them occess for thAt narcel of property
north of Rinker's o~to Via Cortez.
Commissloner Barnes {~~inted out one of tf~e condttion5 c~f approval for Griswold's w~~s for
acc~ss ta be provided to this proRerty.
Mr. Farano 3tated tfi~t if they came befor~ th~ Commissian with a limited cortmerc9al
development for tf~e ~~esterly portton of the croc~erty~ they would have to utllize the
easement tl~~y have with Mr. Rinker~ and lie f~lt they would tiave a hard tlme getting
appraval because of the access, l~e felt a circul~tion plan has to be developed that meets
with the approval of everybody and felt an opinion from the Commission as to wheCher or
not they feel the prop~rty is suitable f~r limited commercial and resldential is
necessary; that hc is not try(ny to yet perrnission to go ahead, but thls merely starts che
ball rollin~ toward ttie possibility of gecting a circulation element and finding out what
ic goiny to happen there.
Commissioner Tolar stated he felt it ~aas up to tl~e developer~ Mr. Rinker~ and other
property awners to provide the Commiss ic~n wi th a ci rculation elesnent that Ni ! 1 support thr
type of dovelopment wa~te~~; ct~at the circulatlon right now will not support any additional
u~e on the property; and that he would not support any use on this prope~ty for limlted
commercial or residential unttl the ctrculation plan is provided shawing any development
on that property can be serviced.
Mr. Farano repiled he dld not t~~ink they were gettiny anywhere wlth this discussion; that
it would be a iong tlme before they could p rovide a set of plans.
Chairtna~ Herbst sugyested the developer sit down ~ith the Ctty Traffic Enylneer and
possibly Mrs. Maag to find out what kind of circulation is goi~g to be needed there.
Mr. Fa~~no stated he had tried to contact Mrs. Maag; that peoplP are interested in her
property and the 15 calls are f~om people who want to talk with her about her property.
but she does not want to talk with anyone about her property.
1~/4/78
'f
~
MINU~E.S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM'SSI~N. DECEMBER 4~ 197~ ~g~1028
EIR NEGATIVE DECLnR~.TION ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7r~7~~22_(continued)
Chal~~~~bst stated Mrs. Maag has to ~ecognize her properly Is in Jeoperdy becsuse nf
the lack of cfrculation and no matter what is ddd~l~ped on h~r property~ It has to have
circulation.
Mr. Farano steteJ she has the rlght to do whatever she wa~ts and she does not have tr~ talk
wi tti cnybody about her property, And whetever tl~ey ck,, th~y wi i 1 have to do on thel ~ own.
f.ommissioner ~arnes ~sked Mrs. Maag if she understood her property wes in )enDardy since
she does ~ot havc access. She pointed out to Mrs. Maag she needs to talk with the City
sgein and tel) them whet she Intends to do with her property~ and this is the tlme she has
been walting for to get what she wants.
Mrs. Maag replied she had c< ~.rated anJ he~ road had becn taken eway. She stated she had
been i~~ and was not In eny conditlon to talk with anybody sbout her property; that Xhe
Glty had celled and wanted to put a roAd through her praperty, but she was n~t able ta
talk with them.
Commisstoner Bernes bsked if she would be wllling to discuSS this matter with :he City at
Lhis tlme.
Mrs. Maag repl(ed that ahe would not be willing to tnik wlth them rlght now. She aske~ if
her entrance to Santa Ana Canyon Road would be taken away from her f~•r the benefit of this
property. ~he stated she has been fAir with thc City and has gone along with [hem and did
not oppose any~ne's development around her and would like for eve ryb~dy to do what they
want wi th thei r property ~ 855UmI n~J that when she was ready ~ she woul d be ah le to do what
st~e wanted.
Chalrman Herbst explained even thouqh Mrs. Hao~ maY not P1an to do enything with her
property at this time~ same so~t of clrculation should be planned~ but it does not h~ve to
go in until she is ready to huiid~ but she should know hc~w it is going tObut neltherddoes
polnted out this applicant doeS not have access to service his prope~fy,
she.
Mrs. Maag stated he should nqt have bought that property anyway, that tt is useless. She
stated she had had eccess o~ Solomc>n Road and there was a bridge across IC. She stated
she wouid not like to see a lot of houses Qr shopping ccnters ~n t~e property; that she
tiked her property and has lived the~e for 30 years and had devel~p~d It herself a~d ha~d
planted and landscaped it and ha~' had a ca[tle ranch there until the freeway rulned it and
wrecked the corrals~ and that kids had torn down the clubhcuse and built a fort in thslr
back yard.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar affered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Davld and MOTION
CARRIEO (~ommisstoner Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon has
revie~ed the proposal to reclassify subJect property fmm the RS-A-43~Q00(SC)
(Restdertial/Agri~ultural-Scenic Corridor Ovr.~lay) Zone to the CL(SC) (Commerclal,
Limlted-Scenic Cor~fdor Overlay) Zone on Portion A. and ~eclassificrtian af sub,ject
property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) (ResTdential/Agricui~ural-Scenic Corridor Ov~rl~y) Znne
to the RS-5000(SC1 (Residantlal, Single-Family-Scenic Cor~idor Ov~erlay) Zone on Portion tS~
o~ an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.3 acras located
southeast of thc intprsection of the Rlverside Freeway and Imperial Highway~ having a
frontage of 2100 feet on the south side of the Rive~s~de FreeMray~ having a maximum depth
of epproximately 260 feet. and being located approxinately 675 feet north of the
centerit~e of Santa An~ Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon from
the requirement to prep~re an enviranmental impact report on the basis that there would be
no significant indi~idual or cumulative adve~se environmental impact due to the approval
12/4/7~
,:~,.~:,.. :,;; ;~
,~ .
..,.
MINUYES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ UECEMDER ~~~ 197H 78-1029
F'~ NEGATIVE DEGI.ARA7lON ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7$-79-22 (conti~ued)
of this Neg~tiwe Decla~atlon since the Anahesim Geiierol Plan destgnates the subJect
property for gr.neral comme~cia) lend uses on ;he western h~If ~nd low-medium d~^~tty
residentla) It~nd uses o~ the eastQrn half conMriensurat~ wtth the pruposal; that no
sensitlve environmental impacts arn (nvolved in the nro~osal; that the Initial Study
submit,ted by the petit(one~ in-ilcates no signiffcanc indtvidu~l or tumulr~tive edvorse
envlronn-ental Impacts; and thAt tho Negative Declarati~n substAnt(fltin~ the fnregoing
flndings !s on ftle In th~ Clty of Anaheim Planning Depa~tment.
Commissioner Tolar offe~ed Resolution No. PC78-277 and moved f~r Its pessoqe and adoption~
that the M aheim Gity Planning Comm(ssion Jows hereby deny Petitlon for Reclasslficatlon
No. 77-7$-;?2 untll a circulation element and/or plenz are ~~rovtded.
On roll call~ the forecminq resolutio~ was ~asspd by the~ follow~ng vo2e;
AYES : LOI~MI SS I ONE RS : llAR~lES , BUSNORE ~ DAV I D~ IIERBST ~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISStONERS: IJONE
ABSENT : COMMI SS I ONE IZS : JUNNS~N ~ KI I~G
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ presented thc petitioner the wrltten rlqht to appeal the
Planninq Commission's decision witl~li~ 22 days to the City Cauncil.
COMMISSIQNER KING RETURNED T~ TfiE COUP~CIL CHAMHER A7 4:20 P.M.
ITEM N0. 4 PUI~LIC 11EAE~;~~G. OWNERS; IMPERIA~ ASSOCIATES~ 4121
~~~RICAL EXEMFTI011-CLASS 11 4lesterly Place~ t~ewport Qeach~ CA 9?.6~•0. AGE~~T: JOHN
VARI<WCE N0. 3~ •1 N041CNSTIIiE~ 31$~-J Airway Averyue~ Costa Mesa, CA
9262G. Petitioner requests WAIVER OF (A) PROHIE3ITED
SIGIJS AND (b) M~XIMUM NUMaER OF SIGNS TO RETAIN EX15T-
(~~G ILLEGAL SIGI~S on propert•; iescribed as an irr~~gul~rly-shaped parccl of land consisting
of approximately 3.' acres havin~ a frnntage of approximately 65 feet on the south sid~ of
La Pal~*~ Avenue, having a rnaximun depch of apuroxlm~~tsly 660 feet, beiny locatCd
approximatCly 370 feet west of th~ centerline of Ir~perial Highway, and fur~her described
as 5640 Eest La Palma Avenuc. Pr~~perty presently classlfied CL(SC) (COMMERCtAI, LIMITED-
SCENIC CaRRIUOR OVERLAY) 2;lNE.
There was one person indicatiny th~ir pres~ence ln opposition to subJect request. and
althaugh tt~e staff report to the Pi~,nin~:± Cammission dated December 4, 197$ was not rcad
at the public hearing~ it is referred to 'nd made a part of the minutes.
Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, indicated there ts a carrection to the staff rpport in
that the Interdepartmental Comm(ttee recommendation Nos. 1 en~i 7_ should be rev~.~ .ed.
It was noted the Mili and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACM/1C) reviewed the above
proposal on November 21~ 197F3. and with ten members presr~t~ the Ccmmittee voted
unanlmousl/ to recommend denial of Variance No. 3061 on the basis thet no hardship had
been found~ ct~at a precedent will be estabiish~d if approve3, and in vlew oF the
silpulation by the original develope~ that all signing would be In conformance with code
standards.
,loh~ Hvwenstine~ ayent~ indicated they were aware of the Commisslon s destre to control
signino in tl~e Scenic Corridor; that their cvi~amy had mad~ a mtstake in putting these
signs up; that they wsre put up for identification on the buitding and they had thought
the sign was approved by the Planning Comm?ss(on; that they have signs on three faces of
12/4/78
e
R
~w ~
~I
w.
MINUTES. AI~AHEIM CITY PLANWING COMMISSION~ DECEMdER 4~ 197a ~8'143~
~ I R GATEGORI CAI. EXEMf'TI ON-CLA~S 11 At~p VARI ANCE H0. 3061 (cant i nu~J)
the bulldinq and the code only allows for one algn that could be up to lOx of the building
faca; that thesy c~uld take only one of the elevetions end put letters up whtch could be
but do
three times the size; that they tieve z-foot letters~ i,ut could have 6•foot letters~
not fee~ th~t would be useful to Mr. Christtan. He ~olnted aut thls is a corne~ location;
thnt to conform to the siqn c~de tt~ey coulcf teke dawn the three siqns and try to
dlstrlb ute tlie signing to pravide identif(catlon for the rtu+rket; that you cannot get to
the market from Impc:rtal ~nd the rule for siqnln~ in the code is valld~ but It does not
work (n this ~articul. case; Chat the sign is not a gla~inh plastic sign. but Is wooden
letters. Fle Felt th~~ ~cenic Corricior must be nrr.served~ but felt a tanant w(th Sn00
square jf°twhich,i~ ~en)oyany~sli9htly(3mor•e signlnyntiian~allnw^dhbyi~c~n~~.iPiaancidpointedrouts
Carl's
subJect property s located beiifnJ utt~er developments.
Chafrman tierb~ polnled out there are signs in tha area whicl~ were ther~s before the code
axlsted and n~.thing cAn be done sl~out those~ and ~~fnted out Carl's Jr. did get approval.
Mr. Ha~-enstine stated there are man, violacions in the Scenic Corrido~ and they wo~~.1 have
one very small si~~n whicti is permitted and everythin~~ else would havF to bc taken Jown~
and dId not think the cf~annes would q~ve the maricet ~ery much identification.
Lynn Bufflnc~ton~ ~~~5`.~ Columbus, Anaheim~ state~f IIACMAC had rev(ewed this request and~ in
fact~ werr. responsible for pointin~ out ~his vlolation to the City because of all the
efforts rr~ade by that Committee reyardiny sl~;ns i~ the canyon ~rea; that they have bee~
asked to consider ~ther signs in the area, s~ecifically the Arco station~ and it was the
Committce's feeliny thosc slgns~ wlthout exception, a~•c n~t nCCessary. Ne stated the
hardship stated by Christian's market that t~~ey dld n~t know ahout the sign code is ne:
valid because they felt any professional sign dealer shauld bc ~iware of the codes in any
city where they are working; that HACMl1C felt a precedent would b~ set if this request
were granteJ because this shopping center (s stil~ in the developing stages. He stated
Christlan's market has exposure alu~~~ Imperial as weil as the frer_way. and other signs
that migf~t ga (n m~~y not be in a~ yood Caste as these~ b~t a precedent would be set. ~~e
stated they had aiso considered the plastic bull and f~lt it was tn very noor taste and
pointed out they dld not feel signing is necessary at tt~is market particularly. ~le
requesCed thc Planning Commission ta uphold thc Committee'~ recommendation :~or denial of
this request.
Annika Sd~tatahti~ Assis[ant Oirector for Zoning~ explaln~ed that developers of all
proJ~cts in the l~nahelm Hllls area are warned by staff relative ta the st~n r~strictions
because they do differ from the rest of the City; that she personally and othsr staff
members have talked with the arininal developer of this pro.iect which, of cours~~ does not
include Mr, Nawens:ine, relative to the constraints they have out thefe. and warned to let
their tenants knaw so there is no problem dow~ the line~ but tlie word does not always clet
through. She stat:;d relative t~ the wall gigns ln these centers, the zoning code
addresses only signs visible from the p~:blic street or frecway and, in fact, in several
instances people have been permitted !o put up ser_onda ry wall si~ns where they are
designed to be vtewed only from the parking lot in the comnercta centers~ so the~ have a
sign you can see from the street~ and ihP; ~r~v have other slgns vlewable only frorn the
parking lot and those are not consi~ered as part of the zoning restraints put on them by
the SC Zone.
Chalrman Nerbst referred to the three w~il signs mentiontd and asked if that includes the
Farmers Market and the Mexican restaurant on the bac~: side. Ne stated there ls also a
large wall s' parallel acro~s Ct~e back advertising the Meycican re~ aurant in almost the
same si ze ~ s as Fanners Ma~ket.
,~ 12/4/7a
MINUTES, ANANEIM LITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ UECCMRER 4~ 1~J~ 78' 13~
E.XEMPTION-CLASS 11 ANp VARIANLE t~U. ~61 ~~mtinu4d)
E I R CATL GGRI CAL __..... ..___~~ -
_______,__~__._ ____._
Annika Santal~ahtl r~nlied that cach tenent technlcaily ls allnwad to hAVe oi~: wall siqn.
Sl~e statsdtl,e Mexica~ restaurant may v~ry well not havc the large ~I~n ~n the front of the
bu I 1 d( nq anJ n~ay have ~ sma 1 1 one o~ the en t ranccs .
Chatrman ~larbst stated tliere is a siqn on Farmers Market on the frort aiid sort of e wall
sign facing thU parking lot~ and ask~d if th~t was the thlyd sign referre~i to. Ne felt if
lt is~ they arc ~~ily one s(gn out af codc.
Annika Santalahtl stated any sl~~n visible from the freewry o~• .i public street is
constdered a wall sign.
Chalrman Nc~bsc st~tcd tl~at thc sm.,l- st~~n would be vcry difficult to read frum ~a public
street; thAt the~c is a larqc si~in on the back~ ~ large sign on the east Si~le~ and a l~go-
type sign on tl~e front and the bull th~t sits out fr~nl; tt~at lie dld not fael th~ third
si,yn shauld be con~idered as a well slyn and stat^d thcre is only ane ~t~n tftiat nesds to
be taken dc~wn~ plus the bull.
Eric Strickland~ 210 East Ucean Front, Newport Beach~ stated he w~~ nresent un behalf of
M~, Ghristian and In~iicated he c1UC5 need tlie tliree signs for prapcr ident(fication; that
they are ve ry sma 1 1 s i gns ~ none of wh i ch are grc:flte r tl~an 3`G of .~ny e 1 eva t i on and they are
not vt s i b le t~ om tlie f reeway as compared to tt~e Cxecut i ve Mator ~lome s i~ns whPre each
buildinq has its c7wn sic~n; and that these sictns at Christian's are architecturally
pieasinq witli tlie building and help the business.
7NE PUI~L~C NLARINf WAS CLOSE~.
Cornmissioner Bushore asked if G-foc~t lette~s wauld I,~ leqal.
Annika Santafahti replie.~ that they waulJ be legal as lonq as they are not more than 10~6
of the buildin~ wall,
Commissianer Bushore statcd tt~ey would only be able to get ab:~t five ietters on thc wall
if Lhey were 6 feet. He stated the prublem li~ has with this is that therc is already a
probiem on Las Lomas where they ~~e fly(nq hanners; that he had ialked with anothe,• tenant
and he said he was thinkin~ about p~tting up a si~n like the rest. He e.cplained he was
talking about tlie sic~ns that face the freeway; that on~ has c~onc up, a sec~nd one has done
It, and ~.an~r the third one thinks it is a good idea and felt if this is allowed for one
tenant, it will have to be allawed for all of t'zm.
