Loading...
Minutes-PC 1981/11/16_~ r _~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ Ctvic Cent~r An~heim~ Californi~ Novamba r 16 , 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION REGULAR The reqular meettng of the Anaheim City Planning Commtasion was called MEETING co order by Chelrman Bushore at 10:Q0 +~.m., November 16, 1981~ in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present~ end the Commtsslon ~evlewed plans of the Items on today's agenda. Reces~: 11:30 a.m, Reconvene: 1:;1 p.m, for publlc test(mony PRESENT Chatrman Bushore Commtssioners: Darnes~ Bouas, Fry, Ktng~ McBurney ABSENT; Cortmtssloners: Herbst ALSO PRESENT: Annik+~ Santalahtf Joel Fick Jack White Jack Judd Jay Tashiro Peu) Singer Dean Sherer Mike Welch Phii Gardncr Stewart Noss Edlth Harrfs ~ Assistant Director for Zonin g Ass{stent DI rector for Plann ing Asststant City Attorney Offlce Engineer Associate planner Treffic Engincer AssistAnt Planner Associate Planner - Community Developrt-ent Development 5ervices Manage r Commun i ty Redeve 1 apmen t Comm i s s 1 on Piannt~g Corrmisslon Secreta~y PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCC TO THE FLAG L.ED BY - Commissioner Fry. APPROVAL OF - ~ni ss (one r Ki ng of fe rec! a mot i on ~ secorsded by Commi ss i oner 9ouas MINUTES and MOTION CARRIEU (Comnissioner McBurney abstalning and Commisslorter Nerbst absent) that the minutes of the meeting of Octaber 19, 1981 be approved as submitted. ITEM N0. I: EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION aECLAS5IFICATION N0. 81-82- and CON DITIONAL U~~E MI~ No. 2 9: PUSLIC HEARING. OWNER: AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTIES~ INC.~ P. 0. Box 1007T , Senta Ana~ CA 92711. Property described as an irregularly~shaped parcel of land eonsisting of approximntety 5.9 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Manchester Avenue (2111 Sauth Manchester Avenue - Orangewood Acres Mobitehome Park). RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43~000 (Rcsldential/Ag~icultural) TO C~R. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT: TO PERMIT A FIVE•STORY OFFICE BUILDING Subject petition was continu~d from the meetings of September 9 and 21, and I~Mvember 2. 1981~ at the request of the petitioner. There were epproximaCely 200 persons indicbting their ,,resencz in opposftion t~ sub)ect request~ and although the staff report was not read~ it is referrad to and mede a part of the m(nutes. Chairman 8ushc~: explained the public hearing process in thst the appiicant would g~ - 708 ~,~~.,~._....__. . .._ _.. _ . _ r: ~~ ~M' ~~ N~ .~ y . -,w~ MINUTES~ AMANEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER Ib~ 1951 81-709 be allowed to rtu~ke hls p~eaantatton~ after which the opposition would be allowed to volce choir concern~, H~ askad that thoae speaking pie~se keep thelr conwnents brief and no~ repeat what sommone else haa sald, Me explsi~ed the applicant wt 11 be allawed to rebut tha opposltion and than the publtc hearing wi11 be ciosed and the Commissloners wlll aak queattons. He axpieinad in order to expedite thls particular heartng~ questions may pussfbly be answered by staff ~+s they come up rather than wa(ting until after the publlc haaring has been closed. Terry J, Twieedt, Vic~ Prestdent of American Natfonal Properttes, 210 W. Cerritos~ AnAhoim, stated bafore purchesing O~angewood AcrAS~ they checked witl~ the Planning Department on severa) occas t~ns +~s to the hi story and bacMground of the property and to see i f there wer~ any speci fic ordinances or rules against anything they were legally trying ta do and notad the Anaheim General Plan calls for commei~ciel uses on this property. He stated the tenants were glven notice to vecate on or about Augu3t I~ 1981 ~ and noted one•year nor(ce ts required by Iaw. Concerning the park Itself~ Mr, Tweedt expleined they would hav~ to spend ~everal h~~ndred thousend clollars for bul l~ing code requi rements in order to briny this park up to whst i t should be, He explain~d they are proposing a 5-story offlce bul ld(ng and po(nted out the rendr,ring dlsplayed. He stated this wlll be a very attractive building and wi 11 provlde office space and employment and that no waivers are betng requested. Mr. Tweedt stated they feel they have addressed a11 the issues brought up by staff~ except the relocdtlon of the tenants and they have not ar~dressed :hat Issue (n writing beceuse there were no condltions when they bought this property~ either in grant deed form by the previous owner or by any actual notice reeeived from the clty or by any actuai state law which requires them to do so tn this parttcular case. Glen I rving~ 2111 S, Manch~ster~ expressed their tl-anks to the staff, especial ly Kendra Morrles, and the Planning Commission for thetr he{p and information during the past few rranths . Ne stated they fee:l t~i s proposa i i s a~ ragedy for the i r comnun i ty ; that Orangewood Acres was previously owned by Wt 11 iam Rocake who had insisted on vcry high stand~rds and even esked resldents to remove furn{ture from thel porches whtch he did not deem appropriate; and that one rnsident had gone to caurt to ~top hfm from his arbltrary orders to force impr~vements to sutt his tastes and the reside~t won the lawsui t; that in the fAl I of 1980 the r~sidents bergan to suspect that he was beginning ta abandon the proper;y because the ent ran;.e s i gn was badly dAmaged i n a veh i cul ar accidant and was not repaired~ even though he collected from the insurance company; and that Mr. Rooke dtd almost nothin~ which would cost him monGy to upgrade the perk~ but did continue to ralse rents each year~ even though he was a beneficlary of Propositt••h 13, He stated when the residents learnea the per~c had been sold~ tt,ey immedtately formrd an organlzatlon to fight what they thought would be conversion to condominiums. He refer~ed t~ Exhibit A of the information subm(ttnd, Mr. Irving stated throughout the duration af 1980 and the spri~g o~ 1981 ~ new homes were sold within the park wi th no not Ite given af the intent to sell the park or to changing its usaga; that rtsident, were signing leases ~hich dssignated Orangewoad Acres as an adult park and referred to the impact report submitted by American Natlonal P~opertles which describes Orangewood Acres as an adult park; that Grpve Homes was the onty anttty permitted to bring n~w homes into the park and a week before the final close of th~ sale, kay 3, 1981 ~ an a-d~ paid for by Grove Fbmes, appeered in the aegister offering a new hon~e for sa~e in Orangewood Acres; however~ in Apri) 1981, drilltng was conductad in the park ta ascertaln the feasibil ity nf erecCing high-rtse str+~ctures on the premises. i!/16/8i ~ 1 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOM~ Novsmbar 16, 1981 81-710 Mr. Irving stated the reaidents do not Dellev~e that American National Properttes w~s not awara of what ws~ being done In tM park. Ha referred to Exh~ It B(Dun end ersdatrest Report on American Natiensl Properttes) an d stated they believ~ Mr. Rooke ~ Grove Homes and Ame rican National Properties knowingly and wlllingly conspired In what meY be conside~ad fraudulent activitles which i~volvad not only thuse persons v+#io mov~d into the perk ~fter they began negc~tiationa of sale~ but elso oll permanent ~esidants of the park who were given no notice of In t ent to sale or convert the use ef the park. He stated the practice of real estete is an honorable profession~ but there are real estate developars who are gullty of malpractice; that after consultation witF their attorney~ they have dec(ded t~ press charges against Mr, Rooke~ Grove NoTOs and American National P~ope~tias for fraud, deceptio~ and othrr offenses which will bm dtaclosed when they offtclally file che suit ~nd they expect to ask for Judgment s against each of the thrae defendents of S5 m{llion dollars to compensate all perman~nt reside~ts far the mental suffertng and financial tos ~es. Mr. Irving stated they know all the arguments the at tarneys for American National Prcperties wtll use for closing the park such as sewer pipes and electrical iines wh3ch need to be r~aplaced, etc., in additton to the economics for tha owners who will not get a 10~ return on the property unless the y dest~oy the cortmunity. He stated this is a community of mostly elderly people tiving on fixed incom~s who invested all thay had in the comnunity which they believed would be their last haven (n their golden years; but it has become a nighcma re and if this community is dest r ay~d. It can never be replace:d. Hc stated this park is suPposed to be ~.~ adult park with no pets allowcd, but Ameri ean Nnttonal P ropartles has changed that without notific atton to the tenants which is a u1-sct violation of the California Civil Code and referred to Exhiblts C b Q. He st~ted ;t• .~;:~alicant reported they are In r,omplete ccxnpllanee with all the laws which ls not trua. He stated the residents received a letter da ted June 24, 1981~ stating the City of Anaheim had requestcd that a Conversion Impa ct Repart be flled on this park and that he had called the City of Anahei~~, and was told they did noc know anythin4 about It. He added the report complains about the feilure of the residents of Orangewood Acres ko reply to the survey. Responding to Chairman Bushore~ Dean Sherer~ Asstst a nt Planner, exptal~ed the City did ~equest the report. Chairman Bushore scat-d he i; sorry the residents did not respond to the survey because it was to heip them. He asked Mr. Irving to please only state the reasons why the park should not bc ctosed, polnttng out this is not a court of law and no accusations should be made. Mr. Irving stated his last quescion would be ~"whe re are these pco~le going to ga w h en their community is destroyed;" th~t the City o f Anahetm is presencly negotiat 7ng far a chelter park which wilt cost tho taxpayers m i l l ions o f do l l a r s a n d if this c o n v e r s i on c o ntinues, the city will be bankrupted in order to proW id~ ~ t, h a v ep a n ys and 1~ the meantime thousands Af senior citizens throughout the c ity peace wonderin~, if they wili be next. Mr. Irving stated the business neiqhbors in the cc~rt+munity have signed a petttion aga~nst do hereby declare this action (Exhibic F) snd read the tollowin9: "'We, the undersigned~ our support to tha residcnts of Orengewood Acres T railer Psrk at 2111 S. Manchest~r ftom being forced nut of the traller park. We ftn d it totatly unacceptable that the trailer park is betng sold }ust to buitd another building when on tbutnsromehovedcv~na~ the Santa Ane freevray there are numerous busin~ss buitdings empty, sense never enters into making decislona and only into making a fast dollar. it ss a natural htgh ~~ ioeendefrom the s ores~f exercistng~a~d~,inagenerel~,aenJoying the ~ Msnchester~ go) g 1 ~ J16/B1 ~ 1~ , i i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMIIISSION~ November 16, 1981 81-711 bl~ssinqa oF bming self-iuppoftl~ ide~'and.withaonealeg~~vaction~alleofttheaeboveeis~st impartant aleme~t of all, sml p destroyed." Ha explained the pet ition is 'igned by 95 Persons f rom severei differe~t commun 1 t i es . Mr. Irving ~tated the commuih~YPlanning9Commissionsdanyithishrequ steandhrecomn~end community and request th~t to the City Council that this property be permanently zoned for e mobilehome park. 1 rv 1 ng Jack White, ~ssistant City Atto rRey, explatned those documenes refe~red tn by Mr. have been distributed Co ti°~nce^bafore~thne~Planntng Commissioncandt that copieshhave a re to be rece I vnd i n to ev d not been given tn the appltcant. He explalned that caples will be made av~ilable to the appl i cant or h i s representat i ve . Vlncent Jantz, Attorney with t~hP1~n~~~9A~pmmisslon concerni~ngCthetclosingeafhmobilehome go from Planntng Commisslon t psrks; that it is basically a~i~hc^~~usenthe~propertyda5ihe~seeshfittand~toCdGny him normally state that he has a g that