Minutes-PC 1978/04/10C I ty Na 11
Anaheim~ Californts
April 10~ 1978
REGULAR MEETING 4F TifE ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING GOMMISSION
REGULAR - The regular meeting of the Anaha(m Ctty Planning Commisslon wes called to
M~ETiNG order by Cliairman Tolar at 1:3U p.m.. April 10~ 197$~ in the Council
Ch~mber~ a quorum beirg present.
PRESE~IT - CNI11RhU1N; Tolnr
f.f1MMISSI~NFRS; IIA~nl15, David, Herbst, Johnson. Ktnq
Comrnissiancr Linn arrived et ~bF p.m.
A1,S0 PR~SENT - Ronald Thampsan
Jack Whitc
O,rt Daw
Jeck Judd
Jay t i t us
Paul Stnger
Phillip Schwartze
A~nika Santalahtl
Ron Sm( th
Jey Tashiro
Edlth Harris
~lann(ng Department Dir~ctor
Dcputy Ctty Attorney
Civ(1 Enginecr
Civil E~gine~eriny Assistant
Office Engineer
TraffiC Engincer
Assistant Director f~r Planning
Asslstant Oi~octor for Zoniny
Associate Pla~n~r
Assistant Planner
Planniny Commisslon "-ecretary
PI.EDGE OF - The i'ledge of Allegiance ta the Flag was led by Camissfonnr Herbst.
ALLEGIANCE
APPttOVAL OF - Commissloner Nerbst offered a motion~ ~econded by Commtsstoner King end
TNE MINUTES MOTIO~d CARRIED (Commissfoner Linn being absent)~ that the mi~utes of the
meetings of March 9. i3 and 27~ 1978~ be apprev~d As submitted (Chairman
Tolar abstatned on the March 9th minutes stnce he was not present; and
Commissioner Jolinson abstained on the Ma~ch 13th minutes since he was not
prnsent.)
lTEM9 N0. 1 CONTINUED PUBL~C HF.ARING. OWNERS; CARL L. AND
~~TVE DECLARATION MILDRED E. RAU, DORIS G{BSON~ AND CLASSIC DEVEI.OP-
L 5 CP. I N N. %~•7~3-46 MENT CORP., 127d0 Knott Street~ Suite B~ Garden
. 6rove~ CA 92641. AGENY: ~HALLER S LOHR~ INC.~
RACT N0. 102,,4 366 San Miguei Drive, Suite 311, Newport Beach, CA
QU Ok PROV L F ! 92660. Property described as sn trregula~ly-shaped
REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES parcei of land conststing of appror.imately 7.7
acres having a frontage of approximately 1490
`ect on the northMCest side of Santa Ana Ca~nyon Road,
having a maximum deptf~ of approximately 440 feet, and be~ny locatPd ~pproximately 1800 feet
nartheast of the centarfine of Mohler Oriva. ~roperty p~esently classified RS-A•43,000(SC)
(RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) 20NE ar~d C~JUNTY A1 (GENERAL AGRICULTURAL)
DISTRlGT.
~e-Z~o 4/10/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978
7a~231
E I R I~EGAT I VE DE CLARAT I ON ~ RECLASS i F I CAT I ON NO . 77~ 7~~~~6 ~ VAR t ANCE N0. 2~9~+ ~ TENtl1T I VE MAP
OF TMCT N0. 102 4 continued
REQUCSTEO CLASSIFICATI011~ ~VEaIAY)SZOMtR~SIDEN7IAL~ SII~GLE-~AMILY-SCENIC CURRIDOR
VARIAI~CE REQUEST: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM LOT WIDT1~ AND FROP~Tl1GE ANO (B) REQUIREMENT
T~iAT SINGLE•FAMILY STRUCTUaES REAR-UN ARTERIAL IIIGIh1AYS.
TENTATIVE TRACT -'.EQUEST: 2a-LOT. RS-7240(SC) SUa01VISI~IJ.
Chairman Tolar pointecf out the pe~itioner hod reQuested a contlnuance in order to
ellminate the walver uf minimum Iot width and to submit revised plans.
Cuaxnl ss i oncr K) ny nf for~~1 ~ mot i~n . sec;onded by Commi ss loner Barnes and M0Y IUN GARP, I ED
(Ccxnmtssloner Llnn belny absent)~ that consideration of the atorementi;qC~ ~~~"~o~der for
coritinuod to the rcyular mceting of thc Plar-i~ing G~mmtssion on Mey 8- 7+
thc petitioner to submic revised plans.
lTEM N0. CONTI~IUCD PUk~LIC NEARING. OWNERS; ELMER C. AND
EIR NE A IVE DECLARATIQN ELIZAaETIi 8. ORCWS and CEt~TRAL IiAPTtST CNURCH OF
. . 3-~p ORANGE LOU~ITY~ 227 tiorth Magnolla AYenue. Anaheim.
VARIANCE N0. 1 9 9 CA 92801~ and ROIAND J. JENSEN~ 1Q10 East Chcstnut
-~------- St reet ~ Santa Ana ~ CA 92701 . AGENT : BORI S ELI EFF,
2046 North Broadway~ Santa Ana, CA 92706. Property
described as e rectangularly-sha~~d parcel of land consist(ng of apprvximately 7•7 ac~es
having a S`rontage of approximatcly 551 fe~t on the west stdc of Hagnolla Avenue~ having a
maximum depth of approximately GOS feet, and being located approximately 325 feet nprth of
the centerllne of Lincoln Avenue. Prorerty presently classifled RS-A-~+3,000 (aESIDENTIAI/
AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUCSTCD CLASSIFICATION: RM-40~0 (kES~(~CNTIAL. MUL?IPI.E-FAM~LY) XONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: ~iA1VER OF (A) MINIMIIM I3UILOING SITE AREA, (B) MII'.IMUM REAR SETBACK,
(C) MIt~IMUM DISTIINGE BETWEEtI BUILDItiGS, (D) TYPE OF PARKING SPAC~S.
AND (E) REQUIRED SCREENlNG OF PARKING FAC~LITY~ TO CONSTRUCT A
1~+6•UNIT~ RM-++000 C0~lDOMI~~IUM COMPLEX.
~hairman Tolar reported that the petttioner had requested a continuance in order to submlt
revis~d pians.
Commisslone~ Sarnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner King and M0710t~ CARRIEO
(Commlasioner Linn being absant). that constderation of the aforementioned item be
tiontinued to the regular meeting of the Planning Commisslon o~ April 24~ 1978•
4/to/78
. . ~ .~~~ ,
MINUTE,S~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1g78 78-232
ITEM NQ, 4 CONTI~IUED PU6LIC HEARING. OW~~ERS: RODERT AND
~~QRICAL EXEMPTIOIJ-CLASS~S 1 b ESTHER J. CARLIN~ 3f~72 Liggett Drive~ San Diego~
• Ci, 92106. AGENT; JOIIN P. NAaRINGTON, 5250
Bergh Drive~ Anahelm~ CA 92807. Petitloner
requests perm(sslon t~ ESTAQLISH AN AUTOMOYIVE
REPAIFt fACI~.ITY WITII ACCESSORY TRUCM. RENTAL on pr~perty descrlbed as an Irregularly-shaped
parcel of land cons;sting of epproximately 0.5 acre located at tha northeast Gorner of
lincoln Avenue end West Stre~t~ having approxtmate fronteges of 1g0 feet on the north slde
of i.tncoln Avenue and 65 feet on the east slde of West Str~et~ and further dascrlbed as
1025 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classtfied CG (COMMERCiAL, GCNERAL) ZONE.
Chatrman Tolar reported the petitioner has requesked tt~at Petition for Condltlonel Use
Permit No. 1811 be withdr~~wn.
Cnmmissioner King ~ffered a motlon~ seconded by Commissionar Barnes and MOTION CARRIED
(Commission4r Li~n be(ny absent)~ that Petition for Condittonal Usc Pcrmit No. 1i311 be
withdrawn at the r~quest of the pettttoner.