Commissianer Barnes stated each tenant c~n have a sign aa big as they ~,~ant as l~ng as it
is not more than 10% of their buildic-g and tl~ey can also have an identificatio~ sign out
f ron t .
Annika Santalahtt stated she wou1J like to clarify or ~oint, that we have not had an
Issue where freeway advertisiny has been sought in th~ manner and the way the co~1e
actually reads is one wall,ign at the entrance; that staff has not ~r~n strict on that
because, i~ most cases~ the buildings are located in a~aay that yeu can drive around t~~e
entira building~ anu whether o~ not the main entrence is on ane side has not concerned us~
but this one faces the freeway and there is no question that it is not the main entrance,
and she thought if one person came in for a sign pe~mit~ staff v+ould probably be. quite
concerned~ and pointed out this one cfoes not have a permit.
Commissioner Bushore stated if we are goin~ to hav~ a Scenic Corridar, we should keep it
s cen i r f rcxn the f rerway .
12/4/78
~
MINUTES~ ANAtIE1M CITY PLANNING COt1MISSION, DECEMBER 4~ 19%8 78-1032
Elk GATEGORICAL L"XEMPTION-GLASS 11 AND VARIANCC N0. 3061 (continued)
Chatrman Herbst explelned to the epplicant that we h~v~ hed thls same argument beforQ;
that a nuraery in the seme area had used th~: same argument that lt would be detrimental to
their bualness; that they wG~c alloaed one sign facinq Imperi~l and wented o~e facing the
frneway~ and the request wes denled; and that Carl's Jr. came in w(th a plan lnteyrst(nq
thelr signs which wrap around the co-ne:r so they are ~ctually touchi~q~ end the Commiss{on
denled that request and he thouc~ht tl~e Gouncil had ~ranted it beceuse it was tnteqrated in
one corner sign and rnet the code. He steted therr Are other stnns 1~ the area that hove
beo~ there longer than the Scen(c Corridor cnde end we 1~ave no control over that~ but
pointed out the signing can be cbne in a manner to meet the code. Ne stated he could not
su~port breaktny down tt~e Scenic Corrtdor ordlr~nce because others wtll be roq4~sting
blgger signs and th~ Comm{ssion lies f~een fiqhting the st~n codc all along. He stated this
shopping center (s nu[ ser~~J from tt~c frccwoy.
Mr. Howenstinc stAted he realized cl~ere is a p~oblem wlth exposure toward the freewny, but
he thought the siyn towerJ Imperlal~ which is not exce;sslve~ and tf~e one si~n ln the
snoppin~ centPr sh~ulci he ollc~wed,
(t wes noted the Planning D(rActor or h1, authorized rr.presentetive has ~ietermined th~t
the proposed pro~ect falls wixhin the .~~~ftnitiun of Cateqorlcal Exemptions~ Class 11~ as
defined in ~.~+rayraph 2 of the CI ty of l~n~ihciin Environmental Impact Report Guldel ines and
ts, therefore~ cate~aorically exempt from the requir~ment to prep~rc r~ EtR.
ACTION: Comrnis~ioner Tolar offered tesolution No. PCJc~.•-Z7C~ and mc~~~ed for its passage ~nd
a~opt~on, that thc Anahcim CItY Qlar~nin~ Commission does hereby deny Petition for Varlance
No. 3061 on the basis that an undesfraf,le t~rece~dent in the Scenic (.orridor wc~uld be set
a~d tiie signiny is not neede.+ at tl~is location,
Conmissianer Herbst asked for ~:larifica[ion regardiny [he siqn on the front a~d whether or
not it would be considcred a wall si~in~ and stated he thou~ht it shoul~+ not be considered
as a vlolation.
Commissioner lolar indicated hEs resolution is for ~I~~nial of waivers (a) and (b) and
stated the petitioner could ~ut up a sign which meets the cocie 3nd hA coul~ put it
anYwhere he wants~ even thou9h he thouqhx it would be ridiculc-us to put it ~n the freeway
~ide.
Ch.3lrman ~ierbst stated his point is chat the tl~i,d s~qr. is ~`or ~eco~nition in the shopping
center and it cannot be seen or read from th:e ~:tree*., a.~d hc fe:t it should be considsred
an allowabl~ si~}n.
Annika Santala;~ti state~i if ti~e Commission a~rees witl~ t`~Pt, sCaff will enforce i~ that
way .
Ghairman Tolar stated i~e will ~ s~~ppurt any violation ~fi the ordinance.
Annika Santalahti state~l the oriytnal staff interpretation wa~ that that stgn was Ir
violation~ but i` the Co~mission feels it is not that visible fron~ the street or cennot be
read irom the street, it can be enforce~s that way.
Commissioner eushc~re indicated f~e would qup~~urt the resolution as cffereJ.
Commission~r Ba~nes stated xhere are yood ~nd bad signs; that ttiese siqns are some of th~
best-looking siyns she has saeiz; that they are low key and similar to signing in Irvine;
that she is not talkina about the back o` the building toward the freeway and agreed that
sign shauld b~ taken down,and pointed out the coverage of the other signs is not 10b of
12/4/78
~
MINUTLS~ Al~AtiEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, UECEHDEa 4~ 197(i 78-1OJ3
clk GATCGi)RICn.4 F~xEMPTIt!N-cLASS 11 Arlu vAKIANCE N0. 3061 (concinued)
t~~4 wall; cl~at she~ hAd tried to find Christian's MerE.et nnri could not see the sign from Le
Palma hr.cause of the~ cars in the parkiny l~t and she waulcf not consider that sl~n as ~
wall slyr,.
Anniko Sent~lahti askc~l if tt is Commisslan's Intent that If he remnve~ the-. freeway slgn
and the bull~ I~e wnuld heve leqal siqning with one wali sign visible frAm the street.
Choirman Nerbst asked Cammissloner Tolar (f h~ would a~ree with removal of the f~eeway
stc~n only.
Cortxnissiancr Tolar stated lie was amaz~cl at the ~nmissioner's comments and stated
people could spend a lot nf m-~ney for sirns and ~iem as Attractlve as the Commisslon
wlshes iri order to have more si~ning~ and s[ated ~, w~uld set a prQCedent they could
point to. He referred to the Arco station wl~ich haci recently bcen before the Gommtssio~
request(ng larger siyns anJ stat~cJ I~r. has t,een (n thc arca for about a month a~d that Arca
statlon is the only place in the canyon to get gas, and he dicl not feel they nced sic~ns
and dtd not Peel ChristiAr's needs sicJns because they are alway~ packed and he did not
fec 1 the s 1 gn wau 1 d do any th i ~~c~ for them.
Comm(ssioner ~ushore asked Mr. Howenstine if Christian's hns on~c of the ~:ihns that h~+ng ~n
cha(ns, stmtlar to thc rest of the tcnants.
Mr. Hawenstin4 stated the small siyn on the butlding facing Inside was to replace that
sign because he does not have a walkway sign,
Commissio~er Bushc,re asked tf those siqns are leqal, and Annika Santalahti repll~d that
they are if they cennot be SCen from the ~treet.
Commissioner Bushore suggested this a~~+licant could put up one of tl-ose signs.
Mr. Howenstine siated one itern d(fficult to discuss in the siqn issue is that you are
dea~ing with percertages and yau cannot govern aesthetics ,vitli percent~ges; that you are
telling ~. man he should have exactly what the code say~~ which is true sometimes~ bu~ that
he ~ould have 6-foot letters where he do~s not want ihem,
Canmtssioner Bushore stated this petitioner st~oulo have what the rest of the te~ants have
and if the others havt to live within the code~ then he should have to live within the
~ode~ also.
Mr. Nowenstine potnted out Chrlstia~ s has an ~0~-syuar@ foot bu(lding while other
tenants have 1C00•sQUare foot buildings. Ne stated he did not feel the slgning
requi rements should be the se~ne.
Comnissioner Toler stated Christtan's has the corne~ building and has access to have a
sign on lmperisi and thc rest of the tenr~ts do not have that exposure; that t~: has one of
the most successful businesses, which proves sinnin~ ls not n~cessary if you have a good
product to sell. which~ o~viougly, lir does.
Mr. Howenstt~e stated he thought the ge~erai trends of signing are go(ng in that
diractton, yet you still need thc iden[ification as a tactor for traffic and finding the
locatlon~ and stated their signing is not vislble fram Imperial rnd they are not intended
to be seen from Imperial for most of the signing.
Commissioner Tolar stated the whole side of the building is vlsible.
12/4/78
'i ~... ';
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 4, 19yH 7$-10j4
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIAN-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3~61 (continued)
Cort~missloner He~bs1 atated tho questlon stlll arises as to whcther or not the slgn that
tannot be seen from the street is e well slq~~ and he did not think it Is.
Annika Sa~talahti stated if the Commtsslo~ concurs and tha~. lk is made a part af the
resolution~ the resolutlar wl'1 be worded in a way to talk about two existing wall st~ns~
with some commentery made about t;~e ti~ird slgn that Is not readable from L~+ Palma Avenue.
Commissioner Tolar stated he wants the resolution to star:i the way it ls an~ that a
separate motton ca~ be madc t~fter tlie resoluiion and he would n~t f.o opposed to that, but
he wants the resolutlon to sha~- that the Planniny Commission I~as not made an exception to
any siqning in the Sce~ic Corrldar.
Chalrman ticrbst stated he a,yrees exuspt they were talkincl abou~ three signs a.id he thought
i t st~ou 1 d be two.
Commissioner Tolar stated he r~anted that to oe a separate motion.
On roll Ga11~ the foreyoiny resolutlon was passed by tt~e folic~wtng vote:
AYES: COM11lSSIONERS; BUSNORE~ DAVIU~ HERtiS7~ TOLAR
NOES: COMNISSIONEKS: BARNES~ KIt~G
A~SENT: COMMIS~IONERS: JOt1N5QN
Chairman Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Cammissioner bavld and MOTI~tJ CARRiED
(Ccxnmissioner Johnson beiny absent) ~ tF~at the thir~ wal t siqn facin~ the property, which
-annot be se~n from the st~eet on La Pa1~na Ave~~ue, ta not to be considered a wa11 sign,
and the only Sign that needs to be taken do~~n ts on tl~r frecway side and tl~e bull removcd.
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ ~resented the petitioner the wrltten rtght to appeal the
Planning Comnission's decision within 22 days to the Gity Council.
ITEM N0, 6 PUttIIC HEARfNG. OWNERS: ROBERT D. ETCNANOY~ ET AI.,
~~~fVE DF.CLARATIUi~ 650 Sou-h Western Avenue~ Anahelm~ CA 92~104. AGENT:
OND 0 US ERHI 0. 19C~2 ELDEN W. E3AINBRIDG~~ GOID KEY FURNITURE CO., 6161
Sepulveda Boulevard~ Van Nuys. CA 91~~11. Petitioner
requests permission to ESTABLIS~ RETqII SALES OF
FURNtTURE III 71iE ML ZOt~E c~n vroperty describ~d as an irregularly-sha~eci parcel of It~nd
c~nsistiny of apprnximately S•3 acres having a rrontage of ap~roximately 8(10 feet on the
east side vf Tustin Avenue~ having a maxlmum depth of approximat~ly 360 feet~ and being
located approximately 565 feet south of thr c~nterline af la Palma Avenue. Property
presently classified RS-A-4j~U0U (RE5IDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZON~ with a resolutton of
intent to the ML (ItJUI;STRiAL~ LIMITED) ZOt1E.
Subje:ct petitian was continued from the meetiny of Qctober 23, 197f3 for further study.
There was no one indlcatinci their presence in opposition to subject request; and although
the staff report to tlie Planning Commissia,i dated December 4, 1973 was not rea~ at the
public hearinc~, it is referred co and made a part of the mtnutes.
~loyd Farano~ represer.ti.:y Gold Key Furniture Gompany~ stated since the last hearing on
this item, the Planning Commission and the Chamher of Commerce engaged in a study to
discuss the philosophical appraach to encroachments into the industrial zones and that no
~esults of thi5 study have been pu:~lished, but tliat the City Council aid continue this
32/4/78
a
MINUTf.S~ ANAIIliM C'TY PLA~~Nt~iti COMMISSION~ bECCHbL•R ~+, 197~ 7~'~~35
EIR N~GATIJC UCCLrRl17~~H !1N0 CONUITIONAL USE. ~'FRMIT II(?, 1~)0'l (contfnued)
i tcr~ at t,a 1 r ~:. ~' ince t I ng and there se~ms to be some va I ue to the poss i b t 1( ty of quas i-
cortxnerclal cJ.:velopmonts on the entr~nces anJ frln~e dl'r.AS of the industria) arcas. lie
stated Lhey I~avo looked ec otl~er places and are lookin~ for a 45~Q00 to ~0~~~~ square
fo~t~ s!ngle-spanned~ onc-I~uildln~~ use on about tvr~ ~cres anJ tliey hr~ve heen un~bl • ta
ftnd anytliln~ fittin~~ that descrtpticm in thc: Clty of Anaheim; that no camnercial
developers ar•e int~rested in this tyrP of use because af ~he return per squarc foot on
wl~at would ',e Invested in thc bul ldinc~.
fle state~ they have no desire to place ti~e Lity in a bad c~f positlon and reellzed the~e is
~ume fee Ing thi~ woulJ open tl~~ flood yates. 11e stated Gold Key has bean In tt~is Ar~a a
vcry short tlme~ but thcy have exprr.sse~l thei r feel ing that thcy do ~agree with the C1 ty's
fetlinys reyardin~ ~r~c~~ctian uF tlir indus[rial ze~nes because they would also be pro~ected
anJ f~el they have crit.eria ~nd land use evaluations whlch are vc~ry simila,~ to industrlal
uses.
Mr. farano state~~ his cllent is under some time constraints and do~s not want to wait
until Janua ry~ Fel,ruary or Harcl~ u~til the study has been completed t~ find out (f the
City of Anaheim daes not want tli~,n, Ne suyyested the following conditlons cauld be used
as criteria for allowiny this use in tt~c ML Zon~;
1. That the loc~tion of sald use should be conftned ~to primarily arteria) highways.
2. That th~ main sits size should be ~ne acre.
3. That any single use shali occupy no IeSS Chan 4~,00~ square fcet of bui~ding
4. space.
That ~ny building so constructed should be 3rchitecturally de~i~ned and similar
to those buildings usuallY constructed tn the industrial areas.
$. That ~uch buildings contain no display winclows.
!;. That in addlcion to slx~winqs required for a conditional use permit, the following
shvwings be dertbnstrateci by tlie application:
a. That said uses shall not create vehicular trafftc greater th~n th~t created
by norn~al ML uses.
b. That hours of operation shall he such that a~y vehicu'ir traffic created by
subject use shall not conflict wtth or place a burden uD~n other tra4fic in
the ML Zone.
c. That pedestrian l•raffic generated by such use shall not be greater than that
generated by othe~ Ml. uses in the area.
d. That the parkin~7 requi rc~nts for the ML Zane are adeyuate to m~eet the needs
of such use.
That ai st n erected by the applicant wiil corr~ly with the size and
e. ~ y 9
location requirements cf the ML Zone.
fle stated if the City has any interest in pursuing the posslbility for uses that are
nelther commercial~ retail~ nor industrial, but a combination of all those things~ d~~d
having stronger characteristics taward industria~~ this is one set of criteria that could
be used on an interim basis pending any zone or code amendment they mig~t find
appropriate.
Mr. Farano stated in view of their own contemplated operatinn, they dlscovered thetr
building will b~ 45,000 syuare feet; that tt~ey w'sll Utilize approximatply two acres; fhat
the trafflt wlll not exceed ML uses bccause traffic will not conflict with other uses due
to the hours of operation, which wilt be from lO:OQ a.m, durinc~ the week and during the
weekend wil) pdss the normal closur~ for the othPr uses there; that the study discavered
their use will not <~enerate more than 20~ trips per daY; that no pedestrian traffic will
be created by this use and th~ buildiny w311 be of i~dustrial design and will contaln no
display windows and wi'1 be comaarable to other tuildings normally locateel in the ML Zone;
12/4/78
~
MIt1UTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLAtJNING I.QNMISSIUN~ DECEMBER 4~ 1978 1~-~~3E
EIR NEG~T~VE: UECLAMTION ANU ~ONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 190Z (conCinu~d)
the!~ the parkinc~ requir~ments of the NL Zone. wil) be adequatt to n-ect th~ir ~eeds flnd no
itcrr~s will bc carri~•i fror~ or dclivercd Pram this locr~tion; thet all displAy af the
furniture anJ mercha~disr. wi l l be by groupin~s only anci they wi 11 only s~l l household
furniture itams and no epplienc~s~ electronlcs~ telnvision sets~ ~tc.; Lhot no close-~ut
items w) l) be sold from chis stor4; and thet ~I1 sales ~~i il be inslde the bui lding And n~
advertisin~,~ of "speciolty items" such A~ bean ba~~ wt~ich are desl~ned ta produce walk-In
t~affic wlll bc snld,
Ne stated comparlsc.~n of the busln~ss choracter(stic.s shc~ws the contemplated usr very
closely compares w) tli tlie wt~olesate uses. He rc~uestr.~: thnt ;he PlAnning Commission ~rant
che conditlonni use perr,lt and if tt~ey a~e so inclined. the followin~~ cnncittions be made
appliceble co tl~is perm(t.