right is a violation ofhanCeStn use 1would not betan inverse~condemntat,lonidand ~ty maintains that to deny thc c 9 there would be no taking of rto~continuesuxi~9hlt asrah~*obi~ehhome Pa~kha d herisathe is now being given the rtght ona who thooses to change than dsthe governmentt~nhas theesolecdlscretionresito hown is one of tho pol tc powers the property shall be used; that the overarl~lderate and1lowrcost~housing9a dthe~did a ba 1 anced g rowth wh i c;h wou~ d i nc 1 udc not k~ow of any better moderate or low cost housing than a mnbi lehome park, Mr. Jantz stated the Planning S o~iafiioi has~beeneelimbnatedf itPbecomes that~ uchate and 1 ow cost hous i ng and once harde r to get more. He stated a statement pertai~in getitf~snsWaspcrson~set out to intentionally cheat~st i mpos s i b 1 e to p rove f roud b~ca us another pe~son rlght from t ie aBPart af tr~e Sus~iness~and ProfessionseCode whi~chi deals party of fraud; that there s p with unfair business practices and that term is not th~c~wn around loosely °iHeestated indeed dTscovery Wi ~~ ddu~ln n thei lastcfew YearsrwF-o~havesmovedWintodthis•mobi lehome the re haves been peop 1 e 9 park at great personal expe~s~ ~eata~Sto~~-d~a intend orsella andEit~lstknownnthat e use, and i r, i s known that the p these owners fiad no inte~tion of tLhink~it9ishfairEtosthesebtenants that~they should~ is indeed a fact~ then he did not have invested so much meney sr~d haden of thc 1~ssthiHeistatedemost of~theimobitehhomes of sornesbodY havi ng to bear ct+~ bur in this con~nwntty are over 17 Y~asG thataare~us dtare difficult to move anddthe`chance~ even m~ve them to Ariz~na and tho of rt+~ving them to another mobilefiome~p~tk andVtheiritotal investments~pn~th~e1rnobilebhomes eble to remet~ residents of Orang Y wt 11 be vi rtually tost. Mr. Jant~t stated th~ Planning Coamissues~csn~da^~rGmendouseaurd netomthescurrent wowners, ramain as thay sre which coui d, o~ co ~ but they did assuma that ri sk; °~ ~ ~ot dQthe ch~nces ~for ith t a% q'~~ te ~ imj t d~ut a s t- e l t e ~ p a r k f o r t h e s e t e n s n t s a n d ~~/16/8i and ~` MiNUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION. Novamber 16, 1981 81-712 He stat~d thare are gotnq to be ather requests and he hss already been contacted by tenants From other perks. Ne stated the Planntng Commiaston Gsn requlre that the appitcants pay moving costs; howe ver~ it ts his opinion that t~e chances of payfng full moving costs e~e qutte limited. He suggested t~at the avner buy out these people and stated he felt th~t would be a fat~ settlenwnt of this metter. Date Smith stated he live• in a m~btlehome park righ~ off Orangethorpe Avenue and it seemcd to Mlm that this is a matter of somsone buying a mobllehome park with the ide~ of moving a lot of people out Just to mske a fast buck and are esking the Plenning Commission to change the rules. He raferred to the estimate of the total worth of the mobllehomes in the park end stated a mobflehome csnnot bt bought anywhere tn Orange County for S4~000 if it ts in a pa~k~ and if it is not In a pa~k~ tt would nat be worth anything, He statnd the maJo~tty of older people are 1lving on a fixed income and don't ask for too much and just want a chance to live the(r lives and are not interested in mektng a fast buck and are not worrtad about somebody else mek(ng a f~st buck. He stated if this is approved~ maybe next nanth someone will buy out the park where he llves and the Planning Commtsston has to consider the human misery versus the fast buck, Linde Payne~ 18335 Edwards, Westminster, stated she inquired ebout a Cratler for sale at Chn park And was told by a lady ln the office that if she bought a trailer, it wou~d havc to be moved ~ut af the park; that she askad why it would have to be moved and was told the park had been sold; that she asked what will happen to ail these peopie she had been watching for 10 yea rs because she works in the area and stated people on the whole street watch these residents and talk to them and they ar~ a part ef that street~ including the business community; that the lady in the offtce of the park said she did not care and they r.ould go to a rest home~ canvalescent hospital~ etc. Sfie steted she was so ang ry after laaving the trailer park that she got together a petition which was read by Mr. Irvin~; that most of the business people in the area were very upset and asked when we are gotng to start caring about our older people. She stated if she had a choice between younger people or older people~ she wouid choose to live among older peopte . She stated there is no reason to change that traller park; that there are buildings across the strtet or freeway which have been empty for months and asked where these people witl go and s tated they should be given back thelr pride and th~l~ homes and be lefc alone. Pat Kish~ 14A0 Dauglas Raad, stated the first and forcmost reasen this should not be allowed is that it is existing housing stock and housfng is the number one problem faced by all the governmentai offtcials in the County of Ora~ge; th~t most recently the C1ty of Oranqe contracted fo r a study to be done o~ how housing can be brought ebout in Che City of Orange And what kind of housing is npeded and the County of Orange recently enacted a one-stop processing procedure so developa~s can produte housing at a quicker pace than in the past. once sgain recognizing the nzed for hnusing. She stated Supervisor Riloy has been very ve~y active and claims fame to having instigated the affordable houstng zoning~ recogntzing the need for affordable housing; that what we have In Or~ngewood Acres is not a traile~ park~ but is a houstng community that was allowed to be built by qovernment (former Planntng Canrnlssion a~d City Council). Ms. Kish stated the staff report Indicates that the 1969 Gene~al Plan made it clear that moblinhome parks are to be considered as residential rather than interlm land uses; and that the staff repc~rt also has the evalustion of the mobilehon~s and the • cnls are ve ry low which stands to reasuns because off-site the trailer is worthles She stated people are arising in anger an Irvine owneJ iand because their lanc •.,:.,s have inc~eased astronomicaily; that the Irvine Company hAS now provided them wttn . reasonable optton~ but those people had more options avallabla to them tha~ any mcbile- Fwme a~mer tn the City of Anaheim o r Cou~ty of O~ange because at the inception of thair 11/16/81 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISStON~Novamber 16. 19g1 81-713 residency~ they ware aware of th• land lesae and were aware of an aptton to buy that land and had an opportunity to buy it dnd ignored tt becsuse Irvine Company was, In fact~ subsldizing them wtth very low land leases; that the mobltehome owners did not hava these optlons and dtd not have tho opportunity of knowing that their investment was on a canditionsi use permit and ware never given an optlon to buy their lot which Is wh+~t the mebilehome owners are trying to Impress upon the Ctty Council in the way of "first ~ight of refusal" whtch the City of San Juan Caplstr~no hss built tnto an ordinsnce to prot~+ct thair mobilehome owners. She explained that is the firat right of refusal so thet the owners can purchase the pa~k If the psrk owner does place it up for sale to protect their inveatment which is their homes. She stated obviously somettm~ in the past, m~btiehome parks v+erc very welcome in the Ctcy of Anahetm because there are more than 35~ and very recently Sunklst Gardens and Anahe{m Sha~es were developed so they must prove attractive and lucrative and are needed. Ms. Kish stated this is an older park which has been very compatible with the surrounding neighborhood for 26 years and has not been a great draln on city services and has sllowed people to matntain hameownership and some form of dignfty and Independency which Is another reason to deny this request. She stated the City of Anahelm has no available sanior citizen apartrt~nts and ~either do surrounding cities and asked where these people would be placed. She noted the developer has for9atten to submlt any sort of relocatton plan Just as tf this was a vacant piece of land wtth no one to consider~ and asked where the Pl~nnin~l Cortmission and City Council respensiblltties 1ir. except to the peopie of the community. Sha stated the responsibility af government is to the constituents or citlzens of the cortnWntty who have contrfbuted to the community and have made it a very campatible n~elghborhood. She pointed out there is a roomful of people present who are in favor of allowing the mobilehome park to stay as it is and there has never been a roomfui of people who were In favor of an office butlding~ so the ~easons for denying this request are very obvtous. She referred to the Westwlnds request and others which wtil be coming up in the ncar future (River(a~ Orang~ Grove or maybe the perk shc livos in) and asked about their investments and where they can go. Ms. Ktsh reFerred to the steff ~eport which states before the Planning Canmission gra~ts any conditional use pe~mit,it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all af the folia+ing conditions exists - one of those conditions being that the granting of the conditional usr permtt under the conditio~s imposed~ if any. wtli not be detrimenxal to the peace, health~ safety~ and general welfare of the citixens of the City of Maheim. She asked chat the Commission deny this request and recommcnd to the City Council that Orangewood i4c~es continue to be a part of the commu~ity as it has been for many years. Jahn Nix~ 15333 ~os Alos Street, blhittier, stated both his parents and his wife's parents are resldents of mobilehome parks and he is seeing the change of use for these parks beginning to snowball; that mobilehomes are not mobile and cannot be rtlocated in any mobtlehame park in Orange County; that tf a vacancy occurs~ the park owner puts in a new coach and seils it for a proftt; that this is the only affordable housing left in O~ange County and it cannot be replaced. He referred to a lottery in a recent newspaper to purchase affordable housing tn Orange County at aver S65,000, with paynnents ove r S100 per month and income requirements above 525~000 per year a~d he doubted that any of these residents could qualtfy. He steted he thouqht this zone Ghange request should be denied or at ieast a morito~ium on any changes until these homes can be ~Qlocated or if tha owner w~nts the p~ofit on this land~ he should buy these homes at market value because the homeowner es~not afford to takn tha loas. 11/16/S1 ~ ~ MINUTES~ Ai~lAHE1M CITY PLANNING C4MIIISSION. November 16~ 1981 81-714 Glen Kramar~ 2111 S, Manchaster, st~ted afta~ suffering a personai tragedy~ he moved to Orange County without funds end with a small gift from hls brother~ mede the down payment on a mobilehome and (s now working for the postat servtce. He stated he would not quatify to purchase affardable, houtsng on his aalery end if che petitioners Are granted this request~ without compansatiqn~ h7 will have to file bankruptcy In thls county. He explalned he paid S16~500 for his coach and n~ de imprevements and his current investme~t ls S19,000 and he has been offered batween S7~000 and S9.000 f~r It and his mortgage is much higher, He stated the statement w~s mede that someona has to bear the brunt of progress and asked what the progress is towards~ notiny there is a tot of vacant lend where butldings could be built. Ne explained he has checked lnto the lotteries~ but he does not qualify for even a lottery typc drawtng because his income is not htgh enough ~nd the oniy effordable housing for him is to stay where he is, He stated he wants to stay and se~ve in Orange County and must appeal to the Crxnmission who must decide between human resources and another ~ffi~e building and that he believes the humen resources are the best resources the count~~ has. He stated thnse who