Minutes-PC 1974/12/090 ~t C 0 MICROFILMING SERUICE, iNC.
~ i
Cily Null
Anahelm, Culiforaia
Decembor 9, 1974
KF.CtILAR MEL:TING OF 'C}i[' ANAHCIM CT'PY YLANNLNC COI~IT.SSIQN
RCGULAIt - A regulnr meeting of the Anah~im City Planning Commigsion W~~s called tu
MEETINC order by Chalrm~u Herbet at 2:00 p.m, in the Council Chamber, a quorum
being preAent.
PRESENI' - CHAZItMAN: Her.bst
- COMMI5SIONERS: l~arnna, Gauer, Juhnca~r, King~ Morley~ 1'olar
AIISGNT -• COFII~tISSIONF.RS; None
ALSO PRESGN'C - Assietnnt Development Servir.ey llirecCor• Roncil~ 'I'hompson
C:1ty ~ngineer: J~mes Ma~jdox
Traffic Engineer: Paul Sir~g~r
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Deputy City ACtorneyt Frunk Lowry
Zoning Supervlsor: Charles Roberts
Asalgtant Zuning Supervisoz: Annika SantalaY~l.i
Asaietant Planner: Robert Kelley
Commission Secretary: PaLricia ~canlan
PT~~llGE OF - Commissioner Kit~g led in tlie Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
ALLtiGIANCI: llnited St~stce of Ameri.c~.
APPROVAL OF - Commisatoner Johnson offered u motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and
THF MINUTES MOTZ()N CA1tRIEn, to approve the minutes of Che meettng of. November 25,
1974, as subm:ltte~i.
GNVIRONMENTAL liQ'P.CT - JOHN D. I..USK & SON, P.O. Box 2140, Npwpcrt Beach, Ca. 9'2663
REPORT N0. 132 (Developer); HOI'EN, HEDLUND & DARBY, INC., 3030 West Main Streer,
" ^ Alhambra, Ca. 91801 (Engineer). Subject property, consisting of
TENTATIVE MAP OF approximataly 87 acres tiaving a frontage of approximately 3209
TRACT NOS. 8418 feet on the norCh aide of Nohl Ranch Road, naving a maxi.muca depth
AND 8647 of approximately 1800 f.eet, and being located approximately 1.910
- feet east of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road, is propose~i for
subdivzsion as folluws:
T.ract No. 8418 - 40.6 acres - 104 R-I~--10,000 lots; and
Tract No. 8647 - 46 acres - 97 R-H-1.0,000 lots.
The s~ib~e~t ~rattecs were continued from the meetinga of Auguat ~9, Sept.~mber 30,
October 14, N~~vember 11, and November 25, 1974, as requested by the petition.er in order
to permit preparatiun of revised plana.
Mr. William T.uak, Pre4ident of John D. Lusk 6 Son, t}ie developer, appeared hefore the
Commisaion and displayed a revised map which he stt-ted was for discuesion purpuses onl.y.
Mr. Lusk etated they been work,ing with the Peralta Hills Homeewner,~ Associa~ion, and had
conducted studies so that the preoent plan Eatisfied most of the ob,~ections; and that they
were propoaing that most of the previously-•proposed graded banks be left natural. There-
upon, Mr. Lu~k t'equested Mr. Roland Krueger, a homeowner in the area, to c~mmenC rF~arding
the revised map.
*~r. R~land Krueger, 5F1 Peralta Hills Drive, appeared bef~*e the Commission and atated
that, in the opinion of the homeowners in Che area, thr revised msp ur plan was an impro~•e-
ment over the prior submission sin~e more of the natural slopes were being uaed and there
wexe n~t a:~ many banka proposed; that although there was some reduction of [he banks at
the easr. end, Che property owners were atill somewhae disapPointeci with the refinement of
the original mass gradiug plan and some direction from ~he Planning Commission uppeared to
be neceasary; that it was hts understanding that the directive from City Council was thar.
there should be some attempt aC an alter-iative plan tc reduce the massi.ve grading and he
had not seen gny auch alternative; that one of tt^e itema previously diacussed was ~i
tranaition area betwe.:n the propoaed development and the one•acre estate developmenta in
the areA; that the new Grading Or.dinance was important Co coneider for the auhject tract;
i4-554
~ •
M1.NUT[:S, (:1'i'Y 1'1.ANNINC COMMiSSiUN, Dc~camhc~r 9, 1974 74-S:~S
FNVIRUNMLNTAI, 'LI~ACT_Itl:l'~)"T Nl). 132,AND TI:NTA'flVE MAPS OI~ 'PfN(:'f NOS. 8G18 ANll H6~~7 (Cont'd
t.hut li~ d.id not llke h~•S~~g negutive ~1l the time eince ther~ had been e~ma verY 5~~~'d
cunti~~arnttc~n with Che.~ d~~vel.opcr. Mr. Kru~qer then displnyc~cl u map tnr cu,ieider~it i.on by thc:
Planning CommisHioii Nhowing th~~ grnd~d urear~ und Che niitural slorrN, olc., and stuted ti~ac
some sl.ope irom the ene~t t, wesC for dratnug~~ purpc~aes wa~ neccHeury; and that t~igh biu~ke
werc~ pro{~osed nexl t.u r.he property ownr.J by Mr. Krnem~~r. He yueetioned whether the vary
atc~p 1~~:1 (i1.UP4'fl wuuld he ~ccnptnble to [he Cit~~.
In rebuttiil, Mc. LuHk stuCed they hnJ beun trying to w'~rk out. chc prohleme hroughC out by
Mr. Krueger, nnd Ch~t pethnpe the widCh of. the lote backing up ~.~ the exisetng ono-acrct
eataCea Hhc~ula ~c +zdjudl~a; [hat iC wre doubtful thr~t t1ieY could build on th~ extrem~
southe~st lot in t'ie development; und thHt e11 of. the green lynake lndicnted on tha miap,
wht~ther privn~el y c~wned or public, wou1J be maic~tainecf by ~hc homeawn..rA n~sociatlon tu
inaure uniforn-i[y of muintenance, not dapendc~~t upon indLvidual homeownere in tt3e urea.
Chnir.mnn Herbec noted thu~ the trnnsltion from wt~uC ~xieted in Chc surrounding area ~~ th~
type development proposed ~ppeare~l to be one of the moot touchy itemg in Perelta Hills;
and that t1~e t:rnnsition w~uld be upon ttie subiect developm~nt to miCigate~ wt-ich could
pertinps bc accompllshed by a row oE one-ucre esCAtes ae part uf tha Aub jec t~ro j e.cC .
In rebuttul, Mr. Luek ~tated thore might be n problem in c~~necti~n with the atrcet load
with r.he addition oE a r.ow r~t' one-xcre e~3cute~ being conetcur_ted to nhut the exieting
Perfiltn Hi.ll.y development~ und Commiasi~~~ier Morley question~d if tha Per.al.tu Hilla raei-
dents w~uld h~~ unhuppy wiCh a tew more care in thnt nrea. Mr. Krueger then 9tatc+d Chat
the strcetR service th~ row of oiae-acre eatatea would have tu be ~ ~~rivate road, and he
sugp,ested Chat ttie properL,y be purch.l~ed and annexed to Peralta Hllls.
In rebul•ta.l, Mr. A1 Saldivar, Project Deeigner for. the devel.oper, appe.nred before tt~e
Commi.sr~ion :~nd queationed t~ ~w tlie sew~r.s~ water linea nnd roada w~uld be pei~i fc.r for the
row of one-ncre E•state~, ~ncl staCed th~t in the Canyon ttioae items would be very expenaive.
Mr. Luek ther staCed ehat they could br[ng n nlan before the Commisaion to ehow che 11.
one-acre e~tate lots which would serve as a buf fer, however, th~ slopes themaelves would
serve as a buEfer hetween Che two lund u~ea; and thaC there would be a bank no matter. how
the mal•ter wav reso~ved.
Commisaioner Morley then axplained that the purchaser.s of the 11 one-acrP eatates would
kn~w what they w~~re bu,vl.ug next to, l~owever, the Peralta Hille homeowners were nlready
there and did not wish L-o have the banka.
Chairman Herb~t noCed Lhat if a plnn ws~a devel.o}-ed ttiat wa.s acceptable to the Peraltn
Hills homeowners, it wc~uld l;e easier for the Plnnning Comcni~sion to come to f.avorable
concluslons.
Discussio•i puisue~ regarding maintenance of slopes, during which lleputy City Attorney
Frank Lo~ry advised that ttie City of Mr:heim did not have the power to enforce CC&R's,
however, 1C&R's were sub~ect to the ap~raval of the City. Commissioner Farano expressed
conc~rn regarding the cost to r_lie homeowners for maintenance of the slopes and especially
if a caajor expenditure was incurrad in connection with ~sid maintenance which wne in
excess of moncy available in the tteasury for the hameowners assoc:ir~tion.
I^. reaponse to ouestioning by +.ommissioner 'fotar~ Mr. Don Steffeneon, Vice Preaid~nk of
Lusk Corparation, appeared before the Commissioit and stated that the slopes inaide the
proposed development were 1~:1; Chat their utarketin~3 study indicated that the direct• coeC
to the developer woul.d be wore than what the~~ cou].d sell. one-acre siter~ for; that based un
the topography, the coc~ts would not change wit_h a lec~s intentie use; and that the pla.n
presented was feasible from L-heir Atandpoint as a development.
Mr. Krueger added ttiat the ~arrow ].ota of 50-GO feet were big enaugh only because of tl~e
banks, howevei•, i.f half-acre lots or 100-£oot lota were used that would help with the
transition are1.
'ftiereupon, Mr. Lusk icidicated tliat he would meet with Mr. Krueger and tne Peralta Hi.lls
t~omeownera right away, and he requeoted a continuance for consi~leration of ttie subject
tracts to the meering cf .;anuary 6, 1975.
Commlaeion~~r ~~+~u..: offered a motion, »econded by Commissioner Mori.ey and MOTZON CARRT.ED,
to furtl,~r continue consideration of Envir~nmental Inpact Report No. 132 and Tentative
Mapa of Tr~.ct Nos. 8418 and 8647 to Che meeti.ng of January 6, 1975, as requestzd by the
petitioner cor aubmission of reviaed plane.
