Minutes-PC 1976/07/07•
5~
I111~1'TGS, CITY PLANNIN~.~ CQMM!5510~J, .~uly 7~ ~`.17~
'1~~-3~~
~!ARI AHCL 1~0. 2~?.2 (Cont I nuccl)
she d I d not mf ncl the ne i ~hhors c~mp 1 a i n( n~, ~~hou t the ~1us t~ hnweve r~ the equ 1 pment was vary
much necess~'~ry t~ thc o~cratl~~n.
14r. 3oyce st~~te~l th~t he ha~l no ar~~umenr about th~ ~:;cistence c~f the overhea~l fuel CJ~kS~
that he c~wn~d t:hree trucks ~ onr. be~nn {~arl<a~l and .~s~d to hau~ in the fced for the worms;
thnt thc rnfrigcr.~+ted vi~i was r.c~ tr~~nsport the worms, since thc worms rcqui red very close
tolur~~nce of temperaeurc; th.~t the purpose of the c~verh~ad Puel tanks was to fuel the
equlpment nn tha site; thit he dId not like cifs:o~tions oP facc and he was nnt In
whi rhth~d n~trexlsoe 1 on~khetpropertyWprevlously~;~an I thit~he hat only~usedf and1fuelFe~se
three trucks ~n thr, propr_rt.y tc,-dar.c,
THF Pl1DLif, i~~nRir~c WAS CI.OSt:Q.
In response to yuest(oning by Ch~(rman J~hnson, Mr, E3oyce staked thr fuel tanks on the
s( t~ storeci diesel fuel ~ Mr. l3oyce f~irther state~ tliat othe~nprop5~tt~s'ck; W~~~~~~in~~re
beinh usoci to store heavy eq~~lpment not of the U-Haui type~
parked in thr -treets fnr storac~e and for changing ~. f ~I 1~ etc. ; an~l that he had tried tn
be a quod clt~zen and keep his equipment off the strer_ts.
Deputy City Attorney Frank l.owry aclvl~ecl that the type of worm farm beine fnheavy~I on the
Si~h}~~t ~~rppr~~.y ,~as not properly a homc occupation use~ in that any typ
mechanl„a' equiprne~~t for tr~nsportin<~ feed~i~ ot fall~withinPtheescopehofVhome~~~in~
equlpment in connec ti~~n w) tl~ ,ales ~ etc. , belon in
occupations but ra.her was a commercial worm farm whlch would more approprlately 9
county terri tory ~~r other tlran an urhan ci ty area; an<1 that there were several groun~~ `c~
revocation uf hom~ occupatlon permits and tf~e subJect worm farm wa~~ in v+olatlon af
approximetely six of said grounds.
1n resp~nse to ~uestfoning ~~y Commissioner Farano, Mr. Boyce stated he a~as the a~ner ~f
Ernpi re Paci fi c~ thP name indicaCed on the trucks shown in the photogrr~hs ; that he was
certlficated by the Puhiic Utilitie~ Commission ~incl was permitted to transp^rt; anything
b~it 1(quids; ancl that he leased ihe subJect property frc~m Mr, Green~ and Mrs. Wilklnson
arid her family lived on the property to watch after the ~qulpment, etc.~ and malntaln the
worm farm. Commissioner Farano then questloned what was the relatiun,hip be:ween Empire
Paci ftc arid the wa~•m farm and made an o6servat(on that there were actual ly two uses being
conducted on the property in some Jegree or respect~ as far as he coulc: tell from the
Fhotographs and other information presented at• this hearing,
In rewpoesea~k~ {~o^h~~eqstreetnin~the photograpt~srhadrbeen movecBt~onto theesubJectrucks
that er p
property.
Commissioner Farano indicated he was ready to offer a resolution to deny the subJect
petition; wl~ereuFon~ Mr. Boyce requested further time to explain che prc~posal, Following
permfssion grantPd by the Chai rman, Mr, f3oyce stated for the record that he would no doubt
apF~al a denia~ of the proposal since he did not r'eel that the r.onsideratlon was based on
facr.; that the objections indicated by the opposition related entirely to the exlsting
wryrm f'irm ~peralion and not to the proposal for outdoor storsye of HealtheDe,artmenttint
they had heen issued a clean bill of health from the Orange Caunty P
connect:~n wiC~~ Insect controi, etc.; and that the points of tlie ob~ect3ons hacl absolutely
~~othing to do w~th what hr. was making an appli~atlon for under the subJect variance,
In respoise~ Cheirman Joh~~son noted that obJections had baen heard at thls meeting in
connectton wlth the outdour storage of equipmPnt on the subJect propert y~
Commissioner Barnes indicat~~~thjcturescwhichnledVher to believefCheeobJec2lonsPto~tha,Y
because she ha~ viewed sevPra offer b the pPti t i oner to allev(ate
dust were baseo upon fact and she ,~ad not hearu any Y
Che clust problems.
Commissio :r Herbst noted ihat any commercial act~:irY tioming into a residen~tal area was
responsible for ttie protection of the residential properties; that th e proposal was a
f be ~p to the p~tit(aner
co~mercial trucking use and~ if such a use were yranted. ~~rWOtherwis - and thr_ petitloner
to do the procr~:i.ir~g whether 2t was by paving, screening~
had offered ~n~f~sio~gqedsince itbwastsur~oundedWOn attleasteth~ee sidesl1weth~residential
heavy equipn .
~ ~
7G-3in
MINIJTf:S, CI'`Y pLAN~11Nf, CQMMISSI~~d. Ju1Y 7~ l~'76
VARIANCE N0. 281.2 (Contlnu~~i)
property nnd snld usn wcul~l substant~ally inCerf`~~rc wlth the use c~f SB~t~ residenllnl
propertlcs.
Commisslon~r Farano affered a rtx~tlan~ seconclucf by f,omm(ssioner Mor?cy and MOTI~II C1IRRIEO
(Commissioiiers Darnes an~1 Herbst voting "no~" anct Commissl~ncr Tola+- bclnc~ absent) ~ that
the An~helm Clty PlenninPGCor~ml~seG`~be~exempt~P~,om`thGmrequlrementCtoyP~epnre,~~nfenvl rontY
of Anahe I m thac the s~ib J P 1
mcntal Impact rAR~rt, pursuant to the p~~~vlsfons nf thc Californla Environmont~l QualitY
Aet.
Cammission~~r Farrn~nnAhei~dCRty~Planninq Comm?sslnn cloesmhcrc~`Y~de~~YsPa`t~g~on for VArlancc
adopt~on~ that the
No. ?.R22 on th~ basis thal the suhJect. praperty I~ not sul't~~b1c~ fc~r heavy equ pmont
stort~e~e since s~1c1 ~'r~~'~jed usesw11111creatensubstantlalShcscrrb~ncesionlsai Ivre~1 i~ntial
propertles and the p p
u,•upertles ~iue to the nelse~ ciust and visual (ntruslon upon che neie~hborhood; that t c
propc?secl use constitutho{~ ~fm~rote~ctlnc;cthetreslden`tialelntegrlty`~of~theSSirr~ounding
screenln~ or other met P
neig'~borhood. (See Resalut.fon Book)
On roll call, the fare~o(ng resolution a~~7~ pa5sed by the following vote:
AYES: C011MISSIONCRS: 6ARi~FS, FAR~t10, fIERBST~ KING. MORLFY~ JUtINSO~J
N~ES: CQMM~ .,S In~~C'RS : NQIIE
AIfSEP~T: COMt11S51Qt![R5: TOLAR
Commissioner Farano offerc~d a motlo~ha~eCityeStaffCbemdirected torinvest~igMte) theCent~FD
(Commissioner 1'olar being ahg~~2~5outh Knott Street)~ and particularly the operation of
~~,~ the subJect property ~
t~ ;, rm fa rm and act i v i t i es I n connect i on wi th the trucks and other heavy equ l prr~rn t or
thc property, ancl report back to the Planninq Commission concerning whether the use of the
property is proper or whetherin ~ore1ationrand/ortactlvitles~onmtheWpropebtyrequired for
the contin~aance cf sald exist ~ P
RECESS - At 3:3~ p•m~, Chairman Johnson declared a recess.
R~ F~IE - At 3~~~ P•m•, Chalrman Johnson reconvened the meeting with
------""- Coinmissioner 'Tolar being absent.
VARIANCE N~. 2n~23 - PUBLIC NEARING. C. FORREST faD 9~~~5N~~ners}M'lrrequeStingSouth
Anaheim Soulevard, Anaheim~
WAIVFR OF PERMITTED PRIMARY USES~ TO ESTABLISN A RE~REATIOIJAL
VEIiiCLf STORIIGF. YARD on property descr(bed as an irre~ularly-shaped parcEl of land
con5lsting of approximately 3•~ acres having a frontage of approximately 125 feet
on the east ~ide of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of appraxii~ately
786 feet, bein~ locaturtherrdescribed as,173~tSouthhAnaheimyDoulevardenLP~oP~~~Yf
Katella Avenue~ and f
presently classified CH (CQIIMERCIAL~ HEAVY) ZONE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to subject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commtssion dated July 7, 19/~, was not read at
the public hearin~~ said ~taff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Forrest Hammond, the PPz1eisubrectpproPertY~forerecreatlonal~vehicleSStorage;5that~, 1~
they were proposing to use th .1
viewing the surrounding a~on~ ~nd WouldSCertainlyrpux~thetpropertyhinlmuch nicerdshapet
properties~ in their opin .
while also providing them the apportunity to recoupM~om~+a~n{est~ted thsdtaxes onethears
which were increawe~~ onlh $175.a Yeariwhenmheif(rst purchasecl iL~ but the laxes had rlsen
subJect property Y
to several thou5and doliars currently.