servtthe community deserve to llve th~eir latter years in peace and that he has lived with these residents for three years and respects them and has seen thefr dignity in the care ~f th~ir places. a digntty he has not seen with ti~e current owners. Ne stated Californla legislators in their handiing of mobilehome pa~ks have become awar~ that motilehome nwners are a Joint awner wlth the property owner; th~t his Cax biil reftects that because until this year he was peying S50.00 a year to the Department of Motnr Vehicles and this year his tax bill was S200.00. Hr staCed he cbes ~ot complain about paying taxes on the 59.7a0 assessed value of personal property and wants to live and work hc~e and if he ts Forced to move further away~ he wili not be ablc to afford the travel ex~enses to and frc~m work. He asked tha Commissio~ to vote to alluw them to remal~ living in affordable housing in Orangewood Acres or allow them to h~ve recovery of their investment so their dignity and life may remain in tact. Carl Shorey, 300 W. Katella, Anahcim~ stated these mobilehom~s are nut mobile; that his coach is 3 Years old and doeS not have wheels and is o~ a permanent foundation, He stated snn,e coaches in the P.iviera Park are 19 years ald and are still in excelient condition and there are a lot ~f houses on a foundation that are not in as good conditfon. He stated he feels mobilehome park tenants are permane~t residents; that he has been there 15 years and has taken care of Maheim with his taxes and has aupported and loves Anaheim and wants to live here. He explained the residents at the aiviera have already becn warned that their park maY be next and although they have not been legally notified~ several tenants have moved~ some ~s far as Yuca4pa ,Hemet~ Oceanside, etc. He referred to one person who has a beautiful 4-year old double wide coach who could not move it because it was too old and was told they did not want any coach older than 1-year old. He stated he had visited a perk near March Air Force Base and was toid by the manager his 3-year old coach is too old to move to that park. he asked if th~ey should be expected to sell their caach and buy a new one every year and asked haw long they have to live sanewhere to be consider~ed permanent. Mr. Shorey stated a lot of rr,~bilehome park tenants are older and that he is a vete~an and foughC a war so he can live free and that he doesn't want a dark cloud over his head. He did not feel the Commission should approve this building which witl p robably stand empty, pointing out there are a lot of empty buildings withi~ 10 blocks. He stated tenants of mobilehome parks have paid the ow~ers of mobilehome parks for years and arc the ones who paid for the tand that the park is on by paying their rent and he did noi think it is fair for new owners to say they are not longer wanted there because they are going into a new phase of business. 11/16/S1 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI~iG COMMiSSION~ Novembsr 16~ 1981 81-715 Dee Schuebel~ 2111 S. Manchest~r~ statdd she has worked fo~ Rockwnll for 26 years end was promoted to e menaperlal posltton one ymar aqo and ssved for several yeers tn order to make a down payment on e home and afte~ dete~mtning thst ~he could not afford a condominium~ dactded ta purchase e~ mobilehome. She sta~ted she was essu~ed by the aalesn-an when she nwved tnto 6rangewood Acrea that she wouid have a permanent home and she w~s very proud of her eccompllshment. She stated most af her neighbors ~~e elde~ly and she h~d felt tt would be great when s~ie reached her latter ycars to be able to have thls lovely home where she could enJoy her grandchtldren~ etc. She stated when she learned of tha rumors last May that the park w~s beinq sold~ she was so upset she had to stay home from work for a week and Just could not believe that thfs could happen after she had been told by the manager end ~ssiatant m~nager that the park wa~s gotng to De u~raded. She stated she patd in excess of S30,000 for her coech and felt she should have been notifled when she moved there that plans were being made to make a chenge. She stated she estfmated it would cost betwe~~ S5~000 and S7,000 to move her coach and the oniv place she has found was ~n Rlve~side whlch is 15 mites away and her present vehicle has over 128,000 miles on tt and she would probably have to invest In a new car in order to get ta work and also her Insurance would increase and she would have to pay property taxes tnstead of motor vehicle taxes, Ms. Schuebel asked at what polnt human conditions wi11 be considered~ ex~laininG the large corporation where she works tries to consider the human conditions in their overall plsns by providing tnsurance policies, retlrement plans, etc. She stated she would lika to be able t~ live wtthout constantly worrying about being uprooted and haviny to move her coac~ at her awn expense and asked the Plenning Commission to cansider whether or not another offlce building is worth mare than the lives of several thousand peapte. Marilyn Oyer stated she has lived at this park for ll years ~nd is asking that the Commtsston aiiow the park to remain there forever; that all the people who live there h~ve enjoyed the area because it is convenient for them with bus services~ etc. Frank Heller~ 27001 La Paz Road~ Mtssion VieJo~ Attorney~representing American National Properties, stated he feels the~e is only one rcal issue in this situation and that is relacation. He stated they cannot enswer the allegations against the former owners~ but the opposition has mnntioned that they intend ta fi1r, a lawsuit which may be Just the answer to the Commissio~'s dilemn~a; that certainly the applicant is not insensitiv~ to the older people, but emoitan shouid not be a part of this decision and suggested the Commission let the court decide whether or not these tenants are znti*_ted to compensation. Mr. Heiler stated his client bought this property after makfng inquiries with respect to what~ when and how he could fit into the General Plan and he does fit into the General Plan; that when he purchased the p roperty,there was noR law with respect t~ relocatlon. He ref~r~ed to the Westwinds situacion and pointed out this is different because Westwinds was a conversion and this is an entirely different use, He referred to a memorandum dated March 16, 19$1, addressed to the City CouRCil which refers to Government Coda Section 65863.7 which clearly indtcates there is no relocation pro- vision in the law under these circumstances at this time. He stated when his client purchased the property, he was not aware of any relo~ation law because there wax no such law. Mr. Heller rcferred to comments that the te~ants are partners with the property owner because they helped pay for the land and suggeated if that is the case, every tim~ property is purchased for rental, the tenents in the apartment con~plex would be considered partners; that a mobilehome is still considered perso~al property, not 11/30/81 ~~ j I MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Novambsr 16, i981 81-716 real property. He ~tatod he redlixes this is an emational situatian, but waated to bring the isaue of freA enterprise ta the Commtsalon's sttnntion. He at~tad the law ls very clear and the Stete of Csltfornia provtdas for ~ one-year natice far termtnation of parks and the Gover~ment Code allows the City Council to requtre certain conditions in certatn situations tncluding relocstian fees; however~ that Is not the case In this sttuation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Pat Kish asked to be heard sgain and Chairman Bushore pointed out the public hea~ing has been closed. Chairman Bushore asked for clarification concerning the comments that the Planning Commtssion does not have the authority to impose conditions upnn the develpprt~nt. Jack White stated there is no current state statute which requires the Ctty of Anahetm to either require a relocation report ar relocation assistence in the event there is a convers(on of a mobilehomp park; that If any developer could devel~p the property without coming before the Pianning Commisslon or City Council for e d(scretionary permit or actian such as a raclassification ~nd condittonal use permlt~ then the City would not have the power ta impose requirements relating to relocation; and that Government Code ~ection 65863.7 applies to general law cities and those cities which adopt that particular statute by ordlnance and the City of Anaheim has not adopted such an ordinance. Mr. White explained in this instancr the developar is asking for a reciASSification and conditional use permit and the crit~ria for approving a zoning reclassification is seC forth in Section 18.03.020 of the Anahetm Municipal Code which basically says that a zone change may be approved whenever~ "public necessity and convenience and general welfare require"; and that the criteria for approving a conditional use permit is set forth in Section 18,030.030.035 Wh~ch requires that the Planning Comnission make a ftnding that the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed~ if any. will not be detrimental to the poace~ health, safety and general welfare of the citizens af Anaheim," He stated the law of California further states that the city~ through the Planning Conxnission or City Council~has the power to impose ~onditions upon these discretionary app~ovals which bear a reasonable relationship to the public needs created by the development. He stated in the opinion of the City Atto rney's Offic~ of the City of Anaheim, the Planning Commission and the C~ty Councit in this particular case do have the powar to impose conditions which relate to the tenant welfare and relocation or the tenants~ similar to conditions tmposed in a prevlous development which related to a subdivisian under a different section of the law, but under the police power of the State~ Article ii~ Section 7 of the State Constitution~ the Planning Commtssion does have the power Co impose conditions. Chairman Bushore stated this is the third mobilehome park situation which has come before the Ptanning Commission; ene at Harbc~r and Ball which was~ in fact~ an older park which had been used more or less for recreatianol vehicles, but over the years there had been same tenancs moved in permanently and the Commiss(on did impose c~rtain conditions on the developer; and most recently and more similar to this situation, was the Westwinds park and upon agreement with the developer~ certain conditions were imposed to help with ~elocation of the tenants. Ne stated all the Commissioners concur that If they should app~ove this requ~st, they would impose certain conditions on the developer and feel thay do have that authority; however, the~e is no one here who could force the developer to comply with those conditions because this is not a court ef law and the devetoper doas have the right to give the tenants the one-year notice ~nd come ba~k after the tenants have all moved and request a rectassification. 