~ ~
MINUTES, CL"I'Y P1.ANNINC CUhQ11SS10N} pecemhar 9, 1974 '4-556
VARIANCI: N~~ . 2645 - CONTLNUF.U PU[1LIC HEARINC. I.. V. BOS'I'WTCK, 20f1 W~et Midwny Urive,
~ Ani~hc lni, Cn, 92805 (Ownar) ; requesl•lnq WAiV~R OF (A) PE[tMYTTI'sD USLS ~
(B) RI.QUYkRMI:NT THAT USES BE CONllUC'fRD WITliIN A DUII.DTNC~ (C) M1NiMUM
AUILDL~C SC'C~ACK All ~! ::~~.i~T 'P(1 R-A 'I,ONTNG ,(D) MAXTPiLRd 11UI1.DI:NG Hf'sICHT ~(E) MINTMIIM NIJMHER
Oh I'ARKING SPACGS~ ANl) (N) Rl{QUIRF.D HI.OCK WALL AI'~.lACfiNT'fU R-A GUNINC~ TO PI:ttMIT THE
CONTINUEU U51's UF AN ~~tIST1NC '1'RAIi.~R SAI.CS AND ~EhVIC~ FACILI'lY o~~ property deacribect ea:
An irregularly-sl~apecf parcal of. i.nnct coneiecing of approximataly l.2 acree locuted ut the
nurthwest corner of Dlidway Drl.vc nnd Anaheim Boulevnrd and having approximate front•Ag~e of
lb5 fuat on lhe north eidc of Midwuy Dri.vc nnd 315 Eer.c on the wesC eide of An~heim
Boulevar.d. Propertv pre~~antl.y claHei.f ied C-1 (CENL"1tA1. COA4IERCIP.L) ZONh:.
Sub;Ject petition wnt~ coittl.nued Erom the meetinge af Uctober 30 and Novembcr 25~ 1974, £or
revisions ~iving uddL~lun~~l. infarmetion nnd fnr the putitioner ta be present. rcepectlvel.y.
No one indicnted their preeencE in opposiCion C~ subject petition.
Although the Stnff Repart tn Che Plrsnning Commteaioo daCed llec~mber 9, 1974, wa~ not x'sad
at Che publlc heAring, Lt te referred to and mede u piirt of the minuteg.
Mr, 1.. V. Doytwick, the petiCioner, appeared bef~re tha Commie~sion ancl stated they would
1i.ke to proceed wltli the plun, as reviaed, si.nc~ the proposal fit in witli their exieting
busines~.
THF. PUBLIC t{GARIN~ WAS CLOSED.
In respunse to questioning by Chairman H~rbst ~ Mr. BoeCwi.ck atated that the open dieplay
area was separuted from the regular. parking epaces~ and that none of ttie regular parking
c~pACea would be used for displuy of vehicleo for asle or. service.
In responge tu questioning by Comu~issioner Fara~:~, Mr. Bostwick aCated the driveways on
Midway Dr ive would be uttllzed to get in nnd out of the property. Commi.ssioner rarar~o
then entered ir.tu discusslon with Mr. Boatwick and indicated that he wae not in favor of
display of vans over 4Q £eet long at the eub~e.ct location; and that ttie trailere presently
on thc sub~ect property resembled freight trailers. Mr. Boatwic=oximatel~t~l.Ot000 po ndae
they would have was mora of a delivery typc. and would handle spp Y
T.n response to questioniaK by Chairmai~ tterUst, Aseietaut Zoning Supervisor Aniiika Santalahti
noted that the proposed pnrking l::cked 12 spacea to meet the Code requirement and, if the
une changed, additional p<zrking would probably be uvai.lable ti~ the srea desi~ned for
outdoor diaplay of trnilc:r.s.
Commissioner King noted th~t he was in favor of granting the waiver of. the requ•l.red block
wall adjacent to R-A zoning, since a 6-foot cl~ai.nlinlc fence and approxima~ely 7-foot high
tree hedges were existing and, additionally, the adjacer_t R-A zoned property wAS developed
W~C11 A SCIlOOI..
Commissioner Farano noted that the revised plans were more in keeping with t;-e Commisaion's
policies, however, he was not in favar of displaying GO-fuoC trailera at ehe sub,ject
location ; that he would be in Pavor of the uae provide9 t:he aize of the Crailera or com-•
mercial vans was limited to subslantially under 40 feer, with a description being Riven to
eliminate Che possibili.ty of cargo, furniture, or freight vflus at the subiect location,
aince he was questioning the potential of the use.
In response to questioning by Commi_ssioner Morley, Mr, Bcstwick indicated that the franchise
company did make a 38-foot trailar, t.owever, he wae not sure if he would handle an~ vehicle
that large, regardle:~a.
In response ro questioning by ~ommissioner Farano, Mr, Boatw-lck stipulated that the maximum
out~ide measurecuenta uf the traflers or comr.-ercial V81S which woald he dieplayed andi o~~
serviced at the subject location would be 8 feet 11 incheg higli from the ground up~ 7 feet
6 inches in width, and 38 feet in length. Mr. Bostw:ck further stated that al.though t~a
tiad not handled the larger trailera or vans that were nlade, he did not know if they would
have to do so in order to keeg their franchise.
Commis~ioner Moil~.y inquired if tt.~ trailers or vTOVel~aince~ifitheemanufacturer~went ou[
Mr. Bostwick state~ he did not want that type apr
af businecs, he would also.
.~.
~
~
~
M[NUT~S~ CITY YLANNTNC COP41I5yI0N~ Uncember 9. 19i4
7G-•~57
VARIANCC N0. 2645 (~~ _inund)
;n reaponea t~; ~;~.,estioning by Commiseioner F'arano~ Mr. Aoetwiclc AtAted tic~ pre:+ently hnd
38-font vehtcles and he would not hn ngrcenble to ~ 30-foot limitatinn, c~nd C~~mmieeionar
Faranu noted the+t witli :18-foot v~hlclea kher4 mighC be c~ problem witti the ei.ze of tho
dteplny nr~c-.
Mr. DoetwLck quesliuned che tnCent uf thn Plnnning CommiaHion~ c~nd CocmnisAionc~r Facana
aseureQ Chat no on~ was Crying to put Che petitioner out of buyinese, ltiowever~ tho euh,~c~cc
lor.ution wua not sui.t:~ble or ap{~ropriatc for freight (curgo) or furntture vane.
Commieai~nar r~-rnno thcri quastioned the gross empty weight of the varioue vehicles, and
Com~i.r-eioner Morley not~d thnt Ms t~~ucnted guede~ would be thr~t the type nnd r~iz~ vchir.le
being a~agge~tod by Commlaei.oner Faruno would b~ approxim:-tely 5~000 pour.de opposod to
upproximntely 12,JOU poundA for cargo-type veliicles.
Commissioner. Fnruno .ffered M motion~ sec:onded by C~mmiesioner King and MOTTON CARFtIkD,
thot the Y1nnt~lnp, Comni.:~eion c•ecommends to Cho City Council. that the aubject project he
axempt from the requirement to prepnre un Environmental Impact Report purn~~nnt to the
pravi.aiona of the Calllurnta F:nvironmental Qual.ity Ac[.
Commisyioner rar~no offered Rc~oluCion N~. PC74-?38 And moved for ita passage and adopti~n,
that petirion for Va.._unce No, 2645 be and hereby ie granted on the basie of the foregoing
findi.nga; subj~ct [u th~. condition that the firopoaed use ehall be limited to trc~ilor or
commercial vane not to exceed our~i.de meaeuremente of 8 feet 11 inclies in height from the
ground up, 7 feet 6 iuches i.n wi. ~. ar.d 38 feet in leng~;i, said trailera or commercial
vans nut to exceed a gr.oss t:mpty weight of 7,:.00 p~~~~nda, and freight (cargo) or furniture
vFns shall be prohibited at the aub~ect locationy nH el•ipulated to by tlie petitioner; tltnt
if the proposed use for the secnnd flrur of the propoaed new atructure, or Lhe overall
use~ aha11 change, then addiCional parking muy be requlred pureuant to the aite development
skan ards of the C-1 Zone; that the petittoner stiall aubmit a written reque~t to terminate
all proceedings in connection with Varia~~ e ~o. 22E7 oa the sub~ect pr~perty; and eub~ect
to the conditiona recommended by the Interdepartmental Committ~e. (See Reaolution IIook)
~-- rull call, ttic+ foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COIyAtISSIONEItS: FARt1NU, GAUER, JOHNSON, KINC, MORLEY, TOLAR, HGRI;ST
NO~S: COI~tISSIONERS: NONE
ASSENT: CUMMISSIONER£: NONG
VARIANCF N0. 2h53 - CONTINU~D PUBLIC HCARING. A1tTHUd "~. W1:IZIN, 12Q29 Irebe .1 Way, Studio
City, Ca. 91604 (Owner); PACESF.T'PER HO*tES, INC., 4540 Campus llrive,
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 (Agent); requeating WAIVER OF (A) PLRMITTED
iIS~;S IN THE R-A ZON~, (B) PERMITTEU USES IN THE (SC) OVERLAY ZONE AND (C) MAXIMUM SIGN
AREA, TO PERMIT A TRAZI.ER TO BE USED AS A TEMPORARY OFFICE on propert,y deacribed as: An
irregul.arl.y-shaped parcel of land consiating o[ approximately 2.9 acres having a frontage
of approximately 280 feet on the south side of Sanla Ana Canyon Road, hsving a maximum
depth of approx'.mate?.y 47.3 feet and being locrted opposite Falrmont Boulevard. Praperty
preaently classif iec? R-A(SC) (AC:KICULTL'RAL A:JD SCENIC CORR'CDOR OVERLAY) ZONt:.
Subject petition was continued from tl~e meeting of November 25, 1974f for additiorial
study.
No one indicated their presence in oppoaition to sub~ect pel•ition.
It was n~ted that the petitiouer had contacted the Devetopment 5erv!ce~ Department and
requested to withdraw petitI.on for Variance No. 2653 and that a letter was f.orthcoming
for the off.icial records of the City.
Commisstoner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commfsaioner Gauet and MO'fION ~ARRIED,
that petition for Variance No. 2653 be and herehy is terminated and all proceedings in
connQction therewith, as requested by the petitianPr.
~ e
MINUTFS, (:I'PY YI~ANN LNC COMMTSSI.ON, I)er.emrior 9. 1.97/i 74-55A
REGI.AS3INICATT.QN - I'UIiLLC HFARING. ILLUMINATED PRODUCTS, INC~, 207 Soutti Hal.ena 5[r~et,
N0, 74-7ti-17 An~huim, Ca. 928J3 AND ADRIAIr J~ LENALN~ LT Al., 5908 Arno Crescent~
~~~~ Auahelm~ Ca. 92807 ((hmera); PACIFIC SUtI'fNWI.ST KEALTY COMPANY, c/u
L. D. I'of£enber~er, 3~3 Soutii HopQ 3treet, l.oe Mge].es, Ca. 9~017
(ogent); requeating khat propat~ty describ~d ae: A recCangularly-ehaped parcel of lnnd
coneinting oE npproxim~tel.y 33~000 equare feet loc~ted nC the cornerq of Oak Stre~t~
He1~nu 3tre~t and CheAtnut Streot~ hnving approximete fr.onCnges of 220 feet ou the Routh
HiJe o[' Uak 5tract, 150 feet or~ the WLE1C nide ~f Neletta Street nnd 220 feet on th~ nurCh
eiJa oE ChestnuC Strc~et~ and further deecrihed rie 207 5outh Helunn +treet and 421 Wesh
CheBtnut Streat~ be recl~aelfi~~d from tha P-1 (AUTf1MC~;tlf,l? PARKING) ZUNE to the C-2
(CBNI:itAL COt~4dERCIAL) ZONE.
It wae noted thnt the petitioner wue requeating ~ two-week contlnuence l.n ordcsr to recf~ive
Lnput trom ti-e Community Redevelopment Coimniseton rab~.ding the propos~d reclae~if.icatlon.