17EM N0. 2 CONTINUED PU9LIC NEARING. OWNERS: DONALf~ C. BOUCIIER,
EIR ~~Gl~TIVE UECLARATI0~1 ROHERT L. WALLlS~ AND MARY ANN JAVELERA~ 17722 Irvlne
0 0 OFI L U E ERM17 N0. I$10 lioulevard~ Suite 4, iustin~ CA 92680. AGE~1T: BILL
A~R_ ODE 0 IR~ EMEN T. ASAWA~ SI+Q t~orth Goldcn Ctrcle Dr(vc, !l114~ Sant~
Ana~ CA 927~5• Petitloner requests permissio~ to
ESTAEILISII A VETER~HARY HOSPITAL 1~ITH WAIUER OF MINIMUM
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as an irregularly-shapsd parce) of land
cons(stiny of approximately 1.1 ecres having a frontage of approxtmately 2; feet on the
northwest side of Rio Grande Drive~ I~aving a maximum dcpth of approxircrately 437. feet~ and
being located approximetely 6A0 fcet southwest of the centerline of Fa(rmont Boulevard.
Prnperty prese~tly classified CL(SC) (COMMERCiAI~ LIMITED-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERI.AY~ ZONE.
There were two persons Indicating cheir presence in opposition to subJtct request~ and
although the staff report to the Planning Commissfon dated April 10~ 1g78 was not read at
the public hearing~ Et is referred to and made a part of the mtnutes.
Ear) Mkllott, architect~ Indicated thls item had been continued in order for the
petitioner to gain cooperation for access from Santa Ana Cunyon Road with the nursery. Fle
indicated this had beer~ worked out and that a letter wes submttted explaining the details
Qf that agr~ement.
Ma ry Dinndorf. President of Santa Ana Canyon liomeowners Improvement Assoclation, 131 La
Paz. Anaheim~ indicated concern reyarding tl~e access onto Rio Grande. She pointed out
v:hen khe influential Homes tract had been approved~ it was understood that they would
provide some east-west accecs to the additional tracts. She stated they were concerned
the traffic would be brought into tl~e residential area on Quintana. She pninted out all
of these tracts are feeding onto Quinta~a ~ow, and she felt trafftc from thls commerct~l
development into the r~esidential area would have a serious impact. She asked (f tf~e tltle
problem to that piece of property discussed at the previous meeting had been solved. She
indicated she dld not think It wauld be fair to have the nursery's access closed off and
4/ 10/78
~
MINU7ES, ANANEIM GITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ APRII 10, 1978 78•233
EIR NEGATiVE OECLAaATION AND CI;NOITIOr1Al uSE PkRMIT NO. 1810 (contlnued)
have people parking on tne commerclal developmont parktng lat and waiking throuqh to the
nursery and felt the proposed acceleration lane would intorfere w(th the blcycle and
pedestrian lane.
Chafrman Tolar potnted out the petttioner does have nn approved eonditional use permit for
e veterin~ry hospital and ti~~ Plannlny Commission is realty trying to get a good
development on a larc~er pteco of pro~erty. ile askeci if the oppasition was to the
vaterinary hosptta) or the (nyress and egress of the development ont~ Rla Gran~fe.
Mary Dinndorf replled the opposftlon is to ttie traffic coming out onto Rio Grende and
Qui•~tana in a resiJentiai area~ wfiir:h Is heavily impa~[eJ alre~idy. She stated she would
1(Ice to acc thc cntl re ccntcr developeJ but ~tas concerned about th~ s~f.~ty ~f thp ~.~,~~P
in thc bicycle lanes on Senta Ana Canyon RoaJ and dtd not want to see the nuraery's
eustomcrs parking at this centcr.
Jan Ilall, repr~senting the Ilill and Canyon Munlcipal Adv(sory Commlttee (HACMAC)~ Sti5
Tumblewced Raad, Anaheim, po(nted out fIACMAC had not been given a cl~a~cc to revicw the
revised plans (Chalrman Tolar pointed out tt~e:y were besically the same plans); that they
were concerned about the veterina ry hosp(tal because they fclt that was a fuot in the door
for the rest of the center. She pointed out HACN/1C obJects [o the ingress and eyress on
Santa Ana Canyon Road; that Mr. Singer had appeared befare iIACM/1C and wos adamant that he
would recommend ayainst access on Sa~ta Ana Canyon Road~ ar,d if access was granted~ he
would recamr,~nd it be for inyress only. She point~d out tl~ose people on the no~th slde of
Santa Ana Canyon Road were concerneJ because whe~ t~~ey had purchesed their hort~s they had
checked and were told it was zoned cammercial, but that the~e would never be an access
onto San[a Ana Canyo~ Road; and that it was their understandiny the petitianer had met
with the Trails Committee~ but that 11r, guffington had requested that she pofnt out that
problem had not been stralgl~[ened out.
Chairman Tola~ stated it seems IIACMAC is opposed to Ing~ess and egress onto Santa Ana
Canyon Road and that the Santa Ana Canyon t~omeowner's Improvement Association is o~posed
to ingress and egress on[o Rio Grande; that i[ ap~eared everyone wanted ingress and egress
onto Falrmont Boulevard~ which would require a U~turn.
Jan Nall pc~lnted out FIACh1AC had not addressed the ingress and egress on Rio Grande.
Cha(rman Tolar asked Jars Nall if HACMAC had made any suggestions in relar.ionshtp to where
the ingress anJ egress should be lacatcd~ and she replfed it should be either Fa(~mont or
Rio Grande. She stated HACMAC was alsa concerned about what was gning to happen to the
nurst ry; that the petitipner had said an agreement had been worked out but she undcrstood
from the r,ursery pcople that tt~ey have not worked out an agreement.
Bill Asawa~ age~t, explefned the attorncy for• the Kobayashi Nurscry would explain that
situation; that they have had endless discussions with the nursery people and Paul Singer,
Traffic Enginpcr~ to resolve the problem. He stated one problem in creattng a good
development of the entire center was they did not want to overload the residential streets
with their development and~ as a result, have taken into consideration all of these things
and have ceme up with a plan they felt would work. He indicated a copy of the pian was qn
the wall ~nd was the same plan tF~e Planning Conx~ission had reviewed. Ne polnted out Mr.
Singer had indicated if access was allowed on Santa Ana Canyon Raad~ they would ha~re to
4/10/78
~~
~
MINUTES~ ANAlIEIM CIT'Y PLANNING COMNISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 1a-234
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CQNDITIONAL USE_PERMIT N0. 181U (continued)
provide a decelert~tion lane of approximately 300 feet~ which Is shown on the plan; that
access to the nursery is provided and would be ingress only to thair parking lot from
Santa Ana Canyon Road and the egrass would be through the commercia) developma~t. flo
p~(nted out the circulatio~ o~ the map and explalned that enyene going Into the n~~rsary
could ingress off Santa Ana Canyon Road~ but would ~ot be ahlc to get back out that wey
~nd wr~uld have to contlnue through the development. I~e polnted out the iocatlon of the
veterinary hospital on the map and the existing PerAlte AdoUe Nouse which would rert~in and
stated the Caunty has tlie deed to this property wi tl~ the necessary ingress and egress to
that site.
{le polnCed out the existing median slrlp li~ Falrmont Uo~+lcvard ond thot thcre would be A
lot of t,reffi~ i~~tu tl,e res(dentlal arc~ lf Rto Grande Is use~~. N~ ~~int~d out there are
p~oblems with this slte and there Is pr~bably not an easy s~lution~ but thdt they have
discussed thls access wtth Mr. Singer and the people at the nursery and hove teken Into
cons{deratlon the resldcntlal arras and fe~l this plan is the best they could come up
with. Ne indicated he ~e~lized they would nat be able to make everyone happy~ but that
they have worked out an ag~eement with the owners of thc nurse~y.
Toshtro Hiralde~ representtng [~ie Kobayashi brothers~ owners of the nursery~ 151 aedondo
Beach, Gardena~ indlcated they have had considerable dtscussions with the Asawa group and
that they had been concerned there would be an effart to close thelr entrance to the
nursery, and they wvuld ob~jett to that, but that last week they hdd agreed on a sort of
solution to the prob!em; that they hed agreed if they were able to provide them with
ingrass to the nursery as it exists today~ they would yo along wlth It, even tho~.gh the
exlt may have ta be un the other side~ and that they had also agreed to the entra~~ce on
the other stde.