1, lhat thc minimum site sh311 bc nnc ~~.re,
2. 'fhat A single ~se shall occupy no less than 45~~Q~~ square feet of bullding space.
3. The buil~lny ~hall be ~~f (nJustrial stylc: uf arcliltec.ture with no di;play
wtndaws.
4, That al l s~les sh~~ll be conclucted inst~le th~ bui Iding.
~~ That ths use wil! not create vel~icular trtifffc qrebter in valume than that which
(s creat^~i by the ML uses in the Immediatc area.
6, Thet the hours of operation st~a) l bc from i(1;Qn tt.m, to 9:0~ ~.m. ~ Nonday through
Friday; from 10:~~ a.m. to i:011 p,m. on Saturday; anJ from 11;R!1 a,m, to 6;OQ
p.m. on Sunday.
), Thai pedcstrian traffic ~~~enerated by such use shal' ~ot exceed tliat whlch ls
crcatecf by other ML uses in tf:e immediat~ area.
8. That ac tua 1 park i ng requ 1 red to ~cu~mnod+~te thr_ ~~At rans of the ap~ 1 i cant stia 1 1
n~t exceed thc re~uiremen[s Qf the ML Zone.
!~, That al 1 sic~ns erected by the appl ic~nt shall he in compl iance wi th the si ze and
locat(un r~auirements of tlie ML Zone.
1Q. That no (tems purchas+~~l by the pat~ons on thP aprlicant's premises shall be
del ivere!I or carried trom the storc~ 5u[ ratl~er shel l be del tverecf from Qther
warehouse locat ~~ns of the ~~~p 1 i can t.
11. That the sale cf items by the upplicant~s business shall be restrieted to
household furnicurc items only; thAt no appltances such ns stoves~ refrlgerators
and other hous~hold appliances, or electronic itams such as television sets,
radios~ etc.. shall be sol~ from this locat(on.
12. That only continued and currenrly avail~~bie items will be sold from thls location
and no close-out 1 terns ar end-uf-product 1 in~s wi i l be disnl»yed or sold.
13, The display of mrrch:~ndise to be sold ~rom this location sh~li be eltheP n room
or set groupin~~s o~~ly~ and such yroupinqs shall consist of furniturc wfiien is
g~ner+~lly u~eJ in c~mbination with att~~r picces of furnitu~e for furnishinn a
home or an en t i re roor~.
14, Thet the sale of adverttsin~ specialty or leader-type (tems desiqned to produce
walk-in traffic shall be prohibited.
He sxated if thr: Canmission Is inclined tu approve this reque:st, they sugyest Chese
conditi~ns be attacheci to the condition.31 use n~~n~it~ and if tl~e Cort~r~ission is cancerned
about a land office businc:.s or an invasion of the NL Zone, they su~gest that on a
ternporary basis wi tl~ the G~iteria set fo~th for thesP uses the Ccxnmission wi I1 be abie to
control the uses that come (ntu the ML Zone and their location.
THE PUBLi C HEAItI tdG W~S CLOSED.
Chairman Herbst presented a newspa~er adverttsemenL and referred to Mr. Farano's cortr~nt
that they will not be advertisiny leader-typc ltems.
12/4/7a
~'
~~ .
Mt1~UTES, ANANEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, UCCEMUER ~~. 1~7g 15~~~37
fIR NEG/~TIVC DECLARATIdN ANU CONpITI01~AL USC PERMIT t~0. 19~2 (conti~ued)
Mr. Farano stat~~' he was referrlnq to adv~rtising spaclalty Items~ hut they do Advr~rtise
sales ~f furn(t~~re ~nd clarified advert isers' speclalcy ltems Are ,ylve-aweys such as bean
bags for $2.9y or oail~ons to the kids wl~lch are designed t~ create wal~-fn traffic
instoad of shopping traffic. Ile stAted th~ tern- "adverc+stng specl~elty" ln the
advertising business Is a word of ~~rt which has a apeclal meAniny•
Chalrman Nerbs~ :*nted tl~e Commtssi~n cc~uld not contro) such ca~dltt~ns as tr ~ffic~ a~d if
thc business (s very successful rnJ tra ffic exceeds thc re~utrements f~r the ML Zone~
should the business bc closed~ and felt conditi~ns sueli as thls Rrc ne~bulnus anci beyond
control of tha Clty.
Mr. Farann steted iic waul ~i not s~iy the conJi t i~ns eu~qes ted woul d bc easy to er~force ~ but
ttiey wAUld be very eas i ly determined and found th~t they are accurate because G~ld K~y
Furniture anticipates to do S5 rni I1 ion ii~ bu~;iness a few years from nc~w and they do SS
millla~ In other locecions~ an~i the traffiG fl~ures quoted are counts of actual customers
and they ave rayc SGn~ to $80c) per cus tomc r r,nd they se I 1 3u~ to 40~t; of a 1 I cus tomers who
come Into the sto~e~ so they do n~t deal wtth sl~~ppers, He stated the traffic count Is an
averagc of 4U Co ~4 ~eople /~cr day and pr~~duce S5 mll llon a year in sales,
Chal rman i~erbst stated t~e had I~one~i fo~ some dl rectlan from the Counci 1 sincc they have
overruled the Commission regarding furr,iture stores in the past, wh(ch he does not agree
with; that he has opposed this type de vclapm~n[ fn the indu,trial arcas fo~ 2~ years and
could not change his mind overnight en d still fcel; tlils is an e~ncroachment into one ~f
Anaheln~'s maln arterials into the industrial areas; that he had looked at the property
again and it has very 1 iml ted access w i th frecway e~osure~ and 1 t Just Jaes not appear to
be a good locatl~n for tl~ls type of business in hls mind, but the appllcant abvlously
thinks it is; tha~ he feit the inte~l~i ty of tl~e Industrial area shoulJ be proteeted
because it is all we hAVe left for the growth of the city. He stated he recognlzes there
are areas for yuasi-commrrcial type rJe velopment~ but he felt th(s spot r~AS not one of
them.
Commissione~ k3ar :es ask~d if any comnunlcations have been rece(ved fran the Cha~ber of
Ccx-~r-erce re~erding this matter.
Jay Tashiro. AssociaLe Planner, replied tliat we have not received anything in writiny;
however~ he was at the meetiny and they we~e very sympathetic with this type of use and
were thinking ~f havlrig an area wherP they would be allawed~ but the final line was that
they were opposed to th(s type of conditional use pe~mit or va~iance being granted In the
industrta) zone at th1, tim~c-.
Mr. Farano stated they ~+ere oppased to these uses unt(1 such time as some criterfa were
established; that they actually did not take a vote and wanted to gu back to their letter
addressed to the City Council of Sept~mber 14th that they wanted a moratorlum on thts type
of thinc~.
C~xnmissioner Tolar stdted since this rnatter has come about~ he hds been taking a better
look at what ts happening along the f ~eeway in adJoining areas; th~t in relatio~ship to
where he was abou: a month ago~ he is going to support this particular complex; that to
some sxtent he stlll agrees with the arotection nf the Industrfal zone~ but wondered what
they are being protected from; that the furniture store is yoing to be bui lt to tndustrial
standards and comply wtth industrial us~s and pointed out he had viewed other areas and
which he felt are gnod areas which he would Ilke to sce our industrial zones patierned
after, such as Irvine. lie stated the~r have some beautiful developments such as this along
arteria) highways and freeways in the industria) areas and thaught they provide very nice
buffers; that he would rnuch ~at1~~r See this type of intrusicn in the Industrial zone
t2/4/78
~..
~.
MINUTES, ANAHCIM CITY PLlWNING COMMISSIOt~~ UECEMaCR 4~ 1~78 78~1(l~fi
EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND CONDITIOWAL US_E PERMIT N0. 1902 (continued)
which~ In part~ is more compatlhlA with the Inciustriel ~o~e xhan the commerciAl-recreAtio~
uses whlch hav~ developed enc' which i~~ did not think were cvcn close to betnc~ e tomp~tible
use. He steted he dtd not see th~~t much of an Intruslon tnto tl~e tndustrl~l zones and th e
pure economlcs of the situat(on wlll protect the industrta) xones. No stat~ d tl~at with
thc 1~+ pnints or guidel(nes su!ayesteJ. in addition to thc condittons in the staff ~~epart,
he could live with the use and ti~ouyht it ~yould be an assei and not take much av+a~ fram
tho Industrlal zone.
Commissloner Barnes stat~:J she agrecJ wlth Co~rmtss(oner Tolar~ hevinn toured the Irvine
arer~ where thPy have combined comrnercial and (ndustrlol usr:~ and~ (n fact~ i~to the
gateways of most nf C1-em are ~mall comnerc(al Jevelopments such ns donut shops, atc.. and
i t seerns to work out f ine and they have a handle on i t by kee~ln~~ i t far comr*~erclal uses
such as stationery stores, etr., ~ Inside. Sh~~ explalnPd the*.re sPe~ms to be A c~lan; that
there Is on art~:rlal hl~ahw~y rilth cornmer~ial establishments and then ns you turn a corner~
one-decp~ thcy arc not thcrc anymorr.. She stc~tccl she wisl,pd this rn~tter coul d bc
contlnued untl 1 thc Ghamber ~~f Commcrce comes up wt tl~ some 40ft of plan; that shc~ Is
behinninq to think m.-~yl~e AnAh~im has been wronn in their arproach to the industrfal areos
and we should huve a ma5ter plfln, She stated onc of thc thinc~s thet disturbs hPr the mast
is Chc si~~ninc~ an~l s[ati:J she was sur~: la~un~ Nills and Irvinc hAV~: sinn c~rdinances for
th~se arPas; that thc siyns are smal l, ~;tc.
Comniissic~ner Tolar stat~~d he was imprussc~} !~y ti~e stinul.:~ion of the ~p~licant that they
would aqree to sic~nin~~ per 11L StdndarJs.
Commis5ioner liarnes state~l that disturbs her becausc the ML standards mi~ht ~Ilow for neon
slyns~ an.i asked wh~it the si~~n c~rdinance (s for the ML Zonc.
Jay T.isf~i ro repl ted tlie code is about the same as for cormiercial standards and the only
restriction is relative to siyn(~iy in the fr~~nt setbac4; area; however, tf~ey are permitted
all s(yn(ng which currxnercial is pe:rrn;tted anJ the rrw3ximum heiyht would be 7> f~r.t provided
there are no siny~ie-famity resieic~nces witliir~ 30~ feet.
Commissioner Tolar suyqesteJ a condition beiny added re5trictinu Che hr_lqht and size of
the siqn i f that is a majc~r ~~roblern, pc~intin4 ~~ut they wi i 1 not have ~ny shawroom area.
Commissioner liarnes stated they should st(pulate to not havinc~ ar,~ siqning at all until we
can come up with the plan.
Cornrnissioner Tolar stated he woulci not want to put that restr(cti~n on the usc because
they would net~d some type of siqninq anJ su~39ested tliat tt~ey Stlpulate to sa~~c type of
reduced stgning.
Commissioner Barnes stateJ when you drive alun~} at nlyht in the Irvine area thcre are neon
or back-lighted signs~ Iwwever, they are noi obtrusive, they are small and in good taste
and are not ylartng and are alrnost like lictle logo sic~ns.
Commissioner Tolar stated most of those places have shov~room dispiay areas and referred to
several places (n the Irvine area wliere they I~ave dfsplay wlndaws on the baek slde of the
buildings facing the freeway in addition to the siqn on the front. He ac~reed wlth what
Cammissioner ~arnes was saying~ but felt if the display area is taken away and they have
no s(gning~ that would be putting a restrfctio~ morP th~n wauld be required of an
industrlal user.
~z~a~7a
.~
~
MINUTES~ A1~ANEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION. Uk:CE.MBER 4, 197$ 7K-1~39
EIR NEGATATIVE QECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1902 (contlnued)
Mr. Farano state~i It would be awhi lo befo~~ they would be ready to start business and if
this is approvcd~ thcy would be h~ppy to meke the si~ns sub,~ect to +~rprovA) of the
Pldnning Cc~mmfssion.
Commiss faner Barnes stated Cliere i s a di f ference in these other areas ~.ecause th~y h~ve A
strQet behveen the freeway r~nd th~ building and it is all land:icap•~ o~ the freeway side~
and we do not hnvc that situation In Anahelm and felt somethlnc~ has to b~ done with
lancJscaping on thc back If thfs approved.
Commissioner Tolar eskQd Mr. Farano for his suqgestions regardinc~ landscaping on the
freeway side. Fle explained thls property doPS havP visibility fmd there Is notliinc~ tlte~e
but perkfng.
Mr. Farano suye~ested that they roulJ bring back landscaring plan~; for the Camn(aslon's
approva 1 1 f th ( s req ues t i s arp roveJ,
Commissioner Tolar asked if t~~ey would be willing to stioulate that if thl~ is app~oved,
tt~ey wlll submit landscaping and slgning plans fQr approvAl by thc Plann(na Commtssion.
Mr. Farano stated on the east s i d~ of tF~e bul 1 di ny a pa~~. is propcsed and there (s a
retarding besin for the Metrop~~l i tan Water District.
Commissio : ~• ~arnes clartfied that she is referrir~g to the back af ths buildtng toward the
freev~ay and indic~ted sl~e would 1 ike to see somethiny nice therc. She stated this is the
first t(rne she h~.s ever considered votin~ for anythlnn like this and Ic really disturbs
her since sha ha~ been pushiny for ~ master plan for this arca for about three years~ and
stated slie would `ike to see the rnatter postpoi~eJ unti 1 some cri terla !s establ tshed,
Commisaioner Tolar : tated the devEloper Fias triecl to participate an~i h~s wafted~ and there
is only s~ inueh wai t ing you can ask anyo:~e to do.
Commissioner Bushare staced the o~ly thing that disturbs him from a pl~nning standpoint is
that maybe e buffer zor~e Is a goad idea. but to try and mend lt at this point with one
proJect is not going to do it; that there are sitll many meetings t~ attend to po~slbly
change thls type of thinkiny which has not yet becn determir.ed~ but [hought lt was a blg
mistake to Lry to chanye ptecemea 1 what we think we should have do~e,
Commissioner Tolar stated he woul d agree to a large extent, but that he has looked at the
industrlal a~ras of a l~t af c(ties and has ~o~nd this type of use is not a bad use~ that
1t is~ a buffer; that we cannot undo all the cornmercial-r~creation are~as up and down the
freeway now; that we are yotng to make same changes toward makinq a b~tter industrtal-
looking complex; tf~at the developer Is going t~ build to indust~ial standards including
signs and landscaping and if (t cioes not work out and their ente~prise is not a good one,
we will be left with a nic~ ir~dustrial building. and thought chis might be a start towards
making corrections to some of th~ things ehat might make our encrance into the i~dustrial
areas look a lot better. He stated he: has laoked at a lot of different insiustrial zones
and a lot of these typ~e develapm~nts make v~ry nice lo~king entrances into the industrial
zones.
Canmissloner Bushore stated those places truly hed planned communities a~d had a handle on
it right from the start. He referred to the plans for two proposed buildings~ one to the
south part of Lhe proper:y and asked 1 f the Planning Commission pssses on this, would they
be ~pproving those butldings.
t2/4l78
~!
MINUTES~ ANAHCIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ UECEMBER 4~ 1978 78-10A0
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0, 1902 (contlnuod)
Commisstoner Tolar stated they would be approved strictly as Industrial butldings. He
stated of the 3p~000 square faet of bufldin~ spece for industrle) uses~ only 45~000 square
fect aro going ta be used far this type use and the balence will be for o pure tndust~tal
sl te.
Commssioner Nerbst stated this is a second-story building~ and Cornmtssloner Qushore eskad
why they ere dtscussinc~ e cwo-story building,
Mr. Fareno stAted there are golny t~ be offices for the Industrial users which are
duwnstalrs.