CoiamieAi.oner Morley uff.ered c~ motiuii, seconded by Commieaioner Cauer and ?dQTION CARRTFD,
to poetpone the public hearing and consideration of petitian for Reclaseif LcaCion No.
74-75-.17 to t}~e meeting of Der_Rmber ?.3, 1974, ao requested by Che petiCiuner.
CONDITION~L USE -• YUBLIC NCARING. S~YMOUR ADLGR, lb(~Od Park Lnne Plece, Lor~ Angeles,
PERMTT N0. 1503 Ca. 900G9 (Owner); ROBERT C. WALLS. 331 Calle Felicidad, 5an Clen-entc,
^ Ca. 92672 (Agent); requesting permiseion to CSTABLISH A RGSTAUI~ANT
WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR on property descrihed ae; An irregulArl.y-shaped
p~rcel of l.and consisting of approximutely '~.3 ac~es hziving a irantage of apF~raximately
205 feet on the ~aest side of Raymond Avenue, having a mnximt~m d~pth of approximately
635 feet, being located up~roximately 612 feet north of the centerline of Orangett~orpe
Aveizue, and further des~ribed as 1757 Raymond Avenue. Property presently claflsified
M-1 (LIGIiT INUUSTRIAL) ZONE.
One person lndicated his pr.esence i.n opposition to sub~ec:t petition; and iC was noted that
one letter of oppositi~n had been received representing the owner~ of nine ad~a~.ent indus-
trial buildings in op;~o~,teion to sub.~ect petition.
Aasistant 7.oning Supervisor Annikn Santalahti read the St~ff Report to ChP Planning
Commission dated ~c~r_ember 9, 1974, and eaid Staff Report is referrea to as if set forth iii
full in the minutes.
Mr. Robert Walls, the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and stated
lie wfl~ the operator at the subjecC establi.shc~ent; that he had takere over said establish-
me:~t in 1971 when the lease wae expi.red and at khat Cime he had contacted Mr. Hoyt of
Bryan Industrial Properttes who had no ob~ection to Che use then; ~nd t~. hie Jease on
the eatablishment was for five yeara wit:h a five-year option. H~ p reaented photographa of
the surrounding a rea which indicated the availability of parking s paces at the busiest
times, for review by the Alanning Commiseion. He also indicaCed he had two letters from
tenanta in adjoin ing buildinga of the industrial complex who were in favor of the propoaal.
In response to questioTiing by Chairman kIerhst, Mr. Walls stated the restaurant with ~n-
sale beer and wine was in operation f or a peric,d of time priar to h is taking it over; and
that he did not know ~ahen the bee~ a:.~ ::i.^.e licet~ae was Ciret takere out at this location.
Mr. Tom IIradley, representing Bryan Industrixl Prcperties, appeared before the Gommiseion
in oppusition and stated the restuurant patrona were infringing on the parking of the
adjacent businessea; that presently the parlcing lot was very measy and if the sub~ect
eetablishment was allo~,ed to have on-sale liquor, the situation would worsen; and that hie
firm had submitted a letter. to che City in opposition and the thr ee owners that he repre-
sen[ed were co-npletely against the proposed use.
Ln rehuttal. Mr. Walls explained that the establishment had been in oreration for approxi-
mately 12 years, during which time tr~e previous property owner co u ld have put in an indua-
trial use at thle location, however, the exlsting businese~ was so ld; that the present use
was exactly what h~d been conducted on the properCy for a num~er of year4; that he had
trieJ to be rs good n~ighhor in the. industrial complex and had offered to p+sint o£f '
parking apace for one af the neighbora who wae now objecting to t he proposed use on~the
hasis that from time to time ttie customere of the raetaurant took his parking space; that
wlte-i he was requested to do so~ he had made his cuatomTUCk~teartoffT art~ofJhiscai~n~aic ~
tl~e ad,jacent businesses; that cnce he had ~ delivery P g
no offer to replace or repair iC,, and it ap~eared that everyone had same inconveniencea in
Che bueiness world, however, he cet•tainly did his beat to keep an yone from having Any
prableme due to his resta~•xant and bar.
~ ~
MINU'f1.5, CITY PW-NNIN(; COI~4~1ISSTi`"~ ~ lleceinl~~r 4. 1974 74-559
CONDITIONAL IJSE PERMIT N0 _ 150_3 (Continuod)
TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSF.D.
In responae tu queRtioning by Commieeioner ~aranu~ Mr. Wes].1H etatc~d tl~ey ~aere in operation
Aix days a woek nnd clused on Sundaye; tliut th~ preeent hours af operation were from 7:00
a.m, to 2:00 a.m.; Chet they plannud ~u dc~rve breakfant eincc• tt~~~ people worki.ng ewing
ehi.lts in ~he aren got off wor.k at mf.dnight und eamP i.nto the bar eo ~et eomettting to eat.
Commieeinner Gsuer noted that the pro~osel did not meet City epecificntiuns for on-sale
liquur elnce tlie kitchon was -~ot large ~an~~ugh and l•he bar arPa wae not separ~ted £ror~ th4
reetaurnnt~ etc.; r~nd thar. chi.ldreri were not allowed to go into cock.tail bare. Mr. Wal.ls
repl.ied that no chlldren warQ generaliy in the aren because uf. the i.nduetr ial nature of
the c~mplex.
Commieaioner ?oler noted tliat he wae not aware o£ nny ~imilar appllcaCions that had been
approved in the City to hIIVC a cocktail eaC+~blistunent in un industrial area.
Cowaissioner Morley concurred that to hia knowledge there were no eimilar applications in
the CiCy in an induatxial camplex and he noted, in his o~i.nion~ tha~ Che. poliny not to
approve on-sale liyuor esCabli.ehment in an industrial complex ehould Ue co ntin~-ed.
Mr. Wa11s s[aCed he had gone to considerable expense to ready the buildi.ng to raceive the
1lquor license wliict~ he recenCly won ln a State drawing; nnd Chat he was obligated by the
State to acti~ate the licenae wirhin a period of appraximately Rix montlia or it would b~
taken back by the State,
The Ylanni.ng Commisaion entered into diecussion with the petitioner and Stsff regarding
how the uae was ori,.inally esCabllsl~ed on the premises, d~ring which Mic~s SuntalahCi noted
that apparenCly when the petiCioner came inko the City for a licenae, he wae requeating a
tranafer nnd tYanaf ers were considered to be there by right; thaC when the petitiur.er came
in far a change from on-sale beer and wine to on-sale liquor, then Staff begau to really
che~k out the matter and, in the case of the gub~ect location, a petition was never proceased
for the uae in the firet place, and the trr~nsfpr ehould not have been approved as such.
Mr, Walls then etated he had complied with all of the City's regulationa f or the proposed
use as far as the building was concerned.
The Pianning Cowmisei.on questioned Mr. Bradley regardin~ ownership of khe aubject property
at the time thE uae o~as origi.nally establishPd and at the time it caas sold, ond Mr. Bradley
replied that the two Bryan firms were c~nc: Nntity at the time the property was s~old.
Diecuaeion puraued regarding which businesses in t.he induetrial complex were in favor ~f
the proposal and who were agai.nst it, during which Commissioner Farano quesrioned why the
buelness wl~ich was closest and which would be the moat affected by the use would be in
favor of it if there was i.ndeed a parking problem.
Mr. Bradley reiteraCed that parking problems did exist and although his c lienCa were not
right next to the aub~ect ea[ablishment, hi.s cli-et~ta' parking spacea were off-limfts for
the re~taurant customers; and t.hat they had not wanted to use the sign appr~ach to solving
Che problem. He fur.ther stated his own office w~s not in the immediate area of the subject
es4abliHhment, however, he received comp]a` ca11s regarding parkinq fr~m hie clienta who
were located near the sub~ect eatablishment.
In *esponae to queetioning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Seymo~ir Adler, the petitianer,
appeared before the Commiasian and stated hie buildinga were all preseatly fu11y occupied
a~d, during the day, all o£ thc~ busineases were in operation; that he was not aware that
any of the tenants we:e complai.nin~ or had suff~red frow a parking problem, and had there
been a problem he would have p~~bably heard by now; and that there was never a parking
shortage so he did not feel ~~;~ mixigating measures were neceasary.
Commisaioner King noted that the 120 pai~cing spaces s}iown on thP plan were all owned by
the peti.tioner, and Commiesioner Tolar auggeated that a aign be poaCed so that no one
would park in the parking 9pacea asaigned to the clients of Bryan Industrial Properr,ie~.
Cor~missioner Morley then i~oted that cuatomers would always park in the c lose~t and beat
availrsble parking apace.
~
~
~
MINUTG5, GI'I^I PLANNINC CQt41I3SI0N ~ December 9, l 474
CUNDITIONAL USF PF.ItMI'P N0._1503 (ConCinue:l)
74-560
Ueputy City Attorney Frnnk Lowry noted For Mr, BradlQy thaC kha Annt~~im Munictpal Code
permitked n eign to ha r~oat~~d Rtnting thaC parking wee for tenant9 an~l tenantn' r.uetomere
on1y, and thar. all ukher cara woul.d be towed away at th~e ownere' expen6Q, nnd nll t.hat wae
neceeaary was g telephoue call to the Anaheim Police 1)apartmont to t~ke caro of tha
violators. Hn furt.her r~tated that such a eign ehould quote the Penul Coda section author-
izing the srti.on.
Chairman tlerhet noted th~t he wnd opp~Red to a liquor establisliment in Ctie type b~.iilding
proposed and in en indusCrial areu; thnt he empl~yed induetrial pereonnel hi.mesl.f end
waul.c3 noC like an on-eale liquc~r aetabliehment that c1oAe to hie busin~ee ~ince th~
~mptoyees worked around muchinery. He indlcuCed that coneide~xaCion shoul.d be given to
mak~ng the exieting raeCaurnnt with on-sal.e beer and cvine legal.
Ttiereupon, Mr. Lowry ndvised tt-at the eub~ect petition could b~ limited tU on-eale beer
and wine~ eince that would be a lesaer intense uae; however, the requeated waivar would
have to be coneidered also.
In responds to questioning by Commiasioner Morley, Mr. Walla stated if h~ did not actuate
the liquor licenae it would go back to the State and he would get hls money back, however,
winning a drawing war~ a once-in-a-lifetime thing and if he had known that he would experienr.e
the problems presently being diacuased, he would have found anottier locxtLon; and that Co
the present time hc~ had inveal~d in excess of $1U,000 to receive t}~e license.
Commiasioner To1ar noted that although he was sympathetic wl.th the petitioner, he did not
believe that a liquox license around induetrial buildinga ~ase appropr.iate, and Commiasioner
Morley noted that approval. would be setting an undeairable precedent for aimilar requeate
ln the future.
Commiaeioner Farano then queationed Sta£f if there were any such usea preaently existing
ln indu~trinl areae, and Misa Santrslahti adv'_sed that Sta~f wns nor. aware of an~~ that were
not a separate restaurant or in a eepArate bui].ding.