THE PUBLIC NEARINr, WAS CLOSED.
~ ~
1G-311
MINUTI:S~ CITY PLA~INING COMMISSION, July 7, 197E~
Vl1RI~NCF N0. ?.d7.~ (Contlnucd)
~;~ response to questloning by Cemmissloncr Flurley~ Mr, ~iamrnoncl stated thay wcrc [~lanning
¢~ b1a.:kCop the driveways and ol { ~~r e~rt~vcl the st~ro~^ arcas t~ kcep dcwan the dirt; ~~~d
that they mi ght check 1 r~t~~ thr. f i n~~nc I~~1 feas i bi 1 I ty of h lacktoppi n~ thc ent i re propr.rty,
Cortxnlssinner Morley noted thet althounh hc would not want to cre,~te n fin<~ncl~l liardshlp,
bl~cktopping of the ent~ ra prope~ty woulcl 1~e bel•ter tl~an c~r~~~el or o) l.
C~mmissloner Nerbst noted that some of the prevlously approvecl r~.creaticmr+l vehlcle:
sto~~ge lots h~d all bl~icktopplnc~, while others hacl nr~~vel for the actual stornge ,paccs;
that he w~~s concerned ~bout the Ien~th of time 'hat the pet(tioner miqht want Che subJecr.
property tor the prn(~050<I use, ~ incc he felt tht~t at some point in tir~e the nelghbors
mlght wnnt co imprc,~e thelr propertles and woulcl not want to be lo~klnc~ dcv+n upon the
recre~ti~nal vehicle storage; :~nc1 th~-t he would su~gest a five-year tin~e llmlt, subJect to
revfew for extenslons of tin~. Commissloner Flerbst further n~te~ that klic proposnl
appe,ired to be an inter(m-type us~ and should riot be allcywe~l in perpetu(ty.
Commis~e~levclo~nen[nin [hc are~,'sai I~newruscewuulci'probably1betaehighercuse~~ndstonthalth
other r P
a~iaantage af the petixloner.
M~•. Hammond stated that the proposa) would leave th~ property very adaptahle For Puture
use; that thcy would be l~~vel 1 nc~ thc property wi th proper ~irainage and wi th rt~ercury
1(ghtin~ at Fach corner of the property; and that no demnlition w~u1d bc requlred on the
site. Mr. Hammond then seate~t he felt: ap~~roval for elght years would be more appr~priatL
than Flve~ and that ten years would be even better. Commisslo~er Herhst explafned that ~
tfine llmlt ~11d not mean that the petitloner would have to go out of bu~,fness at [he ~nd of
thetuses~inh~closerproximi ty, to thetsubJect propeotY~~tethatet~nx"•+~an lhcompatibi 1 f ty upon
therewi th.
In resporse to questionin~7 by Comnisste~~an~ethat~the,s1t~ a9e~spaces1for~ithe,recreational
driveways or aisles would be blacktopF
vehfcles would be graveled or atf~erwise treatecl to control dust.
Cor,missloner Nerbst offered a motlon~ sc:concied by Commissioner King anci MO710~! CARRIFD
(Commissioner Tolar being absent) ~ that the Anaheim City F'lanning Commission daes hereby
recortmend to the City CouncPl of the City of Anahelm that the subursuar~~toGtheeP~ovislons
frnm the rPyui remenC to pre are an envi r~nmental Ir~pact report. p
of the Cal i fornia Envi ro~mental Qua) i ty Act.
and moved for its passage and
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No, PC76-132
adoptlon, that the Anaheim C3ty Planning Commisston does hereby grant Petiti~n for
Var(ance N~. 2~i1_3 for a perlod of eight years~ subJect to review ancl consideration for
extehsions of time to deter~~ ne whether the use is compatible wiCh the surroundir~g are~
and~ particularly with any new developmant in the surrounding area; subJect to the
stipulations of the peti[ioner, and subject to tlie Interdepartmental Comm~ttee
recommendatfons. (See Resolu tion 8ook)
On roll call, the foregoing ~esolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AY ES : COMMI SS I ~PlE:RS : EiARN ES ~ HERBST, Y.i NG, MORLf.Y ~ JOIINSOtd
NOES: C0~1Mf SSIONERS ; FAR11t~10
NBSCtJT: C~MM~SSIO~J~RS: TOLAR
Commtssioner Farano ~oted fo r the record that he was not opposed to the use, but to the
time limit?tion which he felt should not exceed five years since said use was an interlm
use ef the ~i~e~imi~awouldasethan5undesirable r~~ecedentefor,o[hersgwhormigF~tvheoo and the
e19ht-year
requestinq interim usES of property in the area.
_ - --~
~ ~
7G-~Iz
MINUT[5~ CITY PLAt~FlIIJG COM111SSION, July 7~ 197~
tilend~lc Ca.
Vl~RI~N~CF NQ. 2~12~i - ~uai.ir, i~~:nnirir,, JONN ~. WEflERf,~ 13G~1 East Flaplc~ ~
" !?17.~15 (Qwnrr); HnRC RATNRIIIl~ I'DR Cpf1Pl1NY~ 107.Q East Ve~'mor.t
Strer.t, Annhel~~, Ca, 9z~'n5 (Ayer,c); requr.sting WAIVF.R AF (A)
iMXINIIM tJUME1ER QF FREF.-ST~NDING SIGIIS. (D) FERMITTFD !.OCA7~~t1 OF FRC:E.~,S ~A~IDh~,TG T~GNS,
(C) MI ~I I f1UM D( STANf,C E3ETWE«~ FREE-S'T'ANDI Ilf, S I G~~~, ~NU (0~) MAX I 11U11 S I G ~ ~
ES711~LIS11 A SEC~!JD FRE[-STiltlDlWf, Si~~t~ ~n prop~.:rty descrlbed os n rectanqulrr~Y-
shrped parcel of Innd consistin~ of approxirnotcly I.fl ~cres havln~ a frontage of
havlnq c+ m~ximum depth
approxlmAtely 1R~ feet on the narth s i de of Llncoln 11ven~:e:~
of flpproxlmatety ~i27 feet~ hein~ 1~cat~~l apFroxlm~tnly 3~~0 feet we,'. of the ce:nter°
11 nc oP La P1 aza ~ and furth~:r descrl bed as 1 7~17 ~ast L incol n Aven.,c. Prupcrty
prescntly clASSf ffe~1 CL (CQMMf.RCIAI.~ LIHITF.n) ZONF.,
No one In~llcatecl their pre~,~nce in o~posltlon to suhJect petitlon.
Alth~u~h thc St~+rf Rc~rt ta the Plan~inr~ Commissicin dited July 7. 1`~7G~ w~s nut rcad at
the pub 1 I c heari ng ~ sal d Stnf f Report Is ~r. ferrect t~ an~1 mnde a{~art of the minutes.
Mr, flarc R~~thbun~ the ~~e~ent For the petltl~~ner~ appenrecl hefore the Planning Commission
and str~te~l tha proposed sign wouid bc: lnc:~ted bet~~ec~n thc exislinn A~ph~ Beta s'mn~ali~~~'y
Jack-In°the-Boft sic~n an~1 to the extreme wc~sterly ecfge o` ehe sub~ject property,
ad)acent to an inqress/e~)ress drlveway servln~ hotf~ the 111pha [feta market an~1 the SUb.~GCI
property,
TIIE PUBLIf, NE~RING WAS c~.o~rn,
in rc5ponsc to yuestioniny by Chairman Johns~n~ Mr. Rathbun staM~.~ ~f~thhunPfurther`,state~d
provicl~ slgnlna For all of Che shops on the subJect prupe. ty.
Yhit the Jack-in-the-t~ox would break thcl r le~~~e if reque~;te~ tu remove thcir sl9n; thaC
tl~e propos~l was flsxlble as f~r as tlte height af Lhe sigri was concerned~ although they
folt the propos~~l fulfilled thelr minimum requlrements; auettohthehlacknafCidentif(ca~tlon
tremendous ti~rnover of tenants ovcr ll~c past few years,
and the desiqn of the shopp(ng center being set bacl: behin I tt~e drive-througli restai.iranC;
that the tenants were a~lverClsing on racllo and in newspape-s anci~ with the pr~per
idencificatlun alon~l the street frontage, business In the i:enter shoulci pick up 100~•
Mr. John Weberq, the petitic,nar,naPpenter had ae~reatPhardst~ipCasmfarias visib111ty wast
the stores in the subJect shoppl ~
corcerned and the proposed sign would mitigate that problem.
Chal rman ,lohnson concurred that a hardshi p existed for the smal l shops in the center.