11/16/Si :~ ~: 1 ) MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 16' 1g81 g~-71~ Chatrn~n Bushore ateted the Gommisstan wants to help the tenants as much as they can and unttl today he had always consid~red property rights the rlght to develop your property~ but from he has heard today~ feels that the ~Ight to dovelop your property is a priviinge. Chatrman Bushore referred to the Westwlnds sltuaclon and stated tn compering that park with Orangewood Acres~ Westwlnds was by f~r in worse con~lltton, He statod he persunally thinks Orangewood Acras ts a very good looking perk, Ne continued that in cort~sring the two perks~ Westwinds had ~~r tesspermonent tenants wtth over 50$ of the people there on a tempora~y basls wtth ~niy three doubie•wlde coaches, and Orangewood Acres has only 7 travel-type trailers wtth 15 double•wlde coaches. He stat~d rlght across the street on Orangowoc~d Avenue there (s a biy vacant parcel almost similar In stze which was up for sale wfiich could have been developed for commercial oftice usns; however~ the developer looked at this park because it is constdercd en tnterim use of the land. He stated there fs a tremendous amount of excess office space wtthin the county; that tha Westwinds Mobilehome Park was being ~-4nverted to create more itving units and unlts were made avatleble to the tenants. He stated he does not see Orangewood Acres as being one of the future parhs that should be converted; that h~ supported the other two~ but looks et each case lnd(vidually ,~nd h~ personally cannot suppnrt the converslon to commercial office use and hoped if this does qet to a vote in favor,that certain condittons will be (mposed to help mitigate ihc chang~, Commiastoner Barnes askcd the City Attorney if it ts truc that these tenants cen be givan notice to vacate and be required to pay for moving their double~wide coaches. Jack White explained it is true that the state laws provide that after the prds~ribed one year~ the tenants would be required to move their coaches at their own expense and the Livfi Code only requires that a 12-mo~th notice be given and the other provisions discussed as far as relocati4n only come into play provided there are tenants thGre at the tirr-c the applicatlon for the new use is filed, so it is theoretically feasibte that the ownor could have all the tenants removed by attrition or other mcans after the one year and the city wouid have no power to do anything for the tenents. Commissioner Barnes stated thts ts very difficult for thr Commtssion because there are two issues involved And the first issue Is that the owners can give notice and tenants have to move their coaches at their own expense. She asked about the state law which became effective in January 1981. Jack WhiCe explained he is not awar~ of any state law which would require relocatinn payments in the typc situation where all the tenants have moved. Commissloner Barnes stated shc is also concerned because the developer can get the tenants to move by simply raising the rent because we don't have ren~ control~ so he could raise the rent every month if he wants~ particularly if he is going to make any improvesnents. She referred to the list of improvements which are supposed to be made totaling $230~040. She stated she w~nts the tenants to understand the Commisslon's position because they have all agonized over these situattons because if they deny thts request taday and do n~t reQutr- any relocation expenses, the tenants may not be reimbursed fo r any of their life invsstments. Commissioner Bouas asked 1f chere is any possibility the nwner/developer will consider some benefits for the tenants. I1/16/81 ~:; ~~': ~ ~. ~, s MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, Novembar 16, 1981 81-718 Mr. Heller stated they would not considar benefits at this cime becsuse they hava now taken a 1ega1 stand. Chairmen Bushore ssknd what the next step would be (f the Canmi~sion does noC approve the Negative Declarat{on baaed on what they faal may be edverse conditlons. Jack White staied if the Negative Declaration is not approved, the Commission could not approve the proJect until an environmentai impact report Is prepared; hawevtr~ they could deny the project and the applicant couid then eppeal that dec(sion to the City Council, Commissioner Barnes stated at least the develo~er of the Westwinds proJcct came in with a relocatlon plan and that she realiy doesn't care about the technicalities of the law, but this proJect would be putting a 1ot of people out of thel~ hort-es and this developer Is nat even provid(ng much necdcd affordablz housing. She stated the Commission is charged wlth protrctiny the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim a~~d since the developer is not willing to at least show some compassion f~r the tenants and provide some relocation assistence, she was not sure that a full environmental impact is no[ requlred. Mr. Heller stated he did not feel the Chairman of the Commission should take a position based strictly on an amotional basis and that the answer is still'no because they feel very strong in their legal position; however, if the Commission comes up with a suggestion~ they would certainly be willing to listen and if it is reasonable~ they will certainly give it consideration~ but the Commission cannAt ask them to come up with a figure that the developer will give the tenants. Chairman Bushore stated the Commissioners are tand planners and deal witF~ zo~iny and do impose certain conditions on develaprr~nt Af property which they feel rrould edequately mitigate th~ factors, but the Commission Is not he~e to set values for the developer and it is up to thP developer to come up wiih the figures and then the Commiss(on c~n dreide if they feet the figures are fair. He asked if the petitioner would like a voCe on this matter. Mr. Heller asked if the request would be granted if the developer comes up with a figure which would be satisfactory Co the park tenants, and Chairman Bushore replied he cannot answer that question. Commissioner Fry said it has become increasingly obvious to him that this issue will be pushed inco the courts and that is probably what the applicant really wants and referred to ttem 17 of the staff report which states, "The Mobilehome Park Conversion Impact Report submitted by petitioner does not include any specific proposals for tenant relocatson or economic ass(stance. Petitioner was advised by Planning Deprrtment staff of the need co inciude such infor~~~ation in the Impact Repart prior to application subm7ttal." il/16/81 ~ t,k 5 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1~, 1981 8t-719 ACTION: Chairman Bushore offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissloner Fry and ~I~CARRIEO (Comnissloner Herbst absnnt) that the Mahelm City Pia~ninfl Commission has reviewed the pro~osrl to reclassify subJect property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agrlcuitural) to cha C-R(Cammer~lal~ Recreetton) Zone to permit ~ five (5) story office building on an irregularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of approxtmately 5.9 ac~es located north and west of the northwest corner of Ora~ge- wood Avenue and Manchester Avenue (2111 South Menchester Avenu~ !Orangewood Acres Mnbilehome Park); and does hereby disapprove the Negative Oeclaration from the requirement to prepare an environment~ei Impect report on the basis that there wouid be aignlficant individual ur cumulattve adverse envlronmental tmpacts ; that sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal due to the relocation of approxi- mately 94 mobilehomes causing e disruption to the lifestyles of thase tenants a~d the trauma could lead to or aggr~vate existing medical problems; that moving the coaches would cause traffic congestion problems and potlution to the air; and thet the Inittal Study submitt~d by the petitioner indlcates significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts. Chairman Bushore offered Resol~~tion No. PC81-242 and moved for its passage and adoption that Che Anahefm City Planning Commission does hereby d~ny Rec~asslfication No. 81•82-5 on the basis that the public n~cessity and convenience and general welfare do not require rnclassification of the property. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~: AYES: COMMISSION'.it5: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, KING, MCBURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERB5T Chairman Bushore offered Resolution No. PC 52-243 and moved For its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning f.ommissio~ does h~sreby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2259 on the basis that thc granting of the c.ondi[ienai use permit under the conditions imposed would be datrimental to the p~ace, health~ safety and genera) wetfare of the citiZens of the City of Anaheim, On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING, MC ElURNEY ~OES: COMMIS510NERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NERBST Jack White presented the written right of appeal of Ptannina Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council and explained if the matter is appealed, there will be another public hearing before the City Council and notices will be given. RECESS: 3:20 p.m. RECONVENE: 3~35 P•m• 11/Ib/81 -----.~ ~~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMWISSION, November 16~ 1981 81-720 Immedlately following the break~Commissioner Mc9urney offered a motlon~ 5econded by Conxnissioner Barnes and MOtION CARRIED (Cnmmtssioner Herbst absent) that the Anaholm Ctty Pla~ning Commi~sion dnes hereby reconn~end to the City Counci) that aGtion be taken on the mubilehome park study es soon as possible. ITEM N0. 2: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - L~ASS 1 AND CONOITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. ~ "' ___._..: PUBLIC HEARING, OWNER: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ORANGE COUNTY~ 770 W(lshire Boulevard, Los M yeles~ CA 90017. AGENT: ANTNONY STAMMIElLO~ 511 South State College Boulevard~ Maheim, CA 92806. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of approximately 3.9 acres located south and ~,rest of the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Stace Coliege Boulevard~ 511 South State College Boulevard (Angelo's). Property presnntly zoned CL (COMMERCIA~, LIMITED). CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTI~IG DRIVE- THROUGH RESTAURANT. It was noted the petitioner has requested a 2-wrek continuance. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MO CARRIED (Comr.iis~io~er Herbst absent) that consideration of the aforementioned item be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting oF November 30~ 1981~ at the request of cht petitioner. ITEM N0. 3: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANn VARIANCE N0. 3?.44 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: PETEti F. STRAND~ etal~ 1314 South Euclid 5t~eet, Suite 3~ Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: WHITNEY R. SMITN~ 1517 Fair Oaks Avenue, South Pasadena CA 91Q30. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre locaCed at the southeast corne~ of Palm Lane and Euclid Street (1300 South Euclid 5treet). Property presentty zan~ed CO (Comne~cial Office). VARIANCF REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND (b) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. There was no on~ indicating their present in opposition to subJect request~a~d a!though the staff report was not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Whitney Smith, Architect~ was present to answer any yutstion. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WA5 CIOSED. Commissioner Barnes stated she is concerned about the parking because there have been problems with medical building parking in the past and she felt there is enough roam with the courtyard to provide ~ddit(on~l spaces and asked about compact spaces. After Mr. Smith in~icated he did not know there were regulattor-, permitting compact spaces~ Commissioner Barnes stated there is no such code~ but certain variances have been ailowed because the Commission recognizes alm~st SA$ of th~ veh(cles are compact. Mr. Smith stated he would like to be able to provide compact spaces and stated if the Commission likes the concept of the courtyard, there is an aite~nate plan whicF provides fou~ additional spaces created by twe dead-end corrido~s with 90° parking. He pointed out the proposal on the plans. it/46/81 ~ ~_ ~~ ~;~;~ 81-721 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 16, 1981 Chalrm~n Bushore suggested moving the new driveway easterlY MricSmith'explsined perellel parking alang the curb .nd the eastern boundery. tha trash truek tu~ning radius is 26 tnet and the ehange suggest~d would not conform to the re,quiremn~t. Responding to Chairman Bushore's concern about a hardship an the property~ Mr, Smlth stated he has been rather encouraged because he knows this city is working on a new parking ordinance whlch rrould probabiy permit compact sp~ces~ and that the hardghip is Just thet thny wanted thls number of units. Ne explaincd there is also street c+arking. Chairrr-~n Buslwra stated he did not w~nt to discuss street parktng because that inter- fere~ with street sweeping end also pointed aut there are apartments 1n the area which has created a p~rking problem a;ready and there may be no parking allowad on Eucl!d in the future. He stated there is no hardship on the land and the Commission cannot approve a varianse~~jehOO~ providingptuckeunder parking,y~ « a way architect~irally by makinr~ tl~ecourtyard Mr. Smlth stated the owners like the d~sign of this bulidi~g~ but he would be wi111n9 to meke architectural changes; however. they were hoping the Commiss~on would be agreeable to th~ compact spaces or a minor ~~arience. He staced he worked with o~her city departments in order to conform to all requirements. There was a brief discussion reg~rding alternative ~+lans for parking and Dean Sherer, Assistant Planner pointed out any compact spaces do not conform to code and v~ould require a variante. He stated the Commissian can either deny the variance requiring the applicant to submit plans providing 9 addition~l spaces by perhaps reducing the square footage of Che building. or a cantinuance could be granted in order for the applic~nt to submit revised plans fo~ staff to exomine to make certain that the parking spaces proposed do rt-eet code. Commissioner McBernarkinkeplan withsthehs affdandkMra Smithnresponded~heewc~uld~ike out an acceptab p 9 a continuance. Chai rn-an Bushore staCed he had suggested moving the driveway a~d providing parallel parking betause the Traffic Engineer ha~ sald it would work and because of the problems with the building at the co rner af Ro~eya and Eucl~d which has a similar parking plan a~d people park along the curb ~nyway. He was concerned that the 9 doctors would have associates who wouadkhnve~paPa;mts and was also concerned about the apartments in the o~aa creating p 9 Mr. Smith explained there are nine awners and the project was custom designed for those nine peaple. Ne explained even the storage roam is counted in the calculations ~or thr parking because it is possible in the future to use that a~ea far an off?ce. Chairman Bushore stated the Commission would probably view a variance of 1 or 2 spaces as being within the spirit of the Code. Commissioner McBur~ey suggested denying the requesc without prejudice in order that the applicant wouid not have :.o wait for fr~ur we~ks and Dean She~er explained the ~evised plans mtght ~equi~e a dtffere~t type variance. ACTION: Commissioner McBu~ ~ey affered a rrqtion, seconded by Conrnissioner Bouas and MO~Ibl~CARRIED (Commissio~er Harbst absent) that consideratlon of this maxter be conttr.ued tc+ the regularly scheduled meeting of December 14, 1981~ at the request af the petitioncr in order to submit revised plans. Mr. Smith .~,~~ --c the varianca pertaining to the woll and Chairman ii/16/81 Bushore '•n ~~~°= •~~ 'i~ ~+ot think that would ba a Problem. -__.____...._._.... <:. ,.~_ ._.. , ~ ~ .; • ~ y MINUTFS~ ANAMEIM CITY PLlWNINf COMMISSION~ November 1b, 198i a1-722 ITEM NO. 4- EIa NEGATIVE D~CLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 22~$. _.~.~...,..._...._.._._.. , . _ ~ _.~. .. .--~-~ PUBIIC HEA(tING. OWNER: C. V. MICKS, ATLANTIC RICHFIElO COMPANY~ 300 West Glen Oeks Boulevard~ Glandel~. CA 91202. Prape~ty described as a rectangularlyshaped percet of land consl~ting of epproximately 0.47 acre located at the southeast corner of South Street and State Collego Boulevard (700 South State Coilege 8oulevard). (Arco Service Statlon). PROPERTY ~RESENTIY ZONEO CL. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: To permit e convenience market wlth gasoltne sales. There wera two persons tndtcating their presence in oppositlon to subJect request end although the staFt report was nat read, It Is reterred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Tom Goodmen~ Age;~t~ indicated Cond(tion No, 2 of Interdepartn-~nta~ Cortmittee Recamnendations ts the only area of dlspute with the staff rcport. Bill Boeck, 720 Oakstor.e Way, Anaheim~ stated ho lives approximately three blo;,ks from the site and pointed out thera are already conventence markets one block to th~e south and one block to the north and he did n~t see any need For thls rt-arket. Ne stated he was aiso concerned because these convenience markets are certainiy target_s for robbertes. Fk polnted out there is a Lucky Market and a few other smal) busine~ss establishments in thet aree so it is already a very co~gested t~affic situation and knows the sttuatlon because he shops there freque.ntly ano it is dangerous for vchicles coming off State Colleqe or coming from the south. He stated th(s site was built as a service statinn and th~ s~ructure would not be adequate for a mar~et. Mr. Gaodman stated he had originally said they wanted three of these markets and two have been approved~ with the last one being denied. Concerning the driveways~ he stated the Traffic Department hed requested a driveway be c~osed at the site on Ball Road and they had agreed with the reaso~~ing. He refPr~ed to the request for a facility at fuclid and Broadway winich was denied and the Traffic Depa~tme~t in that situation had ~hown there was a r~ther l~rge number of atcidents at that intersection so it made sense to close the driveway. However~ in this case, no indication has been made that t~~ere hes been an excessive number of accidents at this int~ersection and the T~affic E~ineer is saying he does not wsnt any drivewsys within l0Q feet of the curbli~e which means almost all Rervic~ stetion sites In the City of Anaheim or ev •y oCher city would not 5e appro~riste bccause most service station sites are 15v~x150' and he did not feel this request hy the T~affic Engineer is fair or reasonable. Ne stated if there is a problem at this ~artfcular locetinn, they will be willing to close the access closest to th~ curb o~ South Street; however~ c{osing both the accesses wautd create an inte~nal traffic probltm. Mr. Goodman referred to the opposition's corm~ents concerning che crime rates and stated they have not notice d that to be a problem at the two existing facilities. Concerning the opposition's cortnrents concerning other cenvenience markets fn the area, he stAted they feel ob~iously the~e is a need and their marktina research has shoMm it would be a profitable location. Regard+'ng the opposition's comr~ents regarding traffic. he stated the~e is a shopping center beh(nd the station so there is traffic in and out ~nywdy. THE PUBLIC NEARING 'aAS CL~)SED. Respanding to Commisstoner Barnes' question as to why Arco wants to convert these stations with gas sales do~, Mr. Goodman replied it isn't thst the gas sales a~e so bAd, but becausebustnes~ ~~ the back room is bad since the aversge service sCation ~1r+~` l t ~ .'~ MINUTES~ ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~J,November 16, 1981 81-723 owner cannot compete with ocher large operatlons for the backroom sales, Commission~r Kin9 indicated hi~ concern that thsre wlll be ab~ndoned service statlons if they do not heva reasonabie income from the gasolin~ a~d oil sales, Mr. Gaodman pointed out wh~n tha stetto~s ara converted to convenience markets, the erea is Improved because the~a are no junk cars parked around the statlon and there are no apmre parts lying around with oil and grease~ etc., and at the sert~ time, they wilt be providing a se~v(ce because people can get gss 24 hours a day. Commissloner Fry polnted out the lot is 116'x110' end asked if it would be the sm~llest lot which hss ~oen proposed for converston. Annika Santalahtt~ Assistent Director for Zoning, stated she chought the ones th~ Conmisston has seen were larqer~ but dtd de~y one which was about 85'x125'. Mr, Goodman stated he thought the one approved on Imperlal Is much smaller and Commissioner Fry noted the Ptanning Cammtssion denied that one, but the C~unctl approved It. Comnissioner King felt t~ere wr~uld be ad~quate room. Chal rn-en Busho~e asked steted he was goi~g t~ complated and ChAirman the city and wiil keop ha r~ecal icd Mr. Goodmei of the lots. Mr. Goodman how many of th~se conversions he had originally request. Mr. Goodman r~pllcd hr had said they wanted three Bushore asked if he maant that they wanted thrae throughout making requests unti) they have three appraved. He stated ~ saying he would ~niy ask for three because of tho size Mr. Goodman st~tnd this Is the fourth request ~nd the only one denied was at Euclld and Ba+aadway. Ne stated ortginaily he thought the three would give the clty the opportunfty to see whether or not these markets would be a benefit and that is why he had said he personal~y would only ask for three. He explained someone else had made the application for the station at Ba11 and Brc~okhurst and th~t he had withdrawn the appltcation becAUSe he did not thtnk that location was appropriate. Commissioner King su99ested closing tha two driveways nesrest the intersections and widening the d~iveways furthest Fram the corner, Mr. Goodman pointed out the pumps and steted mast nf the traffic will come from State Coll~ge into the pumps and out aqain onto State College and he did not see how widening thG driveway on South Street woulc~ soive the problem . Commissioner King referred to the drTvew~y nearest the intersectlon on South and stated if the~e are vehicles waitinp to get into the drivGway and traffic cames a~ound the corner~ there will be accidents snd Cnmmissioner Bouas clarified traffic making a turn onto South Streat from State College v+outd create a potential problem. Chairmsn Busho~e auggested meving the pumps and Mr. Goodman responded that would mske the proJect economically infeastble. Commissioner F~y pointed out there are twa schools in that vicinity - South Jr. Nigh and one an Sunkist. Responding to Chatrn~an Bushore's questian~ Mr. Boock pui~ted out the ather convenie~ce arrkats (n the area. Chairmen Bushore stated he had voted ln f~vcar of the ane on West a~d Bsll becausa he felt thare ~ws a need becauae of the tou~ists; howeve~~ he rsviews each case individually and r+aeds to be s~ld on this one becausa he feals the site is too sm~ll a~d there is a circuiatlon problem tieca~sa customer~ will not 11/16/81 ~ M I NUTE S, ANAME I M C I TY PLANN I NG COl~IM I tS I ON, Novembe r 16 , 1981 , 81 7 24 park i n the r~a r and wi 11 pul l up out f ront . Commlasioner Barnes stated the question is real ly whethar or not the Commission f~els this market is needed et thls locatlon and ~~rh~ther ar not it will harm anyone or whether or not it w) l) crsate a traffiG problam, Sha stated the operation of a convenience n+srket will be ciesn~r because the~e would be no storege of vehicles~etc. Respandin9 :o Chalrrr~n Bushore's question concerninq how meny more requests will be rtwd~, Mr. Goodman repl ied hc wi t 1 not make more requests. Fie apologi zed for the mtsunderstanding and steted he still doea not have approval for the three thesy originally wanted. Paul Singer~ Traffic Engine~r, responded to Conxnissioner Ktng's question that he is fami 11ar wl th the problem of the driveways and statod ho bol teved edequate ctrculatton could be obtained by provi ~ ig a single four-pump lsland as well as providing traffic safety off sitc and tnuse two driveways should be ctosad. He sCated he di d not th i nk i t wou 1 d b~ neGesse ~y to move the tanks i nd t cat ing he unde rs tands the tanks are very seldom under the pumps. Mr. Goodme~ stated anything coul d be moved, but the problem is the cost of moving them, He added if the problem is with people making a right hand turn off State Coilege, C`-ey wo~ld not object to closing the South Street driveway ciosest to the curb, but would