Commisaioner Morley emphasized thst the propusal ~raet to operate in an industrial building
and in an industrial tract, and 9uch a uae would not aerve as a good s~ipport u~e for the
industrial community.
It. was noted ti~at t:sc~ Director of D~velopment Services had determined that the proposed
activity fell wi.thin the definition of Secti.on 3.01, Clasa 1 of the City of Anal~eim
Guidelin~s to the Requirements f.or an Environa-ental Impact Report and waP, therefore,
categorically ex~npt from tl~~ requirement to file an LIR.
Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC74-239 and moved for its pa~eage and adoprion,
that petltion for Conditional Use Fermit No. ].503 be and hereby i~s granted in part, grant-
ing waiver of the minimum kitchen area for a restaurant with on-sale beer and wine only,
since the induatrial ~omplex in which the restaurant is locaked is not suitable for on-
sale liquor and, furthermore, would oet an undesirable pr.ecedent for aimilar requests in
the future; ~~ubject tu conditions. (See Resolution Buok)
On roll ca~l, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAl3ER, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
AFiSIIVT: CO~ISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner Farano noted thut he ~eas not against the beer and wine eatabli.shment but dis-
agreed that the pet~tioner ahould be f~rbidden to have a iiq~ior license at the subjecr
locatian.
~
~
~
•
MINUTES, CT'PY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ Docembor 9, 1974 74-561.
VAKIANc'f; N0. 2656 - PUBLIC IiLARtNG. CI.IFFORA NE.t~1FR].TNG~ 9100 W1lshire Auul~vard, ~uite
~ ~ 520, Bevorly Ilille, Ca. 90212 (Owner); PAUL, I:. CARLSON, 9801 Jc~maica
Circle~ liuntington Boscli, Ca. 92646 (Agent); requecting permiasion
to I:STABLISFi A'f1iAILGR TU BF. USED AS A CLAS3ROOM on property des~ri.bc~d gs: A recCangulnrly-
ehaped parcal of land conrleting of apF~roximaCel.y 6 aci•ea located nt the northweat corner
oE Brondway an:f N.uclid 3troa~, hnving npproximate fYontuge-i af 609 feet on t}~e north eide
ui Bruudwuy nnd 460 fQak on thcs weet side of Euclid Street, ~ir~d furtt-er described as 263
Sauth Euclid 3treet. l'roperty praeently class:lfied C-1 (GCN~RAI. COMMERCIAL) ZONC.
No one indicated thoir pr~s~nc.~ in uppoai.tion to eub~ect petitton.
A1Chough tha Sta~f Report to the Planning Cumwieaion dated Uecerober 9, 1974, wae not read
at tl~e puhlic t~earing~ il fo raferred tu and made u purC of the rrtinutes.
Mr. Don Crueh~ rapreeenti.ng tt~~ Qrenge County Regianal Occupational Prograai, the agent for
Che petitianer, uppear.ed befure tha Commieaion and atated tiie petition wae to locute
claseroom facilitiea adjacont to a retail market for 15 to 30 ~tudenCa, to be u~ed in the
Orunge C~unty RAgionAl Occupational Program and the Anahei.m llnifted Eligh School Uistricl•
VocaCional Training 1'rogram.
TNE PUIiLJ.C li~ ARI.NC WAS CLOSED.
CommLeaioner i~urano questi.oned whQther there was clasaroum ~vailabillty for the proposed
progrnm ~~ithput havinR ~ mobilehome situaCi.on. and Mr. Frueh etsted Che thruat ~f the
progr~ was to provid~ the training iii the manner proposed; that the stude-tte spent
approximaCely 7~iX of thel.r time in the market itself receiving L•raini.ng and the claearoom
was Co conduct othe: teacliing eervicea such as busine.as math; and that at the particular
locetion proposed, ti~e retail market did not have room inside Ch~ir iacillty for the
closeroom without creat~ng a problem.
Commiseioner Faruna then questione.d what ttie difference was between the mobilehome in the
situatic~n proposed and permi.tting une in the Santa Ana Canyon area, and the Planning
!.'ommisaion noted that the mobilehome proposed in tt~e Srsnta Ana Canyon area was for a
period of five year.e and was !n the Scenic C~rrldor (SC) tlverlay Zone.
Commiealoner King then noted thot the proposal waE to have the mobilehome in the rear of
the building off e~ the side; that the ad~acent automobilE sales businesa was consl•ructing
an 8-foot fence which would further shield the proposed aCructure Erom view and said
structure was almoat completely hidden from publlc view otherwise and, in hie opinion,
that waR Che diPference Uetween the t~ro applfcations questiuned by Comanisaioner Farano.
Chairman Herbat n~~ted that the arructure would be used as a school 25X of the time, and
Commiesioner Morley noted that the aubject proposal, as well as an,y other proposal, was
judged on ita own merit.
It was noted that the Director of Developmenc 5erv~ces had der..erm{.ned that the preposed
activity fell within the definit•ion of ~ect:c~n 3.U1. Class 3 of the City of Anaheim
Cuidelineo to the requiremenCa for an Envirnnmental Impact Report and was, therefore,
catQgorically exempt from khp rpqu_'rement to fll~~ an EIR.
Commiasioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC74-240 and move3 for ita psasage and adoption,
chat petltion for V~riance No. 2656 be and here}~y ia granted on the basia ef the fore~aing
findinga, granting waiver of permitted uaes for a ~eriod of one year, sub,j,ect to review
and coneideration for exteneion of time, upon request by the petitioner; sub~ect to
conditions. tSee Resolution Book)
On roll cnll, the foregoing resolution war~ passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER~ JOHNSON, ~ING, MOItLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COIYII~IISSIONERS: NONE
ABST:NT: COhQ~1ISSI0NERS: NONE
~ •
MINUTES~ CITY l'LANNING C~~MM].;i5I0N~ Ducember 9, .1974
AMENUMENT TU TITLL 18, ANAHFIM MUNICIPAI, COUF. TP.MPOMFiY FOR SALE UR Talt LEASL~ SICNS
14-562
It wue noted tliat althougt~ initinlly er.heduled for thiR meati.ng~ advertieemenC of the
subject Municipal Code Amundmenk wae withdrnwn anJ Staff wae propo~ing that tlie heuring
bd poetponad until recommendntione of rhQ Cunyon Area General Planning Task ~orce wcre
recei.ved in accarclunc~ wi[li the Planning Commisaion's previoue request.
It wae noted ttiut no cne wae pres~nt• in the uudience concerniiig thQ eub~act Code Acnendment.
Cammieaion~r King offered << u-uklun~ seconded by Cummi:+slunar Johnsnn :-nd MOTION CARRIEU~
thnt the eub~ecC Code Amendment be taken off calendai n~~ndinct -~~:~lpt of t~er.ommendationa
from the~ Canyon Area GenerKl P1Hnning 'fask Fncce, an~~ iiar Staff. Ue and hereby ~~ direcCed
co rnechedule e~id Amendment tor. public hearing whrn .~~,proprinte Co da eo.
ENVIRONMENTAI, IMPACT REPORT. N0~1.97
It wne noted tl~at Clie sub,~ect• Gnvironmental Zmpact keport was submiCted in ~on~unction
vith a request for Aa exteneion of time for iteclas~aification No. 71-72-18 on properky
conaioting of approximAtely 17 acrea locatecl at the eoutheaeC corner of Broadway and Lonra
StreeC~ to construct a 4'25-•unit apartment proiect.
No one indicaked rheir. prexence in [he aud3ence in oppoaitioii Lo the sub~ect mntCer.
Mr. Cal Queyrel, representinR the develope±'. appeared before the Comn-iseioi~ and etated the
6ub~e~C EnvixonmentAl 'Lmpact Rep~rt was pr.epared in accordance witli instructlot~s from the
City Attorney's Office in order to alluw the City Council to act on An extension of time
for. Ct~e resolution of intent to R-3 zoning on the a~iU~~ct prc+party; and ti~at later ~n,
additional items would be conaidered on the aubJect property~ inr_luding Lhe matter of the
street al.ignmerits which would be the sub~ect of an Area Development Flat-. He conti.nued by
atat•ing thnt the development proposal was f'or 425 unitA and tha previouP~~-proposed devel-
opment wna for 500 unitst and that r.he subject EIR referred to the 425-unit. development.
Chairman Herbat noted that the subject EIR could probably be eent an to CiCy Council,
however, same reservation ahould be made as to the number of unite that would he permitted
on the properCy; that times had changed aince the reclaseificaCion was originally con-
~idered; that the matter of the school site in t!~e area becoming eurplua property for
development might t~ave an effect on the actual development of the Rub~ect property; and
that ttie reservation would be whether or not the sub~ect property ehould remain R-3 or
whether a dtepd~~wn in zoning was neceasary; and, thereupon. Mr. Queyrel signified that
that would t,e his understanding.
Mr. Queyrel then stated that they were presenCl~~ intereaCed in the extenaion of time being
granted by the City Council; and that they would be coming in at a later date with apecific
plans snd an additional EIR dealing with apecific plan~~ for the pro~ect.
Com~issioner Gauer noted tllat the aubject property was indi.cative of the hardahips cauaed
by developers who left out piecea of land when areas were developed, referring to the
p~srcel at the northeast corner of the. subject propc:rty; Chat the vacant lar~d in the sub~ect
area sh~uld be zoned according to the area and he w~~ulcl not be in favor of. an, future
applications to construct service otationa or conventence marketa, etc., on any parcels
left out.
Mr. Queyrel then stated that ehe parcel located at the northeast corner of subject property
was under aeparate ownership and that it was his understanding that the Planning C~mmi.asion
and City Council had the prer~~gative to deny proposals on any pr~perty if tt was conaidered
appropriaCe to do so.
Commiasianer Tolar expressed reservations cancerning approval of ~he aub~ect EIR, sincp
said document referred Co development of the property unde: R-3 zoning and it was not
queationable that the property should be developed R-3 and~ therefore, any commitment,
even if only tentative, ahould not be made at thia time.
Mr. Queyrel then etated that he waa not aware of any oth~r property in Anaheim that was
more suitable for R-3 devzlopment than the subject property becauae of lt~+ locaCion
adjacent to induatrial development.
Coacniasioner '~olar clari~ied his ~re.vioiia r.emarks and noted that the vacc-nt proaerty
available for devel.opment in the subject area had l.ncreAee~ oince the reclassification ~f
subject pronerty wa~ considered in 1971 and t{~e 20~acre octiool ~ite was now avatlable for
~
~
~
MINUTE:S~ CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIUN~ December 9. 1~74
GNVIRONM~NTN. II~AGT Ri:?ORT NU.___'l37 (Continued)
14-563
such development; that the whol~ ~iren ehoul.d probably have a better plunuad unit dE+velop-
ment Ct~an conKl.deti.x~g one portioii aC a time; I:haC regarding zoning, ltie would liave a h^.tter
Feel.i.ng for that folluwing conslderation of Ch~ Area qevolopment F1un for the arer+, which
wae being acheduled for .Ianuury~ 1975.