Chatrman Tolar asked Mr. Niraide to clarify that tt-is plan as presented is s~tisfactory to
his cilent and that sufficie~t parking would be provided on-site for the existing nursery,
and Mr. Toshlro Hiraide replied this plan was agreeable as presented.
Chairman Tolar asked what had been done to atlev(ate the problem of riqhts of ingress and
egress onto Santa Ana Canyon Road; that he believed there had been some qucstion re~gardtng
the titl~.
Mr. Asawa polnted out there was a tetter from the title company in the scaff report; that
there is some question es to the right-of-way of Santa A~a C~nyan Road and that the
difficulty is probably tl~e chain of title somewhere down the line; that there is no
questlon there is a portion of the prope~ty held in prlvate ownership by the developer
across the street and that the petltioner could nego[iAte to buy that property or they may
have to rely on thc City Co do whatever they can to assist them in ~cquiring thc property;
and thst there is the S.A.V.f, Iine and a portion of that property would have to be
~cqulred from the City since thc City is the reciplent of that parcel. lie pointed out
they have talked with the City Engineering Department and tl~ey hevic explained the ground
rules for this tu be accompllsh~d.
Mary Dinndorf referred to the map and indicated the street is a straight shot through to
Rio Grande and thmt t~affic will be going into the residential area and will impact
Quintana, and asked how tl~at would be alleviated,
4/10/78
~~
MiNUTCS. ANAtiE1M CITY PLI~~NING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 197A 78-Z35
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1810 (conti~ued)
Mr. Mnllott~ the architact~ polnted out they plan to construct a buffer designe.f so Chat
the traffic would have to go around It.
Chal rman Tolar askc~f 1 f nn Ingress only had b~:en ca~3lciere~ ~ a~!~cr tlian an (ngress/egress
on Rin Grande~ and Mr. M lott replied that thts would be b detr(ment to the preaect, plus
It would put trAffi~ beck inta tlie restdential street.
Chatrman Tolar Indicated he was reforring to en Ingress Into the commerclal Genter rather
than Ingress and eyress~ and that trafP(c could not get bac!c out onta Rio Grande; that he
felt the comrn~rctal center would not be successful w([hout tliuse homeow~er~ using the
center. !le stated he could understand why they did r~ot wani throuc~l~~ Crafflc but could not
understand why thcy did not tivant thc c~mrncrcial ccntcr.
Mary Olnndorf replled thoc thcsy do wont the cammercial center~ but they da not weni. the
xraffic c~ming out ont~ Quint~nt~.
TfIE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSLO.
Paul Singcr~ Traffic Engineer, po(nted ~ut thc problem of ingress and egress anto Ria
Grande Is a des(gn p~oblem and could be solved. HP lndi- r.ed he felt one single access
combined sorrawherc in tt~e m1~ldle of the project with a mt,1(an island to Rla Grande wauld
provide the best circulation and~ a~ the same time~ would encourage traffic to use
F~i~mont Instaed of Quincana. He stated his p~lmary cancern is the ingress and egres~
onto Santa Ana Car~yan Road ~ and he rec~rm~ends aga 1 ns t t~~at, but i f the P 1 ann t ng Comm) ss f on
feels the access paint should be aliowed on Senta Ana Canyon Road, then it shoulc: have a
3A0-foot deceleratlon lene and the firsl access to any park(ng a~ea be 150 feet from ~he
trave) lanes on Santa Ana Canyon road. Furthermare, he would ~ecomrt+c!nd a rt-~dian (sland ba
constructed as shvwn~ providtng sufficient space for a blcyc' lane and pedestrian access
along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Fle Indicated the ftrst part of hts recammendation would be
that na eccess be allowod oncQ Santa Ana Canyon Road and~ secondly~ If an access is
app~oved. it shauld be as shown on this plen~ providing there is no access to any pa~kin~
spece wlthin 150 feet of the travel lanes.
Cammissione~ Barnes indicated the~e wds a question in her mind as to whether or not there
is en access on Santa Ana Canyo~ Ro-ad as deslgnated by the State end that there is an
acc~ss now for the nursery, and as~;ed if that had baen granted to someone by the State a~d
what would be the City's decision on that~ an~ Mr. Singer replied there ts a grandfather
access to the nurze ry praperty exclusivaly.
Commisslonar Johnson asked if that included a left-turn onto Santa Ana Canyon Road from
Quintana~ and Mr. Singor replied thac it did.
Mr. Singer tndicated he had recommended that the left-turn be eliminat~d in the area
leading into the nursery and thac the median island be closed. Commissloner Barnes ssked
if the Ctty h~s the power to do that. and he replied tht~t they did.
Gommissioner Johnson esked ha+ far the median on Feirmant goes~ and Mr. Singer replted
that It goes all the wey to Rfo 3rande.
Commissioner Nerbst indlcated Hr. Singer was saying that people yotng wesC on Santa Ana
Canyon Road would have to go clear to Quineana ar,d c.ome back to get into the nurse ry. Mr.
Singer replied that this was correct; that presently there ts a median break wtth boti~
left and ~ight acce~s and this plan shows access wtch the deceleration lane outside the
4/10/18
~-
~
,
NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ APRIL 10, 1978 7R-23G
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND CONDITIONAL i1SE PERMIT N0. 1810 (continuad)
bicycla snd pedastrian lane with eccnsn to the nurso ry immed(etely from the deceleratio~
lane •nd continues approximat~ly 1~Q faet back to the closest access to Any parking space
in tha ahoppl~g center. He indtcated he was recommendtng that perhaps a larger entrenc~
ba relocsted to the center of the property and that circulatlon be arranqed ta mitiget~
the impect to the residenti~l orea to the west. Ile potnted out there Is a Clty Council
adoptnd plan fo~ access p~ints along 5snta Ana Cenyon Road en~i hls recommend~tion Is that
no ingress or egress be allowed, but thst If the Plannlny Commisslon foels this type
sf~opping esntQr warr+~nts access onto Senta Ana Canyon Road. then thls Is his
recortmendat(on as to hc~w the access should be handled.
Chalrrn~n T~IAr ~nintr~i n„r thAr fnr ~ lon,y tin~ the Planninq Commisslon has talbed about
land assemblt~ge and here they hava thre~ own~rs who are wlll(ng to get to~etlier and
dewelop a nice proJect~ and now the Plannin~~ Gommisslon ts telkiny abnut no Ingress or
egross to the proJeck.
Commlaslanor Johnson statcd h~ f~lt M~. Singer haci madc himself qulte clear; that he does
not favor an ingress and ogress onto Senta Ana Canyon Road~ but th~t If it should he
a~lawed~ he rocommends ~t be done this way; that he rec~ynizes there ar~ access probiems
to this praperty and that the Planning Commission must consider the r(ghts of the people
traveling through and thos~ people on the spc~t. Ne felt in thts case it w~s necessary
that access to Santa Ana Canyon Road be atlow~d and that the owners of the nursery ware
wt111ng to relinquish son~ of their riqhts; ~hat they were willing to releASe that left•
turn provtding a way out can be provided~ a.~d lnd(cated he had not heard Mr. Singer be so
vague about hcwv to gst the t raf f 1 c r•, Fa i rmon t.
Mr. Singer Indicated that moving the entr~3nce claser to Fairmont~ away f~om QuEntana,
would e~cnurage traffic ta use Fatrmont rather then QuintanA. Ne sta[ed he felt the
maJority of the trafflc yeneratec! by this center will come from Fatrmont Boulevard.
Commissioner Johnson ind(cated he did not see where the bike lanes are going Ca be and ht
felt the ~ursery par~:iny would be imp~~cted slnce any parktng areas must bt 15~ feet from
the traffi~ lanes,
Mr. Singsr Indicated there is a problem wlth this access and referr~d to the confltct
point on the map~ nating that tht deceleration lane would give the trafflc a chance to
sla+ davn before coming into the conflict area; that it is far enough away so that tr~ffic
can slow dawn and move over threG lanes and be capable of ol~eying any traffic signals. Ne
pointed out this plan has been reviewed several times an.: that the developer has revised
it as ~ecortrnended by the Traffic Department. Ne inJir.ate~i h,e was not very much ln favor
of the plan~ but felt practicality would dictate it; that from a traffic standp~int it is
not very safe. Ne stated (t all depends upon the design of the parking lot to prevent
short-cuttiny and that he could not realiy address that since the plan ts not complete and
does not shaw how the traffic wou1J be (nterrupted to prevent ~hart-cuttlr.g the
deceleration lane.