Commisslon~r Tolar pointed out Rockwefl In this same are~ hes several st~ries.
Commisslo~er Bu~hore stated they are already creating a hardship tn developinc~ thls pA~cel
which is close to the freeway and industria) and this furniture store would be in the
middle of the lndustrial. He sCated tl~ey would have to do somethtng with that plece of
prvperty In order to acr.amplish whet thcy ere tryin~ to da with the ather ~o~tl~n and they
are defeating thelr purpose in sgying the others are purely (ndustrial,
Commissioner Tolar stated khe Corrmisston could not deal with that issue because (t is not
before thern.
Chatrman lierbst askud if the Gomnissi~n is deal inc~ wtth the whale plan~ and Jay Tashiro
replted the vih~le pla,n is involved~ hut .just an thc basis of retait sales ~f furnlture.
Commiss(oner aush~re st~ted reC~~il salcs of furniture is all the Cc~mmissi~n would be
approving at this time~ but he coul~ alreaJy sce what was fiappeninn w(th the otlier
portic~n.
Chairman Nerbsc statecl thcy have cone up vrith a buildin~ of this type with aff!~es on the
second story with p rob ably Iittle cubicie spaces, anc~ thac (t is strictly going to be a
commerc(a) budiding, thet the size and shape of the buildiny reflpct th(s.
Commissioner ~ushore stated Mr. Farano does not have ~i hanclle o~ this bccause it is not
his properLy and he felt th~ Cormiission wauld be con~ounJing the problem wlthoui any study
on ( t i f thcy approve th i s reques t.
Mr. Farano stated ttie applicant had just informed him t~ie building Co the east has some
offices on the second floor that fa a~ the lake or the M.W.D. retarding bas(n; t~at there
are no offices on the por2ic?n toward Tustin. Ne stated the buildinc~s meet th~ indust~tal
standards and they are goiny to be developed for industrial uses.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offered a motion~ second~d by Commissioner Qavici and MOTIO~~
Cl1RR~ ED (Commissioner Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cartmission has
reviewed the request to permit retail sales of furniture in the ML lone o~ an irregularly-
shaped parcel of land cansisting of approxirnately 5.3 acres having a frontage of
approxirnately 800 feet on the east side of Tustin Avenue~ havin~ a maximum depth of
approximately 360 feet~ and belny located approxirnately 565 feet sovth of the centerlire
of La P~lrr~ Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratton from the ~equirement
to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that therc would be no significant
indtvidual or cumuiative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negativu
Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for general
industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the pe•oposal; that the Inittal Study su~mitted by the petittoner
indicates no signlficent Individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that
t2/4/78
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CIT~ PIANNING COMMISSIOIJ~ UECEMOCR 4~ 1978 7~'~d4)
EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USk PERMIT N0. 1902 (continued)
the Ne,y~tlve Oeclaratl~n aubstbntiatin,y tl~e foreyoinn findings Is on file In the City of
Anahelm rlanning Dnp~rcment.
Commissioner Tolar offercd a resoluti~n to grant Petitlon for Conditional Use Permlt Nd.
19Q2. subJect to the stivulatlons of tl~e op~+llcant and the 14 conditlons suggestc~d by the
appllcant~ and sub.~ect to the approval of signing end landscapinc~ plans belnq submlttad
for Planning Commission reytew and appp~avfll~ and suhJec:t tc~ Int~rdep++rtmental Ccwnmittee
recommendetions.
On rull call~ thc foregoiny resolution FAIIGU TO CARRY by thc followinct tle vota:
AYES: COMMISSIOIJERS: BARNES, 0l1VIU~ TOLAR
NOES : COMMI SS I OI~ERS ; I~USiIORE ~ fIERKST ~ KI tJG
At3S~flT: C~MMI SS I OIl~RS : JOHNSOF~
Curnrnisslonc~ David offer~d a motion~ secondecl by Commissiuner Kinn And MOTION CARItIED
(Comrnissioner Johnson bc:iny absent) ~ that consideratlon of thc aforementioned Item be
continued to tt~e regularly-sc:heduled meeting of the f'lanning Comml,sion on Uecember 18~
1~7f3, due to the ! le vote.
I TE11 ~~0. 1 PU~L I C HCARI NG. OWNEKS : JAFE~ft JANANPAtIAH AND HOSSE I N
~'f~ I~~fVE UECL~RAT I OIJ TAVAKOL I, G j 1 Sand lewood ~ La Hab ra, CA 90631 . Af,EN? ;
RECLAS FIGA710N NO.~ 7~=79'23 SEYEf~ N. UORUUUI ~ G3~ Sandlewnod, l.a Nabra, CA 9Q631.
ER 0 COU~ RE~UIREMEN7 Property described as a rectangularly-shaaed parcel
f~R'T~`~FI~1. 1~19 of land cansisting of approximateiy 1.4 acrr.s having
a frontaye of approxirnately 18~ feec on the ~orth
side of I:atella Avenue~ having ~ maxir~um depth of approximately 328 feet, being lacated
approxir~ately ~+94 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Strest~ and fur[her described as
1~31 Wes* Katella Avenue. Propcrty presently classified RS-10~000 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILY) ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATIUN REQUEST: CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) 7.QNE.
CONDITIANAL USE P~RMIT RFQUEST: TO PERMIT A MOTEL WITt~ Ald ACCESSURY RESTAURANT WITF1 WAIVER
OF MAX I MUf1 STRUCTUR/1L ~IE I GIiT .
There were approximately eight persons indicating their pre~ence in oppositian to sub}ect
request~ and althougt~ the staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 4, 1978
was n~t r~ad at the publi~ hearing~ it is referrec! to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Ehsani~ representiny thc petittoncr, stated they had made a survey of the area and
feel strongly thet this pr~perty would be suitablc for a motel.
Joe Bryon~ 1582 West Sumac Lane~ Anaheim, presented a petition which he had circul~ted
contatning 42 signatures. 3~ representina actual pra~~erty owners. tndfcating the
petttioners do hereby request th~t the Planning Commission deny Conditional ilse Permit No.
1919• He stated he protests construction of a motet and restaurant at this stte; that he
respects the two gentlemen's right to build and engage in free enterprlse, but asked that
they respect his rtghts to live and s•aise his chilc''sn in an environment free of
lnte~ference from the presence of a motel and restaurant at his back door; that pragr•ess
is fine~ but not at the expense of disrupting the lifestyte of those residents in the
community and who are Anaheim texpeyt~g citizens. He stated the p~oposed motel and
restaurant to be built on this p~operty woulci only bcnefit the landowner and the people
12/4/7E
~.
~,
MINUTEy~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANf11NG COMMISSION, DEGEMf3kR 4~ 197tS 7~"~~42
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIDN, RECIASSIFICATION Nb. ~~-79•Z3 AND GONOITIQNAL USE FE-tM1T N0. 1914
_~ ~_.___
buyiny it tfnd the c~n~n-unlty~ as e wliole, would not benefit becous~ the l~cetion would b~
attempCing to lure the tourist buslncss end not th~. I~cAI citizens; thet the local
citizans do nat havc a need for a motel in thP middle of a co~m~crci~l zone ln the(r area~
pointing out commercial huslnesscs cf~i not rQly ~n tour(st business th~ y~~Ar eround~ but
re ly on those wlio 1 1 vr. { n thc nf: i ghborhoc~J. He s tated i t baf f 1 es iY i m as to why these two
gesntlemen wai~t to I~uil~ A motr.l and restaur~int so fer fr~m ti~e ~reAter Dlsneyland area
whcres the courist bus(ness flourishes; that the prop~~sed site fs several blocks from that
aroa an~l cannot even bc c~nsidcrecl nn the frinacs of the hotel/m~~t~l area of the greater
Disneyl~~n~f ar~a a~id wu{J not p~s~~thly recuri~ such financial rewards for the investment
th.~t thP tw~ ~n~~n are obvic~usly rrk~king in the prorertY. Ne stated thr.r~ nre numerous
pleee~ of ~r~spcrty stl l l avai lable In the ~~reat~r Uisneyl~~ns area whcre ~ievelopmc~nt cAn
and s!iuuld be mnJ~ sincc lhat er~~~+ i5 :~lrcady xc,ncd fr,r si~~(l~~r constructicm and since
that arco is Jr~win!; thr. tourist businc~s~ tc~ the City of n~~f,~~irn.
Joseph Murr~l~l ~ 1`,,.~`) Suinac, Lariu, Anahcim~ inclit.~tncf ~ tw~-st~>rv rtmtcl woulcl be 1oo~ir~c~
into his propcrty anci he fclt his p~operty values would bc ~oinr~ down, He indlcated h~
wanted to add a roorn onto his house rccently and was told his property was alre~dy
developed tu i ts 1 Irn1 t an~i he cc~ul cl nc~t Gul I t onto i t and he di d not wAnt t~ see someone
developinc~ a r'estaurant in tFiis arc~~+~ ~n.ikin~~ it int~~ ~~ k~usiness ~re~. Fle pointr,d out Chat
Just down the ~trcet ~~~c;r~: is a clubhousc wi[h outduor .ir,tivitles ~~nin~ on occasion~illy,
crcatinc~ nolsc anJ this ls a residential are~, ~~nd he is ~nfN~sc~J [~ mc~tel trr~ffit into the
residentfal arca.
Joe Kitasliima, architect~ 5[atcJ he assurx~s riar4.et stu~fies h,3ve been Jon~ by his cllent
for his e~con~~mic ~eturn fr~r a rest~urant and a nwtel ,~r~d wheth~r or not it is q~tny to
s~rvlce the Ufsnryland arca, the~ stadium, ctc.. is n~t thc issuc. He stat~d their plans
arc for 6~~ urits and a restaurant facing ~',atclla anJ the drivewav is not between thc motr.!
and property I ine as indicatcd. Ile statcd they arc re~uestin~~ 10-fo~t anu 1~7-foc~t
setbacks and they are fully prepared to I~eavily landscape tt,at area subi~`ct to approva) of
the Planning CoMmission ~~r the staFf. Ile stated the architeccural desi~n of the unlts is
so that the exterior elevations facinU the residc~tial side will not have any windows or
openinys whatsoever; that one of thc flaor ~~l~ns indicbtes such a plan~ but they can
change that and have no winciows or openinc~s on that side. C~ncernlnc~ lights and noise. he
indlcated they belleve no windows or openin~as on that side would mtnlmize it almast iOA:;.
He stated mast penplc going ;o a mntel are there to r~s[ and not to make noise.
Conc~rning the restaurant~ he believed since it Is basically a coffee sho~ to service the
motel guests bnd the business corimunity, there would no[ be a noise element there and it
is not located in the rear adJacent to the residential area, a~d did not think the noise
would bottier thc residents. Ne stated he would like to request ap~roval of the Planning
Cr~mmtssion of the reclassification and the variance.
THE PUE~~ I C HEARI-IG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Tolar stated hQ was ready to offer a mocion for denial because he is opposed
to a motel on this particular site and it would not rnake any diffe~ence wliether it was for
25 units or 64 ~inlts; that he th~ught this was the wrong place, but he does believe there
is a commerclal office element that w~uld be desirable and compatibl~e with the residential
N~~operty abutting the property to the norch and he would not be apposed to some type of
cas~r~ercial office use as long as it did not intringe on the healtli and safety of the
people behi~d it; tliat he is certainly in favor of the free enterprise system and
development of motels or hotels i~s an obv(ausly commercial or recreational area, but dtd
not think this location is one of them and thought it would impact the surrounding
property adversely.
1214/78
-,
y
~ .
~
4.
MINUTES, IWAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~, OL'C~MBER ~~~ 197A 78-1043
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATIQN~ RECI.ASSIFICA'fION N0. 78-7!1-23 I-Np CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1917
Chair-naln Flerbst asked the a~plicant tl he had bee~ t~ware of the Plenning Commissl~n's
pollcy raqulring a minimum 2U-foat~ 1~indscaFed buffer ad.)acent to residenti~l ~~eaz when
h~ hnd submttted his plans~ ~~ntin~ uutethisoiscercc~r~merclalsp~oPertv butas't~llireflr.ct~
fect of residenti~l areas, pc~
somethinq not normally allcyw~:d abuttinq residcntial arcas.
Mr. Kltdshirna stated they were awarr.. nf the ordlnance, howcver~ as a planner of the
proJect~ he h~d t~ mtike a chc~ice of wliether t~ pmv(de that j~~-foot right~~of-way in the
rr.ar~ and i f tie ha~J ~fone tt~at ~ they wauld hav~ had to uti l i zr. that pro~erty scxnehow and t t
would probably have t~een used for ~~arkinc~ anJ vehicular trafflc~ which he thou~aht would be
more detrimental t~~ khe. residantial ~~ses.
Cht~lrma~ lierbst stat.ed the Plannine~ Commiss(on has becn very hard-nosc~! about protecting
the resid~:ntlal arca~:.
ACTIOtI: Commissicmcr Tol~r offe~red a mc~tio~~ seccmded hy Lorn~~isslonef fiushore and MOTI~N
CARRIEb (Commissi~ner Johnsun being absent}, that thF Anaheir~ City Planning Commission has
revlewed the pranosal to re~classi fy subJect prc.~perty from the RS-10,Q(10 (R~sidentiol ~
Single-Family) to th~e CL (Cc~mmercial~ Limited) Zone co permit a motel with An accesso ry
restaurant with waiver of maximwn structural he~ic~ht on a rectanc~ul3rly-sha~ed parcel of
land consistii~g of appr~ximately 1.~+ acres having a frontage of Approximately 1~3 feet on
the north side of Katclla Avenuc, having a maximum depth of approximately 229 feet, beinc~
located 3pproximately 4~A feet west of the cenYerline of Qayless Stre~t; an~ does,
therefore~ dl,ap~rove the Negativc Deciaration from the requirement to prepare an
envlronmental impact report on tl~e basis that there would be sl~~nificant individual or
cumulattve aciverss envlrc~nmental impacts due tn the ap~rov~~,l of th~t~ Negative Declaration
and that there are sensitive ~nvi~onmental impacts involved ir, the proposnl; khat the
Initia) Study submitte~l by the petitioner indlcateg siqn(flcar~t indlvidual or cumulatlve
adverse e:nvt ronme:nttil impacts.
Commissioner Tolar c~ffered Resolution No. PC78-2~~ and rn~ver for its passa~e and adoption~
that the Anaheim Cit:y Planninc~ Commission does hereby deny "etitlon for Reclassification
No. 78-79-23.
On roll call~ ttie foregoing resolution was passed by the 'ollowing vnte:
AY~S: COMMI S5 IOP~ERS : 3ARNES ~ I3U5110RE, QAV10~ HERBST, Kl llf,, TO~AR
NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE
A6SEF~T: : OM11155 I OFIERS : JOf~N50N
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commi~,sioner t~~rnes and ~IOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
deny the request for walver of code requirement of ma~<imum structural he4ght on the basis
that sub,iecc pronerty is adjacent to residential areas.
Commtssi~ner Tolar offered Kes~lution No. PC7R-7_81 and r~ioved far its passagc and adoption,
that the An~heim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petitiun for Cnnditi~nal Use
Permit No. 1°1~ an tlie basis tf~at the propased use would adversely impact the surrouncling
pr~perties.
On roll call~ thc faregoinc~ resolution was p~ssed by the foilowin~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOIa£RS: BARNES, gUSHORE~ DAVID~ NERaS'f, KING, TOLAR
NOES : COMMt SS I 0-IERS : NOt~E
ABS~NT: COh!M1551or~ERS: JOHNSOW
Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ presented the petitlaner w(th the written rtght to appeal
the Planning Commissio~'s decisiun within 22 day~s to the Cit~/ Cauncil. ~2/4/~$
~
MIlIUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 4~ 1978 78-1044
ITE11 N0. k~ PUaI.IC HEAl~INC. OWNERSs f:tiRANIM AND SALLY ANN
~1i~~~YE DECi.ARATION TALEbI~ 276~5 ToriJa~ Mlssion VIeJo~ CA 92675. AGENT:
~ .' -24 HARVEY BROWN~ 1Q31 We~t Wlrtttier Boulevard~ La Habra,
V~~ CE 0. 30 CA 90631. Proparty described aa e roctangulariy-
sh~ped parcel of land caneisting of approxim~t~+ly
1.0 acre liaving a frantaye oP approximately 150 feet
on the west side af Nebster Avenuc, having a maximum dapth of rpproxtmately 295 feest~
being locsted ap~roxlmately 1Q55 faet soutl~ of thc c~nterline of Ar~nqe Avenua, and
further descrtbed as 715 Webster Avanua. Property presently clesstfied RS-A-43~000
(RESIDENTIAL/AGR.ICULTURAL) ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RM-12~0 ~aESIDENTIAI~ MULTIPLE-FANIIY) ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF TYPE OF PAaKING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A 30 -UNIT APAR?~IENT COMPLEX.