In respunse~ Mr. Quc~yrel Htaled ~he pe[l.tion~r hr~d developed two plan~ far the schoo] eite
to tt~-e south of thc. sub~ect property; thuk they were conc~rned thIIC thu property to tha
south woulJ be zoned to nllow tiic eub~ect property to be develop~~l to the beat nnd high~at
u~e; thcit khe petiti<>ner w~s propoeing RM-4000 zoning immedic~t~.~ly to ttie south, and then
atepd~wn zoning to R-l eince there was enough land involved to sccompliah that program;
Chat thei.r fir.sC concern wus tu have Lhe (:ity Council ack on their request fox an exten-
eion of. tlme on the resolution of i.ntenC tu R-3 zoning for the aubiect pro~~nrty and Chen
tt-ey would be presenting apecif ic plane for ttieir developm~nt, and the Gerierril Ylan Amet~d-
inent for the sctiool site und. Aren Developroent Plan for Che aren would nlso be fortlicoming;
And that if che Planning Conunisaion was desirouN of aending F.IR IJo. 137 on ta City Council
with r~~servations regarding the R-3 zoning~ he would be in agree:nent with ti~at.
Chairman Herbat note~l that tie weis in favor of recommending the Aub~ect F.IR to tiie CiCy
Council for certificutioi~ with reaervationa in order that the petitioner would not be hc:ld
up, and Co~mniseioner Tolar. notr•d tlzat he dieliked Che intent that might be implied in lhaC
acli.on, since the I;IR dealt spe.cifically with the R-3 zoning.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry adviyed ehat if the Planning Commission deaired to take
Che action suggested by Chairman Herbst~ he would euggest ~hal ttie motion be to recommend
to the City Council that Che EIR be certified with reservations as to th~• 2oning and the
di~cueaion of the alCern~te land uae provisionR of the I:T.R, whi.ch des~Lt primarily with R-3
zoning, sinr_e in the Planning Comaaiseion'~ opini.un ther~ mlght be a b~tcer or alternate
use at Lhe present time.
Mr. Queyrel took exception to Mr. L~wry's suggested action and stated thAt it might be
mieleRding to the City Council if the P1er.ning Commission felt the pr.operty should have a
different use.
Mr. Lowry then advised that since some of the Planning Commiasloners had expr.essed re~erva-
tiona regarding the land use, the auggested action might be the only way that the subJect
~IR could be movcd along to City Council level from this mepting.
Chairman HerUst offer.ed a motion, secondsd by Commisssioner King that Environmental Impact
Report No. 137, having been consldered this date by the City Planning Ccmm~ission and
evi.dence both written and oraJ. having been presenCed to aupplemenC said draft EIR No. 137,
the City Planning Commission believes that said drafC EIR No. 137 does contorm to the ~ity
and State Guide]_ines and the State ut Californi3 Environmental Quelity AcC ~nd, based upon
such information, does t;ereY,y recommend ~o the City Council that Chey certify said EIR No.
137 is in r_ompliance with satd Enviranmental Quali.ty Act; prnvided, huwever, that due tu
land use changes in ct~e ar.ea, and pArticul.arly the advent of the school site to the sauth
becuming surplus pruperty and available for development, therc mxy be re.sultant effecCs in
the entire area if the sub;Ject property is developed R-3, and consideration of sald zoning
of the subject pro~~er.ty should be reserved until such time as City Staff has had azt oppor-
tunity to present '~e Gen~ral. Yl.an Amendment and Area Development Plun for th~ sub,ject
area in order to as.ess said effects, includfng that the deparCmental reports from the
Parks and Recreation DeparCment and Engineering Division may require additional input to
include said effects of the additional land becoming available for r.esidential development
in the area.
Commissioner b'arano took exception ~ ttie motion offered since the EIR was aubmitted in
cc,n~unction with a time extensiun and the property hed essentially already been approved
for R-3 zoning. and Chainnan Herbst claritied that since tne reclassification on the
suhject property had expired and since changes had taken place since tt was initially
approved, there appeared to be no other recourse.
The foregoing motion carried by unanimous vote.
RECESS - At 4:00 p.m., Chairman Herbst declared a recese.
RECONV~NE - At 4:1~ p.m., Chairman Herbet reconvened the meeting with all
Commissioners being present.
....
~
•w•
~
MINUTE:S, CTTY PI,ANNING COMMi5STON~ DecemUc~r 9, 1974
74-5G4
1ZCQUkS'f I~OR f3iR NI~.CATIVL U~CLAIZA'rION !~'OR CRAUTNC PfsRMI'I' FOIt SIN(:Ll:-CAMiT.Y HOMI;~TTI: A7
'lll PEitAL'fA }IILLS DRIVC !_ ~_~ -
It wns noteJ tt1Rt the appllcanC hnd npplied for ~ grndJng purmit for a Aingle-f.amily
homesite nt the 9Uh~P_Ct locr-tion; t1~aC tt~e pro~ect was locaCed in th~ Scenic Corri.~or;
th~tt the ~ngineering lllvielon had appr.oved thc propo~~d grading; thuC an evaluatior~ of the
envirnnmentsl i.mpact w~R required becuu~•• pru~ecCs locnted within tbe Sc:enic Corridor
coutd nc~t be grnnted cacc;goricnl exempCio~i from the requi.rement to file an GIR; and lhat
it wou.ld sppear tt~nl Cliere w~~~1.~ Ue n~ significant envir~nmental imp+~ct.
Commis~ioner King offered n mution. r~econded by Commisaioner Faruiio and MO'lION CAItRI1:D~
thut the Planning Commiaelon recummenda to the City Counc.il that the subjer.t pro~ect he
exempt from tt~e requirement to prepare nn Environmentul Impact Reporc pi.irsuant to the
pruvisiond oE ttie Cul.ifornie Environmenkal Qual.ity Act.
REPO1tTS AND - ITi:M N0._ J.
RECOMMGNDATIONS ilILL511)ti G[tADING ORDINANCE
It was noted thnt p~ireuant to the Pl~nning Commission Work Seseion un November 21, 1974,
un additlonal Work Seeaiun was required in order. to resolve specific atundurde a~id criteria
to icisure thcil [Y~c propoaed ordinance encompat~sed feaeible grading policie~ and c~ncepte
wtiich would proinote minimum hillside grading.
Commissioner Gauer offer~d a motion, eeconded by Commiseioner Far•ano and MOTION CAItRIED,
to set a Work Sesslon meeting for December 19, 1974, AC 7:U0 p.m.~ to further diacuss tlie
proposed Hillaide Grading Otdinance.
ITEM N0. 2,
VARrANCE NU, 2343 AND VARIANCE N0. 2641 - Request for
termin~tion - Proper.ty conaisting of approximately 0.5
acre locate<~ ae thP southwe~+T. corner of Miraloma Avenue
and Kraeraer Bc,ui.evar.d and further described as
1295 North Kracmer Boulevard.
It wa:~ noted that on April 17, 1972, the Plat~ning Commission granted Variance No. 2348 i.n
part in R~solution No. PC72-76, to eatablish an automobile poliahing and waxinR business
as a conforming use on the sub~ect property; i.hat on November .11, 1974, the Planc~ing
Comc~ission granted Var.iance No. 2.641 in part in Resolutic,n No. PC74-221, to establigh a
recreational venicie rar.~.~l pn3 repair facility on the avbject property; Chat, subsequently,
a potential lessee of suU;Ject properi:y made application for a business license to operate
a aervics sCation on the suh3ect proper.ty and, fol?owing review of the matter with the
City Attorney'K ~ffice, Staff determined that the ser.vicr statiun uae had been abandoned
and to re-establieh that use a conditional use permit would be required, and the petitioner
was advised to terminate both previously-approved variances; and that the property owner
had submitted a 1ettPx requesti.ng terminatior~ of all proceedings of said vuri~nces, in~smuch
as the uses pertnitted thereby •aere no longer reauested.
Commissioner GaueL' offered Resolution Nu. PC74-241 and moved for its passage and adoption
to terminate all proceedir-gs in connection with Variance No. ?_348, as reque~ted by the
petitioner. (See Resolution Eook)
On roll. call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: C0:4fISSIONERS: FAItAPIO, GAUF.R, JOHNSON, KING, MO~LF,Y, TOLAR, HERB~T
NO~S: COMMISSIONT:RS: NONE
,~' ~L'NT: COtM~IISSIONERS: NUN~
Commisaioner Farano ~ffered Resolution No. PC74-247. and moved for its pa»sage and adoption
to te?:minate all proceedi.nga in connection wlth Vari.ance No. 2641, as requested by tize
petitioner. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resoluCion wa~ passed by the following vote:
AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAU~R, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: CuI~II~tISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
a
~
~
MINUTrS, CITY ['LANNINC CUMMTSSION, Decembor 9, .1974 74-565
ITEM NU. 1
PItOPOSCU AMf:NDMBNT 'TO TITI.I: 18 - VEHTC,Ui.AR PARKING
REVIF.W PROCf:pURi:S.
Commieaioner Morley otfcired a motion, oeconded by CoauniReioner Faxnno and M(1TION CARRIBU,
tl~at the ~~ropoaed amendmeiiC to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Cade pertaining to
vchi.cln parking r~vLew proc~duros be and hereby :ie eet for public hearing on ,Tunuary 20,
1975.
ITI:M N0. 4
CONDT'CIONAL JSE PERMIT N0. 1344 - Request for exteneion
of time - Property conaieting of. approximately 9000 equarc
feet lor.ated n[ the nor.tt~wec~t corner of A1berCa Strent and
L~mmon Str~~et and being furCher describad ge 60]. Nortli
I.einon 5t~ cet.
It wae noted that CUnd:itional l-~•.. Permit No. 1344 wae granted by the Planning Comarioeion
on November 27, 1972, [o permlt eslabliahmenC of A boarding hame f.or nix scnior citizens
in an existing sing.le-fumily reaidence; that sa:ld petition wae grantod for a period of two
years~ sub~ect to review by the Pl~anning Commisniun and conaideraCion for extension of
time; that the pe.titioner ~•ras requ~sting an exteneiun of tima for an lndefinite pertod;
that the Code indic~ted in regard to the authority grunted by conditional use permit, tt~at
an exCension of time shall not exceed the ariginal time specified; ~hat no complaints re-
garding the subject us~ had bean rt~ceived by the City; ~nd Chat four letterR in favor of
the exieting fncility had been received, three of which were from neighboring reaidenta.
In response to questioning by the Planning Commission, Deputy City ACtor.ney Frank Lowi•;
adviaed thul• if longer thFin a twa-year extension of. time wac~ granted, then it wouJ~ be
appropriate ta del.ete the condition.
Commissioner Morley off.ered a rtiotion, seconded by Commlesioner Farano :.sid MOTION CARRIED,
that a two-year FxtenRLon of time he and hereby iA ~ranten €or Co~.;a.cional Use Permit No.
1344, said extension of time to be retroactive to November 2~, 1974, and to expire ~n
November 27, 1976.
ITEM N0. 5
VARIANCE N0. 2637 -:.omparison af parking xequiremente
for homes for th~ elderly.