Commissianer lierbst stated this is an opportunity to assemble four parcels of land which
individually would have to have access if they developed separately becausc they do have
fror.tage~ and that now wtth one development the Planning Commission ts trying to cut down
the access points needed. Ne indicated he felt If the commerclal development was going to
be al~owed. then access polnts must be allowed~ and he felt the access plan as shown is
the best. Ne asked about the strlp of land where tl~c deceleration lane is going to be,
and Mr. Sinye~ polnted out that wouid be a landscaped median; that it is out of the travel
lanes and the blke lane.
4/10/78
~,.
i
MINUTES~ ANANEIM Cil'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10, 1978 78-237
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0~ 1810 (c~ntl~ued)
C~n~ntssioner Ne~bst indicnt~d if thq Comrtarclol ce~t~r Is gotng to be succassful ~
customers have to be abla tn get tn end out and he felt this Is the best poasible way tu
service this communlty anc the canter. He suggested the possl~lllty of left-turn pock~ts
to allow people to turn~ and Mr. Singer replied th ig would requlre soperate tr~ffic
cr~ntrols.
Jack White ropllod that r,he condltion could be added~ provicling that thc appllcant is to
bulld to theae preclse plans axcept es modified by the Traffic Engineer~ An~ that he did
not think thc Planning Cam~ris•ta~ was in the poslt lon to know wharP that access should be
located snd the plans should be brought bnck for appr~val.
Gommissioner Harbst asked if tha occess on R(o GranJe should be oligned with Donna Court.
and Mr. Singer tndicateJ It should~ but that he ~vould recommend the circutation plens be
epprnvrd by the Planning Commisslon,
Mary Dinndorf ind(cated she fnlt traffic will sti il be using QulntAna and poi~ted out the
number of devslopments in the area which currently use that street ~nd that it is e
resldentlAl strest.
Chairman Tolar indicated he could not envtston sameone not living in these devetopments
heading b ack west ca hlt Qulnt~na.
Mary Dinn~rf indtcated when the Influentlal t~ac t was approved It wes thought ev~ryone
would be going out on Sante Ana Canyon Road~ but thet they da come down Arboreturt- because
it is difflcult to get onto Anahaim Hills i~^~1 an d then Santa Ana Canyon Road~ so is
aasler to c~et onto Qulnt~~na.
Paul Singer polnted out that Anahelm f1111s Road~ Falrrt~cnt Boulevard~ and Sante Ana Ca~yon
Road will be siynalized and that will take the p ~e~sure off Qulntena because it will be
more co~ventent to meke turns a~ controlled IntA r sections.
Mary Dinndorf i~dicated that a s(gnal would help, but a lot of pcople wlll still be coming
up Quintana and that Is what bothers her and her haneawners assotlatlon, but that they
would prefer to see the p~oject developed as a pa ekage ~ather than ptecemeal.
Jan Nall pointed out that NACMAC did not address the impact on the naighborhood and that
Mrs. D i nndorf's pos i t ton was nat NACMAC's pos i t 1 on; that the i r maJor conce~•n was egress
onto Santa Ana Canyon Road; that they felt if th e ~c was any access. it should be tng~ess
only. She indicated she felt the Planning Commis sion was being overly cautious with thSs
small center; that there are more acc~sses provided for• thls center than for the entire
blbertson's shopping center and pe~ple can get in to that without any problems. She
indicated NAGMAC dtd not think they should have t ~afflc onto Santa Ana Canyon Road; that
she did nat feel the traffic into a residentlal a ~ea would he anythiny more than the
people who lived there.
Chalrman Tolar asked Mr. Asawa how viable hts proJect would be without Ingress to the
proJect from Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Mr. Asawa replied that woul~ mean the only atccs s would be either Fairmont or Rio Grande
a~d that to dtrect al) that traffic to the ~eside ntial str~et would heavily impact those
streets. He lndicated~ agaln, he did not feel t h ey could posslbly present a plan that
wnuld please everybody. He pointed out they da t~av~ approximately 5~0 feet from the
intersection and the~e is an existtng ea+sement oes 50 feet of the prope~ty and it would be
4/10/79
.R.
~. . .
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C011NISSION~ APRIL iG. 1918 78-238
EIR NEGATIVE nECLARATION AND CONDIT~ONAL USE t'ERNIT N0. 1810 (conttnued)
lmpo~sible to clnse It off bocause underneath there Is ~ drainage channel and e serles of
utility essements. He pointed out the l~ndscapad s~ea, would prevent the strai~ht thot
from Rlo Grsnde to Santa Ana Cenyon Road and ho dld not think relocettng the accesy on Rio
Gronde would ba practtcal beceuse nf the easGments that have to be serviced and these are
ext s t 1 ng ~ rncorded easements and noth i ng can be bu 1 1 t ai~ them.
Cheirma~ Tolar indicated he felt the utility companies coulct aervice that area if IngresS
and e~ress was allvwed.
Cummi ss i oner 1lcrbs t os kcd i f the cascmcnt cou I d be ut i I i z~d fnr r~rk i ng or 1 nndscap I ~g.
an~ Mr, As~w,- r~~l i pr1 th~t 1 c could but that no pe rmanent structures could be bui 1 t ove~
the easement area.
Commisstoner Darnes indtcated she was eoncerned about the ingress and egross from Santa
Ana Ganyon Rond; chat the nurscry has had ingress and eyress fnr a long ti~ and she dld
nQt feel ~ighte coulJ be denied wh{ch thay haJ all along and wh(ch would be detrtmenta) to
thetr businoss. She indicated she did not see any reason why there cauld not be tngress
and egress to Santa Ana Canyon Road. She real(zed there are problems with traffic~ but
that t~aff(c problems already exlst and she wes in favar of closing off the one fngress
and eg~ess to Ria Grande~ having only one access f ~om Rio Grende across from Donna Court
and another access off Falrmont nnd felt the buil~iings could be rearranqed accordingly.
She askcJ lf there was a posslbility of havl~~g an accclcration lane onto Santa Ana Cany~n
Road.
Mr. Singer (ndicated they had looked at lhe accele~ation lane but felt (c would defeat the
purpose because it Is mucl~ better far tr3ffic to enter a high-speed highway at rtght
angles wherc: they can see onc~ming traff(c, lie po inted aut the R(nker center does have en
acceleratlon lane and the traffic is almost parallel to moving traffic and Is not the best
solution and it ts not a ir~rging lane such as the frccwey.
Commissianer Johnson Indicated he likes everthing that has be~n done, bui asked if the
entr8nce to the ps~ktng lot on Santa Ana Cany~n Road would ruin the decele~ation lane.
Mr. Singer indicated it would not be a problem if It cculd be canftnPCi to Jus* the nursery
and make lt Impossible Lo traverse betwnen that and th~ shopping center. Ne indfcated he
was bothercd by the fact that th~re were no dr.tai is planned for the parking lot and feit
If a proper ptan is arranged to provi~fe very strong physieal barrters to short-cutt(ng~
the plan could be 1(ved with.
Commissloner Barnes indicated she was concerned about the trail; that they sa(d they have
reached agreement wi tli the Trai ls Comml txee and asked 1 f cherc was an agreement.
Mr. Asawa indicated they have discussed the Trai ls Gortmittee requirements but ihey have
not worked out the cletails, but that they are cog~izant of the fact and that they still
have to come back for a rev i ew of al 1 the p 1 ans .
He stated he would not 1 ike to see the access ~rb i trari ly clased and asked that the
decision be left up to the recommendations of the Traffic Engineer, indl~ating he was sure
Paul S inger woul d mai:e i i so f t woul d be of benef i t to everyone concerned.
Chairman Tolar indicated if the plans are approved with an alteration of the circulation,
he wou 1 d 1 i ke Lo see ti~em come back ta the Comm i s s ton .