There was na one ic~diceting the{r presence in opposition to subJect requ~st, and although
xhe s'taff report to the Planniny Commisslon dated December 4~ 13~8 was not read at the
public hearfng~ it is referred ta and mede e part af the mtnutes,
Eb~ahim Talebi, peti[toner, was e~~esent to answer any questtons.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE~~.
Commissio~er King stated h~ »~.• satisfied with this proJect.
Cheirmren Herbst scated tt+~~- ~•as arne problem with regard to the 20 feet of landscaping
required adJacent to res~o~~ +a~ ~~r~sas wlth only 12 feet prop~sed, nnd asked the
petttioner if he was a~w ~ t~ Rienning Commi~sian's palicy.
Mr. Talebi repllcd thf• ~.e~c e~•. oF the property 1s adJscent to residential and they have
kept the unlts tp on~ s--~~ ~~.+~in 150 feet, and pointed out the parktng is subterran~an.
Chatrmen Ha~bst clarif~a~~ t++~x he was talking about the lendacaped buffcr requlred between
the apartment compl~x ~~•. t~r single-family ~esidential area.
Mr. Talebi stated the s~-~~T~~ct was not present and he was not sure of the dlstances.
Annika Santalahti. Ass~~~*+~+~t Director far 2o~ing~ stated this area along Mebster Avenue
was developed ove~ the ~~st 15 years and she was not aware of any other daveloper haYing
been requlred to put ~n r.~e 20-foot landscaped buffer w~der the extsting zoning which was
approv~d under a r~oiu^~vn of intent. She stated none of the other neighbors who have
developed apsrtments hw~c been requtred to provide that 20 feet of landscaping.
Commissioner K(ng pointed our the property o-aners within 300 feet hav~ been ~otifted and
no one ts present to e~ject.
ACTION; Gonrwissioner King offered a mot(on, seconded by Commissioner D~vid and NGTION
CA~~ED (Co~nissio~er Johnson being absent)~ that the A~aheim City Planning Canmisston has
reviewed the propos~l to reciassify subJect property f~om the RS-A-43~000
~',Resid~-tia!/Ikgricultural) to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct
a~0-unit apartment complex with waiver of type of parkinq spaces on a rectangularly-
sl~aped parcei of tand consisting of approximately 1.0 acre havi~g a frontaye of
aNproximately 150 fGet on the waat stde of Nebster Avenue, ha~rtng a maximum depth of
approximately 295 feet~ being lacated approximately 1055 feet south of the centerlina of
O~ange Avenue; and docs hereby app~ove the Negative Declaratton from the requirement to
~a/4/78
~
;,~ {
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLItNNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 4~ 19~8 78-1045
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION. RECI.ASSIfICA71AN N0. 78-79-24 AND VARIANCE N0. 3066 (cantinued)
p~aparo an anviromm~ntal impact report on tha baals that th~re wauld be no siqnitOc~nt
individu~l or cumul~tive adverse envlronmental Impect dua to the approval ot this Negwtive
peclaration since the A~eheim Genaral Plan designstes tha subJect property tor medtum
danaity reatdentlel le~d uses cortwnensurate wtth the propo~al; thst na sensitfve
environments) impacts are tnvoivad in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by
the pettttoner Indicetes no signifPcant '.~dividua) ar cumulet(v~ adver~e e~nvironmeneal
tmpACts; anJ thet the Negettvs U~eclaratlon substantt~tiny thd fo~egoing findings Is on
file ln the Clty of Anahetm Planning Department.
Commissloner Y.Ing offered aosolutlon No. PC78-282 and rtaved for its passage and sdoptfon.
that the Anahoim City Planniny Comnission does hereby grant Petitto~ for Rnclasstftcatlon
No. 78-'y9-24~ subJect to Interdepartrne~tal Commlttee recommendattons.
On roll call~ the fore~oi~~ rer,olution wes ~assed by the follvwinq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONE.RS; DI1aNES~ BUSNORE, DAVIU. KING~ TnLAR
NOCS : COMt11 SS I ONERS ; NERIiST
A(3SENT: COMMI SS I UNCRS ; JOI~NSON
Chairman Herbst indtcr~ted hi~ negativ~ vote ~eflected his teeling thst the Planntng
Commission sh~uld be consistent tn requirfng the 20-foot lendscaped buffer betwee~
epartme~t complexes and residential properties.
Ccxnmissioner Kiny offered ilnsolution No. PC7f3-283 and moved for Its passage and adoptlon~
that the Anaheim City Plenning C~mmisslan does hereby grant Petitfon far Varience No. 3066
on the basis that subterranean parking is provided and the spaces are enclosed and
covered~ and subJect tu Interdepartmental Canmtttee recanmendations.
On rpll ~all~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BI~RNES~ BUSHOaE, DAViU, K1NG~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
A65EN7: C~MMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
~iTE,_M_ _N~0_.__~ READVCRTISED PUBLIC HEARING. OblNER: CALIFORNIA
EIR NEGATIVE DEGLAiWtION Ll1THERAN BiBLE SCFIOOL, 1345 South Burlington Avenue~
0 0. 17~5 l.os Angeles~ CA 9000b. AGENT: IRWIK ~ ASSOCIATES~
INC.. 3G31 AtlantiG Avenue~ Long Beach~ CA 90SU7.
Pet(tioner requests amendment of condttfo~s of approval
on property described as a rectanguiarly-shaped percel of land conslsting of approxtmately
4.8 acres having a frontage of approximaeely 337 feet on che west slde of Westarn Avenue,
having a maxlmum depth of app~oxim~t~ly 61£3 feet. being tocated approxtmately 340 fset
south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. and further described as 631 South 4lestern
Avenue. Property presently classffied RS•A-43~000 (RESI0ENT9AL/AGRiCULTURAL) ZOt~E.
There was nv one tndicating their presence in opposition to sub)ect request~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Commissio~ dated Decenber k, 1g7~3 was not read at the
public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Philllp All~en~ architect with Irwtn 6 Associates, Inc.~ agent~ presented exhibit maps for
each member of the Cornmission for discuss~on purposes.
Chairman Herbst stated the only question Involved here is the cul-de-saG street.
~ Z~a~~a
~
~
.,
~
MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, DECEMBLR 4~ 1978 7~'10~+6
EIR IiEGATIVE ~ECLARATION AND CONOITIOFiAI USE PERMIT N0. 1775 ~~~t~~uod)
Mr. Al1en s~eted there are two Issues lnvolved; that there is d suppl~mental Issue of
parking also involved and refurred Lo the evaluation tn the stePf repart. He stated what
is sha+n on the rr-ap is thQir propased Phase 1 of development for the Caltfornla Luth~ran
Bibla Schc~ol cempus for whicli a mas!er pl~n wes approved sevorel months ago; thet they~ et
that tima, looked towerd ~~ittiny the perking for the complete fec(Ilty on the north side
of the property~ but fo~ the (nitial d~vclopment phase ere proposl~q to usa Che existing
parking lot whlch currantly ser~res ~ small chapcl on the site which is shown as orange on
the exhlbic; that the fire Qopartment asked for a 24-foat wide access from that particular
parkieig lot bac.k thrc+ugh to the residence on the r4ar of the praperty and asked for a
future accnss on C~urson Drtvc; thet they are agreeable to both ~cquests and in this
r~equest have suyyesced puttiny parktng back there for tha students. He Indtceted the
staff report has addresscd two issues in parAgraph (11): 1) the property p~rking lot on
the r~orth side is expected to be completed within one yeer~ and they do not feel unde~
their current construction phasing it is possible to do that; 2) closing thAt access and
they arG agreeeble to closing the access except for emergency and malnten~nce vehicles~
and they have not f~acl a chance tc- discuss thls and wanted to bring it to xhe Planning
Commission's ~ttention and indicaced tliey ere agreeable to do whetever Is dictated~ but
would llke to dlscuss it.
CFIAIRMAN NERBST l.E~'T THC MEETING AT G:00 P.M. AND COMMiS510NCR BARNES ASSUME:D TH~ CNRIR.
Dick Wa(nwright, 646 South Courson Drive~ Anaheim~ indicated hls prope~ty is on the east
side of Courson and edjotns sub~ect property and thelr property is about 2 feet higher
than his~ and last year~ during the heavy rains. they had had to use sandbags, and
Enginecring had told him they are going to slope the land, but he did not think that would
prevent the water fram draining onto hls property. He stated they had discussed the
modlfied cul-de-sac with him and it makes no difference to him. but he could nat see why
they would want to spcnd the money of putting in a modified cul-de-sac; chat he was asked
if he would object to not having the cul-de-sac and was infArmed they were going to put a
parking lot there. He indtca~t~d that over the years they have had probl~ms with dust and
dlrt and other problems and he did not think a parktng lot for 68 studants, knowing how
students clrive and the tht~gs they do going back and forth at all hours of the day and
night, even if thera Is a speed bump that shakes thelr house~ should be rllow~d there. He
stated the origlnal plen called for a parktng lot on the north side by the canal. a~d he
could not see wasting the money for a temporary parking lot.
He indicated he would obJect to having a parking lot and to having water draining into his
yard. and polnted out he is the only prope~ty wh(ch is affected and he hed been told they
we~e going to build houses there. He stated he would like to see some type of retaining
~all Instead of Just a be~m. Ne pointed out. regard(ng the cul-de-sac~ that his driveway
would be rlght in the curve of the cul-de-!~ac.
M~. Al1en sr.ated they would be willing to keep ali the student parking in the front a~ea
and pointed out the number of studcnt automobiles generated by this first phasz of
developme~~: wil~ be limited to 11 for the enttre cempus; and the~ all can park tn the
frQnt port-on of the property and they will be glad ta restrict them to that area. He
stated the engineertng sulution to Mr. Wairwuright's water problem wlll certainly be taken
care of in thE: grading plan.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Tolar asked why the plan sha+s p~oposed parking if the number of students can
be handled in the front portion until the proposed parking lot is developed.
~Z~a~~a
~~, .
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ DECEMSER 4~ 19~8 78-1047
Ela NEGATIVE DE~LARATION ANQ CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1775 ~~~tinued)
Jay Ta~hiro~ As~octate Planner~ explainnd It appeers they are gotng to phase tho
development t~nd ere proposing to ca~st~uct thc resr portlon in the beqinninc~ rAther then
to construct the perking facility at this tirr~~ and they wou~d ltke to const~uct e
tempora ry perktng fsctlity on the aouthwest cnrner of tfie property untll the permanent
pa~ktng spaces are constructed~ and they wlll provlde eester accesstbillty to tha
dormitortes.
Commissfoner Tolar explalned khe petitfoner is wll!1ng to stipulate to using only the
front par4cing spece~ for the people occupy(nq the building~ and he could see no reesan to
show that as parking according to thAt stipulatio~. tle referred to Mr. Watnwright's
concern regerdlny dral~age and (ndicated he d(d nat necresss~lly agree with him; that tf
the property is properly greded a+ay from his property~ the wete r will ~un off into the
channal and felt one of the r~aao~z Mr, Wainwr(qlit hes~ ~unoff water now is beceuse the
property has not been nraded away from his property. ~~e askr.d Mr. Allen when !hc p~ope~ty
would be yraded.
Mr. Al;en replied they would completc site yrading in the ~ea~ future and explelne~d the
two bulidings shown Are under constructlon.
Comm(ssloner Tolar asked staff If Courson Drive is proposed .~s a future opentng.
Jay Titus~ Office Engineer, axpleined he assumed when the street (s stubbed~ It was
Intended that it would be extended and connected to anathsr street or cul-de-sacad wlth a
standard cul•de-sac~ rnd that th~y a~e rec~uesting a modtfied cul-de-se+c which is Just
closi~g the ends of the curbs wtth a 20~faot radius curb and that the two curbs be stubbed
on e(ther sEde of the street so that the street could be swept an~ kept clears. Ne stated
if the Fire Depertment wants an access~ a driveway could be put in ~t the end.
Commisstoner Tolar stated he coulcf not understan~i that sincn they w191 have acceaS on the
wesk when the preJect is completed~ and Mr. Allai explained the drlvew~sy shown in gold on
the exhibit will be removed when the p~oJect is completed.
Commissioner 7olar asked where th~ accesK would be once the proJect is ftntshed~ and Mr.
Allen repliad the one accPSS from Western will be in the center ot the praperty as you
enter and are facing the administration building.
Commisstoner Totar stated the plans do not show Courson having an access v+hen the proJect
Is completed and asked if the Fire Department wsnxs a crash gare~ end Mr. All~n replted
thet they do.
Cc~nissioner Busi~ore referred to the amount of ~rading that will be necessary and stated
if there has to be ~ road there~ there will not be enough room to grade between the road
and Courson D~ive.
Mr. Allen steted they will be building a chennel from the end of Courson to a point within
thsir property to allav fo~ maximum slope necessary to rt+eet the Fire Depe~tment
requirements. He explained the area et the bottom of the gold erea shown on the exhibit
will be a llbrary and ciassroom structure and that areA wlil all be landscaped.
Commiaslontr Bushore pointed out agai~ he did not thini: there would be enough room between
the road for any type of slope when the roed is bullt f~om the parking area to the
counselor's residence.
12/4/78
~
MINUTES~ A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM6ER ~~~ 197a 78-1048
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAilAT10N AND CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1/15 ~~o~~~~nu~d)
Chelrman Pro Tampore Ba~nes ~sked if the patitlonar had considerod paviny the true road on
the north side of the ~~opnrty since the gr~dlnq for tha entire parcel will be done whhn
the dormitorles are butlt.
Mr. Allon er,plained the orange portlo~ on the mep Is tha existing perking lot •nd they ara
telking eHout rapatrlny the paving a~d Improvl~g the existinc~ road from the orenge area
back to the axistfny g~rage; that they nead access to tha axtsting garage for the
maintenanca tools~ etc.~ a~d (t ts not feasible for them to qo all the way around with the
road at this time.
Commissloner 7olar suggested a condltion on tt~e eppraval requlring the property own~r or
the developer to rectify the pr~blem rathar than the Planning C~mnisston trying to ~ectify
I t.
Commtssioner Bushore stetQd~ In his oplnion~ if the exlsting ro~d is repalred b~ck to the
rssident counselor's l(vfny unit and that erea fs closed off~ there w(11 not be: enough
room to slopa the p~operty proparly so that the flre truck could get tn end provide proper
water dra{nage.
Commissloner King sugyested Mr. Allen could st(pulate to rr~et the City Enginaer's
requirements regarding the gredtng.
Canmisslo~er Bushore felt If the City Engineer could loc~k et the proJect riyht now~ he
would tell them they could not have the road and gradc tha prope~ty~ too.
CommisSioner Tola~ steCed the petitio~er is not here because of thr. road nnd could put it
in wtthout Pla~ning Commission approval.
Commissione~ Bushore stated the road has to be put in sub~ect to th~e Ctty Engineer's
approval because if he puts in the raad~ the praperty cennot be sloped and the retatning
wall cennot be constructed because the fire truck could not get in.
Commisstoner Tolar statad if the Planning Commisslon approves or denies this request~ he
did not think the engtneeriny problems will be solved; that thc petitioner has stipulated
to recttfy the ~roblems ti~rough some engineering requi~ements and thst is sn addittonsl
benefit for Mr. Wainwright.
Jay 7itus~ Off(ce Engineer. stated th~ modified tul-de-sac will not affect the dreinaye
and g~ading problems.
Commisaloner Bushore stated he thought the madificd cut-de-ssc is t~ yaod idea and should
be rcqulred.
Commissioner Talar stated he wou~d offer a motion to arnend the conditions af approvat by
deleting Condition No. 7 and subJect tfl the stipulattons of the appltcent to prnvlda
proper grad(ng to solve the d~ainage p~oblem~ subJect to approval of the City Englnenr~
and asked the City Attor~ey if that would be apprapriate.
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ explatn~d this matter was noticed as a modtfication of
conditions wtthout any restr~cttons upo~ what cond(tio~s were being modlfied~ so lsgally
the Canmission would have the right to medify whatever condltions they desired.
Commissione~ Ktng stated he did not understand that approval of the request means deleting
th~ cul-de-sac and he felt the cul-de•sac is naeded for street sweeping~ and Jay Titus
~epllad the petitimner is requesting to delete the cul-de-sac.
12/4/78
.}
~~ .