Assiatanc Zoning Supervisor Ann'_Ka Santalahki presented the Sta~f Report datsd Aecember 9,
1974, to the Planning Commisr~on and advieed Chat said Staff Report wae provided for
informution only and would oe forwarded to the City Council unless the Planning Cammission
wished to m~ke any c~rrP.:tion~ or additione.
The Planning c;~~mmis~.ion petterally conr,urred tliat said Staff Report be ref.erred to the City
Council to be con•,idered in l•heir review of Variance No. 2637, which was granted by the
Planning Cosmie~ion on November 25, 1975.
IT~M N0. 6
COIrDITIONAL 13SE FF.RMIT N0. 1482 - Re~{uest for review
and approval of final. development p1anR - Property
con.ai~ting of approximately 10.75 acres lucated southwest
of Kate].la Aveue and the Orange Freeway, having a frontage
of ~ppraximately ~0 fPet on the south aide of Kate.Lla
Avenue and having a maxlc~um depth of approximately 800 feeC.
It Has noted that the aub~ect petition was r-pproved by the Planning Commiasion on Auguat
5, 1974, to permit a public akill drlving cour~~, e~~bject t~ che condition that final
development plana, including a detaileu i~suu~..u~ing pian, shall be aubmieted for review
and approval by Che Planning Commisaion and that saiJ landscaping along Che south property
line shall be dense to provide additional saund attenuation; that the e~cbmitted plxns,
whi~h were in conformance with plans originRlly submitted, included landscaping at the
south boundary consiating of 15-gallon trees to be pl~nted on 15-foot centere, increasing
the landacaping denoity uver Che ariginal. plana which apecified the trees to be plante~ on
20-foat centera; that the petitioner had submitted a lctter reaffirming hie otipuZation
made at the August 5~ 1974, Planning CommisAion meeting, ta direct all lighting away from
the Anaheim Stadium and the Orange Free•aay; that the petitioner a letter contained an
~
~
~
~
MINUTGS~ CITY Pl«ANNINC COMMiS5IUN, [)ecember 9, 1974
ITEM N0. 6 (Cont.ittued)
74-•S66
enc.l.oeur~ fram rt lighting byytem ongineer nt General Electric Compa~y ecating thut the
fixtur.e mounCing }~eigh: t~ad bc~en limi.ted to 40 feeC ancl al.l floodlighte wPre to be P.imed
downwurd; tlint the fraoway elevnti~n at thia location w+~e jippxaximately 40 1'eet ubc~ve that
of tt~a aub,je:.C property anJ the Katella Avonue offr$mp; and that the traffic in tl•,~ aouCh-
bound lanca wo~~ld be moving away from th~ 1'loadllghts.
I~i rc:sponea to queNlianl.i-g by Commiseioner Gauer~ Mr, Ronnld C. Cameron~ Yresident of
Malibu Crnnd Prix Corpuratioii~ thc~ app.licnnt, appearad befure khe Commiasi.oc~ and atated
that the propoaalH hud heen reviewzd b~l Mr, Tom Liegler. Director of ~he Stadium and
ConvenCion Center.
Commiseioner 'folar of~ered a moti.on. seconded by C~mmigelonar Morley and Ml~TYON CAEtRIED~
that the fi.nal dRVelopment plans. .i.ncluding the l.zndocaping plun, ua re~~uired under
Conditional Use Parmit No. 1482, be and hPreby are approved.
LTCM N0. 7
CONDIT'LONAL USE PFRAfIT N0. 1470 - Information <~oruerning
the authorized use - Property consisting of appr~~ximaCely
0.8 ~cre~ located oa the weat side of Annhei.m doulevard
approxitnately ].5~i feet nurth of the centerllnF uf Vermont
Avenue and further described as 887 South Anaiieini lioulevard.
A memornndum dated December 9, 1974 from the Development Services Aepar.tment was preaentEd
for infurmal-ion, and it was noted that Conditional Use Pa~-mit N4. 1470 was granted by the
Planning CouQnisaion on June 10, 1974, to continue operation of a board and care facility
fox the treatment of alcoholir_s; tt~ak said use was granted for a period o£ two years aub~e.:c
to review and ~onalderation i~r extenaion of time, and that the aubject petition was initi-
ated ae a reeult of acCion by tiie Zoning Enforcement ~Fficer; that recetit investigation by
the Zuning Enforcement Officer hbdnot beem m~de n~~r !~ad any inapecCioiie been made; that tti~
petitioner hnd originall~y stipulated to none of [he reaidenta of the facilii:y continuing
to occupy 1:he attic or the basement fur l~vi.ng or sleeping purpoaes~ hnwever~ tl~e Zoning
Enforc~+ment Officer's i.nvestigation indicated beds were Zocated in the basement a.nd he was
unable to determine whether or not the attic wa:~ being eo used.
Deputy City Attorn~y Frank Lowry advised that tt~ere were three ~.lternatives for conaideration
by the Planning ~oanni.ssion: (1) tt-at additional :i.me be gr.anted for compliance with the
conditions, (2) that the petitioner be cited for non-compliance, or (3) that an "order to
ahow .^~~ae" be iReue~ Co ttie petitioner for feilure to comply.
Chairman Herbst noted that the ~a~lggested third alternative would give the Commission sn
opportunity to have the petitioner present to discues why the condiCions of approval of
the Conditional Use Permit had not ueen met and, thereupoi~, the Planning Commission
generally concurred that an "order Co ahow cause" be iseued.
ITEM N0. 8
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-21 AND VAFcIANCE N0. 2310 (Imperial
Propertiea) - Continued review of reque.st for approval of site
plans and elevacfons - Yroperty cunsisti.ng of approximately
870 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and located
approximately 365 feet ea~t o£ the centerline of Imperial
Highway, and zoned C-1(S~).
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti ~oted for the Planning Commiasion that the
sub~ect property owner and representatives, ae well as repreaentatives for the westerly
property owned by Free~rny Proper.ties, w~re all pre3ene [o further discuas Che matter of
Clie acceas pai~ts for the two propertiea, borcieri~lg on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway; and that Che Planning Commlesion was desirous of solving eaid acr_ess points prior
ta consideration of site plans a.id elevations for thz parcel owned by Imperial Pro~erties.
ChaiL•man Herbat. noted that discusaion could take place on an informal hearing basis regard-
ing the acceas pointe, and he continued by reviewing the htstory of the prcpertieo, that
originally the sub~ect property was appruved for C-1 zoning and with an ~dditional accesa
point on Santa Ana Canyon ~toad intended to t~elp aerve the ad,joining property to the west,
~
~1^
~
MINU1'i'sS, CI'fY YLANNING (:OMMISSLON~ l)cceml~c~r 9, 1974
1TEM N0. 8 (Cuntinued)
74-567
aince Cha p~:tltloner had indicated intent to purchase thnt weeterly property; that the
petitloner did not nc.quire the AdJoining westetly ptopeT~V and wue propoaing e1.te plane
nnd elevntione t~~ ~~tllizc+ Che c+dditiunal acces~ point ~n Sancn Ana Ganyon Raxd wit.h }-ro-
vislon for r~cceew to the westc~rly prup~r~7~ by way of a 3~-foot eaHement along tha nor.th-
orly proparCy lin~~ ~f chc si~hject prop~rty; that the owner of liie ad~oi.ning property [o
Che west (F'reewny Propertiey) had ind•l~e~ted nn intereyt in dcsveloping the.lr property C-1~
nlso, and wcre proposing to util,ize a 20-f.aot accc~~e fram rheir propcrty to Sn~ita Anu
Canyon Rond. whlch hud buen ~,rnnted by n Superior Courc Condemnution Order; that his
undcvetanding wna thnt Fre~eway Properties wou.id nlso be propuaing an accesR on Imperlal
Higliwuy for th~ir praperty; thnt when tl~e westerly pruperry was put out to b.id by the
SC:~te, bide were hLtHC(I un Chere being no ar.c.~ps to the pr~perty nnd, Hince L•hnt time,
Freew~y Propertieaw the succesaful bidder~~ ]ocated u 20-foot xccese along Santa An~
Cnnyon Rond; that the Plunning c«~,i.y~.con, at their meeting ut November 25, 1974, had
reyueared the twu property owncr~a to try t.~ work out u commo-~ acceeR ril.ong Santa Ann
Canyon Road und he dld noC ba~l.Leve thut hud been accompllehed; tt~ut the Traffic Div.tslon
had no deed restrict.l.one regarding the 20-foot arcesa for Freeway Propertiea to Santu Ann
Clnyon Raad and~ ttierefore~ ir. ~~ou1d al:~~eur likely ttint l'hnt nccess would stand, however,
it wAa too c?ose ko the norner and dangerouc~ ~o the health and welfare of the community;
th~t A meetinR had been held with the ~wo ~roPerty ownera aud Ci.ty Sr.aff c~n December 5,
1974 ancl, ut l•hnt meeting, Mr. Rinker of :mperial Properties~ offererA to let Freeway
Properties tiave acceRa khrough thA middle of their propPrty, through tlie Tmperi<il Proper-
ties' southwesterly acc:ese, which ~ppeared to satisfy L•he Tra~f.ic Division, since thar
acceas point was not Coa cloae tn the corner of Sgntrs Ana Canyon Faad and imperial. Highway
and would be quate to handle Che traffic when tne AllT became heavier.
Mr. Warren C. Lefebvre~ reprea~enting lmperial Properties, the petltiuner, appeared before
the Commission und stated that subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting of November
25, ].974, tliey had held one meeting with Preeway Pxorertie~ nt whicti Freeway Properties
made a proposal whi.cii they would probabty deacribe laCer o.~ in this meeting; that the
Treeway Properties~ proposal hud been taken under con~ideration and subsequently Imp~rial
Properties had met with City Staff and ot.hers during which it became evi.dent tliat adut-
tional access points wouid be unac~eptable to the City ~ngineering Divisioii; that in the
interest of preaervi.ng what they felt was the Crafflc-carrying c.apability of Sar~ta Ana
Canyon Roacl~ a propu~a~ wns made involving the additional access which was granted by the
City for the Imperial Propertiea parcel; that said proposal waa made at the meeting held
on Friday, Uecembsr 6~ 1974, whicl~ wa~ attended by Che Traffic En~l.neer and the Zoning
Supervisor; that the 30-foot easemenC along the northerly property line of the sub~ect
pr~pecty, which was previously approved by the Cir.y Council, cont:ected wi.th the we~terly
property for access; that Tmperial Propertiea was wi.lling to preserve tt~at easemenG agree-
ment whi.ch was recorded for the benefit of lhe parcel to the weat, with the condition that
if the City Council sul>seq~ently approved alternative access, said eacement would be
forfeited; that Freeway Pr:~p~rtiQs had not expreased any final ttioughts nlong thoae l:nes,
however, thnt would be the proposal of Imperial Propertie~, in an effor: to provi.de some
method whereby the City coul.d preaerve the i.ntegrity of the traffic capability of Ssnta
Ana Canyon Road ~nd so that the additional access granted by the City Council. along Santa
Ana Canyon Road would not have to be utilized Lu provide access to th~ par.cel. ta the we~t.