4/10/78
9
~y
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 7p-23g
EI~,R NEGATIVE DECLAM TiON AND CONpITIONA,~USE ~ IT N0, 141~ (contlnued)
A~TION: Comml=sion~r Ba~nes afferGd a motton, seconded by Commissioner Ktng and MQTION
~~ (Commisstoner Linn being absent)~ that the Planning Commisslan has revtewed the
subJect pro~osal to establish a veter(nery hospltal w(th a waiver of mintmum numbar of
pa~king specas on an irrec~ularly-shaped parcol of land conslating of appraxlmately 1.1
acres hevinc~ a f~ontaye of approxlmately 25 fe~t on the northwest side of Rio Gra~de
D~ive. having e m~xlmum depth of approximately 132 feet~ and belny located approximately
600 fQet west of the cent~ritna of Falrmont ~oulevard; and docs hereby Approve the
Negative Declaratlon frum the requt~ement ~to prepare an environmental impact report on the
basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulntive adverse anviranrrbntal
(mpect due ta the approva) of thls Negative Declaration since thr. Analielm Canyon Gen~ra)
Pld~i cles~iyiiele~ the subject property for general commercial and low denxity residentiai
land uses c~mmr-nsur.,tP with the pr~pasal; that no sensltive environmr.ntal (mpacts are
involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the pot(tioner Indlct~tes no
signlflcant individua) or cumulative aJverse environmental impects; anJ tFiat tl-e N@gatlve
Declaratlon substant(ating the foregoiny flndings is on flle in tlie Clty of Anaheim
P18nning Deportment.
Commissloner Qarnes offered Resolution No. PC78-64 and moved for its passage and adopCton.
that the A~nheim City planning Commissian does hereby grant Petitio~~ for C~nditional Use
Pe~mit No. 1810~ subJect to the st.ipulatlons by the pettiloner that there will be only nne
vehlcular access drtveway from subJect property and t1~a adJacent commerclal propertles
onto Rio Grande Orive and it shall be aliqned with Donna Court to the north; that the
specific conf(guration of said drtveway shall be approved by the Trafflc Engineer and any
revlsed ctrculatlon plans far s~)ect property and the adJecent cortn~erclAl propertles
shall be revlewed and approved by the Planning Commission; that the landscaped medtan In
Sante Ana Canyon Road shall be closed prior to the campletion of the access ririveway to
and from Santa Ana Canyon Road; and subJect to Interdepartmental Comm(ttee
rocommendatlons.
On rol) cell~ the foreyotng resolution was ~assed by the followinq vote:
AY~S: COMMISSIOf1ER5: BARt~E5~ DAVID~ NERHST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAtt
NOES: COMMISSIO~IERS~ NONE
A(~SENT: COMHISSIONERS: LINN
Commissloner Barnes offered a motlon, seconded by Commtss(oner David and MOTIUt~ CARRIED
~Commissioner Linn being ab5ent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission do~s hereby
g~bnt the requested waiver on the basis that the testimony presented at the public h~:aring
indlcates the proposed use wtll not generate the nee.d fo~ as many parking spaces as
requtred by Code for typica) retail stores and service businesses, and that the proposed
vete~inary hospital wlll be part of a laryer ccxnmerclal complex in wh(ch the parking area
wil) serve several corm~erclal businesses.
P~1or to voting on the Code walver, the Commiss(on discussed whether o~ not this plan ts
for the veeerinary hospltal or f~r the entire commercial site. Annika Santalahtt pointed
out that prtar to occupancy of the butlding~ they must provide the access to Santa A~a
Cahyan Road. They also discussed the landscap~d medlan, with Chairrnan Tolar indlcating lt
would be the responsibility of the petittoner to provtde the landscaped median.
It wAS also polnted out by the Commission that ~~~ere would bc no activities outslde the
facllity mnd there would be no doG runS outsidp the facility.
4/10/78
~
~
~
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 197I: 7~"~4Q
ITEM NO.~ PUOLIC HEAa1NG. OWNERS: B0~ AND ELIZABETN
EI- R H€,A ~VE DECLARATION KIRKPATRICK~ BILLY L. At~D PATRICIA WOLFE~ AND
RE-C~I.ASS I.A I~N N0. •~4 ~SCAR AND EL17.AI~ET11 STANKOV~ 905 South Eucl id Street~
~ Sulta 111~ Fullerton~ CA 9zG33• AGEN7: TALLAS D.
`-'~"" MARGRAV~. JR.~ 161 Fashlan Lane~ Sulte I10~ Tustin~
CA 9Z680. Property descrihed as a rectangulerly-
shaped parcal of land consisting of epproxlrnately Q.~ acre having a frontage of appraxl-
mately 100 feet on the west side of Mac~nolla Avonue~ having a maximum dcpth of approximately
395 feet~ being locat~d approxlmately 2G2 feet south of the centerline of Ll~coln Ave~ur.~
and further described as 119 South Megnolla Avenue. Property presently classtflod
RS-A•43~f100 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTUfNL) ZONE.
REQUCSTED CLASSIFICATIO~~: RM-12~~ (RESIUENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 20NC.
REQUEST~D VARIAIIC~: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL NEIGHT TQ CONSTR~~~~ A 24-UNIT~
RM-12Q0 APARTMENT COMPLEX.
There were two persons Incllcatiny their presence in oppositlon to subJect request~ and
although the staff report to the Planning Comnisston dateci A~rtl 10~ 197F~ was nat read at
the public hcaring~ it IS refcrred to and madc a pt~rt of t~~e minutes,
Tallas Hargrave~ agente wAS presGnt to answer any questions.
Bill Marks~ 2612 West Lincoln Avenue~ An~heim~ polnted out that he dici not feel the staff
report correctly identtties the land uses su~rounding subJect property concernln9 the
single-famlly residences within 1~0 feet of the property. tle pointed ou[ he has two
houses on his proQerty and there is another residence at the auto shop which faces
Magnolia Avenue and anott~er small resiJence~ buth on 5~-f~pt lots; that the~e are actually
f~ur r~sidences in this arca. Ne pointed out h(s caretaker'~ house would be wlthin 15
feet because it Is on the rear of his pr~perty; thet his awn house is 100 feet from the
re~r property Itne. He stated tf~e developer has had a survey done on the property
adJulning and has notified those persons Lhet thcy have a 6-foc~t encroachment ont~ his
property. Ne in:iicate~ he was having his own survcy made and. depending upon that~ he
probably will have G fect less. Flis main point was to ~clar7fy that tl~cre are more
resid~nces In the area than shown withln 1~0 feet.
Jay Tashiro~ Assistant Planne~. pointed out the restriction for a t~~~-story structure
within 15~ feet of a single-family residence only applies for residential or agricultural
zones; that the other single-family ~esidences located in the area have been appraved in
conjunction with other use5, such as the auto shap; therefore, the 15~-foot restriction
would not apply.
Robert May~er, J~.. 3121 East Flo~ence, Downey, representin9 Mayer ConstructiAn Company,
indicated he was concerned about the one-foot strip adjacent ta :he alley since these
plans show they have taken access to the alley at the rear of their project~ and asked if
they inter~ded to purchase this property.
Mr. Margrave Indicated they had gotten the narne of the pruperty owner from the ass~:ssor's
records and had trled unsucccssfully to contact him.
Whize, Depucy City Attorney~ pointed out Conditinn No. 8 of the Interdepartmcntal
rtee recommendations states. "That prior to taking access to the alley to the west,
. developer shall purchase the one-foot iot adJacent to the alley," so staff is aware
of this condition.
4/ t c~I 78
~
a ~
' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIbN~ APRIt. ln~ 1978 78-241
F~R NECATIVC DECLARATJON. RECI.ASSIFICATION N0,_~,ZJ~Z8-54_ AND VARIA~ICE NO 30~ (continued)
Mr. Margrave indicat~d that he had tried to contact thc owner of the one-foot Atrlp of
lend and did not fQel there wss a problem sinco they would probably agree to sell that
piece of p~operty. Concerning Mr. Marks' concerns about the 6-foot encroachment~ he
Indlcated ho had discussed thts problem with Mr. Ma~ka snd advised hlm that he shc~uld get
tagetho~ wlth the ~Chor nelyhbors And file some type ~f actton if they wsnted co keep the
property~ but that three of the Ftve ~~qulremcnts for adverse possesslon ere missing In
this case. He Indlcated that Mrs. ~'rankl(n's house~ which faces on Magnolta~ (s the most
impacted and that they h~vc yranted he~ an easement over her property.
TNE PU~LIC NEARING WAS CLaSEU.