In response to questton(n~ by Deputy Ctty AttornPy Frank Lo+,~ry, Mr. Weberg stated that the
Jack~in-the Box vras on a year-to-year lease and had been loo'~inq for anuther location;
hawev~r, the real estate development agent for the Jack-in-c,ie-Rox haci in~licated lhey
would retain the subJect property since there was no other a,~propriate property in the
area f i~c~w~ th the' area. •an~lt~he9wel comed anytsuggest(ons~from`~tFierPlanntnclt Cumnlssion.
harrmn
Discussion pursued conc..~~~ing the Possibi lity of~~urlnq which Mr.SWebergQStatedathein-the-
~ox f rom the rema I nder of the sub J ect prope~ty ~
dlvision of the property would cause Inadequac(es in relattonship to legal size lut~,
parking area~ etc.
Commissioner Herbst inquireci if the peti tloner would ha~ie any objectlons to combining the
s~qnincl into one sign for th~,ea~b1 rsald restaura~tMe Whereupor , I•1re WebergnsohetBpulated.
buf lding was no longer occu,~ Y
Corxnlssloner Barnes no..ed that~ having bee~ to the subJect shopping center on many
occaslons~ she still did not know what type of shops existed in the total complex; that no
effort had been made on behalf of the shop owners to resolve t:helr access an~l
t~ientlficatlon problems, however, the proposal only representc~d a portion of the enttr~
shopptr-g center and one large comb(ned sign wo~~ld probably be appropriate, In responsin~
Mr. Weherg statecl they hacl diffieulty finding out who the, ownE~rs of r.he adJacent shopp
center properthes halPexperiencedPa~n~reat Curnover andvthebprlma--yeproblem appearedetohbe
year period. t y
signing or icienttfication.
~ ~
MINUTf:S~ CITY PLANNING C~PIMI'.SIUN, July 7~ 1976
'l~- 313
VARIAt1C[•: IJU. ~824 (Contin~ad)
In rnsponso t~ questloninn hy Commissioner Barnes~ Mr. Wehern atai.ed he llkcd landsc~ping;
th~~C the existing lnndscaping o,~ tha sito met thc Intent of th~~ Codo~ however~ he would
llkc to ad~.1 landscopl~g to the frnn; of Che nr~~Perty but~maxlmr.ms~we~ecalllowedt noxeci that
thc+ Code ~nly set ri!~wn the minlmums f~r landsc~+ping~
It was noted that tho Director of tho Planning Depertment had detc+rmined that the proposed
activity fell w(thin the dcsfinttion of Sectlon 3~~~~ Class I1~ of the City of Anaholm
Guldelines to thd lieq~it reme:nts fnr an Envl ronmental Impact Repo~t and was, the~~Fore~
ca tcgor 1 ca 1 1 y exempt f rom ttie requ I romen t to f i; c an E I R.
CommissionPr Herbst offerecl Resnlution No, PC76-1~:; and moved for Its passAye s~nd
adoptlon, that tha 1lnahelm City f'lan~iing Commi~sion daes herehy grant Pc:titlon for
Var6ance Na. 2(~2~+~ in part~ since the peCltlone:r withdrew the r'equr..sted w~tver of maximum
~ign he(ght with the scipul~tion th comply with the maxtmum s~9ne~mi~~1et~rlocationrlof~slgn:,
grantlnn the requested walvcrs af the m~xlmum number of signs~ p
and minimum dlstancc betwcen stgns, sald waivers betng granted Por the proposed l~~-tenant
panel sign and the exl~ting Jack-fn-the-Box slgn only~ on the basls that thc petttio,ier
derronstratecl that a hardship would be created if sald walvsr•s were not n~re5entlProccu~~led
hawever~ that In the event there is a change in th~ use ~~f the buildlnn p Y P
by the Jnck-ln-the-Box drive^through restaurant~ tlie signing sliall be incor~orated tnto
the sl~ning for the entlre complsx and not hayP separate slg~~(ng; ancf s~abJect to r.he
Interdepartmental Committee recortme:ndations. (See Resolutlon aook)
On roll call, rhe foregoing resolutlon was passpci by the followfng vote:
l1YES: COMMiSSlO~IERS: BARNES, FARA~IQ~ FIERRST~ KING~ M(1RLEY, JOEIPISO~~
NQfS: l:(1MMISSIOP{ERS: NONE
AdSFNT: C~)MMISSIDNERS: TOLl~R .
~
~
MINUTf:S~ CITY PLANPIING COMMISSIQN, ,1uly 7, 1976
~G-314
FIRST AMf:~IbMF~IT TQ THF. - Request for determin,~tion of conformlty with tha An~helm Cene,ral
RF.DFVF.L~PMFtIT PL~I1 FOR P1 an and for an C I~' Neg~~t 1 vc Decl nr2~r. i~~n - Proposel to r.rcl iidc
RF.~EVF.LOPMF.NT PR~J~:CT appr~xlmately u?h ~~cres of lan~l fr~m Redevcloprwnt ProJec,t
~~p~~~ Al~ha boundarics nnd to redesignatr. an area of approxlmetalY
17 r~crr.s with(n Radevcloprt~ent Pro)ect Alpha bounclnrlea.
buputy CI ty Attorney Fr4nk Lowry introduced the pr~>posed amr.ndm~nt t~ thc re~i~vclopment
plan for ProJect Alph~ and the request for findlnc,s <~nd recommanditlons by thc~ Plannine~
Commisslon.
RedavQlopment Rlanning Supervisor Ron Contreras rr.vieweci tl~e ~rn`~sil ~ notinn thnt the
t~moncfrn~nt conslstecl of 11 ~arts related speclficnlly to t4~e ProJr.ct Alpha Re~~rt ~dol~[erl
In I!173; that private devclopnient was occurring in the .i~proxirn~itely fi3h-acra ~~~ea
proposeci for cieletion, salci development bein~~ (n iccord~nce wlth the City's ~e~elnpnx!nt
plan an~i not re~~ulrin~7 redevelopment assistance; and that the "Repe~rt [~ the CI*.y Council
on thc F'irst Amendmcnt to the Redevelopment Plan" c~utlined the proposal in det~'+fl, f1r.
Contror~s fur~her noted that the following documents had hr.en submttted to the Planning
Commiss(on on June ~~, 1~7C~, for revlew in cannecti~n with the subJect(prop(Z~~Proposcd
Redevelopinent Plan for Redevrlopmr.nt Pro~ect Alpha adopted July I,)~ 1373~ fteport to
First AmendmenC t~~ the Redeveiopment Plan for Redevelapment Project Alpha~ (3)
City Councll ~n the First. Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, (4) Inltlal Study of
Enviranrnontal impact foi the First Amendrtrnt to the Redevelopment Plan~ and (5) Nec~atlve
Deciaration pertalning to the First Amendment tc the Redevelopment Pl~~n,
Commissioner Nerhst inquired whether any monies would be av~ilable from rcdcvclopm~nt
funds to help finance the exten~lon of Weir Canyon Roaci over the Santa l~na Rivcr to
elimina:e the traffic problems which might otherwise occur In the aren. M;. Cantreras
responcfed that it was his understanding Chat redevelopment monles coulr7 ba spent for
varlous proJects outside the proJect area if there. wa, a partlcular henefit to the proJect
a~ea (tself. Commfssioner Herbst continued by noting that h~ coulcl visual(ze the devclop-
ment ceasing in the subJect area in thP not too distant future without proper access
roads, wl~ich was his only c~ncern in connection with the proposed cleletlon from the
redevelopinerit preject area Alpha.
Deputy City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter advised that he would have a more Jlfficuyt time
Justlfytng expenditures of redevelopmenL funds for proJect~ out of the praJect area~ Sf
the subJect acreage were deleted from the proJect arr_a~ than if saSd acreage remalned in
the projeck ar~a; and that the Redevelopment Agency would have the legal abillty to expend
the money for the road fn question ~f the area werc t~ remain in the project ar~a (Alp~~a).
Corm~nissloner Barnes inquired why the area along Esperanza Road was being proposeci for
delet(on from the project area (Alpha}; whereupon, Mr. Contreras advlsed that portions of
sald area were already developed and some requests had been received ~rom tha people to
the north.
Chairman Johnson noted that the Justific:ation for• deletion appeai•e~1 reasonablu on the
basls that the arPa to be deleted was presently developing ln an orderly fashic~n without
asslstance from redevelopment funds.
The Plann(ng Commissio~ entered into discussion with Mr. Slaughter regarding the: need to
t•a(se funds and the ability to ~+se funds once they were ratsed, depen~iing upon the ,ustl-
fiad needs which may be even less than the amounts actually ralsecf an.i availa'r,le.
CommisslonPr Farano lndicated that if more funds than w~re needec! were being ralsed
through the redevelopment tax increment program, then iC appeared tl~at was justlfication
for adoptinq the change to delete the subJect acreage from [he pro_jPct area. Mr,
Slauclhter advlsed that any excess of tax monies received from the proJect a~ea may be re-
dlstributed throu~h the taxing agencies~ but the specific details cancernlnc~ red(strl-
button ~i+ere unknown.
!n respcrose to questioning by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Slaughter advised that the agree-
ment to allocate redevelopment funds to the schaal district was bas~ecl upon ihe deter-
minatfon that althouyh the school itself was not in a rec~eve~opment proJect are~, the
school was f~r *he benefit of the proJect area since the children tn the proJect area
rrould be attenciin~ ~he school.