MINUTES, ANAHE111 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMB~R 4~ ty78 78-1049
EIR NEGATIVk DEGLARATIOh AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1775 (continuad)
Mr. Ailan Indtuatcd M~. Walnwright end ~11 of his netghbors have requested delmtion of the
cul-d~s-sac because their drtveways a~e naxt to the ~roper~.y Itne a~d when the new curb ts
constructed, ft will baaically shut of} their driveways~ caustng a dlfferenze in s~reet
alev~tta~~ e chanqe ln the curb Itne~ and in the Putu~e when they have to deal wtth the
Fire Uepartment requirements to entor f~om Co~~rso~~ they will ba essentlally kn~cking down
the retalning walt they sre buildtng and going ahe~d wI:F~ a channeled slope onto thelr
p~operty to allvw for emergency access~.
Commissioner King asked huw the stroet swnep~rs would turn oround.
M~. Allen steted they will have ta pravld~ the screet sweeper a plece to turn around in
thely development In the future.
Commisslone~ Bushore pointed out Courso~ does not go through tn their development in the
future end they are sayiny they are yoing to correct a drainage problcm in thc fucure~ and
he coulc' see the drainage problem nneds to be corrected nvw and the Commisslon has the
opportuntty to correct it now because of the fact somes modic~tion~ are going to be made an
Courson. He steted there ls a drainage problem whether it is left as (s or a modif(ed
cul-de-sac fs put tn. He stated he realixed this (s not the issu~~ but realized aiso tt
is a problem now e~,t by doing it (n the future will be delaying solving the pro~lem.
Mr. Allen stated I•e agrcer! and realized they have to take care of the dralnege problem.
Commissioner ~ushore stat~d by resurfacing the eccess road~ evan on e temporery basis
which he assumed would be ftve or six years, wauld b~ expending the p~oblem~ and he
thought if the road ls put in and it rat~s~ all the dirt wtll go into the street because
of the differcnces between the two properties.
Chairman Pro Teirpore Barnes stated these are unrelated subJects and sugqested discuss(ng
what Is before the Commission.
it was noted a neyative declara[ton covering subJect pro)ect was prevtously approved by
the Planning Comnission on December 19~ ~977•
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offe~ed ~tesoiution Nc+. PL78-284 end n+oved for Its passage dnd
a~optTon, that the Anal~xim City Pla~ning Commisston does hersby an+end conditions of
approval of Condiiional Use Pe~mit No. 1775 to delete Condition No, 7(a), subject to the
stipulation of the ~ppl(cant to correct the drainege croblems on adJacent properties.
Comnissio~er King asked about r.he problem wtth the street sweeper.
Conmissioner Bushor~ state.d the street sweeper does not need to get on the property. and
Comnissi~ner Davtd stated the purpose of the cul-de-sac w~s to provtde turn-around r~dius
for the strest sweeper, and Commissioner Sushore stated he assumed the petitfoner would
like the co~dttion deleted because of the cost.
Mr. Allen stated that Is the reason they are paying for it naw because tliey are buflding a
retaining wall and during the next phase of construction they will have to take the wall
out to provtdc fir~ access. fommissioner Bushore askad if the Fire Departrt+ent wa~ts
access na+~ and Mr. Allen replted the access is over the goid area.
Jay Titus stated he did not see why they have to take the watl out; that it could be
constructed now with depressed curbs Kiti~ the driveway so that in the future when access
is provided for the Fire Depa~tment~ the drive,w+ay wlll be there.
12/4/78
~~. .
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 4~ 1978 78-1~~5Q
EIR NEG~TIVQ c,EtLAaATION AND CONDITIONAL usE PEar1IT NO. 1775 (contlnued)
Ccxnmissloner Busha~a pointed out e Jormitoryr Is plan~ad st thet locstlon.
Commiislo~nr Tolar stetad that ts the reason he th~ught tt would not nwke sense to even
have a mc~dt f led cul-de•sac because they do not h~va access et ther w~y.
Jay Titus st~ted e modifled cul•de-sac does provide the radlua for the street sweepe~ to
turn around. Ne stated the crash gate would be betiind the cur~ •nd It would be a
depressad curb.
Canmisslone~ Bushore stNted thc truck would then crasli Into tfie bu(lding that Is planned
to be loceted there~ and Nr. Tltus replled he hod not seen the plan with the bu(ldtnq
thc re.
Jay Titus stated fire access and the drainage is immatertal ta the request regarding the
modified Cul-de-sac.
Cominissloner Iiushore asked how the F(re Oepartment would get to the Building C after the
bulldings are built.
Chairman Pro Tempore Barnes stated obvtously the petitioncr wil! heve to provide ftre
access on the other s(de of his property and suggested the Commission be co~cerned sbo ut
tfie street sweepers oniy.
Commissloner Kiny stated the buildin~ is 20 feet from the sputh p~opert~ line~ and Mr.
Titus stated tlie flre truck would noc be able to get througl~ there.
Mr. Al1e~ steted the issue !s that because the neighbors' driveways a~e rlght adJecent to
thelr property line; that when tl~ey get to the end of that street ~nd want to turn up into
thetr residencos~ they heve the radius of the modifled cul-de-sac be~inn(ng and also the
driveway beginning and the nntire end of the modified cul-de-sac is going to be down at
strQet level ar dcpressed for automobile trafftc going to the right end to the left~ and
eventually going st~aight ahead (nto thelr prope~ty. pcr the Flre Depertment request. Ne
stated there (s a bui{d(ng there o~ the plans~ but the Ft~e Department recently info~ed
them that they haye to have access on Courson and so they ~i11 have to pravide that access
by deleting the buildtng. He statpd the neighb~~s are looking at the modified cul-de•sac
and some maJor construction now which basically con~es da+n to the radius for turnt~g ts
slopfng up into adJacent drivd~+ays and when the prope~ty avner has to back out of his
driveway~ he backs ouc for a po~tion of the way and then backs up Into hts netghbo~'s
drivaway because the radius has dropped thati drtveway er~trance cl~ser to the st~eet; an d
that it is a csJfficult, confined situstion and that is whY tne request was mede.
Chatrm~n P ro Tempore Barnes a~ked tf the Plannin~ Commis~lon has to abide by the Flre
Department decisions when there is access from a~other side of the property.
Jack White. Deputy Ctty Attorney~ stated there may have bsen a condition included thr.
plans be approved by the Fl~e Department.
Annika Santalahti stated she thought the Fl~e Departme~t could have the crash gaxe and tho
cul-de-sac could be r-bdifted with consideratton for the crash gete.
Commtssioner Bvahore stated the petitioner has Just Indicated the cul-de-sac would go into
tl~ese other peoples' properties and you cannot bui ld a cul-da-sac on property the ''ity
does not awn.
12/4/78
~• -
MINUTCS~ ANAIILIN CITY PLANNING COMWISSIO~~, DECENtEK 4~ 1978 78•1051
EIR NEGATIVE OE~LARATION AND COHDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1775 (continued)
Chairman F'ro Tempore Oarnca stated acco~ding to tha pl~n thera Is no incresa~ In the
radius, end she called for the questlo~
On roll cell~ th~ foreyc ~~g resolutlon wes pas~e~+ by the follaving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEaS: t3AR1~E5, UAVID, KIIIG. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERSt BUSMORE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: H~RBST~ JQHNSON
ITEM N0. 1U PUBLIC HE.AaINC. OWNE~: ROSI~EL~ 11QQ North Alta
~~GORICAL EXEMPTION-ClASS 1 Loma Road~ Los Angelrs, fA 90069. AGENT: MiCHAEI.
0 CODE E UIREMCNT aFFORO, 13ii1 5outh Nalnut ~25~4~ Anaheim~ CA y2802.
~ONO~'~1~ N. 1916 Patltioner request~ ON-5ALE 9EEa AND WINE IN A PROPOSED
~~ SN~QWICN SHOP NITl1 WAfVER OF MINIMUM NUMaER OF PARKING
SPACL'S ~n propurty descr(bad as a rectangularly-shaped
parce) of land co~sfsting of approx(maiely 0.~~ atre loceted at the northeast corner of
Katella Avenue e~d E~~clid Street~ havtng epp~oxirr~etc frontages of 135 fcet o~ the north
stde of Katel la Avenue and 13~) f@et on tho east s 1Je of Eucl ld Street~ and further
descrtped as 1788-1792 South Euclid Streat, Property presently classifted CL (~OMMERCIAL~
LIMITEO) 20NE.
There was no one indlceting thelr presenca i~ oppositton to subJect requtst, and although
the statf report to the Pla~ning Commisslon dated Drcember 4~ 1gj8 was not read et the
publlc hearing. it Is refesrred to and mado a pert of the minutes.
Jay Tashiro~ Assoclate Planner~ reported thet the sppltca~t could not romatn for the
ent~re meetin4 and h+~d left a note that If the Pianning Cammisslon had any questions, they
could continue the matter for two weeks,
TNE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was noted the Planntng Director o~ his outho~ized ropresentative has determined that
tha proposed proJect falis wtthin the deflnitio~ ~f Categorical Exemptions~ Class 1~ as
defined in ps~agraph 2 of the Clty of Anehoim E~vi~onmental Impact Report Guidelines and
Is~ therafore~ cateyarical ly exempt from the requlrement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offere~i a mot(on~ seconded by Conmisstoner Davld and MOTION
~1~0 (Commissioners Herbst and Johnson being absent) ~ that the Anahelm City Planning
Commissl~n does hereby grant the request fo~ waiver of the cade ~equlrement for mi~imum
nwnber of parktng spaces on tF~e basis tha! the requested waiver ts minimal ~ amounttng to
approximately a 13$ reduction fn the requlred number of parking speces~ and t'hat a
sandwtch shop wt 11 not generate the s~me need fa~ parking spaces as a sit-dc~wwr restau~ant.
Conmissio~ar Tolar affered Resolution No, PC78-28; a~nd moved for its pasaage snd adoption,
that the Anahetm City Planning Cammission Ooes hereby grant Petitian for Gonditional Use
Permtt No, 1916~ subJect tu Interdepertmental Committee recomm9ndations.
On rol 1 cal l~ the forggoi~g resolution wos passed by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
I`BSENTs COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON~
BUSHORE~ DAVID~ KiNG~ TOLAR
HERBST
12/4/7~
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAWNING COMMISSION~ DECEM~ER 4~ 1q78 18-1052
RECESS There wA~ a ftve-minute ~ec~~s •t 6~30 p.m.
.__.._
RECONVEt~E The meeting reconvened at 6t35 p.m., Commtsstoners Nerbst and Johnton betng
~ absent.
ITEM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt ROBERT L. WET7.LER A~ID A. E.
E DECLARATION ARNOLD~ 95g6 Garden Grova 8oulevsrd~ Ga~den G~ove~
1 M 0. 1917 CA 92644. AGENT: U•HAUL OF ORANGE COUNTY~ 860 South
~"-"-" Piscentia Avenue~ Placentia~ CA 92670. Petitloner
requests permiesion to EXPAND A TRUCK AND TMILER RENTAL
YARD ~n property described as a rectangularly•thaped parcel of la~d wnsisttng of
apF .,ximetely 0,9 acre locatod at the suutheast corner ot Water Street and Anaheim
Douleva~d~ hevtng approximete frontages ot 1~5 Peet on tt~e south side of Water Stre~t and
365 faet on tha e~sc side df Aneh~tm 6oulev~~d~ and furthPr descrtbed as 6Q0 and 626 5outh
Anaheim 6oulevard. Property presently clASStf(nd CG (COMMERCIAL. 6ENERAL) ZONE.
There was no one indlcating thei~ prrsence in opposttlon to subJect request~ and although
the staff report to the Plsnntng Commissian datad Oecember 4~ 1Q73 was not roed at the
publtc hearing~ it ts referred to and made a part of the ml~utes.
Stave Narpine~ U-Haul Company of O~ange County~ agent~ Indlcated thel~ rec~uest is to
expand a~ ax(sting U-H~ul moving center and sto~age fa~illty snd the~e will be no RV
skorege and no outdoor storage.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kiny indlcated he was ~eady to offar a motto~ if the mppllcant is wilifng to
stipul~te to provtding dense landscaping along Anahetm Boulevard and matntaining (t~
potnting out tl~ere is some greenery tn front of the building~ but he would like it
extended north to Water Street.
Mr. Narpine statad there are plants up to Wate~ St~eet which they had ,just put in~ and
Commisstoner Bushore polnted out thcre were small plants therc.
Commissloner King indicated he is talki~g about thick greene ryr sll the way from the
butlding ta Wata~ Street.
Mr. Narplne asked haw much landscaping is he proposing~ snd Ganmissioner Ktng tnd~cated 3
to 4 feet. mare dense than it ts now.
Conmissio~er Bushore stated he dld not understsnd the stlpulation that there would be~ no
outdoar storage~ and Mr. Harpine pointec+ out his proposal ta Commisstoner Bushore on the
plans.
Commissioner Bushore axplalned the petitioner is talkTng about changing tha south pc~rtion
of the property from parktng to storage.
Chairman P~e Tempore Barnes indicated she understood the ~pplicant to say thet ell storage
of the praposed additio~ would be tnside~ an~ M~. Harpine stated he ts referring to the
storage of peoples' persona) belongings when they com~e into town and do not have a place
to store anythtng.
t2/4/78
~ M1
M1 NUTES, ANAHEIM C-1Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMB~R 4~ 1978 78~1053
~lit NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1917 (continued)
Ca~nmi~aioner Tolar I~diceted he would not be wo~rt~d about thts uea ss lo~g •a it has a
tisne ltmit~ and esked the petitloner if this was the ~ame operatlo~ ss the une ~equested
on Knott St~eet~ and Mr. Harptna Indtceted it was.
Coa~mtssioner dust~nre indlcated he was not opposinq the use~ but he was concerned about
ps~kiny~ and Canmissioner Tolar suggasted a tlrrn~ Iimit ~~~e length of the lease.
Mr. tlarpine indicated they are trying ta buy the prop4rty and asked thet it i~ot be tled to
tl~e lease.
Jack White~ Deputy Clty Attorney, exploined thie c(ma could be extended tf th~ petf tluner
is ebidiny by the conditlons end It ts not en obnoxtous-typc use detrime~tal to the
health~ safety and welfare of the cttlzens.
Co~nmtssioner Tolar stated if the petitl~ne~ lekes good care of the property and puts in
extr~ landscaping and makes i t a real ly nice faci l i ty~ he wc~uld be gled to extend the
lease for a longer per(od o~ time when it is revtewed.
Mr. Narplne asked if they would heve to come back before the Planning Commtsston~ and
Co~mtgstoner Tolar pointed out they would merely review (t; that hc would not have to have
a public hoar(ny,
Comni~sioner Bushore clartfied that the petftloner had no problem with providing
la~dscapl~g along AnaheimBoulevard, and Mr. Narptne indicated there was no problem.
ACTION: Commissioner 9ushore offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner King and NOTION
~D (Commisstoners Herbst and Johnson being absent)~ that the Anahetm City Planning
Co~nmtsston has revtewed ihe proposal to expand a truck and traller rental yard on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cons(sttny of approximately 0.9 ac~e located at the
southeast corner of Water Street and Anahnirn Boulevard~ havtng approximste frontagat of 109
feet on the south slde of W~ter St~eet and 365 feet o~ the ~ast side of Anahetm 6ou~evard;
end does hereby spprove che Negatlve Declarati~n from the ~equiremnnt to prepare an
environme~te) Impact r~port on che basis that there would be na slgntficant tndivtduat or
cumuiative adverse environmental impact due to the app~oval of tFts N~~dt~v~ Declaratt~n
si nce the Anahe(m General Plan designates the subJect prcpe~~r for general ~ommercial land
uses cortmensu~ate with the proposnl; that na sensitiv.~ envtronsnental ;~npac.:~ are involved
i~ the propos~l; that the Init(al Study submltted by the petttloner indica~es~ no
si gnificant individual or ~unulative adverse envtronn~ntsl inpacts; and xhat the Negatlve
De claration substanttating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of A~aheim
P1 anning Departmcnt.
Co~nissioncr Bushore effercd Resoiution No. PC78-286 and moved for Its passage and
adoption, that th~ Anaheim City Plannfng Commission does hereby grant Patitton for
Co~ditfona) Use i'annlt Na. 1917 for a Mo~year pertod of time, subJect ta revlew by the
P1 anning Commtssion; subJect to the petitlaner's stipulation that 3 feet of landscaping
wi 1) be provided along Anaheim Bouieyard t~ Water Street; and subiect to Inte~departmenia)
Co~nrnl ttee recommendatior-s.