Commissloner Nerbst askod if the 6-foot encroachmont is in excoss c~f tl~e 25~~uut wide
drlveway.
Mr. Margrave explainecl that ~11 ~he yrant deeds rrflr.ct sorr~e pc,rtlon of the north 26~ foet
of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the section~
and the sectlnn line is 13 feet north nf tl~e centerllne of L(ncoln Avenue; thet a surveyor
In 1947 came ln~ spltt the property between thc construction line and Broadway~ surveyed
the propcrty, set tl~e p~operty lines. and ended up G feet south of the true locatlnn; that
the property owner to the south was shorted E~ fect; that there have benn some maJor lot
Iine adjustments requ~red, but that al) the deeds ~Iluded to the north 260 feet of thc:
property and when you came off a section line 260 feet~ they are ali encroaching 6 feet.
Commlss0oncr Nerbst indtcated he was showiny a?.~-f~ot driveway w(th pottsd [rees abu+[ting
the existin,y house very closely.
Mr. Margrsve indicated that anly Mrs. Franklin's house would be affected; that the other
houses ere not R-1 uses; that they are designated commerctal areas and he would assume
they are eccessory buildings to the commercia) uses~ and Mrs. Franklin's house does
p~esent a problcm and that is why they have granted her an easement until she etther dies~
re:bullds~ or destroys her houst.
Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Marks what the rest of his property waa used for~ and Mr.
Marks replied that he has a kennel, his own home, a garage~ and storage building with a
cement black storage area Just used for storage and a work shop .~rea (n addition Lo the
caretaker's house; and that the only Pffect on his property would be te~ring down the
fence.
Mr. Margrave lndicaCed he would be replactng tl~e fence with a block wall.
CommissioRer Herbst referred to the landscaping shown adJacent to the driveway and asked
if it would be encroaching further~ and Mr. Margrave replied that they would n~t be
encroaching except for the overhang.
AC710N: Commissloner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION
CA RIED (~ommissloner Linn being absent), that the Anahaim Ctty Planntng Commtssion has
reviewed the proposal to rezone the p~operty from RS-A-43,0~0 (Residenttal/ Agricultural)
to RM-1200 (Residential~ Multiplc-Famity) to constr•uct a 24-unit apartment complex with
watver of maximum structural height An a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.9 acre having a frontage of approximately 10~ feet on the west side of
Magnolla Avenue, having a maximum depth of approx~mately 395 feet. being located
approximately 262 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve
the Negative Daclaration from the requireme~t to prepare an environmer~tal impact report on
4/10/78
r-
~
MINUTES~ ANHHEiM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1918 78-242
EIa NEGATIVE DEC~IRATION. RECLASSIFI_TION N0. 11~78-54 AND V1IRIANLE N0.~005 (continucd)
the basis thet there would ba na algniflcant individual or cumulAtive sdverses
environmental impect due to the epproval of this Negetive Declaratton sincc the Anaheim
Genera) Plan designates the subject property for medlum density resldentlet land uses
comrn~nsurr~te wlth the proposal; that thls proJect wlll upc~rade the area; that no sensltlve
envlronmenta) irry-acts are involved in tho proposal; that the Inttlal Study submltted by
the petittnner Indlcstes no stynlficant i~dividual or cumuletivo adverse environrr~ntal
impacts; and tl~at the Negativa Decleratlon substantlating the for~goiny ftndings is on
ftle (n the City of Anahelm Planning Depa~tment.
Comm(ssioner King offer~d Resolutlon No. PC7t3-6y and moved for Its passage and adoptlon~
that the Anaheim Ctty Plann!ng Commissiun does horeby grant Pe[ition for Reclassificatlon
No. 77-~J8^S~ir subject t~ t~,~..~r~rNdrtmontal Committce reco~+~n~latic,na.
~n r~l) call. the forega(ny resolution was passed by tfie followlny voxe:
AYES: C014MISSIUI~ERS: DARNES, OAVID. HERDST~ JOHNSQN~ KING. TOLAR
NOES ; COMh11 SS I Ot~ERS : NON~
ADS~NT: C0~4MISSIONERS: LINN
Commissloner King offered Resolutlon No. PC7B-6G and moved for its passagc and adoptlon~
that tf~e Analieim City Plannin9 Comm(ssion does hereby grant Petitlon for Varlance ~~o, 30~5
on the basis that the san~e prlvileges are enjoyed by properties adjacPnt tA the south of
subJect property, and subject to Interdepartmental Commf[tee recommendatlons.
On roll call. the foregoing r•:solutian was passeJ by the follc~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: E3ARNE5~ OAVIU~ I1ERB5T~ JOHNSON~ Y.ING~ TOLAR
NOES : COMMISS I ONERS : NOIJE
AaSENT: COMMISS IO~~ERS: L INFI
I TEM N0. 6 READVERT I SE D PU13L I C HEAR I NG. OWNER: BIAND IIUFFM/1N ~
EIR~ NEGATIVE OECLAMTION 1l56 Llnda Vista~ O~ange~ GA 92667. AGENT: DAVID
R N E 0. 2 A. LOSSABUOM. 904 North Broadway~ 4th Floor~ Santa
Ana, CA 91701. Petitianer requests AMENDMENT TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL of subJ~ct v~riance granted
for property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land co~sistlno of approximately
1.8 acres having a fror+tage of approximately i76 feet an the west side of Knott Street,
havEng a maximum depth of approxirnately ~~-2 feet~ being located approximately ti50 feet norCh
of the centerline of Orange ~venue~ end further described as 4b1 South Knott Street.
Property presently classified RM-1200 (RESIUEI~TIAI~ M1;L71PLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
There was no one present indicating their ooposition to subject request, and although the
staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 1~, 1978 was not read at the publtc
hea~ing~ it is ref~rred to and made a part of the minutes.
Bland Huffman~ aaner~ w~s present to answGr any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARI~G WAS CLOSED.
Jack White~ Geputy City Attorney, potnted out the Ctty Attorney's Office concu~rs with the
petltioner that the rtquested amendments appear appropriate on the basis af a similar case
where the court waived the requirement to file a tract map when the previous owners couid
4/10/78
MINUTES~ ANAi~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRII 10, 1978
EIR N~~______._GATIV_E QEG ARATION AND VARIANCE N0~,.2~ (continued)
78-243
not bo found. He also explelned that th(s will apply to all tha lots that we~e approv~d
by the ortglnal variance.
It w~s noted that a Megative Oeclaratian h~s already been approved under the subJect
varlence on December 22~ 1975•
ACTION: Commissloner Ilerbst offered Resolutlon No. PC713-67 and moved for Its pessage and
a~op~tTon~ thet tlie Anal~cim City Planning Commission does her~by ~rant Petition for
Verlance No. 27A0~ amendment to condlkfons of approval of Resolutlon No. PC75-z73~ subJect
to Interdepartrt~ntal Commlttee recommendatlons.
On ral) call~ the foregoing re~ulutton was passed by r.l~r. f~llowinq vote:
AYCS: COFIMISSIQIJERS: DARNES~ DAVID~ HERkiST. JGHNSON, KING. TOLAlt
NOES: COMMISSIONCRS: NONE
Ati5ENT; COMMISSIONERS: LINN
ITEM N0. 7 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER; DAVIO DOERING~ 416 South
EIR~'CAT ORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Primro~e~ Anahe(m~ CA 92504, AGENT: DONALD L.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. I 2 SI~AFER~ 1203 West Llncoln Avenue~ Anahetm, CA 92801.
Petittoner requests permisstan to EXPAND AN EXISTING
COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND DANCE HALL on property descrlbed
as an lr~egularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre locatnd at the
northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue anJ Carletnn Avenue~ having approximete fronteges of
100 feet on the north side of Linca~n Avenuc:~ 1~5 feet un tF~r, west side of Carleton Avenue~
and 150 feet on the south side of ptamond Street, and further dssc~ibed as 1203 Nest
Linc:oln Avenue. Property presently classtfied CG (COMMERCIl1l~ GENERAL) ZONE.