Commisstoner Herbst 'nqutred whether the proposed amer~dad plan could be modified to
include pro}~erty ad)acent to La Palma Avenue easfward~ ta provide a corricior to (rr~rove
~ ~
111NUTES, CITY F'InNNIt~G CON~MISSI(1N~ July 7, 19?~
7G-315
FIRST AMf•_NDMEN'T '~0 'TliC RLDEVFLOPMCNT Pl.l1N FQR REl)EVEI.OPMENT PROJECT ALPI.l1 (Continued)
thc trafFlc flow Inta tiie: Ind~istrlal areo end Also to pr~vide flcx~d contra) protr_ctlan
from thc rlvcr. Mr. Sl~uqh~er ~~dvlsed thflt much c~f la Pelmn Avenue wou1~1 be Imprpvc~ti
thr~~u~h co~F>crAtlve eff~~rts between th~ f,lty of Anrhelm ~~n~1 the ~ounCy ot' Orange; that ~n~
af the prohlems oP ~xte~nding the p~rtlon of Welr Canyon itodd e~sterly was Ch~it It w~s not
yet a pn~C of trie City; and that there was ~~+ growinn questlon abouc kcepl~g propurty in
redevelopment proJecl ~rr~7s sin~ly for m~king publlc irtprovements.
Commissioner ~ar~no offered ~~ rmtion, second~d by Commissioner King and h'71~N CARRIEO
(Commissioner Tolar beinn ahsent)~ that the Anahoim Clty Planning Cc~rtmiss{on doES hereby
recommencl Co the Ctty Council of the City of Mahe(m thot the subi~SUantA~~',Ctfieep~ e~s~~ns
from the requir~ment to pr~parc ,~n envlronmental Impt+ct ~eport~ p
of the Galifornfa Fnvironmentil Quallty Act.
Commissioner Far~~no offered Resolution No. PC7G-13W end tnnved for Its poss~~.)e and
~doption, that the Anahelm City Planning Comrt~issi~n doas herehy finr.! ancl cleterminr. that
the proposed First Amc;ndment to the Redavclopment Plen for RedevelopmEnt Pr~ ject Alph~i is
in conformity with the Anaheim Gene:ral Plan nnd does herehy recommend xo the City :.~~unc~l
of lhe City of Anahcim that safd First Artwnclrr~nt to the iiedevelopment Project Alpha be
approvecl ~nri .~dopteci. {See Resol uti on Book)
AYES: COMPI~SS1f1~JERS: BARtJES~ FARnrio~ HERBST~ KING~ MQRIF.Y~ JOHNSOIJ
NQES: COMMISSI~NERS: tlOtl[
ADSFNT: C~MMISSI(1NER5: TOI.AR
Commissioner Farano offered a rn~tion~ seconded by Commissloner Murley and MOTI~IM CARRIED
acknowledgeehavingrreceiveil~thetfollc»vlne~hdocumr.ntatlonYon1Junen~l~i~CanmGssfon does hereby
(1) Letter d~ted .lunc: 1~ 197h from ~~aheirn Redeve~opment Agency Execut(ve Director.
(2) Redevelopmenr. Plan for Redevelopment Pro_ject Alpha adopted July 19, 1973.
(3) Proposed First Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopirrnt ProJect ~11pha.
(li) Repnrt to City Council on th~ First Amendme~t to the Redevelopment Plan.
(5) Initial Study of Environmental Impact for the FIr3t Amendment to the Redevelopment
Plan.
(6) Nec~ative Declaration pertaining to the F'irst Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
REPORTS AND - lTEM N0. 1
RECOMM[NDATI(1NS TRACT N0. 90~Q - R~quest for approval of precise plans -
Property consisting of approximately 15.~~ acres on Che
south side of Serrano Avenue and being located approximately
43~ feet west of Hidden Canyon Road.
Assistant Planner Juel Fick reviewed the Staff Report to the Planning Corrmiisslon dated
July 7~ 1976~ ancl said report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr, Fick
noted that the submitted plot ~ilan complled with all RS-5044(SC) Zone devel~pment
standards; that the floor plans and elevations indicatEd that the homes would ran~e from
three bedro~ms r~ith family room to five bedrooms with fami~y room, anci from 1569 square
feet r.o 2P,~E7 sc~uare feet; and ttiat the developer had indicated that all roofs would be
constructe~i of clay tile which was noncombustihle and ap~+roved by tf~e Anahe!m Fire
Departmenr..
Commissioner Nerbst offered a rtation, seconded by Commissloner Kin~ and MQTIOt~ CfRf;IED
(Comnissioner Tolar being absent)~ that the Anahe(m City Planning Commission does hereby
approve the prs~ise plans submitted in connection with Tract No. 9080.
i TEP1 N0. 2
RAC N. 8<<56 - Request for approval of pCBCI58 plans -
Pr~operty consistiny of approximately 13.1 acres located
northwesterly of the intersection of Via Arboles anci
Canyon Rim Road.
The Stai~ Report to the Planning Commission dated July 7~ 1976, ~~as presenteci and made a
part of the minutes. It was noted that final floor plans and elevatlons had been
subml~teri for iiomes to be constructed on 2A of the 3~~ lats tn the subJect tract; that the
• ~
MIPlUT[S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~~, July 1- ~57~ ~~'~3~~'
ITEM IJO, 2 ~~OnCII~UeC1~
cast~~~i•t of tt~c I~l~pnr.nt~at~this~tri,me~rann th~t~tlie~pl~~tnpl:~n~lncl,ieatingsthr.~2~1)lotsc
not proposeti far de~. R
complled with all devr.lnPment standards of thc RS-5~~00 7.one.
in respo~~~se to question(nq by f,ommiss(oner Herbst, Ass(st,int Plaiinl~g Director-Z.oning
Annika~~Sbnt~lahtl advised thac ?lan5 for dev~lopment of t,ie remaining 10 custom lots and
Lot A. would be requir~ed prlor tn tne issuance ~f bulldiny permlt's for developmc:nt of
sald lots,
Commissf~ner Far~ino offered a motlu~ha~e~°~dnnahelm~Ci~t`~SP~anningrCommisslionTdo'esChcreby
(Commissioi~er Tolar bPin~ ~it~sent) ~
approve the preclsr, pl~ns submitted in c~~~ner.tlon with fract No. 8h56 for the 2b lots
(tJos, I thrnugh 2-F) present~y proposed for devPlopme~nt sub ject to the subml ttal of
precise plans for the rernaininq 1~ cu~tom lots and l~t "A" prior to the lssuance of
bullding permits for dcvelopmc~nt of said r~mainin~ lots; and the Planning Commission does
further apPrave t{~e nlans. as submittecl, for a decorative~ ~penaiork walg for the top o~v~~
the slopes adj~cent to Canyon Rim Poad on the basis tl~aC sim(lar fenr.in has b~en app
at other focatlons In the area.
ITCM NQ, 3 e~mlt at
,.~ , T Qit E.1 R MEGAT I VE ~ECLAP,A'i I OM - For a grad I ny p
I~~~ Sauth Country Hill Road.
IC was not~~ t~~t an app11ca2ion h~~d been filed for a gradlncl permlt at the subJect
l~c~tlo~ to construct a single-family residence; t.hat an evaluation of the environmental
impnct a9` ~r~~ding at thfs locar.ton was required u~~der the provisions ~f thP Gallforn~a
EnvlronmentAl 2ualit~npG~henslepe ofathe~landuwap,ateleastal0`~;tanci4~thatCa study ofzthein
tne Scenlc Corridor
proposc:l clr~dlnq bYfic;ant,environmentalrtimpact,~ the Engine~ring Division indicated that ~t
wouicl have no signt
Commis~loner Barnes offered a mntion, secondecl by CommissP;aen~~~~Ccmm~iss~ion~doe~Rhere~y
(Comnissioner To1ar being absent), that the Anaheim City
rerommend to ths City Council af 1he City ~f Anaheim that the subJect proJect br exPmpt
fram the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provislons
of the Cal(fornia Envir~nmenta) Quality Act.
I TEM N0. ~+
t~EfZUES ~R CIR NEGATIVE DECLAR/1T10~I - For a grading permi` at
11~~ 12~, and 135 ~~outh ~eola Way.
I[ was noted that an appltcation had been `iled for a grading per.nit at the sub.;ect
loc~tion to a nstrucC'three shi9~~~catjon wasjrequeredtundernthe~provisions o`f~theviron-
mantal impact of grad,ng at t
Californta Environment~l Q~ality Act and the State EIR Guidelines because the pro~ect w~s
lucated 1n the Scenic Curridor and the slo~se of the land was at least 10$; ~r:f that a
study of ~h~' P~~°p~WQ~~d~have9no,f si~nificantnPn~veronmentalarimpact,Engineerlno Division
i nd 1 cated tl~at i
Commis~t~ner Faran~ of.`ered a rnotion~ seconded b~ Commissicm er King and MO"~iON CARRIEQ
Planning Commissi:~n does hereby
{Commissloner Tolar being absent), that the Anaheim City
recommend to the City Cauncil of the City of Anaheim that the subject ~ro';ect be exempt
from the requirement to prepare an snvironmental impact repo~'t, pursuant ~o the provis(ons
af the Callfornia Environmen[al Quality Ac:.