Chairman Elerbst claritied r.hat Tmperial Fropertiea wa~ offering to stabilize the 30-;`oot
easement a.lon?, Cheir uoXtherly property line, foregoing the right to relocate that ease-
ment at any time.
Anciika Santalahti n~ted for the Planning ,.ummission that oTie of the buildin~s indicated ~n
the plans was locr~ted within 50 feet of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 100 feet would be requircd;
and that the original approval did uot waive that setback requirament. Mr. Lefebvre
stated City SCaff had brought this matter L•o their attenti~n and they undarstood that tliey
would have to cc~nt:ora~ tu the Scenic Cox'ridor (SC) Overiay Zone requirements.
Mr. Robert S. Lewin, Attorney, representing Freeway Propertieati the property owner of the
parcel to the weat of subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated
that they did not oppoae the Imperial Propertiea ~ievel.opr~ent, huwever, Chey did not support
it either; thae tt~•y were uppearing at the present point in time siace they did not want
the City to act nn the propoeed plans for said development based on errone~~us application
of facte; that th.e City expect~d cooperation and coordination hetween the r.wo properties
regarding the accesa ~oints; that they had met with reFresPntatives of 'imperi.al Propertiea.
as requested, and in hia opinion ttie Imperial Properties' proposal to solvc~ the access
~
~
~
MU^~UTISS, CC'fY F'I.ANNTNC CUhII~1i5SI.UN, Deccnnber 9, J.97G
f.'fBM N0, 8 (Continued)
74-568
probl~amN did not do nnything towar.d uchir.vlnn a deoireihle BCC~HH but pleced the FrQewny
Yro},erties pnrcel in n bnckyard-type ettuatt~n; thet ae n rncttCar ot prneticality or common
su~~He, they wc+rc wllling Co go ~lonq wl th an acceee that would be in the bee~C int~ret~C of
publlc welE,~re, hnwevor, en imp~~ri~l Ilighwny ecceee vould mnk~ botter ~c~nr+e for thelr
dev~.+ti~pmcut~ fur which thc~y w~uld be willing tu trnde tholr 20-foot a~•~.:eea on 5nnta nna
Cnuy<,n Kond.
Chntrman HerUat noted thnt when thi~ truCfic. on Sonta An~ Ce~nyon ren,:heJ 25,000 All'f,
medinn~ wuul.d be requir~~d.
Mr. i.ewin conlinued by c~tnting Cliat the +ar~:ese pro~,osed by l:nperliil Propi~rtice wue itir
inierior t~~ wh~-t thcy +~lr~~nd~; htid vif~ thc~ 20-fuor ~~cct~ss; thr~C tlie Citv hud +ui import+int
stnke ln thelr projecr, a:l.ncr. ~he {~ubllc hnd the ri~;hC to the convenience t~ervice they were
~roT~osing to develop cm rhe prnpcrty ~ind Chot khey Intendcd Co put lo~er.licr ri proJ~ct thut
wou.ld be in the beat inCererit of Che {~uhl ic.
('liairmun He: ba~ t:hen no~.• .l t.hat l.C. ,rai9 d~ubtful that the Cily would flpprove n very henvy
development on the Fr~_ewny F'rc~pert.tes paircel with thc 7_n-fooC ACC~BB~ ch, t Lmperi.nl
Proner.ties wt~s ~,lving thc~ acrtva to thc north r~hici•i -'r~ wny Proper•r.les wuH refutinR c~e
heing not good enoiigh nnd tlYey were indicnt+.r~}~ thcy did nut wer.t to work wi.tt~ Imperinl
1'roperties in resi~lvlttg kh~: niutCer,
Mr. Lewln tt~en sCnt:ed tliey !~ad perf.~r-ne.d traf.ft.~ studies and there wcre severn]. existing
traffic problemv in ~he nrea~ one hein~ r.he loc_._ion of the bua stoti on Imperl.al H',;hway
~nd khe mcim. ~r in which th~ bur. blockRd A).~At' ~t two laiies of trRf i ic und part of their
proposal was to ~olve thr~t prab~ em; that ti„ y had an F~dditional pra~,lem due to the con-
figuration of th '° par~sel of laiiJ; chat ~ccess on Imperial Higtiway was very deairobla aad
proper fron. a trnft, sa:eCy atnndpoint; tha[ tk:~ State had relinquiahed the ncceas righta
for Imperiul klighway and Sai~tu Mu Canyon R~ad after sendinR out Che bide fot sale of the
weaterly parcel. betng ~' i.sa-ssed; r.hat tney t-nd a ~opy of a letter dnted Nu~ember 20~ 1974,
from the State Uepartment of Trflnr:~~~rtatio~z~ thaC the StaCe intendeci r.o conv~y the accese
righta to the City c~E Anahei*~, g,.ug the City conkrol of said accesaes; that consideration
shou.ld be given to acces~ f.or the developmen~ of the Cwo parcels as a whale; lhat they
would like to have ~:he access on Imperial Highway ~+nd would coo~dinate wi~t~ Impprial
Properttes re~arding the acceas point on Santu Ana C~inyvn Road; r.h~st the f~~regoing was the
ba~ia und fcundntlon o;: cheir nusition ar-d rhey only wanted some kind of. rEie~n~ble acceas
thar wovld be ln the best intc~est of the public and t:., preclude e~,eir ~~r~nerry from being
landlocked.
,~ In response ~o queationiag by Chalrma: Herbst, Traffic Env,ineer Pau.l Sing~r noted for tt-e
C<.mmission that several meetings h.d been held wi.th the propcrty ow-~era reg~trding the
access point3 for the two proper.ties in question• that the l-rr.fflc consultant for Freeway
I'roperties had provided cumputations with ~.ahich he had no quarrel except that there wa~ a
scrioun omission being thar left turns fro:.. Imperial Highway s~uthbound Lo ti~e property
were provided for u~cess to the property; that th~re wa3 major concern thruu~huut the area
f~r the integrity of [he intersecti~:n at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway and
the tw~ traffic conaultants for tt• ~ propertiey had. concurred ..' .i the Traff•lc ~ivi9ion
that this intersectic:. would be h,~,~vily trave.lled and, t•herefore, ahould he protecred in
every pc~sstble way and, especially in the area betweer the freeway and Santa An1 Canyon
Road, thare yhould be i~o cutn ~r acce>>s throi~gh the me3iana; that also in ne2d ~f r_on-
sider~ition wa.:, ~he rraffic Char muat ~:ress sevprsl lanes to eet to tt~e freeway ramps; thsc
Inperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road were both travelled at rather high spezds and
would probably remain as high-speed arteries; and that the Traffic Uiviaion would recom-
mend Chat no additional t1~~es8 po1~1CH be provid~d through the mediana or irom Imperial
Highway or Santn Ane Canyon Road.
In reapoiisQ tc~ questioning 'uy Chairman Hero~t~ Mr. Si.rger. adviaed that access from the
Freeway Properties' parcel wherP the traffic would be mnki.ng ri.ght-hand Cur;t:~ wuuld atill
create a weaving pro5lPm; and :hat Che State had anparenC~~• r.ecorded the deed to the
Freeway Properti~s` parcel wir~iout access cc Imperial t. t~rotect the fr.eeway ramp.
R~gnrding the bus ytop oPntiuned by Mr. Lew•ln, Mr. Sir.gec advlsed khc+t at ~he present time
the arterieR were not being trav.:lled to cap~acity a•>>d, thexefore, the location of the bus
atop was a•.ceptable; dnd thut lat~r an said uus stop would be mov,•1. Regsrding thE two
accesa points on Sante Ann Canyor. Road, Mr. Singer advtaed that preaently there ~aas an
opening on Via Ccrtez which ~~ae the primarv accesa co the commercial developmenC ~rc ..sed
by Imperial Properlies; Chat th~ addiCional acces~ was ryual distance between Vin Cortez
and Imperial Highway; und chat he wauld recoromerd one access be for ingresa and one ucceas
be for egress.
~ ~
MINUT~S, CiTY PI.AN*1xNC (:UD1Mi.SS1UN~ ih~cembcr 9~ 1.974 74-5uy
ITEM N0. 8 (Ccntinu~d)
Commiesioner King eugqest~~d t.hat Che ndaitionnl acco.{N granted by tt~e Ci cy C~-unc~ L1 in
Nov~mber 197 3 ba made LnCo n ~ublic rond.
~crss - nt S:OU p.w~, Chuirman H~rbst de+clared n rec~~aK at ri ~ request of
Commiaeionnr Faruno, ln order to conPer with the Dr y City Attorney
regncding thu legnl rnmificatlone of the propoenla ,..:ing d~ecuesed.
kECONVENB - A~ ~:1(1 p.m.~ Chalrmun Herbet reconvened the meeting with al~.
~ Commieei.~nora heinq pr~sont.
Deputy Ci.ty Atr.orney Erank Lowry advised th+it if the CiCy designed a atreet nugllRently
crteting a traff Lc~ haz+~rJ, or permitced it to be Ro done~ the CiCy wauld tttiereby creaCe u
llabLlity; thnt ~~~rt.lin linbilitiea could be attr.ched ta City Stni:f and certal.n City
officiale; that n c:~~~~~ in poinr. had brought liability to the Deputy Clty Attorney in
unott,~r clty becau~~ rhal' pereon fai.led to ndvise regarding Che neg.llgenC and d+ingeruue
condi~i.on l•hat wuuld be creat.ed ~y permitting euch a eitunti~n, and aJ.lowing ncc~se on
Lmperi.al Nighwny wnuld he creMting euch a liabJ.lity; tliut the Superior Court Condemnation
Order reserveJ the 20-foot ucrces for tf~e parce2 o~nc+d by Freews:y ProperCiee3, even though
waid acceas wua not cunveyed; r.h~t unlese Che Superior ~:ourt Condemnation Ord~r. wars appealed,
and the atatute of limltutionR tor nppealing was pro6ably ]ong gince paet, then it w~uld
etand; that tlie easterly propcrty owiicd by Imp~~rial Propexti.ea w~-e required to provide one
30-foot irrevocab?.c~ easemenr yy u~reement~ wnich was providea along the nartherly property
line, and the City wus not in ~ p~sition L•o peYmi.t any additional acceae pointa on imperial
liighway or S:~nCa Mn Canyun Roaa.
City Engineer Jamex Maddox ther, adviaed that aecest~ pointa agreqd upun t.y the Cc~~:~ity, City
an,d State were nat on Imperial Htgl~way, Uut on Santx Ana Canyon Rond; tt~~-t thc aaditional
c.:ceas point was grnnted Uy the City Council in November, 1973~ nnd ~hen lt was diRCOVered
vF~ry Yecently by Freeway Properties that a 20-faot ~cceKa to their pru;>er.ty also exic~ted
~o Santa Ana Canyon Ror~d,
Mr. Lewin exp'leined that whe.n their property wus offered far sale by t:~e St~te, ir. was
handled by aealed biua uhich went out J~ily i7, 1974, and the deacription of the prope~i.y
was in error, whi.ch was e matter of public recoxd. being that thP relinquishmanC of Impnrial
Hi.ghway and Santa Ana Canyon Road waq da.te3 May 2.3, 1973 and re].ied on by Frec:~ray Propert~es
in Cheir bidding.