object to closing the driveway on State College. Commissioner MtcBurnny ask~d if tliis statlon is equippad with a v~por recovery system and suggested when the pi pes are Instal led for that,extra Ilnes could be installed for tho tanks. Charles Hicks~petitioner~ pointed out the taiik§ on the plan and expla{r~ed the suqges•ion for ~ fc~ur-pump island would mean re-piping which would be economically infeas~ble. He stated he was sure thisstati~n already has the vapor recovery system. Mr. Goodman expiained Arco is s i mpiy the fra~chisor t~nd the owner of the statlon pays for the conversion. Commissioner Fry stated the Plsn~(ng Commission cannot take economics into consideration in their decisio~s. Chairman Bushore stated a lot of money will be spent for new display cases for the market and other improvements wl~sich will be economicaily feaslble and asked why it would not be feasible to mak~ tl~e circulation feasibte and sta~ed he felt the developcr should~'required to cb It right in the beginning. Pau) Singer stated he made a study on 8roadway and Euc) id which showed thsre have been numerous accidents caused by these drlvaways. Hc added he has not ~e a study at this partlcular location~ but wanted to point out there are economics involved with traffic accidents. Ne 3tated obviously closinq the driveway closest to the intersection would make traffic m~vement mare safe. Chai rman Bushore st4tcd whe~ steff inekes a recomriendation, they have a reason and no~ed by Mr. Goodman's oMm admission~ ehese ma~kets are new and havn not been there lo~g anough to prove whether or not ihere is a problem. He stated once the market is existing, it wouid be difficult to close the d~iveway, Mr. GoedMan stated they dn rwt be1 feve tnere i s a problem. but i t is ci ty pol icy that the drivaway ciosest to th~ i~t~rsact(on be closed which means there wi 11 never be ona of thase facilitias in the cfty. 11/16i$1 ^^ ~ ` ~ ~ . t MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Nowmb~r 16, 1981 81-72S Chalrman Busho~e ~sked if South Straet is buater thsn West Street~ nating he had voted in favor of th~ fscility on West Street because he did not xhink West Stree t w,~s too busy. Mr. Goodman stated South Street would be busler. Ha stated he understA~de the Commisslon usually support businassn~n and o condition~l use permit should beneflt the a~ea end he thought this market would benefit the srea. Chatrnnn Bushore stated all the Commisston h~s talked about is the circulation and driveway and a potentlal problem becauso of the schools in the arna~ but have not said enything ebout closing down the businesaman. Mr. Goodm~n stated he did not think thore is eny indication from the avidance p rosented Chat the conve rsion of this stat(on to a convenience merk~t will be detrimental to the area. Commissloner 9arnes sLate d she ls concerned about the proposed lighted sic~n on the north beceuse there a~e already e~ough lights in che area to bother the residents. Mr. Goodmen replied thet they would be willing to comply with the city's sign ordina~ce. Chairman Bushare asked if epproval could be granted ~ubject to the petitioner's stipulation that if the treffic is a problem at the end of one year, the d~iveways would be closed. M~. Singer stated the Planning Commisson would have to give staff some criterla for evaluating the situation after the one year period and not just leave it as a blanket ststement. Chairmen Bushores stated the Trsffic Engineer couid preaent a report at the end of one year ss to the number of accidents et that location. Commissloner King asked if the pctitioner is stili against wldening the driveway on State College and ciosing che northerly access with Mr. Goodman replying they a ~e concer~ed about cars coming in a~d out of the ss+ne driveway. Comnissioner Fry asked i f the~e is a riqht turn lsne for t~affiG northbound on State College ont~ South Street and Mr. Singer ~eplfed there is not. Mr. Singer exptained he would want crite~ta established by the Planning Comminslon for the evaluation becsuse heeouldmake the same evalustion in one year and indicated he cauld provide a caliision diagram for the past few months to see whet has happened aY tbat location and he did not know what would occur there in the next six menths that is nat occurring right now. Mr. Goodman stated Mr. Singer made a co'lision report for the intersecttan et E uclid a~d Brosdway and there were nwnerous accidents at that corner away from the spec) ~ c location, but only twb pe~taining ta xhe subJect ingress e~d egrass and indica ted he did not think a report for the whole street would be fair. Mr. Singe~ repiled they evaluate ell the co111slons at the pa~ticula~ locatt~ at the intersaction and that is the prope~ methodology and he would be remiss to c-ot inform the Commissia~ af the entire colli~lon profile at a particular locatlon bo causo a praperty itself is not subject t~ collisions bnd the cor-sideration is the motian and ~xposure to collisions at an inte+'sectlon. Chs! rn~sn 9ushore stat~d a toC of l~r. Singer's a~alysis comes fram studyi~9 tra ffic ~a i tuat i ons th roughout the c i ty and that i s nA~y he nrskes the recomrtwndet i ans . t t/16/61 '.v C~ ~~ ~~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novemb~r 16~ 1981 81•~26 AC~ION: Commissioner King cffered a motion, s~conded by Chetrmen Bushore end MOTION ~T~D (Commission~r N~rbst sbs~nt) that the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon has revtewsd tha p~opoaal to permlt a convenlence mark~t with gesollne seles on a ~ectang- ulsrly-shaped pa~cel of lend consisting of approximstalY 0.4~ ecre locited at the sautheast co rner of South Street and Stste College Boulev~rd (y00 Sputh State College Baulovard (Arco Servlce Statlon)); and does hereby epprovt+ the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepere an n~viranmentai impact raport on the basts that ther• would b~ no significant individu~l or cumulative adverse envi mnmentai Imp~ct due to tha appraval of this Nagativa Decla~ation since the Anahoim General Plan designates the subJact property for genaral commercial land uses commenaurate with the proposal; that no sensittve en~ironmental tmpacts are involved in the p~opoaal; that the In{ttel Study submitted by the petttioner Indicates no significant indivlduel or cumulatlve adversa environmental impacts; and th~t the Negative DeclBration substant- lating thG foregoing findings is on fite in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commlssloner King offered a resotution and mcvad for its pessage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does horeby grant Conditton~l Use Permit No. 2275 for e pArlod af onr year, subJact to the stipulation that the drivewrys closest to State Coilege Boulevard on South Street shall be clo5ed ; subJect to Interdepart- mental Commi ttoe Recomn~endat lon~~ . Chairman Bushore asked Mr, ~,oodman if he would stlpulate that if the Trafflc Engineer recart~nw nds that the driveways be closed after one year~ that they will hor~or that recortrne:nda t i on . Mr. Goodman stated he would have no obSection Ca a stipulatlon that if proof is presented by the Traffic Engineer of a problem, they will close the d~iveways; howevar, Mr. S(nger has indicated that his posic~on todey will be the same next year~so he couid not make the stipulation based on i;is recomn-endatinn, but besed on the ~evidence presented to the Commission and after the Commission has made a findtng that thay should be cl~sed. Comnissioner Fry stated he would not vote in favor becsu:e he feels State College is one of the busiest strmets In the city and thts facility would do nothing but increase the problems. Ne stated he `elt the lot slze !s siightiy inade~~uatc~ in addition ta traffic involved with the schcx~ls and southbound traffic on State College trying to turn left.He remindcd Coms~issioner King he was not ooncerned aboutthe station bsing aba~doned bec~use of the recentiy enacted ordinance which would force the ~emc,va) of an ~bandoned service statio~. Cortrnlscione~ Sarnes asked if the petitionerhas stipulated to closl~~y; th,e driveway in ane year if the Commission determines there it a traffic proble~n, Jack White~ Assistant Lity Attorney~ strited the Comrr.is~icn Is combining two different things, one being a tin~e tl~rit for the conditlonal use permit and a time Ihmit on a cendition. He said if tho oniy concern is that if evidence Is presented in one year which proves that o~e driveway should be closed~ the c4ndition should be so worded. Fie added Commissioner Ki~g's tesoiutio~ was frr the whole permit to be limited to o~e year. Mf. Goodman stated they would have a p~oblem converting the station Nith a one year time limit and if the o~l~y issuc is a driveway~ the cnndition should hava a one year time limit to review that issue only in one yesr. He st~sted he was concerned about whet elae tha Ccxnmission snay con+e up with in o~e year. He stated he is nat concerned about che driveway. O1/16/81 ~~ i f, .. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novembe~ 16~ 1981 81'127 Jack Whit• statad he is concerned because the Plannin9 Commisston ta severely handlcapping thamselves becsuse currently the cSty has th~ pawer to review the permit If tha use Is creating a problem and if ihe drtvewey is the cause of acctdents, but with this appro~al aA steted~ the Commisaton would be saying the drtveway could ~amnin open for une yedr. Ha stated he thou9ht tha Commission would be restricting itself more than h~iping the situation and there may be a problem in threa months. Commissloner King ~emoved the one year time llmit from his resolutton and placed no rest~ictions on t~e d~tvewaya. On roll call the foregaing rnsolution failed to cerry by the foltowing vote: AYES: BAIIN~S, KING, MCBURNEY NOES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FaY ABSENT: HERBST Jack Whita stated the matter would be contlnued because of the tie vote. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by CommisstonorBarnesand MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Nerbst absent~ that considerati~n of the foregoing matter be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of Novembar 30, 1981, due to a tie vote. Mr. Goodman stated he thought a maJorlty vote would be necessary to approve the matter so with a tie vote the matter would be automatically denied. He stated he would iike to be able to go to the City Councii with the matter, Commissioner Barnes stated sha would not withdraw her second for a cont(nuance beceuse the Planning Commisston is suppased to be land Rlanners and the City Cauncil does~~ t devotc themselves vary much to planning and the Planning Commission is supposed to make the decisions on planning. Jack White stated anyone voting in favor o~ the con~inuance coutd offar a mation for reconsideratio~ and Chainnan Busho~e felt the motion wouid not carry. ITEM N0. 5: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION wAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEN7 AND COND1710NAL USE PU9LIC HEARING. OWNER: BENkER SIIE~T METAL, INC.~ 2871 East La Cresta, Maheim CA 92806. AGENT: LOUIS A, BENNER~ 2l9 South Lemon Stre~t, Anahelm~ CA 92805• Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcei of land consisting of approximately 1.7 acres located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue. approximately 920 feet west of the centerline af Red Gum Street (2860 and 2870 East Miraloma Avenue). CGNDITIONAL USE REQUESt: TO PEftMIT A METAI RECYCLtNG CENTER IN THE MR ZONE WITN WAIVER OF REQUIRED ENCLOSURE OF OUTDOOR USES. It was noted ;he petitioner had requestr.d a two week continuance in order to submit revised plans and ta re-advertise the Code waiver. ACTION: Comntss~ianer King offered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas and i~~N CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that cansideretio~ af the aforemen- tianed item ae concinued to the~egularly-scheduled meeting af Novembe~ 3A,1981, at the request af the petitioner. 