~ ~ ~
I•,it1UTf.S~ CI1'Y PIANNiNG COMMISSION~ July 7, 197~ '7fi"31 )
IrEM No. 5
EQU .' ~ 4R E I R WEGATI VG DECIAR/1TI ON - For a parce 1 rnHp at
2504 West Oranyc Avenuc.
It was noCed that an appltcnC(on had haen f'led f~,r a perce) mAp at the subject ~~~~atl~x~
t~i roflrct a minor pr~perty consol icir~tl~n and ociJustmant of p~operty lii~e; thAt ar~
evaluatlon of tha environmen2Hi Impact of parcel mr~s was reyulrecl under the. provlslons oC
the Callf~rnla Envlronment~~l Q:~aiity A~ct and tha 5tate F'IR Guldelines; and tha~ a y:udy af
the proposecl parcel map by khc P1anrlRy peRar~m~nt nr.d Engirrerin~ Divislon Indlcat~d th~~
there would be nu significant enviromm~ntal impact.
Commisaioner Morley offered a rt+otion, secondr..d by Cammissioner Far•ar~o anci M~TION CARRIED
(Commisxfoner Tolar being ~ibsent). that the AnAhe~lm City Planring Commissia~ dous heraby
recommend to the C) ty Counc.l 1 of tho Ct ty of Anahelm thnt the subJect WroJ+~ct b~ or.e~r,pt
from the requl~ement to prepare an env;ronmental ;mpac.t rPpor~, pursuanr to the pru~~tsl~~n~
of tho California Envlronmental O,uality Act.
RF.CESS ~ At 4:45 p.m„ Commission~r Far~,nn affNrcd .~ rx~tion seconded ~y
""""-'-' Commiss(oner rsorlcy ancl MOTIO~I CAi~E',tEb~ ttiat the im:e'!n9 b~
recessed to 1:3~ ~•~~•
RF.CONVENE - At 7:3~ p.m•, Chalrrnan Johnson reconvenec: the meettny with
Cammissioner 7olar b~+i:~g abser.*..
~ ~
7G-~1 ~
MIt1l.ITFS, CI'~~ r~.n~~~iitrc co~~nissio-~Y ,lulr 7~ 1976
F1JV1 ROIir1F.~IT~L 111F/~CT - PUf,LI C HE.11R1IIG. Tn cons) dcr ~menrli nc~ e~ic M~~helm Gc+n~ral P1an ln
RCPi1RT IJ~, lrl tl•,r vielnitle~s nf: ~a~) ftpAd Surklst
"'"~""-"- ARl•~ I- 13a11 Koad an~~ Sunkist Street boundcd oy r
fC•~ICRAL PLA~I 5trer_t, Corrl tos Avenuc nncl thc S~ntt+ Ana Rlvcr for the purpose of
A11l:lll?11FtlT ~~~, 14~ cleanning the l~~nd USC ~lesi4n~~tion from Indus,trlal to residentlal
an~1/o~ Incl~istrial uses;
ARE11 11 - Orangewooc', ~v~~hue and Narbor Ooul.^.v.~rc1 boundc~~ by Troy
St rec~[, Oran9ewood Avenuc, 1Jost Strect, and thc Southern Cbl l fornia
Edlson Easement for th~ purpose of chanciing the lend usG deslgnatlon from co~rrnercial-
recreaCion to commerclal. resldential an~l/or commerclal rec~'cation; .md
ARC~ II~ - Cf •culaclor~ Clc:ment - v~rfous changesrhn Wi~,~;"`~~~rculationeEt~mantt~nboted
throuc~hout titip Cl~.y for thc pur~^sr_ nf I;ri~~~in~ _. ~ ~
cunformity ~~Ith t.~ie C~unty's M,~,Lcr Plar of Artt~rial I~ic~hways.
AsSOClate Pl~~nrer ~ill Gun'~n~'t`aff~~Reporte~s`referrel ca~astif s~tcforthnincf~ll~'Insthe
dated July 7, 197F~, an<I sa
ml ~utes.
In conRection wi th i~~h~m nc~Ced Lhat aaidsarejistconsistinuf ^~haPPr~ximatc~ye125 p~aes~
Amendment, 11r. Cunn 9
was presently dest~ll~,~~~th`eYsubject~~rea W~rer~re~urstingrthat`conaideration1besgivenlto
propcrty ~wners wit rrt Mr. Cunningham
amendlrc the General P1an t~ a11nw resider~tial uses of thc prop. Y•
revlewed four alternatives preparecl by staff (n Ch~~ir study of the proposal~ as
follows, and noted that other alternatives mlght be formul~t~d by the Planning
tter:
Commission in theli' consiJcration and clisposition nf thc m~
hit-rnate 1(Exhibit A) - I~rrJiwn density residential desig~~ation for th~ northwest~r~y
port'on of the subJect pr•operty (~R~~'~~ Nvanue to be utillr.eci as
a buffer bet~ieen thie resident,ial and the lndustrial Co the
south.
Alternate 2([xhibit a) - Medium dens~+:y resi~f~ntial ~esignatlon for the northk~e~terly
port!on of the sui.;~ct property to the easterly extension oF
Winston Raad.
Alternate 3(Exhihit C) ortionmof~thetsubjecteprnpertyStonWinsto~~Road~ W~thhtihGterly
P
balance of the subject property to be ~iesign~ted for low-med um
residential uses.
Alternate ~~ =Exhtbit ~) "or°i~neofUtheesubject~proper9y~to~rhe~eastertyrextensl~nYoF
P
Winston Road~ with the baia~ce of the suhject property ta e
design~ted for industrlal uses,
Mr. Cunnin9ham noted that a letter dateo July 2~ 1Q7~~~ from Cecil C. lJright ~ad been
received, reyuesting th~~ tostponedvr~ehelheard toncurrently1withrFt'~viranmentalUlmpact
1976. Mr. Cunningham
General Plan Amendment p
Report No. 17~ an~l Conditional USe permi t tlo. ifi32 on .:~1y 19+
1 Plan
explained that if any of the t~~~ree area~ uncler consider<:tion in rhis GenFr.,
Amendment werGeneral P1anpAme~clmenttin~~to~oUwould bespequired tcebe~ca-'~ied~forward
delayed, the
slnce the actfon of the Plann+nq Comrnission on all three areas must be y one
resolut.ion.
The ^lanning Commissnonshouldabe F~elclcatrthishmeetinc~pub11c hearin, on tt~e su5ject
General P1 an Amendrne t
Mr. Derel< White~ 3~~~? Province Avenue, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission
ancf stated he was the engofesald~arehatt~attthe trafficpcirculatlonArn~thedsubjectdarea
the sou'_hwest one-fourth
was critical anc~l~utl~YriestofttWessc p~rofntl~eircp~oJect clid noticluiteVcoircide with the
time; that the
property included in Area I; that [heir proposal would be for a:nabllehome par
devclopment with the hope ofeaeth9saGeneralaplantAmendmentdwasf,because ~he propertyehdd
the reasons they hacl request
~ ~
1')7G 7~- 31 ~~
hIIIIl1Tf:S~ f,ITY PLANNING COMI•115SION~ July 7~
EHVIRQtIMENT~L IMPACT REf'OR'f td~1. 1~1 Allb GENEML PLA~I 11MENUMENT ~d(1. 140 (Contlnued}
her.n ln~lustri~l f~r somr tirnr ~n~i th~ owncrs had attem~~ted for ~~ numhor ~f years to
scl l lt t~ in~lustr( ~1 devR~l~p~rs an~l thr sale never m~iterial lzccl; that buffrrin~ of the
n,obllehome p.~rl< wo~~l~~ he provl~ierl on the south by ~he very w~de Southern Ca1Sf~rnla
F:dison ~asement in additinn t~ Cerr~t~s Avenue~ by the frer.way to the e~~st~ bY Sunkist
Street tc~frf~m thecnei~hhorstto the~westsre~~rlciing CIFe~p~ropc~sedtlan~l'useconithe SubJecln
rece i v ~d
p rope rty .