On roll catl~ the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES : COMMISS I Of~ERS : BARNES ~
Ii0E5: COMMISS IO~~ERS s ~IONE
ABSENT: COMMISStONERS: HERBS7,
BUSHORE~ OAVID, KING. TOLAR
JONNSON
12/4/78
~
~
MINUTkS~ ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNtNG COMMISSION~ DECEMHER 4~ 1978 78-1054
ITEM N 0. 12 PUdLiC HEARING. OWNERt PARKS PROPERTIES~ INC.~
~~~~E DECLARATION la0 E. Made~ S uite 20 3~ f,lend~re~ CA 91740. AGENT:
~A~ tT~~O U i ~1 N'~ AJF LEAS 1 NG ~ 2>Q'l South Eastarn Avonue ~ Los Mge les ~
~~'~ . 191ft CA 90Q40. Peti tloner requests pennission to ESTABLISH
A TRAIIER RENTAL ANU LEASING FACII,ITY WiTN WAIVER OF
REqUIRED ENCLOSURE OF UUTDOOR USES on property
descrtbad es an irreyularly-shaped parce) of le~d consistt~g of approximetely 1.9 ac~es
having approxin~et~ frontanes of 11y feet on the ~ouch side of Ve~mont Avenue and 250 faet
at the wasterly terminus of Lscy Avenue~ haviny a maximum depth of approximately 495 feet~
betng tocated approximetsly G2~ feet wost of the cente rltne nf East Street~ end fu~ther
descrtbed as 92~ East Vermont Avenue. Propc~ty prespntly classifled ML (INUUSTRIAL~
LIMITED) 10NE.
Thore wus no one fndtcating tlieir presence (n oppnsition t~ subject request~ and elthaugh
the staff rep~rt to the Plenning Commission deted Uecember 4~ 1978 was not read at the
pubitc heartng~ it is re:far~ed to end mede a part of the m(nutes.
Ronald Lefier and Hi IluEfman, petitioners~ were present and Mr. Lefler stated the staf`
recommends app--oval of thc proposed use for a tralle~ rental and leasing facllity. He
pointed out they are not planniny to use the entrances off Lacy Avenue because they want
to control the use and there are gates on Vern~ont Avenue wh(ch are not nonrially open.
THE PUBLIC tIEARING WAS CI.OSED.
Commissionar Totar asked if the petitioner had indicated staff had recommended approval of
this, and Annika Santalahti, Asslst~nt Uirector for Zoning~ s[ated the pe:tittoner had
probably meant t~ say staff dicl not re~cxmnend disapproval.
Commissioner t3ust~~,~ r-' ,~ut the block wall in front of the property which needs to be
reQalred~ and Mr. Le~.~_, ~-~~ed ttieir block wall is not brokGn and the location of
subJec t ^rope ~y was poin, .
ACTION: Cocnr~E;sioner Ktng offered a mntion~ seconded by Cornm(ssinner David and MOTION
CARRIE U(Commissioners Nerbst and Johnson ~eing abse~ t)~ thet the Anaheim City Planning
Commtsslon has reviewed the proposal to permit a trai~cr rental and leastng facil(ty ~rlth
~raiver of required enclosure of outdaor uses on an (rregula~ly-shaped parcel of land
consistlrtg of approximatcly 1.9 acres hav(ng a frontege of approximately ilt feet on the
s~uth side cf Vermont Avenue and a frontage of approximately Z$0 fset on the westerly
termfnus of Lacy Avenue. haviny a rr~xi~num depth of approximaLely 495 feet, being located
approxtmately ~25 feet wcst or the centerline of ':ast Street; end does he~eby approve the
Negative DeclaraLton from the requirement to pre~are an environmental impact report on the
basis that there wo~~ld be no significant indivtdual o r cumulative adverse e~viranmental
impact due to the appr~val of this Negative Declarattan since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subJect ~~rc,~erty for genera) industrial land uses commensurete with the
proposal; that no sensitive en;~ironmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the
Inltial Study submitted by the petit!oner ind(cates no stgnificant individual or
cumulattve adverse environme~tal impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating
the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Rnaheim Planning Department.
Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissio~er David and MOTIQN CARRIED
(Conmtssioners Herbst and Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
dces hereby grant wai ver oT the code requi rement of re~ui red enclosure of outdcw~ uses on
the baats thet the property is being deprived a privi~, , bei~g enJoyed by other
propertles in thts same vlcinlty and zone~ pointing ou' ;he property directly to the north
t2/4/78
~~
,~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSIWI~ DECEMBER 4. 197g ~8~~Q5~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION AND CONQITIONAL ,~~.i,~,R,~!? ~o• ~A~B ~wntinued)
ot subJ~ct propdrty h~s tho ~~me prtvilmges and a 6-foot high, chainlink fenca with no
sl~tttng.
Can~nissloner King offm~ed Rea~lutton No. PC78-287 ~nd ^w;nL P~L~tionPtoraf.ondltlonaltUse~
that the Anahetm City Pla~niny Commissfon does hereby g
Permlt Na. 1918, subJect to Interdapartmental Committae recc~mne~datia~s.
On roll ca11, the foregoing resolutlon wa~ pASSed by the Pollowing vote:
AYESs COMMISSI~NERS: BAaNES~ BUSHORE~ DAV10, KING~ TOLAR
NOESs COMMISSIONEaSs NONE
ABSENTt COMMISSIONCRS: HERdST~ JONNSQN
12/4/78
...,.... ... ....,,. ....T ~.w.wnra..rf~vrr
.k..
3
MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMdEa 4~ 1978
lTEM N0. 15
~JR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (I
GENE ftAl P LAN AMEN DM~N~ .~+!
78_ 1056
PUBLIC HEARING. To consider: I- Alternate
proposals oP ultimete lend uses (ncluding~
but not limited to~ single end multiple-
}amily resldenttel development for approxl-
mately two ec~es on the east side of Knott
Street~ epproxtmetely G60 feet north of the
centcrline of 9a11 Roe~d.
Thero were approximately six persons indicating their presance tn oppositton to subJect
request~ and althougli Xhe steff report to thn Planntng Commisslon dated December 4~ 197A
was not read At the public I~ear(ny~ ic is reFerred to and madc a part of the minutes.
Joe) Ftck~ Aasociat.e Planner~ reviewed tfie staff raport~ potnting out Ar~e 1 is • property
owner initiated Generel Plan amendment to change the current loa denslty residcntlel
destgnetton to law-medtum density and that the property owncr wtll ultirnately develop an
18-unlt condaminium proJect.
Jack Pekar~ j10 Laurtncia Avenue~ Long Beach~ stated he Is the eppllc~nt in this action end
po(~ted out this requcst Is because of the requirement ot the Subdlvisio~i Map Act whereln
he must be In conformance wlth the General Plan; thA: thts is e small ~tece of prop~rty
whlch contalns apprnxlrt-etely 1.7 acres; that (t Is e flag lot with narrow frontage ~
Knott Street. He polnted out th~ property on the exhtbit and indlc~ted It (s composed of
two parcels. He tndicated tha property containing the real estate offtce wfll rematn;
that the cost of land ts something he cannot iynore and tt dictates what he is trying to
do; that this is an odd-shaped lot left over from previous lanc~ transactlo~s; that it is
an island of vacent lend in the Cicy and It wes difftcult fo~ htm to think of whAt could
be developed on the property when he had first bought it. He indlceted the CItY put out a
General Plan book several years ag~ and he got his ideas from the book on what cauld be
developed on the property; that on page 11 (t stete:s that add-shapad parcels suttable for
apartment development wtth limited and devclopable dansity because of the proximity to
single-family homes~ a transitton to the residantlal developr-~nt may be appropriete tn
a~eas where confllcts in land use rrigh[ resuit if apartments were co~structed on vacant
land adJolning exlsting single-fanily subdivistons. He stated this could be a transition
from law Co law-medium to medium density and thet posstbly through dcvelopment he could
ellminate or rsduce the conflicting facto~s. He stated he was requestiny lcriv-medlum
derrslty. He felt this property would be a good trans(tion for a noise barrler between the
single-family cxisting in the surrounding area. IIe pointed out an area designated on the
Gene~al Plan as low dcnsity and pointed out there is a development in th~t area for lew-
medium dens(ty.
Joe) Fick further explained the General Plan text does refer to RS-;000 as being low-
medium designation and the tract mentioned was developed in 196~~ and he would suspect
that the overall density~ because of the smallness of the property and the large portions
cuntained in st-eet frontage~ would probsbly be under what is ty(~ically considered for RS-
500~.
Mr. Pekar stated the property is nc~w baslcally vacant a~d when it ts developed, it will be
an increase to the Clty tax base wfiich he felt should be appreciated. He felt this would
be the only feasible development because of thc shape of the land and chat by utilizing
the lav-rtredium de~sity zone~ RM-4000 or RS•5000, it wl11 allow him to develop a ltttie bit
of the luwer•cost housing than would athe n+ise be bulit u~der the RS-7200 Zone. He
indtcated the staff report had snalyzed severa) dlfferent alt~rnates. but that alternates
includtng the real estete office would not be practical f~r him since he does not vwn that
proper:y. He indicated those best suited for him would be aternates Nos. 1 and 4.
12/4/78
.,,
T. ;
;~
~4•
MINUtES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIQN~ DECEMBER 4~ 1378 7II'1~57
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAI PLAN AMENDNENT N0. 149 (continued)
Art Rohrcr~ 835 South Csn~ga~ A~ahcim~ stated there wer~ ~pp~oxlmately 20 ~esldents In
attendanca earlter, but h~d to leave due to the lAtenass of thHe statednthendeve) pnrhhas
persans pres~nt in the rea~ ~ostde around the proposed ~tta.
propos$d an la-u~it~ two-story candcm~inium complax And a11 the huuses In the surrounding
area are single-story. He stated he hds a tnmporary list of 25 property owna~s wh~ oppose
thls co~struction of condomtniums and due tu the late notice which they had rncelved only
last wcek, dtd not fiave an opportu~ity to gct a~ many alqnetures as they would like~ but
ha w~s sure there are a lot of other pQOple in the arca who wautd be opposed to this
proJect.
He read the follawiny:
"We~ tl~e undcrs(c~nr.d. protest the construction of two-sto~y eond4m(niums on A 1.7 acre
s(te on thcs east side of Knott Avnnue and appraximately 60 fenl north of Ball Roed.
W~s are uppaseJ to a zoning cl~anc~e to RM-W000~ low-n-edlum density and we are opposed to
the wa{ver af maximum bullding hefg~it wi~inl;clg0o~cetRSry200tuni~sfamThe followin~a,
zone. ue are In favor of Inw denslty. 9 Y~
trite~~a~ is wi~at we are apposed to:
1. A11 arcas d~tjoininy subject property ere zarsccl for loH density residential~ and
Mr. Rohrer stated he was under the inrpre~stougtbsouth oftthemlot that (gd~~_the
timc, that there was one particula~ zoniny )
mcdium density, f~owever~ he r~ould like to indicate that low-rt-edium density is all
residentlal and there Is no business ln that particular area or conxne~cial
bui ldinys.
2. Ail houses adJoining subject property are one story and a twa-story development
would el(minate tfie privacy ~f thc irm~<iiate homes In the neighbarhood
~ur~ounding the devr.lopment.
3. Constructio~ of the multi-fa~nily~ two-story st~ucture would reduce property
value.s of al) single-farnily units tn the r~rea. He steted the reason they are
ctting that is that the area is slcywly laalny it att~activeness es a reside~ttal
community. He ~ointcd out Knott S:r~et has a trerrandous Influx of apartment
butldings und condonti~ium units t~nd statec! the popul8~ion density in the area (s
already 'higher ci~an originally pr~posed~ and pointcd out a 3~+'unit apartment
complex across IUiatt Street from ~he sub}ect property; that the area of OranHe
Street and Knott is now overbuilt with multt-family, two-story structures.
stated they cen mat allow the expansiun ef these str~ctures to continue ln the
nelghborhood; th•at the traffic a~ Knott St.reet is extremely heavy with a large
school rrorth uf Orenge and suuth of Bal~ Road a~d multi-famtly units on both
sidcs of Knott ati the way to the Santa Ana Fraeway. He stated multi-family
u~its wauld increase that flow much more than single-fa~'~v units.
p. That the requfred police surveillance fo~ the area caus by multi-fam(ly units
at Knott a~d Oranye And the ~xlstence of t~o s~ngles dance cl~hs on Knott near
~all, one of which is Th-~ Sting~ create excessive aerial noise from hovering
hel(copters and ground teve) nois~s from police~ paramedic. e~e ofrnolseaand nt
units; ih~~+t a mUlti-fanily unit would requtre more of this typ
create a haven ror undesirables; that a toncentr~ted housing unit would also
aliow rtpre lawbreakers easy eccess to adjoining single•family homes. He stated
if yau p~oceed ~ic,~+n Knott Street in their vicinity, presently as indicated aDl
the way to the 'Santa Ana F~ee.wvay, tfiere is nothing but apartment buildings and
this particula~ site is tha lest leg in tiicir comnunity as far as the residential
erea goes, and if it is developed~ especially wtth two-sto ry construction~ there
rrill t~~ no privacy in their back yards; that he ha~ a pool in his back yerd and
Ilkes the privacy and the~c is another gentleman pres~nt who aiso has a paol~ and
another pe.rson on Glen Holly who has a pool: and that this site looks itke a
spear right i~to thetr community' and it aoes; that if ic were facing Knott
12/4/78
«~
~
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, DECEMBER 4, 1978 78'~~>~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO~. 149 ~continued)
Strcet and dld not protrude back against the ~eside~ces~ ha wes sure there would
not be any opposttion ~rasent~ but the area is lostng its ett~~+ctive~ess as a
residen~lal communlty and they tolt thts developme+~t would be e severe hardshtp.
JACK WHITE~ DEPU7Y CITY ATTORNEY, LEFT TNC MEETING AT 7t10 P.M.
Dennts Glowniak~ 845 South Csnoya~ Anaheim~ stated hts property ad)otns the open property
and pointed out hls property on thc map a~d the other medium density unlts surraundtng the
area and the apartments and condomintums tn the area. He stated the develop~r had
o~lginally come in with one-story apartments an~d he felt atter they had gotten th~ zane
changed they are now going to build one mo~e story. Hn potnted out the locetion of
Wastern I~iyh Schoul and stated the neighborhood is hemmed in with I~lyher densfty zoning.
He asked why Plan No. 1 is not feeslble. tle stated it has a real estate office tncluded
and stngle-family lots on the r~:maEnder of the property.
Chalrman Pro Tempore ~arnes ask~d Mr. Pakar why Plan (~o. 1 was not feasible.
Mr. PGkar stated whcn iie h~d first loAFed at cl~(s property several months ago~ ha had
dtscussed it with~ the Planninc~ And laniny staff and told them what he wanted to do~ and
the(r advice was the RM-4000 zoning.
Commissioner Tolar asked staff if they t~Ad ~dvised the applicant in this manner.
Annika S~ntalahti~ Assist~nt Director for Zoning~ stateJ staff had discussed ail the
possibilitles~ but staff never recommends that any one act(on be taken; that the
petttloner had talked about rnultiple-famtty and staff had dtscusssd condominlums; that a
lot of developers have come in and discussed their ideas, particularly in terms of
surrounding single-family uses when there is a certalnty people will be concerned; that
sometimes ownership ls a ~iL rnore acceptable to tl~em than rental units~ su it was not
~ecortmended to the petitioner~ staff never recomnends.
Commissioner Tolar indicated he wanted that statement straightened out since he did not
know of staff ever recommending anythin~ to a developer.
Mr. Pekar stated t~e would like to retract [hat; that staff does not reconrnend~ that they
make a report to thc Planning Commission and the Commissto~ approves. He stated when he
had talked wlth staff, *.hey had talked about the several alternate ways tt~e praperty couid
be developed and it was determined that RM-G000 was a feastbje way for him to develop the
property and a way to app roach it subJect to approval of the Planning f.ommission; that it
was further dawn the line~ app~oximately one month ago. thet he became aware of the
Generai Plan requirer-xnts that any trect map must be in conformtty with the General Plan~
and ttiat is wt~y he is request(ng this amendment. He stated he had hIs plans completed and
ready for submtttal~ but had tn stop and request an amendment to the Generai Plan and he
is actually backtrackiny. He stated he understood if he were p~oposing an apartment
p~oJect~ he would not have to request a General Plan amendment.
Mr. Pekar stated there are two-story~ stngle-fami ly homes in the surrounding area. Ne
thought the people in opposition were consideri~g a condominium as an apartment proJe~ct,
and it really is not. He stated if the single-family ckvelopment war~ estr~blished, they
could have two-story units. He indicated he had Just met these people this afternoon and
found out they were in oppositio~ and he intends to woric Nith them and fully explained
what he is trying to do. He stated in the llttle time he had had he was able to pacify
them since they had no idea of whst was reaily planned for the area. He pointed out the
existing two•sto ry structures in the area on thc map.
12/4/78
~ ~
~, .
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OECEMBER 4~ 1978 ~g_1059
EIR NEGA7IVE DECI.ARATION AND GEHERAL PIAN AMENDMENT N0. la9 (cantinued)
T11E PUBL I C HEAliI NG WA5 C LOSE 0.