There Nas one person indicating her presence in opposition to sub}ect request~ and
althouqh the staff report t~ thc Planning Commission dated April 10~ 1918 Was not read at
the public hearing~ it ls referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Donald Shafer, agent, indicated that ss~bJect request ls the result of advice from the
Planning Commission one year ago that he should run his busincss for a year without any
problems~ and he w~s present to a~swer any questlons the opposition might have.
Margaret Su111van. 1122 West Dfamond, Anaheim, Indicated her property is araund the corner
from the Marquis Bar. She stated she wished to apologize to Mr. Shafer as she had
undarstood he wanted to cniargc the business. She indicated he had explatneci t~ her that
this had been discussed with Lt. Wilcox of the Vlce Squad a~~d that he had no objections to
this requ~st if thts con~l:tional use permit is approved. She indicated she had called Lt.
Wilcox when she receivea her notice and that he seid he would be opposed to any request
that comes up and t~as Mr~ Doering's nam~ on it.
She indicated this n~ighborhood is mostly senior cittzens who have been there for years,
an~ she has lived there 28 years and she could reot mave because of the price of housing
today. She indlcated she does not fntend to go on public welfare; that the government has
r~eve~ supported her or her famii~ and she w~uld like to see thes neighborhaod cleaned up.
She did not feel as long as the ma: ~age parlor is in operation that the area would be
cleaned up. Sh~ indicated she know<, tt is still there because Just a few weeks ago she
had seen scvera) young boys who wer~, approximately 17 years old going Into it. She
indicated she has seen persons leaving the Marquis Lou~ge and go into the massage parlor~
4/10/78
MI~IUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf COKMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 197g
78-244
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•LLASS 1 AND CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT N0. 1812 (cantinuad)
so she thought there w~s some contact between tlie two~ a~d ~s long as the maesaye parlor
Is in the nelghb~rhood~ she did not want to see the co~ditlonal use permit f~r the Marquls
granted.
CQMMISSI~NER LINN ARRiVED AT 3:05 P.M.
Mrs. Sullivan referred to ~dult magazfnes and newspap~rs located in the viGinlty of Norm's
Restaurent and polnted out that thGy are easlty obtalnable and children can get them. She
indicated she would be agalnst this condltlonal use permit until she is told the massago
parlor esteblishment fs sold or close~ up.
Mr. Shafcr indlcatP<~ I~e had talked wlth Lt. Nilcox and that he had tnl~ him the )udgQ had
ord~red Mr. Doering to sell the pruperty~ and that the propcrty is up for salc. ~~e
(ndlcete~ hc does not havc anything to do witl~ tlie operation of the mo+ssag~ parlor. He
indicated he could not aff~rd to ~uy thc proprr•ty and that hc has a 20-year lease~ but
that he had been assured thls propcrty is up for sale.
Fern Jacks~n~ 201 La Paz~ An~heim~ i~dicated tt~at the noticc indicated Mr. 5hafer wlshes
to expa~d the exlsting cocktafl loun,ye and dance hall. She poln~ed out the building is a
~ocktafl lounye ln the front and in tiie back fl~ere is a building i~ txistence wlilch Mr.
Oocring had built several years ayo and ehere had been dancing in that building. Sh~e
polnted out this place has nothing to do with the m.issage parlor in t1,e area ancl she felt
those people in the area misundcrstood thc: use; that he hes a 20-year lease on tt~c
buildln~ and he is not being allc~wod to usc all thc building. She indicated shc owns
property at Lincoln and Broadway and that she would not be able [o do anything About it if
a massagc parlor went into that arce~ and the mas~aye parlor woulcl have nothing to do with
the buslnesses presently there. She stated Mr. Shafer leases the building frorr~ a certaln
person and pays the rent to that certai~- person and for one ycar they have had no crouble.
She indicated he had informed the buye~ of his intPnded use of the property.
Mr. Shafer tndicatcd Mr. Doering d(d not have a conditional use permit; that he had
opera~ed the bus i ness fc~r one year i I legal 1Y •
Chairman Tolar asked for clarification as to the owne~ of the adJoi~ing property~ and Ms.
Jackson indicated the property was up for sale.
Hr. Shafer indicated tr,at the owner of the bullding for sale has assured him that he
wanted to sell all t11e property. but that lt would not affect his lease.
Ns. Jackso~ {ndicat~ed she has frequented the establishment a~d felt if the Plarsning
Commissioners would conx: down and look at the property they could see that you cuuld walk
in the front door and then in the back there is a room he cannot use; that he has a dance
permit, but the conditlonal use permit was denied~ and she indicatcd shc beli~ves the
Planning C~mm(ssion should give a person a chance to prove themselves. 5he Indicated she
knows this business is conductcd ve ry nicely and that Lt. Wilcox could verify there has
nevsr been any crouble; that they have a large parking lot with ing~ess and egress through
the alley and it is not close to Mrs. Sullivan's property. She indicated she could
apprectate the concern there would be pa~king on tha resldentiai streets. but did not
thlnk there would be a probiem. She indicated there are apartments in the area on Center
Street and thtre was already a parking problem. She felt Mr. Shaf~r should be given an
opportunity to prove it is Just yoing to be a dance place. She referred to ather places
in the Disneyland area end in t.~e downtown area which have not been detrimental to the
4/1A/78
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 78-245
EIa CItT~GORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 18~ (continued)
are~ and fnlt he could make tl~la int~ one of thoso places. She tndicated Davtd Doering's
reputatlon should not p~avent Mr. Shefer getting his permit.
Chairman Ts~~one^IncthedPaste9buCdthat becausegofuthat~tthisboperatlon~lsuof concnrn to•
DoQring ha
the cittzens of A~aheim.
Mrs. Sullivan lndlcated they we~e not in dlsa~grPement witl~ the dancing but whet goes on
before and after the dancing.
Mr. Shafer indicated hc fclt M~s. Suilivan was besing all ~f her opinlons on what is
happeninq at the rr-~ssagc parior next door•
M~s. Sulllvan IndiceteJ st~c was made to U~11pvr. that lt. ul~cox had okayed this proJect
but found that was not the case. She inJicated a dance hall would close at 2:UU a.m.~ but
people were stlll there at 3:0~ a.m. She indicated Mr. Doering tn 1'~72 ha~d expl,~ined this
operation would be a beautiful~ family-type place and she felt when people lied to her~
sh~ must speak up. She Indicated she would give the Planning Commission a tour of herchat
neiyhborhood and pointed out a lot of people aru scared to make their feellrtgs knawn;
she was about the only one who would speak against a use nf this type, She lndicoted that
someone hod tried ta kidnap her in front of her own home. She indicated she had
photographs of thts establishment if the Comm(ssi~ners wished to see them.
TI1E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissione~ King pointed out the staff In the Sanitatian pivision Inciicated thAt trash
enclosurQS must be brought up to City standards~ and Mr. Shafer indicated he did not know
anything about that; that just about a weck ago someone had dropped off two mettresses
which were blocking thc duor to the trash enclosure and he v~ouid have to take care of
those.
Chalrman Toler indicated he did not think it was fai~ to penalize one person 1~or what has
happe~ed previously; that he felt it might have bee~ wfse to change the name of this
estabifshment but did not think it was fair to penalize Mr. Shafer in ralationship to the
busincas next dc~or. He indfcated there have been no rPports of any problems within the
past year and h~ would support approval of this co~dttion,~l usc permlt only on theHeasis
of a tirrw period to 3ee lf the dancing has had a detrimental effect on the area,
indicated he was not opposed tn any businessman trying to do something. He felt if thls
is approved and there are no problems of any kind. he would consider granting furthcr
extenstons of ttme.
Commisstoner Herbst indicated he a~reed that tha bad reputation was started by someone
else; :hat this gencleman does have the right to operate the business~ and si~ce the
building is existing he wauld like t~ offer a motion for approval.