Mr. Jlm Chris[i~~nsei~, 1;'~~' Dcer~.~rl:~ Fullerton, appeared before thc Plannln~ Commisslon
representinn The Warm(ngton C,omp~ny, the ~evelopers of the northwest p~~rtion of ~rea 1,
and stat~~~~ th~~t altliouhh he w~s c~nfidenC that In~lustrial lanci use ~.r~s not dr.si~n~ted
for lhe subJect ~~re~ bY accl~lent~ there were timc:s vrhen the Gencrai F'lan must be able
tc~ he chanqed upon request~ etc., if the lan~1 was havlnn ~JlfftculCy ~Ievcloping~ or
selling~ Ftc..; Chat the ~~~IJacent property to the west had been chanqe~l to residentlal
south of Ball Road to ~Jmega Strect, an~f said residentlal included apartments; thaC the
~ortion of ~r~~ I wh(ch conccrned him was odd-shaped an~J had remained vacant for a long
pcriod of tlme an~i the rc:ison they had not p~eviously requcstcu to be t~ikr.n`'nitthe tfie
agrlcultural pr.r,serve was because the taxes would be increaseci drastically
awners were wittln~ until (C would bc to their advantage to ~I~~ sa; that it was
(mporlant that the 5urr~undin~ pmpertf es support a lan~l use; thar. abovt ?..5~ ~f the
entire industrial hase of the City would be affected hy the proposedr~%`~mateln 25~,p~~Je
desic~nation; that six inrlustrlal build(nhs to the east, totalin9 app Y
square feet, ~rere pre~ent~y vnc~~nt; that Area I was on the frin~e of an industr(Y1 ai~~
and there was a tremr,n~ious need for housing in the norCherr~ are~ of ~ranqe Count
the property would be huffered from heavy traffic in rhe area~ as ~reviously stated,
and the prop~rty owners h~d been in touch with Ca~'rans requestin~l permissfon to he
alloa~ed to instai 1 sound-att•enuation wal ls arouncl tlie property adJacent to tlte freew3y
for the protection o~ the resicfentia) ~~roperty; tliat they would take measures to
mitigate the noise both insi~le and ouY.side; that the properties Wan~~~~GtptheosCandards
condomfnium complex an~i they would be reGuestin~ RM-4000 zonirg,
of the zone with a few srnall excepCions; that schools were within 1,5 miles of the
subject area; that the Santa Ana River/San~ha9°threekwasepresenClyCsparseapopulation i;i
freeway frontarye of thc subJect property;
the area; that the applic~~nt woulcl be expected to pay the p~rk fees for the
i~stal;ation of new parks 1~' the City. in addition to the recreatlonal fac?ilties
inclucling tennis courts, Jacuzzi~ eic., that would be part of the conrlominlum complex;
that tyey were plannfng ta provide all of [he necessary amenities fc,r the condom(nlum
complex; that they cancurred in the circulation plan suggested by the City Traffic
Engineer and the proJect could be developed in conformance with City Staff
recommenciatlons with res~ect C~ strcets that would be re~u;red into thc ~~roperty; that~
in the(r opinion, tlie impact of re~ucing the amoun; of land cfesignate<1 for industrial
use in the City would be vr_ry sligf~t, since there was no need fur inciustrlal in the
subject are.'~; and xhat residentia) use of the property wo~ild be a higher ~ncl better use
for it.
Mr. Cunningham explained that Alternate D w~u1d accomr,iodate the concerns r~f Mr. Whlte.
Mr, Gunnin~harn er.pla(ned that
Regarding Area III rf ~he sub)ect Ganeral Plan Amendment~
the proposed amendme~~c to the Circulation Element oF the Anaheim General Plan includud
a variety of items throughout the City and~ tfiereupon, Mr. Cur~ningham outlined aa1~1
amendment, notin9 that they ~.~ere "housekeecing-type" items.
In r~sponse tu concerns expressed by Commissioner Herbst, Office ~ng~neer Jay Titus
advised that Santa Ana Canyon Roa~1 woulc.l be a primary highway all th~ a~ay ro t,~e City
boundary; and that the ultimate t•ridth c~f Imperinl Highway would be six tanes divided by
a 16-foot c~edlan. Commissioner Herbst n~te~1 that a six-lane high~~~~ay waulc.f be the sa^+a
as co~tir~uing the fr~eway over the hills and it appeared that~ t~ get the right-of°way~
portions of some of tne new proJects ~~ould have to b~~ removed. t1r, Tltus ,her advised
tl~at the ultimate right°of-way could be ohtained and protected but not: cnr~~tructed at
this tlme. Commissioner Nerbst then nvr.ed that primary highways reqi~ired more g~ading
in arder ta provide the speed limit~ versus a secondary or arte~ial hlghway, ~nc1 he
quest~onecl whether the speed would be reduceci by al1owing more curves. Mr, Tltus
arlvised tLhc sheeltdesign~ofdashi~hwa~yrwas determinedvby theGtrafficdwhichewasr~PCds,
however, P
generated in an area.
~
~
P1INUTES, ClTY PL~I~NING COMMISSI~ItJ~ JuIY 7~ 1~7f~
E~~VIRONMfNTl1L IMpACT REPORT tJO, 141 AFII~ GF.NER~1. PLAtJ AMEN~~M[NT I10. 1~iQ (Continued)
7G-3?.o
~~,mrnlssioner Qarnes noted that, in her apinlon~ (mperfal Ill~hv~ay wuulcl ho the bast.
route for a maJnr hlnhway in the ~~roa; th.'-t lt .'-ppeared timPly tc~ estr~blish s~~ld
hinhw~~y as <~ m~J~r sincc Ch~re w~re no homes In the are~~ tha: wouid ohJect~ nnd tha
devnln~ers an~1 purcl~asers of nea~ pro)ects wnuld he: aware of tne condit:lon. t1r, Tlcus
advlsed that by h~~vinh the ~1esl<1n~tlon fnr a malor ~n the circil,~ti~n pl~ti~~~ the rt~ht-
of-way coul~l be protected when developmE,nt ~Ild occur.
Mr. Cunn 1 nnharn revl r.wed Are~~ I I of :ha su:. Ject Genc ra 1 P 1~n Ameri~!ment ~ not I nc~ ttint thc
are~ c.nnslste~l ~f approximAtcly 5~~ acres; th~~t the amendment was to clarify the lancl
use p~l(cy anc.1 bring the Genr.ral Plan int~~ conformf ty wi th the exl~',t(ng devsloom~nt of
thc land loc~~~edth~stro~eN~YhliGa°c,~Ctof.L~~Cn~~~st ofrHarhor Soulevnr{nr~atc lind usr.
deslgnatic,n f r P
M~'. Terry Rousel~a~ax, ~n~n Qu~ll~ Plewport E~each~ apprired befor~ the ~'~~on'Oran~ewood
Commission an~i stated he represented the Inch famlly who ownecl property
east of 1larbor Boui~varri; ttiat the rarnily was requestin~ to kec~~ tt~e franta9e on Narbnr
doulev~rouievardmfrcm'Orane~~~woodSAven~~c to tI~eSEdison E~sementi~ of lan~l nc~rth ,nlong
Ilarb~r [~
It was notecl that a tcle~ram liacl becn received from t1r. Ilarry M. Boon, President of
Landau Motor Nomes, 22?.~ East Cerrit~s Avenue and a~Z~~~rEastmCerritosL~venue~hhoth
Manager, 4lestern Divislon~ Neville Chemical Comp~ny,
communicatfons urclin~~ the Planninc~ Commission to maint~~in the Inr1ustrla1 nature of Area
I and denying any residenttal lind use in sald arca.
TiIE PUE3LIC HE~Rltlr WAS CLOSFD.
Cummissioner Farano noted that the representatlves in connection with Area I ha~l
ir,ferrecl th~~t the loss of ava(lable industrlal land in the City of Anaheim would nat bc~
a blow; th~~t he foim~{ it difficult to accept such generalizerl statrmenCS regarding
'ndustrlal 1anc.1 in tl~e City since City and Chamber of Commerr_e representatives had
spent much tirn~: ancl trc~uhle to set aside the industrial land; that~ althou~h he dld noi
pres~ntly knoa~ thP in~icntnry ~f (ndustrial land for devclopment in thc City, statement:~
c~ncernin~ the abundance of industrlal properties or that land was too expensive were
only Iteard from developers who wanted t~ change the zoninc~ classifica:fons; that
developers had triz~l and succeedecl in some instances in the past to slice up the
industrial areas, i.e., souCli of Ball Road ancl west of Sunkist to Omec~a StrPe[, and
that w:+s how Ome~a Street aias establlshed as the current barrier ~or the industrial
area; r.hat now tlie cievelopers were tryln<~ to furti~er encroach into the industrial area
of the City; that hs felt there h~'sd heen cases of "gettincl the camel's nose under the
tent" ancl he did not like loose ~r general statements about avallability of the
industrial land but would wielcome convincin~ arguments; that if the in~~ustrial land
inventory was expl~rC~ properly~ it would probably be surprisin~ how little inc!ustrial
sites there w~re witf~ railroad and freeway access; thaC, furthermore~ I~e c:ould not
accept titie statement that the property owner had trieJ io sell a pieS~,eF andPthat, fn
since property could be offere~i aC a very high p~'ice precluding any
his opinion~ t~o many times in the City of Anaheim people had playecl g~mes with
industrial property ~nd were unable to sell it and he was not agrPeable to that type of
argument.