Commiasioner David asked the present zoning of the property~ end Joel Fick replied the
exlatiny zo~ing ts RS-A-43~A00 and tha Genera) Plan designatio~ Is for low denstty
residential.
Commisaioner Toler askad tho appilcant what it would do to his proJect if the General Plan
ts amwnded to R5-72hp.
Mr. Pekar stated he did not know at thls time, tt~at hQ would have to do sane mathemattcs.
Curnmissioner Tolar stated normally hc would agree a~ RM-4000 ts e nice buffer abutt~ng
sorne types of property, but in this case he did not believa tihe epplicant would come out
wt~h any iess with an RS-72A0 tract. fic pointad out two-story structures could be
devciuped on thls property in a single-family proJeGt; that he felt e velid poi~t Is being
missed and that is the number of peop{e who would occupy one two-story home versus the
nurnbcr of people wl~o would occupy an RH-~-~00 development beceuse there would be more units
an the prop~rty. -1e ~tated (t is feaalble for the Planning stetP to draw up a plan with
en RS-7200 development on the proJect and he thought eight single-femily dwellings could
b~ ~onstructed~ leaving the rea) estate offlce intaGt. He clarifled that the appltcant
does not awn the property where the rea', esctate office is located. He stated he would be
willing to offer a motion for an RS-72~Q development as shown on page 15-P with e publlc
street which is Lot Development No. 1.
Cortimissioner King indicated he would support Commissloncr Tolar's motton.
Mr. Pakar referred Yo the existiny tract which is basically sm~nller then an RS-720b
dnvelopment.
Gommissioner Tolar Indicated that does not change hts opinion; that there are otl~er
devolopments in the Anaheim ~lilis for RS•5000 t~acts whtch averege up to 12~000 square
feet. Ne ststed lia was not opposed to the number of units being requested as lo~g as lt
doos not affect the general welfar~~ health, and safety r,f thc people r.raund ther~. {ie
stated ~he applicant is not going to live on the property and is nrerely tatk(ng about
getting rtwre lots on the development.
M~. Pekar indicated that with more lots Lhere would bc a btggar tax ba4e for the Ctty of
A~aheim.
Commtssioner Tolar pointed out that wtth the pass~ge of Proposttton 13~ that argument is
not a very goc~d one, and Mr. Pekar indicated it would still giva 1$ of the property value
as taxes and indiceted he would like to request a continuance of thls matter s(nce he did
not expect this problem today.
Commtssioner Talar asked wtiat would ba accomplished by a co~tinuance.
Mr. Pekar Indicated he would like ro do more horr~work and maybe would be able to convince
the Commiasion.
ACTION: C~mnissioner Tol~r offered a motion~ seconde~+ by Commissio~er King and MOTlON
~D (Commissioners Herbst and Johnson being absent)~ that consideratlon of the
aforementicned itern be continued two weeks~ to the ~egular~yscheduled rt~veting of the
Planning Cammissia~ on December 18~ t978~ at the ~equest ot the petittor~er.
12/4/78
~
~.
MINUTES~ IWANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER W~ 1978 78-1060
EIR NEGATIVC OECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN 11MENQMENT N0. 149 (continu~d)
~_ _.__....~ -
Chairnian Pro Tempore B~rnas explsinad to the paople in oppositlon that the Pienntng
Commiss(on usualiy grants requests for cont(nuancos to the eppltcants so that they ca~
work with the peopl~ In the ~+rea~ a~d that obviously this appllcant dtd not know he wauld
have a~yona opposi~y hig pro)ect and now they would have +~ cha~cn to ta;K with hIm and
might work scxnething out.
Commis~loner Tolar offered a-nation~ secoi~ded by Commfsstonar Davic and MOTION CARRIEO
(Commissionars Herbst and Johnson being absunt)~ to emend the date oP c~ontinuance to
JanuAry 3~ lgJ9~ aC the ~equest of thc petft(oner.
Cl~ai rman Pro Ter-~ore Barnes ex~-lained that the Jei~uary 3rd mQeting would be on a Wednesday
rather ttian a Mond.~y because of the hol iday.
Mr. Rahrer asked if (t wouid be nacQSSary for the opposition to hav~ ~ show in force et
the meeting of January 3rd~ and Chrtrman Pro Tempa~e 9arnes indlcated tt would not be
necessary for her benefit; that st~e realtzed how they felt and tndtcated this would bn the
firat item on the agenda.
Mr. Rohrar explained they I~~d already dlscussed thls proJnct wlth the qentleman.
ITEM N0. 1~
~O~E'~ND RECOMMEIJDATIO~IS
A. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Ela AND SANTA ANA CANYOFt N0. 7 ANNEXA710N TO
M.
Philltp Schwartze~ Assistant D(rector for Planning~ expla(ned an applicetio~~ has been
brought bcfore the Local Ayency Formation Comnission (LAFCO) for the annexatio~ of 1,265
acres which includes the Bauer Ranch~ porttons of Maheim Hills~ Inc.~ Do~~glas end Wallace
Ranch propertles and will be heard ~n Decembe~ 13th; that he w(11 be presenting this
mattar before the City Council tomorrow t~ get thefr feelinq rega~dtng annexation ~nd
stated I.' the Planning Commission is interested i~ making a reconMnendatton t~ the City
Council on elther the Bauer Ranch annexation er the incopor•ation of Vista del Rto~ he
wouid ba happy to p~esent their recomrt~s~dation to the ~ouncil.
Commissloner Tolar stated he would qff~r a motion to the City Counctl to epprove the
annexation for just the Bauer Ranch since the Commission has not dtscussed the rest of the
property.
Mr. Schwartze explained thdt the Bauer Ranch could not oe annexed unless the p~operties
between it and the exlsting city boundaries are annexed because it is not cont(guous to
the ~ity of Anaheim.
Canmtssioner Tolsr asked abaut thC Anahelm Hills~ Inc. property.
Mr. Schwartze stated it ts being proposed thai the remainder of the Anaheim Hills, lnc.
property, including portions Nhich are in the City of Orange's sphere oP Influence~ be
annexed which would bring the ~ity limtt line Lo the Bauar Ranch, but the Bauer Ranch
alo~e is not contiguous and could not be annexed. Nc stated Anaheim Hills~ Inc. is
proposing ta annax 811 additional acres to the city and pointed out the city iimits on the
map and the araa proposed for annexatio~.
12/4/78
~~
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBEa 4~ Iq7a 78-1061
REPORTS AND IIECOMMENDATIONS - ITEN A(c~~tinued)
ACTIONs Corimisslaner Bushore offered a motion, seconded by Commtsstoner T~ler and MOTION
'C7~T~D (Commtssloner pevtd votiny no and Commissioners Herbst ~nd Johnson being absent)~
that the Aneheim City Planntng Commtsston doej hermby recommend to the City Council that
the entire portton ot Santa M a Canyon No. 7 Annexetion be ~pproved.
Commisslo~er David indicated his "no" vote reflocts his support o( the FriFnds of Vista
de) Rio who heve asked the Commission to support thnm.
Gommissioner Tolar indicated tfiose people do not care anything about the City of A~~ahclm
and did nat think they should be supp~rted.
M~. Schwartze askad if the Commission would ~eslrc t~ make any recommendetlon regardtng
the incorporation of Vistr del Rio. Ne explatned that ttie City of Vista del Rlo
I~corporation would tak~ all the remaining property from the oranga Iine on the map~ which
would (nclude some 12~pp~ acres or 19 square miles. anJ wuuld include the Wallece Ranch~
Dnuglas Ranch and the Bauer Ranch~ but would nnt include the Aneheim Hilis, Inc. p~operty~
and asked if the Ccxnmissi~n had any feelinys about that.
Chairn,an Pro Tempore ~arnes indicated sl~e felt reasons should be gtven why the Plenning
Cortimisslon feels the annexation of Bauer Ranch shauld be a part of Anaheim; that her
personal reason is she feels even In view of the fact that there may be flscal problems~
thls area is important to Anaheim and s(nce ic is contiguous and edJacent to Anahel~n
property~ it is an area we could well take tnto our sphere of tnfluence. She stated she
did not think the Commission needed to say anything about the Vista del Rio Item. She
statcd she was concerned about the developme~t that could t~ke place lf a new city were
formed becaus~ with thelr tax base~ or very little tax base~ she wes concerned that when
they ran into financial problems~ the developments mi~ht be detrfinental to the City ~f
llnahelm and those who have spent a lot of money for homes in thet area.
Cortimfsstoner Tolar indicated hie wauld add that hls renson far supporting the annexation is
because it is tt~c iast piece af property ihat is contiguous to the Cfty of Anaheim which
has not been developed and any future growth for the City ts going to have to be in that
dire.ctton. The CiCy of Anahein~ is bound~d by other citiGS whfch haye Eul1y developad on
the borders of che City of Anaheirn; that he would like to see future grawth (n the City of
Maheim~ an~ whiie he may be premature in say(ng this~ development down the road is going
to be needed iR relationship to housing as well as potentia) commercial development in
Lhat area~ and those a~e hls reasons for wanting annexatlon of thc 1~265 acres.
B. ABHlJDONMENT N0. 7~-11A - Request 2o abandon an existing public utility easement
ocate on t e southwest co~ner of Romneya Drive end State College Boulevard.
The staff report to the Planntng Corromisslon dated Oecr.mber 4. 197a was presented~ noting
the request is to abandon an existing public utillty easem~nt locat~d on the southwest
corner of Romneya Drive and State Callege Boulevard; that the abandonment is requested by
Cannecticut ~lutual Life Insu~ance; that the r~quest has been reviewed by all departments
of the City and affected outside agencies~ and all hav~ recommended app~oval; the
Electrical Division states they have no present or future need of the subJect easement and
there are no electrical facilities to be relocated; that sub}ect easement is a former
Edison Company easement which was obtafned when the Edisan ComDany's facilities were
acquired by the City in this area; and that an e~vironmental review of the proposal
indicates this req~est to be exempt from the ftling of an EIR.
12/4/78
~.
7g.tu6x
MINUTES~ hNAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 4~ 1918
EPQRTS AND REC0~IMENUATIONS_- I7EM B_(continued)
ACTION: Commissioner King offr.red ah"1DOnpbein9cabsent)~ tha~it`the~Anahelm'L~tydPMO~^nOn~
C tK U(Carnni ss I on~rs Herbs t end Jo
Commisston does hereby recanmend to the City Council that the request for 11be~donrt-ent ~lo.
~8•11A be app~oved.
~. ABANUONMENT N0. 7~-13A ' aaquest to t~bandon 2-1/2 feet °fG375elocated at~the
pu c ut ty easement lyin9 within Lot 37 of T~act No.
southwest corner af dluerock Stre~t end Haltwood Ave~ue.
i 1 $ w++s resent i ng ~ not i ~g
97 P
The staff report to the Planning Cort~nission dated D~cember +~
the request is to abandon 2'~~? located at theSSOUttt~westACOrnertofuDluerockaStreet andng
withi~ Lot 37 of Tract No. G31~
Holtwoud Avenue; that subJect requev~1f~~s ~ecomnend dEdthatathedapplictc+ntsdesires totY end
affected outsida agencles and appro
inste~l a swlmMing poal. a portion of which would encroach into the existing publi~
utillty ~asement, therefore~ due to the limited area (n wl~ich to install said pool~ the
appli~ant is requsting that 2"i~2 ElectrtcaleDivision9statesntheiraex(sttng fecll~ties~Are
avoid encroachment~ that the C ty
loceted elong the easterly 2-1/2 feet of the subJect pr~perty eAd inc nvenlencento thehe
subJect portton of said eas~~nt Nould cause n~ undue hardshtp
Utillties Uivision; that subJect easement was aGqulred along w'th~otinrg~kc~ n8s pa9~
~
various lots of Tract No. 6375 by deed recorded Septert+bar lq~ ~~ + r~• and that an
160~ Offlcial Recorwsoft~herproposeddatardonmentCindicates~thisrequest to~be categorically
environr-entat revle
exempt from the flliny ~f an EIR.
Conxniss(on~~ KI~g offered a motion. seconded b Commisslonef Tolar and ~Oa^nNnCACR~Dgs,on
(Commiss1onerS I~erbst end Johnson beingi~bthat~rettuest~fo~AAbandonment No. 7a-93A be
does hereby reconmend to the City Counc q
approved.
U. RECLASSIFlCAT10N N0. 77~7~'29 ' Request for an extension of tir,~e.
The staff report to the Planning Comnisslon dated December 4~ 1978 was presented, noting
subject property is e rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.0
acre haviny a frontage of approximately 119 feet on the north slde of Sevanna Street,
having a maxlmum depth of approximately 3~{3 f~et, be~icantc(K dDnPWar~eneof1RP146 feet
west of the center1ine of Knott Street; that Che aPP
Constructloni requPSts a one-year extension of time due to a delay in obtaining
co~struction financing; thaTract,Not 101785(afonetlot,(nine-uni~~~ondominlium~com~lex) was
con]unction with Tentative ~ subject to condttlons that must
approved by the Planning Commission on December 5~ 977~
be complied with within a peried of one year.
ACTfON: Ccmmissioner Ktng offered a motion, seconded by Canmissioner Tolar andPNenn~i~q
~t I~D (Commtssioners H~rbst and Johnson being absent)~ that the A~aheim City
Ccx~nission cioes hereby grant a one-year extension of time for R~classification No. 77-7~'
29, to expirc uecember 5. 1979.
~Z~a~~a
~,
MINUTES, ANAHErM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 4~ 1978 ~g_1o63
REPORTS AND aECOMMENUATIONS (continund)
E. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 176fi - Rnquest for a retroactive cxtenslon ot time.
The staff repart to the Plannfn,y Commlestan dated Uecember 4~ 1978 was presented, noting
subJect property is an ir~agularly-shaped parcel of land co~sistlno of approximately 11
acres locat~d at the sauthwest corncr of Carritos Avenue, havtng approximate frontag~s of
380 Feet ~n the south side of Cerritos Avenue ~nd 1380 fe~t on tne west side of Sunkist
Street; tt~at the applicpnt (Thomas H. AI1ey of Velvet Kntghts Drum b Bugle Corps) requests
a o~e-yeer extension nf timc; that sub.ject cond(tional use permit (to permlt a private
club wlth binyo) was ap~rovecl by thc Plenn(ng Commtsston on Novenbcr 21~ 1977, subJect to
the condition that tfie conditlonal usa permtt was granted for a one-ye~ar period of time~
sub}ect to revlew fo~ passtble extcnslons of tirr~; and that stAff hss recelved n~
compleints on the subject use end there have been no previous extens(ons of tin~e.
AGTION: Corrmissioner Ki~~ offcred o motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION
~D (Commissioner Bushore voting no and Comm(ssioners Herbst and Jo~nson being
abspnt)~ thAt th~e Anahetm ~ity Planntn~ Commisston clocs hereby grant a one-year
retroact{ve extension of time f~r ~:ondttionel Use Perm(t No. 1766, to expire Novembe~ 21,
1979.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 NO• 1769 - Reauest far a retroactive extenston of tlme.
The steff report ta thc Planning Commission dated December 4~ ~973 was presented, noting
subJect property 1s a ~ectangularly-shaped parcel of land conslstin4 of approximately 1.7
acres haviny a frontaye of approximately 1b0 feet on the north side of lf~coln Avenue~
h~ving a maxtmuri depth of approximately 430 feet and located approximatcly 75U feet east
of the centerllne of East Street; that the applicant (Marle Alb~rt) request.s a one-year
retromctive extension of time; that sub}ect conditfonal use permit (on-sale bpzr and wine
in a cielicatessen) was granted by the Planning Commisston on November 21~ 1977 for a one-
year period~ subJect to review and consid~erat(on for an extens(on of tl;ne upon written
request by the petittoner in order to dctermine whether the use ts detrimental to thc
surrounding area; that no deleterious effects have occurred and parking appears to be
adequate; that nu prev(ous extensions of time have been granted; and thAt sub)ecG
requested was determined to fall withtn the deflnition of Categorlcel Exemptions~ Class 1.
ACTION: Commissloner King c~ffered a motlon~ secondcd by Commissioner David and MOTION
CARRIEp (Commissioners Herbst and Johnson being absent)~ that the Anahcim CiCy Planning
Commtssion does hereby grant a one-ytar retroac[ive extenslon of time for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1769~ to expire November 21~ 197q.
ADJOURNMENT Thece being no further business~ Commisstoner King offered a motion, seconded
by Commtssloner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Johnson
being abyent) ~ that the rrxeting be ~dJourned.
The mecting was adJourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted~
~~~G.~''.~~~~.~...
Edith L. Narris~ Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:hm
12/4/78