Commisaioner Farano noted that. the relinquishment of access righta to Imperial High~aav wae
a mat'~+r of ~onr.ractunl obligation betwzen the State and the C ity, and the City hr~' Che
right .o grant or refuse to grant any acce~as.
Mr. Lewin then ~xplained that a second erroneous £act was thot the zoning was R-A in the
bids but ic tiad Uaen zonr~ C-1 by the Ciry some months prior ~o ~he letting of bic' 3 and
that Cook Chem oack to th~:ir originaJ. pooiCion and content~o.. that their access p>>posal
was in th~ best intet~~~C and welfare of the public, and was t~e prim~ coasi~eratia~i c-t
this e:line; and that the City had the ri~ht to grant ~:~casa if i.t wanted ko. Nc~ continue~
by :;tati:ig Chat the City Traffic Engineer had agreed +~ubstantively thaC there was no
wea~ing pr.oblem wi.th reh; ect to a right turn on Imperi:al Nighway, and il~e Freeway Yrop-
erties' traffic consult~nt had als~ indicated there wae no weaving ~,roblem. ltegar,l:ng
negl igence, he stutec: their r.~affic studies indicate~ th, ~•e was no traffic hazard being
created by Cheir pL'Gp0881 for accesa on Imperial Highway.
Coom-issioner 'Polar n:~ted from h.is undecetanding of the .omments being made, that Mr.
LeWin's statemente were i.n total disa~,reem,~nt with the CiCy Traffic F.ngineer who had
indicated the proposal wotsld create a we.~~ _rg problem i.n ~he traf.f ic.
C~h~'-tT.~SIONER CAUER 1.EFT THE MEETING AT 5:3~ P.*~.
Mi. Lewin then at =d i~i.s commente r~lated to the ahop~•i.ng center concept; that they would
be provi.dir.g a ser~~ice to the pul.' ~ an6 the City w~ulci recetve reac~unaole sales tax
revenuea; that r.t~ey ~:uld require a reasonable ;.raffic flow pattern; and that Che prop~~sed
access to their proprrty un Imperial Highway cuuld aecve both prop~rties.
Iu reaponse to coumiente by Commiasiuner FErano, Mr. Lowry adv ised thaC Che resarvaCion ut
ttie ~0 •fout 3c:cer~s easement was in the final order uf con~lemnation uf ehe Superior Court
ai 'he Sr.ate had i~;dicsated r.here was no r~cceae to Santa Ann Canyon Road at that point,
the Sta~e was clearly wrong because it did e~ciet, and to taicP it awa;~ would bn invalid.
~ •
MIRUT~S, CITY PLtWi~It~G Cc~MMI55I0N, 1)ocemUer 9~ 1974 14-5~0
ITLM N0. 8 (Cunr.ic~ued)
Mr., l,ewin conCin~ied by ~tuting ttieC if a con~enercial. d~velupnieiit wae Co hP c~neCructed on
liie cliant's property ~ tt-~en i t ahould be done to create tho I~eet atiopping can~tor, ne n
wholo, and the pc'oposal by Imperi.nl ProyyerCi~es did not i11y accompll.ali thnt oh,~ective.
Mr, Lowry then lidvised ttuil• chungos hnd tnk~n plnca~ including that [he Ci.~,y Counc!] ar-d
Plnnning Cammias~.on were not mnde up ot thP same parROne that origin.~ll.y c~~nsidered the
reclaeoificat~on of tti~ two pr.ouerties, and 2erhape th~ mntl•er of the zuning el~ould be
r.escfnded. Ch.ilrnuin Fierbel cuncurred on the Uani.o af the 20-foot aCCE:H9 liuving ~ust be~~n
diacovc~red nnd L•he fnct thut the ~~ning wc~e c~n~idered under dtfferent circumetnuces.
In response to c~ lonti~g by Commie381uner Farano~ Mr, Lowry ~dvised t.-ar rhe City Al•torney's
Office hpd diacur~;.. ~I tlie mntt~~r of thc ~l cesa painCs exteneively, however, ttiey had no
directive to contlnue ~~n lnv~•:, if;+~tion ~ ~t`t respect to liabilities, etc.
Commioeioner l~~irnno thc:n atc~Ced lf ther ~r~re oCher pXOepective inve~,tlgationR and rocom-
mendatione to pl.ace more fiict~ Uefor.e th~~ Ylanni.ng Commin~ilon and the City Council, he
would like to request tl~ut they be madc er, that wtien oneicieration wae reaumed, thoae
bodies would not be act in.g in abr~enc~~ of £acty. 1{e Chen auggested a poetponetpent with a
direct:tve r.o khe City Atturney to puraiie some of L•he qiieett.ons raise<1 at thie meeting eo
thaC tYr>_ matter could be considerc~d more cler~r.ly ut a later time; ~~~d thA~ si~ue the
m~tter appeared to be sc~mewhat "bueched up" by P~''~r actione o~ the c;ity and recent eventu-
alities, he did n~t feel the Planning Comraiseion aho~~l.:l act until it was clear k~hnt w~uld
be t.aking place and the remif ications thereof. He furtlier noted that the Cwo property
ownera iind/or tl~eir repreqentatives ahould get together to trv to resolve the muCter
heCween themaelves; that any f•~rL•her propasals or dl.acuasiona bro~~ght to the PlanninR
Couuaisaion would have t o resolve al.l of the probl.em~; that he did ~ot t2~ink the matter
should be held over. f~r eix weeks, b~c~n~'se i[ ~u r~~rrher agree~nents had been reached by
CYeal time Uy the two p~rties, then the ~.. ..nission wo~l.d b• t~~~.k w.:"'P. Chey stui:ted; and
L•hut the nropoaaly u:RC useed at thie m~,eLing a~ere obvio~ie -~ ,; ~u ~~nuufSL tn solve the
grob~ema,
Mr. Harr;~ Rit,~er of I~~ •c;. lal Properties appeared before thp Commission and raviewed the
lii~tory c~f their proper y, He noted Chat they had originally stated they thought the two
parcela i.n yuestlun would b~~ developFd as one pro~ecc; thaC the question hud arose,
originally, as to what would happen i.f they did not develop the r~roperty all in one project;
thal• the plan had been submitted tu the City and th~ State for che easemer.t licenae agrPe-
ment which wae subAequently recorded by the StRte; that Chey had a 20-foot aqri.cultural
accesa on their titl.e, the same as Freeway rr.opcrtieH; L•hat their property had been iri the
process of zoning for four or ~ive years and the zoning wfiH tinally gr.anked une and a half
years ag~; that they r~t~-ould be able to go ahead wiCh conetruction nf their originrsl plan
by conforming to :.aid plan, sub~ect tu appro~•al of the pr~~ise plan; an~l that as long as
the precise plan siibmitted was in conformance with the origiiial plan, loc;ic.all'q, it wc•uld
have to t~~a approved.
Commissioner Farano interjectea that it could perhaps logically be a~proved, but n~t
necessaril.y.
Mr. Ri.nkei• continued by ~stat;ng that they had agreed to n permanent eIISment to tt~e north
of their ~~ro~erty, and he did not know wr.at else they could be requested to logically uo
to help tti~ adincent property owner to the wes~; that it would be groesly unfai.r to have
to meee wi.Ch the ad,jacent property owner for a month to aix weeks; thgt u plan haa been
submittej for their propasal, the shopping centcr wae ready to go, and intFrest wae
running, snd it was unfai.r to continue holding up conatruction.
Chairman He~. '~st i~iquired what the effect would be if the additior:al ac~eas granted by the
City Coun4il in Nuvember, 1973 wae made into a public or dedicated street curving to the
;~ent to prnvide access to ~ e westerly par.cel, and Mr. Rinker stated that miaht bEa a
wcrkable salut~~n but it would depend on whether they could ha~c proper accesa to ti~eir
pruposed buildinga in that are~. Chairman Herbst then advtsed that curb cute in the
street, if ~:rEated, mighC be a reasonable solution wit.h nu pr~rking being oermiCted along
that atreet.
Mr. Rinker offered to compromiae in arder ~o bring tt~e ~ro~ect up to the best interesC of.
th : public, the City, r.tc. , Rnd atated h~ would reyuest 1 continuance to the Planning
Commission Me~=,ting of January 6, 1375, ar.d thae the dedicared street concept would be
taken into cotx3lderat ton,
~
~
•
MINUTE3. ~LITY l'I.ANNINC CUt~1I3SI0N. Uecember y, 1974
~TEM NO, fi (C~r.tinued)
%4-57~
Commle,~,i.aner I~nran~ suggosted th~t coneider~tioii also bo given to the a'lternative of
aband~~nmen[ of Ct~a ndJitionc+l ucc9ae granted by Che City Council in November, 1973, i.n
rQep~c~ ro eerving ~ha pxaperty to th~ woet und tliinking along the lince og aervtng ~uel•
the Im~~~~r•ia: Proportiee parcel; and that tlie pr.cperty to thu west might wieh Co r,erve ita
propert:v ~aith the 20-~oot easemc~nt.
Mr. L~wln etatPd that part of I~ie problems were alsa th~ City'o pr~~blome,
Mr. J,+mee McGirr of Wlll.danAaeoLiates appeured before thQ Coma-ission and etated a prlvac~
road uccess from Santa Mu Canyon Road would probab].y cr.9ate more problame Chan on
Imperiet Highway.
Chairman Harbet noted th..t if eama reneonable solution wae not found, it wae c.onceivabla
that devalopmei-C of the westerly parcel could be andanger9d and end up ae a nurNery~ otc.
He further noted t:hat an alternaGive might be f~r Freeway Propertiea r.o 3Qdicate thair 20-•
foot acc.eas on Sar.~~ Ma Cany~~n Ron~~ and use the d~dicated ux ptiblic road approach onl.y.
and try to develop r.ho px'«perty around that acces~.
Commi~nsioner Farano offerer.l n motiony oeconded by Comm~esioner Morley an~t MOT70N CARI~IED
(('ommiaeionar Gauer being abaent), to conrinue considerati.on of r.equest for upproval of
.~~lt~~ plan ac-d elevati.ons for ReC1ci881f1efttloII No. 71-72-21 end VAriance No. 231.Q to the
mee ng of .Ianuary 6, 1975~ in order that the sub~ect property owner(s) and the ow~~r(s)
of the adjacent property t~ the w~c~t can tueet and prepare aiterna.tive plans to reauive che
acce~a problems ~pparenr to both par.cels.
ADJOURNMENT -;her~ being no turther buslnese to diacusa, Commisaioner King
offered a motion~ ser.onded by Co~niseioner Fsrano and MOTIQN
CAR1tI~D (Commissioner Gauer betng abaent). to adjourn ~he
iae~ting to December 1'.~, tu74, at 7:00 p.m. f or a Work Sessinn.
'fliQ meeting ud~ourned ~t 6:00 p.m.
Respecr.fully submitted,
~t,-lit=~G~1~//~ - }~
Patricia B. Scanl.an, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Cor~mission
PBS:hm