Commissioner flerbst reviewed the histcry of the subJect property9 notin~ that an
apartment proJ~ct was previousiy plan~nrangerFreewah had Justebee~WOpencdhupPthrough
Cemmi ss i on ~nc C i ty Cuunc i 1; t4iat tl~e yback i nto the records , the C i ty ancl
the p°~p~rty during the last few months; that g~1~9
the Chamber of ~'ommerce hacl spent a lot of time drawing up the boundary llne at Ball
Road for the industrlal area; that the industrial traf`ic would n~t mix with
resfcient(al traffic; that the~~;;a~st~~ ~fvte.ctCthemselves~;~that thehchangenilnstl~e~,
community who hacl spent many r;,e eas[; that
b~un~iary had been to stop at Omega Street and n~C go past Sunkist to
streets servecl as a 9ood buffer f~r the industrlal property; that indu,try would cre~~te
Jobs for the residents of the existinc~ apartment development in the ar~a; tl~at the
proposal mlght iend to chol:e off tf~e entr~~nr,e to the fndustrl>> community; that the
freeway and rallroad exposure made the subJect area approprlate for industrl~l land use
as the hlghest use; thaf althou~h souncl ancl noise buffeco~~a~~~tbbeC~eplatedPlnfthe
resi denti al development of the pr~~:erty ~ sai d property 11 tt le r~~i 1 road
City of Anaheim with rallroad and frinW~~ee`P~yurthatnthereehaclWt~ bera stop(~(~~ I~~~nt
exposure for spurrinn onto p~oPerty
~ ~
7G-321
tfINUTF:S~ CITY PL~NNING COhV11S510~1~ July 7~ 1976
~tIV I RO~IME~~Tl1L I MPl1C1' RF.P(~RT ~IO. 181 ~1N1) C~CtIF.Rl1L. f'l~ll l1MGPIDMEN7 ~10. 1~i4 (~:nnt I nuecl)
~~- thc C~ty sh~u1~1 dra~-~ th~ lina t~ pr~Cect primc In~~ustrlal land; and
an~l thls was whcr~~
th~7t~ in hfs c~pinlon, the property a~r+ers, ha~l not trie~l to sell the l~n~l for In~lustr ~
usQ or h~~l not pricecl it for in~fustrl~yl purposes.
Ch~~lrrn,m Johnson :~uestioned whether thc 7..52~ ~f lndustrl~l lan~i commentc~l upon by Mr•
Chrlstiansen was of the totnl industrl~l properky in the Clty or Che Cotal avall~ble
Inclustrl.~1 pr~perty in the Ci ty f~r developnt~nL,
Mr, Christlansen stated he concurre~l wfth Comnissicner Farano; that he very firmly
be~lleve~l that evc ry city should have an Industrla) ~~re~i whlch w~s InviolaCe, huwever~
he ~~lso knew that thinqs chan~e~1 anr.f are~s channed and it very well could be that there
wera resl~entl~l ~reas in the City that st~o~al~1 he (n~lustrlal an~~ vlce versa~ etc,; that
he hnd spent a great dcal of tlmc revicwin!~ thr files nn the subj~ct praperty; that t.hc
overall triffic Jensity for condomi~~iums was comparable to lnclustrial development; and
Chat leavinn the property for (ndustrlal use was a poor snlution to t~ke care of Lhe
overall needs nf the Cfty ~f ~nahcim, In response to further questloninc~ by
Commissloner Farano, Mr. Christiansen sta~ed he was referrln9 t~ z•r~ ~f presently
av~ilable In~{ustrial property in the Ctty; that he was not spe~king for any of thc
adJacent pr~nerty owncrs; that, probably, thr. ad.)acenr, residential development to the
wes t shou 1 cl nor. have been ma~ie res i den t i al i n the f 1 rs t p 1 ace , howeve r, i t had been and
he could not ch~~nge that; that placing a houndary Wasal'cf pro~ertyyshoulcl3aisoibecome
resldential on threc sides of the subJect property~
resiclentl~l; ~n~l th~~t• the developer would be glad to take care of and p~~y for the
sound-attenuatlon prc,blems in connection with residentla) devel~pment of the property.
Commissioner Farano then noted that to allow residentlal on a portion of Area I would
be to cre~t~ r,dd-shaped or problem pisces of properCy.
Commiss(oncr Herhst noted that to update his own information pertalnin9 to the need for
industrlal lan•~ in the City, he had telephoned some ~n~q~hr~theYchad~anrinventoryao~:and
one major devel~per hari indicated that since Janaary~ ~
approxi~rately 3~~~~~~ square feet af in~ustr(al space available and by June 1, 1~7~,
the space was all oc~upied an~1 they had a need to cansCruct mu"e; that there was
industrtal r,rowth taking place in the City an~l he clid not feel the subJect property
would Ju~t sit unrleveloped; that he would like t~ know how much of the suhJect properLy
was avatl~~ble for sale; and that he felt it w~uld bc difficult to go out and buy five
2Gre5 of industrial property anywhere in the City.
Mr. Christlansen then stated that the area being referred to by Commission~r Herbsti
could not be in tlie sub.ject area since there was 1~i00 square feet of buildinc~ space in
the area stan~iin9 ~PVPrt~tae~Plortheast Inbjec~'a~eAreaswas~growin9~ astit;shouldfbe.
bulidinc1 space, how ,
Commissioner flerbst noted that f~e w~uld have to admit that the people ln the subJect
area were losing faitli that the City of A~aheim would protect the integrlty ~.f thelr
area; that the City had promised the industrial community that they would not go beyond
tFie present boun<1~~ry 4~hich had been set at Omega Street and the industrial ~dould also
need E3a11 Road to ti~e north; and that if the residential use was grantefalth with the
norttri~est and southwest portions of Area f~ tl~e City would be breaking
inclustrial communiCy.
Ghairr~an Johnson concurreci with Commissl~ners Farano and I~erbst. noting that 5unkist
an~i Ball was tf~e entrance to thie industrial complex in the area.
Mr. Thomas Inch ap~eared be'~ore the Planning Commission in connectic~n with Area !I of
the General Plan Amenrlment anci stated that the Qank of l~merica at the northeast corner of
Harl~or floulevard and Orangewood Avenue had been after his family and rielping tliem in the
devalapment of 2he frontacle pr~perty along 'riari~ur Boulevard, slnce Che bank dld not
llkc belnn is~~ated on that corner. In response to questioning by the ~~iP~of~land
Commisslon~ Mr. Inch state~l they were req~esting that a 25~'~oot Wi~e ' r
approxlrnately G1i0 feet from the centeriine of Orangewood north alo~inf{heroop~inion~~lf
be designate~l for commrrcial use. Commissloner Darnes nc.ted that,
the 254-foot strip was set aslde it should be for commercial-recreation at this time.
Mr, Ineh idcled that such a de~si~nati~n might be In conflict with what would naturally
be developed ln conjunction with Che ad,lacant banl:.
~ ~
1411tUTC:S, CI fY PLANIlIIIG C~It~~ISS10~1, Ju1Y 7~ ~9~~~
7G-32:
~~NIa~N11EtlTAI. IMPACI' RF.POItT NU. 1~1 11ND GFN[1t11L,Pl.A~~ At1Eti0!1F.NT ~~~. lOQ (Cuntinuud)
Commissloner I'ar~~nc~ offere~l a motic~n, secunded hy ConKnlssloner Marley ~~n~l M~TI~N
ChRRt('f~ (Comm(ssioncr Tolar bcinc~ absent) ~ that Environmental Impar,t R~port No~ 1(~~ ~
hav i nn ~~ ~en cons i d~ re~d th i s clatc by the An~~he im C l ty P', ann i nq Commi ss {nn an<I ev l~lence ~
both wrl Lten and or,~l , havinn ber.n presented to supp~emcnt sal~1 clr~ft EIR tlo. 1R1 , the
Planning CoTmisslon hcl(e~i~~s th~t said draft EIR r!~, ln~l does canf~~rm to the Cfty and
based upon
St~~te Gui ~Icl lr~c~~ <~n~1 ~t~e ~t~7cc ~~ Cal 1 fornla Envi ronment~~+l Qual l ty Act an~l~
sucl~ Inform~~tlon, dnes he~•ohy rec~mmend t~ thc CICy Councll that they cerkify sal~i EIR
No, 1')1 is in com~,~liance with sald Env(ronmental Q~+allty 11ct.
Commissloner ~'arr+no offerc~l Resolution No. PC7(~'135 ~n~~ ~~p~ fo;~~PL an 1~recommend to
~~fo~t i on ~ that the l1n»he i m C i ty P 1 ann 1 nn, Commi s a i on d~~es he reby
C;~e Clty Counc(1 of the City of Anaf~eim adoptian of General Pl~n Amendment tlo, 140, in
part~ as follows: (Sce Resolution aook)
1. That the exl°~tlnc~ lind use clesic~n~tions on the Anaheim General Nlan In l1REA I
- Elall Road ancl Sunkist Stre~t rem~ir ~mchane~e~1.
~, 'fha: "['xhihi t U" hc adopte~l for ARLA I I - Orangewa:d Avenue :,n~~ Harbor
B~ulevard~ reflec~inn the ex~st~ng land u5es ow:r the land arei west of Harbor
Iloulevar<1 to brinc~ the General Plan into conformity wiCh salcl exlsting
development, an~1 reflectinc~ the land located east of H~arbor {lnulevard as
appropr~ate for rnedium denslr.y residentlal land us~s except for thit portion
of the 1~n~1 located immecliately adjacent to :he east side of tlarhor Boulevard
north of Oran~cw~ood Avenue descrlbed as a 250-foot w!de strip of land along
tiarhor [~oul~vard from Oranc~ewood Avenue north approximately G40 fect to the
Edisonti~n~~~~~,n~SUSESt~ SExhibiliD'~Is1on~filenin~the~Office ufrthem'Planning
recrea
Department.
3. That. in cannectlon with amendments to the Circulatic.' Element of the M~hetm
Genr.ral Plan (AR[/1 111)~ the followin~ chan~es are deemed appropriate in ~rde~r
to bring said Element up-to°date ancl into canformity with the OrangP C,unty
Clrculatio~ Element (Orange County Mcster Plan of Arteria) Illgh~•~ays):
q, Change the Flfqhways RightS-of-Way t1ap, as follu„~s:
(1) Desic~nate Loara Street (from Nortli SCreet to Crescent Avenue)
as a "collector."