11/16/81 ~t;: MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIfIG COMMISSION, Novomber 16~ 1981 $I-728 ITEM N0, b; EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WA_IVER nF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONOITIONAI, US, E ERMIT N 227 _; PUBLIC HEARING; OWNER: SHIOW-INC LIN AND fANG-LING LIAO, 426 Wes~ 8a11 Road, Anrheim~ CA 928c.. Property desc~ibed as a rectangularly-shaped percel af la~d consisting of approximataly 7000 square feet, 1 x ated an the north side of Ba11 Road spproximately 105 feet east of the centerline of Westvele Orive (3347 west Batl Road). CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A COMMERCIAL USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. There war~ two persons ind(cating thetr presence in opposttion to subJect request~ and although the staff report was not read~ it i5 referred to and madc a part of the minutes. Shiow-i~g Lin~ owner, explained the proposal is to rent this structure for a doccor's office and the hours of operatlo~ are proposed From 8 a.m, to 6 p.m., Mond~y through Saturday. She ex~~lalncd the docto~s are husband and wife, with one working in the morni~g and the other in the afternoon. Concerning th~ parking, shc explained the patlents can be scheduled by appoincment for two at a tin-e and there will be four employees so she did not think there would be a parkinc~ problem. Mrs, ThQmas J. Peck~ 3341 w. Decrwood, stated due to the hour of this meeting, the majar{ty of thc neighbors who are op~osed to this requsst are working and asked her to pres~nt this petition obJecting to the requcst: "We the undersigned obJect to the proposed parkiny changes as set forth in Conditional Use Permit No, 2278. The residents particularly on Oeerwood Drive have berely enough parking spaces For their awn needs and it (s a dead-end st~eet and they already have problems with trafftc turning around with parking next to the barricade and creati~ng a hazard in the event emergency equiprt~nt is needed and respectfully hope you witl deny this waiver." 7he petitton was signcd by 15 persons. Ms. i.in stated they wish to convert this structure no longer suitable for residential purpases d+~e to there are elso businesses on both sides. She expl, and will not interfere with traffic on Ball Road. use vsiet parking~ pointing out there art at least the garage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. for conmerciai uses because it is tPaffcc noise from Ball Road and ~~ned the parking is in ehe rear She stated if necessary they could twc> ,paces in the middle beside Chairmain Bushore stated the plans indicate the garage wiil be con~-e~ted.He asked Ms. Peck if the parktng problem in the neighborhood is a resuit of overflow parking from the Dusinesses and Ms. Peck reptied the existing businesscs have adequatG parking available~ but she was concerned bacaus~ only two parking spaces are proposed. Chairman Bushore pointed out the proposed 8 spac~s an the plans ~nd stat~d if the two existing bus'~esses are not causing a problem~ it would be hard to not give these people an ample opportunity. He explained the uses are there under a con~iefona) use permle and tf they do cause a parking problem, chr, Conmission can review the situation. Ms. Peck pointed out the building ta the east is not occUpied at the present time. Chairman Bushore stat~d he understands the cflncerns but it sounds like the parking p~oblem is c~used by the residents themsalves. 11/16/81 '`.~^; i 3 MINUTE~~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING Cn~1MI5SI0N~November 16, 1981 81- )!A Commisstone~ Barnes ssked what kind of doctars will be occupy~~h this property and how man; amining rooms they will have. Ms. Lin replled one is sn orthopedist and the ather is a cancer apeclalist and there wili be rhree examining rooms and the doctors will not reslde at the residence. Commissioner 9~r~es asked tf the gert~ge will be available for parking by the first members of the staff to arrive. Chairman Bushore pointed out the pl~ns tndicAtG the garaqe will be converted to a filing room and if th(s is approved, it will be based on the plans submitted and he felt the elght s~aces will be adequate. Commlssi~ner Ba~nes agreed especially with only three examining rooms ~+nd pointp~' out the doctor's office next door has S spaces end this appears to be the sar~ type operation. Commissl~ner King stated parking Is Available In front af the property on Bali Road. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered a rtr~tir~n~ seconded by Commissioner Fry and MO-~ION--CARRIEO (Commission~r Nerbst abseni) that the Anahelm City Planning Commission has rev(ewed the proposal to permit commercial use of a residential structure with walver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land consfsting of approximately 7000 square feet located on the north side of Ball ~oad~ epproximately 105 feet east oF the c~nterline of Westvale Qrtve (33~+1 West Ball Road); and daes hereby approve the Negative Declaratio~ f~om the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significant individual o~ cumuletive adverse environmental imNact due to che approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-de~slty residentiai land uses commensuratc with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petltioner indicates ~o signficiant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning D~partment. Cortimissioner Barnes offered a mution~ scconded by Comnissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbs[ absent) Chat the Anaheim Gity Planning Conxnission dces hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that denial would deprive su~ject p roperty of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity. Commissioner Barnes offered Resoluti~n No. PC81-244 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Gonditional Use Permit No. 2278 subJect to Interdepartmentat Lammittee Recommendations. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, prescnted the written right of appeal. lt/l6/81 1 ~. r. MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Novembe~ 16, 1981 N0. 7: EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION, REVISION TO SANTA ,~ ~ 81-73n YON ROAD ACGESS POINT PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ANAHEIM HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCN~ 5401 East La Palma Avenue, Anahelm~ CA 9z807. INITIATEQ BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM. Property desGrlbed as an irregularly-shap0d parcel of land consistlnc~ of approximately 10.8 acres having a frontage of epproximately 400 fect on the soukheast side pf Santa Ana Canyon Raad, approxim~tely 500 fect east of the centerline of Eucalyptus Road. The City af Anahelm Requests a revision la Exhibit No. 7 of the Sante Ana Canyon Road Access Po(nt Study as part of a prevlously-approved access plan for an approved church and educatlonal facility. Dean Sherer, Asslstant Planner, presented the staFf report to the Planning Commission dated November 16, 1981. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney~ explalned the access rights at th(s location on Sa~te Ana Canyon Road have b~een dedicated to the Stbte of California and acquired by the City of Anaheim and as part of the process before access can be taken, the City Cc~uncil will hold a public hearing for the prupos~ of vacating the dedicated access which it now holds. He stated the Council may wish to require the purchase of those access rights by imposing a fec upon the property owner such as is currently being negotiated with the Langslet development. He stated the final prccedure for taking access is not the amendment to the study~ but r~ther is the proctss for actual vacation af the access rights. ACTION: Corrmissioner Barnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioncr lierbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to c:onstruct additional access onto Santa Ana Ganyon Road as a part of an approved church and educational facility, said access proposed on the sauthesst side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, appr~ximately 500 feet east nf the centerline of Eucalyptus Rc~ad; and does herpbY approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prep~re an environmental impact report on che basis that there would be no 3ignificant individual or cumulative adve~se environmental impects due to the approval of this Negative Declaration; and that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved tn the prop~~sal; that the Initial Skudy submitted by the petitioner indicates no signific.:~t individual o~ cumulaCive adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiati~g the foregoing findings is on fi1~ in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Cortmissioner Barnes offered Resolution No, PC81-245 and m~ved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planninq Corrmiss~ ~~ daes hereby reconn~nd to the City Council that the Access Points tn Santa Ana Canyon Road as indicated an Exhibit No. 7 of Ctty Cauncil iiesolution ko. 66R-27 be revised to include a new access point designated as 12, as shawn on Exhibit 1 herein. On roll call the foregoing resolution wes passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ SOUAS, BUSHOaE, FRY, iGiNG, MC BURNEY NOES: ~OMWISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISStONERS: HERBST 11/t6/81 ~a t ; x .e , ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 16, 1981 IR NEGATIV~ D~CI.ARATION and GENERAL P ~,~ 81- 731 T N0. 172 - LANO U5E PUBLIC HEARING, INITIAT~D BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Property described as approxi- mately 3.~ acres bounded on the north by Cypress Straet, south by Lincoln Avan~~e, east by an alley and Helena Street~ and west by Harbor Boulevard. This City-Initlated General Plnn Amendment is to consider alternatn proposais of land uses from the current medium density residential designetion ta y~neral commnrcial des(gnat(an. ~ommissione-' Dushore daciared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission aeiotution No. rc76-157 adopting e Conflfct of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625~ et seq.~ in that he has a contractual agreernent with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency as their acqutsition agent; that pursuant to the provislons of the above Codes~ Ceclared that he was withdrawing from the heartng in connection with EIR No. 189 and GPA 172 and that he would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any mcmber of the Planning Commission, Thereupon Commissloner Bushore left the Council Chambe~•s at 5:03 p.m. Cha(rman Pro Tempore Fry assumcd thG chair. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning C~mmission dated November 16, 1g81, noting the subJect amendment consists of two areas: 3 1 acre undeveloped site bounded on the north by Cypress Strcet~ south by Chartres Street, east by an atley and west by Harbor Boulevard; and a 2.1 acre sitt currently developed with commercial office bu(idings (E1 Camino Business Center). There were five perspns indicating their presence at the public hearing. Gary Mascie1,1127 W. North Str~et, Anaheim~ stated he is representing his family whu currently owns the parcel at 218 N. Harbor; that the property is onc acre and is tocated just south of Pearson Park a~d his father has owned it f~r 18 yea~s. He stated an eminent domain actton was taken in February 1979 to take possession of the property and they met with the Agency and staff many times to try to conform to the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan Guide to Development as an owner participant; that theY met wlth PAC in May 1981 with the residents of Helena and Clementine present and thaC area is currently undergoing restoration of the existing dwellings. He stated PAC voted 10-0 in f~vor• of residential use. Ne stated they ehen made thetr proposal to the Redsvetopment Commission for the right to negotiate with the Agency and in Ju~e 1981, che Radevelopment Commission voCed 5-1 approving the right to negotiate. He explained they had stated in both the PAC meeting and the h'sdevelopment Carwnission meeting that they were willing to develop a commercial proJect ~ but that they werc guided through the Agency and the Planning Departrnent to go along with the Rede~elbpm~ent Guide for Development and the General Plan to develop medium density residential uses. THE PUBLIf, HEARING WA~ CLOSED. Mr.Masciel clarified for Commissianer Barnes that his father's property is the 1-acre parcel located approximately in the middle of the other seven parcel currently owned by the city and the development was for the entira acre for residentia) uses. Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney, painted out that during Redevelopment Agency consideration of a 9~-day Exciusiva Right to Negotiate Agreement for a residential proposal with Mr. Mascial, they directed a Generai Plan Amendment study to co~sider >>i~bia~ ~{ ~ / MiNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSfON~ November 16~ 1981 81-~;? the fessibility of commercl~l development on the aubJect stte. Stewart Moss, Anahelm Redevelopment Commission~ stated in June the Redevelopment Comnission did vote tn favor of granting the Masc(els the exclusive right to negotiate ~ but the Commtsston did not say that the development would have ta go one way or another and the subsequent ection here if 1t should be granted to change the Redevelopment Plan to commercial rather than residential~ does not preclude medium density residential in that area. He ~dded it is simply a matter of teaving thetr options open end giving themselves e greater latitude for development. He stated (t is his personal feeling that this property is more suitable for commercial daveloprtrent becaus~ it faces ane of the more busier screets. Chairman Pro Tempore Fry stated he would agree since it is on Harbor Boulevard~ commercial uses would be more appropriate on Harbor with residentfel uses, perhaps, east of that on the other side of the atley~ especially this particular parcel to the north. Mr. Moss stated that statement comes with full consideratian for the needs of residential in tl~is araa, but feit we need ta take a hard took at where to tocate residential arees within Che urbanized/commercialized areas of the city. Commissioner Barnes stated she is worried about that strip of land; that she has no objection to putting units on tt for living~ but 1s worried about strip cortn~rcial which is one of things the Cammisson has tried to avoid ; that she questlons whether m~re strtp commercial is needed in the downtawn area, but felt n~ybe it shauld be commercial office uses. She asked if the property can be purchased if it is planned for commercial retail. Mr, Mc~ss stated he did not think the price has been tocked in; that the Masciels do have on exclusive right to negotiate with the R~development Agency at this time for the purchase of ail eight lots and they would probably be the developers of that property. Commissioner Barnes felt redesignaLing this property to commercial retail would be locking the price ~f the property in at the retail level. Mr, Moss stated he did not fecl commercial retail is thc probable development of that property; that development in that area has not been in that direction and he has ~o reason to believe that it would go in that direction at this time. He added he felt it woulcJ be comnercial office in keeping with the rest of the development in that immediate area. Commissioner Barnes agreed and stated she would like to see it developed commercial office, and ther~ needs to be an Exhiblt B for comrtiercial offize uses. Commissioner McBurney stated cortmerctal retail would not be the proper use for that property because of the traffic on Harbor Boulevard. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Jay Tashiro explained the southerly 2.1 acres is develQped with three commercial office buildings and is already zoned for commercial of~ices. He stated the General Plan designation as proposed an Exhibit A indicates it is General Commercial which permits offices and retail sto~es; howeve~, it can be made more restrictive wtth a commercial professtonai designation. Jack White .tated the designatton co~ld be approved as designated on Exhibit A and still have the flexibility when it comes to zoni~g to zone it either comnerciai office or commercial retail; that if a change is desired it is much easier fram a 11/16/81 ~, ~ t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Novemb~r 16, Ig81 81- 7;3 ' zoning atandpoint to amend both the General Plan and the Redavlopment Pian. Mr. F1oss stetad tho Coam{ssion has one additional control on the development of the property because any devnlopmsnt of the property must ~o through the Corx-}ssion and Redevalopment Agencv; that Gonslderation of the use of that land as commercial office or commercisl retail would certainiy be welghed ve~y carefully bafore any decision would be m~de~ pa~ticularly to thesuitebility at that time at that locakion. Commissloner Barnes steted the Ptanning Commission does not want to see commerclal reta(1 on that property and she did not see why they shauld approve this for Gommercial retall which would be a waste of averyone's time~ includtng developers ard the Planning staff. Mr. Moss stated they are looking at the development of a strip of land and hava no sure idea of what type devel~pment they are lookin~ at in the future ~nd have no knowledge how lrmg the area will stay resldenti~l. He clarifled he is not implying there ar~ any plans to change the residnntial use~ but laoking aheed, they have no idea what will happen ta the ~ntire area. 11e steted if they shoutd be ticd into office uses, it wauld become difflcult co get out of tt in the future. Commisslaner Barnes stated i1` the Planning Commisston approves this~ tect~nically Chat st~ip could be developed co~ercially with a General Plan M~endment later on the rest of the property. Mr. Mess stated the Agency has absolute contral over the type of develapment.. Joel Fick, Assistent Director for Planning~ stated he believed Mr. Masciel had indicated the approvat of an ame~dment would also allow flexibillty fpr either mu1tl-family cr commercial and that is true to an exttnt since the property is zoned RM-1200, but if the property were to be proposed for a condominium subdivision~ a conflict wouid arise with the Subdivision Map Act and it would be required to conform with the General Plen. Commissioner Barnes stat~d she stil) thinks the Lommission shoutd go ahead and approve the General Plan for what they fecl should be on the praperty and give a clear indication to the Councit and Agency. Mr. Moss stated he wAS Just info rmed that the h~asciels had not been granted an exclusive right to negotiate. Commissioner Barnes stated then she thinks it ls even mare important for the Cortmissian t~ make its wishes known on that property because therc wiil be a lot of people interested in it. 1t was noted Enviranmental Impact keport No. 189 was previously approved. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered Resotiution No. PC91-246 and moved for its passage and adoption that the A~aheim City Planning Cortrnission da:s hereby recommend ta the City Councit adoptio~ of Genaral Plan Amendrr~ent No. 172~ Exhibit "B" designating the ar~ea for Commercial ~rofessional uses. Jack White explained subdivisions would have to be found in conformity with the General Pian and the Redevelopment Plan and the Ex~cutive Di~ector has to approve buiidi~g permits as being in conformance wtth that plan~ so to say technically that eve rything eise le~s tntense Is not really necessarily true, but it would preclude rtere intense uses such as ratail sales. ~ 11/16/81 ~ << .. ~,. . '~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 16, 1~$1 On roll call the foregoi~g resolution was passed by the follc~wtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BQUAS~ FRY, KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; HERBST ~ ~ 81-73~ 1 0. RECOMMENOATIQNS ----- - The follewin~ Reports and Recorimendations staff reports were ~+~esen~cd but not ~eed: A. tENTATIV~ TRACT NOS. tOqB'i t, 1~481~ - Re~uest from Keufman A~d aro~+d~ Inc., or approval o -~ I speci Ic p1Ans for property located at the southeast corner af Santa Ana f.anyon Road and Welr Canyan. ACTION: Commtsslorer King offerc~d a mation~ secended hy Crnx~tsslener Bouas and OTIQN Cl1RRIEU (Commisslone~ Flerbst being ahsent)~ thAt the Anaheim City Planntng Commtsslon does hereby epprove ftnal st~eciftc p1Ans for Tentetive Mep af Tract Nas, 1~19~3 enci 1~1~1~1+. El. RECLASSIFICATICt~ N0.__ • 8-1 - Re~uest for extension of ttme frcxn Anahelm I~T~rTs ~ nc., or approx marely a~ acres located on the south s lde of Nc~hl Ranch Road. ACTIOy; Commfss(oner King affered a motion~ se~anded by Con~lsstoner Bouas and OTION C1IRRIEO (Conmtssioner lierbst bein~ ahsent) ~ thAt the Anaheir~ City Planninc~ Con~-mission does hereby g~ant ~~ one-year retr~activr cxtension of time for Reclaasiftcatlon No. 77•78-1 to expire an August 15, 1982. C. ADANDONMENT N0. ~1-11A - Request from M~. Errol M. Foremaster, to abandon a ormer Southerh Cali ornla Edison Company easement~ located north of Mi~aloma Avenue and west af .lefferson Street. It was noted the Planning Olrettor or his autho~t2ed rep~es~ntattve has ~; determin~d that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of j Categorical Exempttons~ Class 5, as defin~d in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Envi~onme~tal Impact Report Guidelines and is. therefore, categorically exempt from the requtrement ~o ~repare an EIR. ACTION: Canmissioner l:ing off~~ed a motior, seconded ~v Canmisstoner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flerbst betrtg absent), Lhat the Anaheim f,ity Planntng Canmission does hereby recommend to the City CauncTl approval of Abandonment No. 81-11A as reconm-ended by the City Engincer. 11/16/81 ~ ~~•? ' 81 a35 s MINUTES~ ANANE~M CI1'Y PLANNING ~OMMISSION, NpVEMBER 16, !^81 `; t1. PROPOSED TH I aQ IIMENQN[NT TO REDCVEIQPMEIaT PROJECT ALPH!- - Renuest f ~om Anahe m Redevo o~rnent Ag~ncy that t Q P ann ng Commtse 011 recommend to th~ City Cauncil certtficati~n nf the init~el Study of Environment~l im~ects included in the Rspo~t to the CitY Councit~ ~+nd elaa re~uests that the Canmtsaton adc-vt a re~~rt +~p~ravlnc~ or disep~r~ving the procx~sed Amendment. ACTION: Commisslo~er Barnes offered Resolutian No. PC81-247 a~d moved for tr a passe~~ and adoptlan that the 1lnahetm Ctty Plannin~ Canmisslan does ho~eby roconanond thet the City C~uncil certify the initinl study of environmenta) irrpacts with resnect to the pre~sred thlyd r~nendm~nt to the Redevelopment Pla~ for Redevelopment ProJect Alphe. ~ On roll cali~ t1~e foregaing resc~lution was pass~d by the falla~wing vote: i AYES: CONMISSIO-ItRS: BARNES. 8011AS. FRY, KIN~, McBURtJEY , NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: NQNE ApSENT: CONMI$SIQf1ERS: BUSiIORE, NERflST Commissioner Barnes affe~ed Rasolution No. PC81-2-i~ and moved for its passege and adoption thet the Anaheim City Planning Commisston dc~es hereby recommend that the City Councii approve ~nd sdont proposed Third Mnendment ta the Redevelo~nt Plan for Rednveloc„nent F~o.lect Alpha. ;, On roll ca11, the foregoiny resolutton was nessed by the follar-inq vote: L f AYES: COMMtSSI011EaS: BARNES. BOUAS, FRY~ KING~ MtBURNfY ~ NAES: COMMISSIOHERS; NONE A~iSENT: COMMI SS I Ot1ER5: BU5110RE, IIERBST ADJOURNhENT There baing Ro further business, Commisstoner Kinq offered ~ motion. seconded by Commtssioner E3ouas and NQTION CARRICD~ that the meeting be ad~ourned. The rnceting was adJournad mt 5:35 p•^~• Respectfuliy submitted, ~~, ,~ %i~~~.+~.~:. Edith ~. tlarris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commisslo~ EN:Im 11/t6/91