(2) Change Imperial Highway (from S~nta Ana Canyon Road southerly)
from a hillside primary" to a"hillside maJor."
(3) Deline~'-te Clemer~tina Stre~t (from Katella Avenue to Urangewood
Avenue) in accorclance wlkh the approved ali~nn~nt.
(~) Rename Rose Drive" (nortl~ of Orangethorpe Avenue in the City of
Placent1ia) t~ "Linda Vista 5treet."
~}. Change the Arterial Streets and flighways ~1ap~ Avenue1toSLa Jolla
(~) Delete Red Gum Street (from Orangethorp~e
Avenue). ahave on the
(2) Make th~ chan~~es noted in A.(1) through (4), ~
Nighways Right~-of-Way Map.
C. Change the Ar[erlal Streets and Highways Rtghts-af-Way Widths,
Exliibit D(Exceptions List), as follows:
(1) River<fale Avenue - Char~ye "Taylor Street" to "Lakeview Avenue."
(2) Orangethorpe ~venue - Change "Lir.~la Vista Strc.et" to "TusCin
Avenue,"
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~~inca vote:
AY LS : C~t•1M1 SS I ~IlERS ; aARtIES ~ FAftl1PI0 , HERE~ST ~ rCl NG ~ MORLFY , JOHNSQN
NOGS : C0~1M155101lfRS : NOt~~
ABSENT: Cf1M1115SI0tIFR5: T~LAR
~ ~
7G- 32 3
MItIU'iLS~ CIlY PLIINNI~~~ COMMISSION~ Jtily 7, 197F
EI~V~i~,~tr~M~tIT~L ~'1PI1CT - ~Ul1l.IC ItE:~ltlll~ fSTATC. 0~ ^D~I.P~I J. SCNU7TE~ c/~ Alan Tart,
5uite ~1~G Los ~1n9clos~ C~. 9~»~~
R~i'~P,T ~dM~. ,~7~~ ~I!~ South Flc~wrr Strcr_t, -
• (4wner); THE WAR.~~ItIGT~IJ C(1HPAIlY~ 17`~C~ Sky P.~r-: Circle~
~ Sultc ?.~>~ Irvinc, Cn. 92711i (1lgent); requestlnq thaC pro~c+rty
P,CCL11551 F I CAT ~ ~~1
N~. 7f,-"7_7 dcscrlheci a. ~r~ 1rrr.c~ulnrly~shaPed parccl of lnncl cnnslst n~
------"' - ~ of ~ppmxlm,~tulY 17 ncres located ac thc southc~~st torncr of
Bai) l Ro~c1 ~^-nd Sunklst Strcet, hiv'~~1 ~~Pf~roxlmate front.'~~os ~~ ~ ~~ fein~~~f~av'Ings~utn
sl~fe of fiall Roa~i an~l 1?~~ fcet ~n tf~c cast side °~fle~lkfromSthecRS-A-~+3~~~~
maximum clept~~ ~f ~pproximAtely 9~~ fcet be rec,~~s~
(RESIDftI°(I~I.iAC~RICIILTUi',Al.) 7.OIJF. Co thc RM-hQ~~ (RFSIDF-lTl~l.~ M~1l.TIPLf-FN~II.Y) 7.~NF.
It w~is note~l th~~t t~~e ~~meetinerc>faJuly(~~qSti~~~'th.in ~~~~rubh1ltspeciflc de[alls~oftthe
thc Plarining Commissio
prc7posal could be duvcloped an~l resc~lve~l,
Corm~issl~ner Nbrley offere~l ~ nK~tion. s~~conde~! by ConxnlSSPlanningnCornml'sslon~~c~es~R~~D
(Commissioner lolar beln<~ absr,nt), tl~aC the Anaheim City
hcreby postp~nc *he public hc~~rin~ .}n~1 consideratlon ~f EIR I~o. 17~3 .~n~i PeCitlon for
Reclassific~tl~n 110. 7(~-77-~ tc~ tl~~ ~~~~nninc~ Commissl~r- meecing af July 1~~ 197(,~ a5
requcsted by thc petl[ioner.
RFf.LASi I FI C~710~1 - PUf~LI C HEARI tl('~. J(1HN V• ~' ~ HF' F'~ H. TI~~MPS011, 5~z ~venl ~la
Savi l l a~ Laguna Hf lls, Ca. 92653 and f,HAPMA~I COLLFf,F, 333 Ncrth
N0, JG-77-:3 HESTCR DEVFL~PMI:~lT COMPAt1Y~
-- ~ Glasse~l ~ Oran~e. Co, !12E~~~~ ~~wncrs);
Vl1R1 ~Nf,F, tl~. 7.^2~i J. C, GI anul i~s , P. 0, Box 299~ ~ 14,~i1 Quai 1 StrPet ~ Newpork Beach ~
~~. 926Gp (Agent). Property descrlbed as an Irregul~rly-shaped
p~rcel of land conslsting of approxir~~ately a.5 acres having a
frontage of approxtmately h3~ feet on the north s~de of Orangewood Avenue~ having a
maximum depth o~ approximately Ei~+O feet, ~~<1 beiny located approxlmaCely 650 feet
east of the cente~':re of Harbor fsoulev;irJ. ProperCy presently classifled RS-A-~~3,00~1
(RCSIDEIJTIAL/!1GR.ICULTURAL) ZOt1E.
RE~~UE5TFD CLASSIFICl~TIO~J: RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MU:.TIPLE-fAh11LY) 7_Ot
RFQUFS~ED VARIAPICE: 'dAIVER OF ;A) MAXIMUM sUILDI~~G liEIGHT r'."'n !;,) Rf,~IUIRED SITE
Sf,REE~IING~ TO CONSTRUCT A 176-UNIT APARTMENT Gd~1PI.EX.
It was noted tt~aC th~ pemcetingrofaJulyQ19stt97~thfor~theSSUbmission ofe~e~vis~duplans.
the Planning Comm(sslon
Commtssioner Morley offered a motion~ seconded by Commtssioner King and MOTIQN CARRIED
(Commissioner Tolar beYng ab~ent). that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
heraby postpone the public hea21~29 ~od~I~~~~planning~Commissfon'meetine~ of~July~l9ca~976~
No. 7G-77-3 and Variance No. 5
as requested by the petltioner,
ENVIRONMEN'~'AL iMPACT - PURLIG NEARINf, JA11ES 5. GREGG, RAYMO~ID G. SIMPS~N-60 Plaza
f~EPORT N0. 17`~ _ FLU~R, AMD ROBERT D. SPURGEO~I~ c/o Ceci 1 C. Wrl ght,
-- "'-" Syuare. Orange, Ca. 92G66 (Owners) ; DEL PRADO COMPAIJY ~ 12~61
CONDITIONAI USF West Street, Garden Grove~aCa926G64(AgentS)C~requestingT,
~~. ~~,32 ht1 Plaza Square, ~range~ C
PFR~11T '
permission to establish a 2~9-SPACE MOBILFI'~ME PARK WI
WAIVER OF MINIMUII STRIfCTUFALofFapproximately 32~2dacresbed
as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
locaxed northeasterly of the inters~ction of Cerri tos Avenue and Sunkist Street,
having a fronta7e of approalm~oximatelYf1335 feete eP~oPe~tY Presentlytclassifiedn~
h~vinq a maxlmum depth o~f pP
RS-A-43,0~~ (RESI DCtlT111L/AGf ICULTURAL) Z~NE~
'k was ro*.ed that the pet(t~Onin hCommissionemeetingtofnJulyul~l~ ~S~~a contlnuance of
the subJ~.<:t items t~ th- Plann g
~
~
IINUTFS CITY PLAPINING CONMISSION, July 7~ 19J6
7G-3z~~
I •~ ~
ENVIfiONMENTAI. IMPAC ~ ORT N0. 179 AND CONUITlOMAL USE PE.RMI'~NO. 1632 (Continued)
Gommlosloner Morlr~y offered a moc.lon- sec~~ded by Commi~aloner King and MOTI~N GARRIFD
179 and Pet,tlo, ~br as
(Commissfoner T~~°r hubllcehoaring andtcon~tAeaat~onCnPYEIR~No`nq Commisalon ~~~A~
hesreby pot~epone the p
~,~~~~{it~onal Use Pormlc No, 1fi32 t~ tt~e P1^~~nli~y !'~mmisslon meetlnp of July 9~ -
requested by the ~~ctltlonar,
- There being no further butiness to discuss~ Commtssloner Morle:y
ADJOURNM~E~,
-- ofPered a mc~t(an~ secunded by Comm~~hat~thc~H meettnynhe~adJournedRlE
(Commissloner Tolar being absont)~
The meeting adJourned at 3:20 p.m,
kespectf~.illy submitted~
~ ~ ~ ~ ,,~~~Dt'n'~E'~t.~-~
~
Patricla B. Scanlen~ SecretA~y
Anaheim Clty Planning Commtssian
PpS:hm
0 R C 0 MICROfILMING SERVICE, INC