It was noted Lhe Planning Director or his authorized representatlve has determined that
the proposed proJect falls within the definttion of Categorical Exemptlons. Class 1. as
deflned in par~catehoricallyeexempt~from~then~requirerr~nttto pmepareRan~EIRGuidrltnes and
ls, therefore, 9
ACTION: Commissioncr ~lerbst offered Resolution Nn. PC78-68 and moved for its passage and
a~t~on~ that the Anaheim City Ptanning Commisslon does hereby grant Petition for
Con~itfonal Use Permit No. 1812 for a one-year period in order to give the petitioner the
4/t0/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRII 10~ 1978 78-246
_E_1 a CATEGOR I CAL f,~(E_h1PT I ON-C~SS 1 AND CONDI T I ONAL USE PERM I T N0. 1812 (cont i nued)
riyht t~ operate for an edditionel y~ar snd ta g(ve the Planning Cortmissian a hondle is to
whether or not he has 11vod up to the conditions And to determinc whether or ~ot the use
ha~ had a detrtmen~a) effeck on the surrounding aree~ and subject to Interdepartmental
Committoe recommandetions,
On rol) call. the faregoing resoluttan was passed by the followin,y vote:
AYES: COMMIS510NERS; gARNES~ DAVID~ IIER~ST~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSlONERS; KING~ JOHI~SON
AEiSE1dT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Chalrm~n Tolar Indicated I~e would like to Issue a worci of cautio~~ that th~re are a lot of
dan~e plate5 in An~li~iin whi~li ara niue: ~an~e ~idc,~ti and ti~el I~C h~pCJ lliis is yoiny tu bC
that type of establishment~ and the Commisston would watch the operation very closely.
Commissioner Barr~es potnted out to Mrs. Sullivan that th~ conditional usc pcrmtt could bc
revoked at any t(m~. If the cond([tons are not met or the use becomes a publ~c nulsance.
Cammisstoner Johnson indtcated hfs negative vote should serve as a furcher admonltion ta
Mr. Shaf~r that the Planntn~ Commission is a Itttle s~ueamist~ about this whole affair. He
indtcated he did not th(~~k his vote would carry~ but that he fclt it sl~ould be in the
record.
RECESS A recess was cailed at 3:20 p.m.
..._......
REC,_ ONVE_f The meeting reconvened at 3:35 p.m. with all Commissioners present.
ITEM N0. 8 PUBLIC IIEARING. 011NER5: ERhIAN C. AND ALICE M.
EIR EGA VE DECLARATIOt~ CIiR1570FFER5~l~i~ 13II1 North Miller Str~et~ Anaheim,
L I 0. 1816 cA 92806. AGENT: DON J. CARSON. 18212 Rainisr
AIyER OF GODE REQUIREMEWTS Orive~ 5anta Ana~ CA 92705. Petitioner requests
-.... ~ ..._ ~_...~
permission to ESTAEi~ISII A CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARD
WITt11dAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
ANU (B) MIt~IMUM SlTE SCREEt~tNG on propsrty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
l~nd con~isting of approximately 1.1 ac:res having a frontage of appraxlmately 160 feet on
the west sid~ af M111er Street, having a maximum depth of approxima*ely 2g4 feet. being
located approx(matety 135p foet south of the centerline of Qrangethorpe Avenue~ and further
descrfbed as 13~31 Norch Mfiler Street. P~operty presently classifled RS•A-43,Q00
(RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE with a resolution of intent to the ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED)
tONE.
There were three pe~sons indicating iheir presence in opposition to subJect raq uest, and
although the staff ~epart to the Planning Commisslon dated April 10, 197a was not read at
the public hearing, (t is refe~red to and madc a p~art of the m(nutes.
Don Carson~ agent~ indicated the ~conditional use permit was granted by the Planning
Commissian for a period of two years~ subJect to review and in order to seC tf the rest of
the area is developed with 50-foot setbacks. He pointed out the rain has held up the
paving which is the graveled area menttaned tn the staff report. Ne ind(cated the
4/10/78
MINUT~5~ ANANEIN CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION~ APR11. 10~ 1978 7a'247
EIR t~fGATIV~ DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 1816 (contlnued)
bulldt~g is 1~ feet across Che front and Is a vcry attractivc, str~iyl~t-lli-e uulldiny;
that the access on the north will ~e closed off wlth o slatted gatc; that they f~AVe
requested waiver of the screenlny bacause tl~Q bulldlnca itself is as gaod a screen as a
clialnllnk fencn. Ile statr,d tlia cement co~tractur ta the rear has a 3~-foot essement and
closiny off the ebsement with a gate would cause a traffic p~~blem because thelr emnloyees
wo~~ld h~ave to stop~ get aut and unlock the ,yate, drive througfi and tl~en get aut and close
it again. Ne stated because the ea~iipment Is so far back.~ they ~re requesting that thQ
screening requtremen[ be eliminated.
He referred to the park'ng weive~ and indicated thelr englneer had not fic~ured thls
properly ~~nd they ~fo not need a weiver for parking In that they cen acfd th~se spaces
requlred; Chat all they are reGuesting ls walver of the scrceniny and rernoval of the
l~t,~purary sCatuS for khe concf! t ional use ~crmi t.
Mike Sanelers~ 16 Gauchu Road~ Roll(nc~ Illlls EsCates~ MAnager of Pul~lic Relati~ns and
Advertis{ny for Rockwell Intcrnational~ 331~ M{ralom~ Avenu~~ Anaheim~ rea~ thc followiny
letter dated Apri) 10, 1~1~, to tfie Plannin~~ Commission:
"G~ncernin~ Conditional Use Perrnit No, 1~1I,~ it is respectfully requested
that the Ariat~eim City Pl~nnin,y Co~nmission disapprove thc pe;titiun for
walvers of thc coJc requirements for the contractar storage yarJ at 13f~1 N.
Mi l ler Street.
Tl~e petitioncrs a-'c asking permisslori to operate. the yard w(thouc installing
the reyuired anaunt of uryently neeJed parking spaces aiid site screening.
Provisi~n of adequate off-strc~t parkinr~ is especially important in order to
Improve the appearance ~f tlie yar•cJ~ and to reduce the traffic hazard uf
addixlonal cars f~aving to park on Miller 5treet.
Faiiure to havc adcrauate sit~ screenin9 of the stora~e ~perations would have
furtl~er negatlve impact on the yene~at appearance of tlie are3 and discourge
praspective tenants from locating businesses in ttie vicinity.
It is the strong conviction of Rockwell In;ernational thac the Planninq
Commission shoulcl not grant the waivers. To do so would no[ be in the best
interPsts of the City ar tl~e n~r[heast industrial complex where the storage
yard is located."
Gloria Eire~y. 1501~ 15~3 end 1;15 Niller Street~ indlc~ted she was apposed to this p~oJect
because of the par~iny p~oblems and pc:inted out there arc problems In the area at the
present tirne~ and sl~e felt anyone putr.ing ii~ a business shoul~ be required to provtde
suffici.:nt parkiny.
Cl~airman Tolar asked Ms. Brady tfie cause Uf the {~arking problems. She pointed out the
employees of tl~e industrial complexes are parking on the streets and that she has had to
call the police in order to get out of her awn driveway.
Chairman Tolar asked if she would be opposed to tf~is particular use if the parking
problenn were soived~ and sl~e replied it is a messy-loaking operation~ but if proper
ldndscaping is provided and xhere is no parl:ing on the streets~ she would not be opposed.
4/10/7a
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 10, 1978 7~'2~~
EIR NEGATIVk UEClARA710N AND CONDITIONAL USE PLftMIT N0. 1815 (continued)
..__
Georye Glese Indicated ho worked for Robcsrc Shaw Contfols anJ ts Chairmen of the
Industrlal Committee of thr, Chamber of Gommerce. Ne stated the Chnmher af Ca-xnerce has
gonc an recc,rd as bclr~g oRposed to the walvers and Indicated thelr opposltlon w~uld bc
dlfferent slnce the parkin~ watver Is not being requested. Ne stated thelr committee has
about 2~ rapresent~tives of industrial companl~s and not Just the biy compantes~ but all
ktnds of industry who would make good ne;yhbo~s~ ~nd they !oak stror~yly et Itams on thc
Planning Cornmisslan end Ctty Cauncil agendas. Ile 1ndlcated che conmittee dld not see any
advantages to the City or to the neighbors; that he had driven t~ the site end there is o
beauttful bui Iding on eacli side represcntine~ 60~0~0 ta L'(1,0(10 squarP feet eACh; thet both
of these ars up for sale or le~se~ and he found it very dtfficult to u~derstenci who would
w~nt to put in a business witli thls use right in the middle, leavinc~ tlieir equlpment In an
unstghtly c-~ndition~ and [hat the equipnxsnt is visitle and it is obvious th~se people are
in the excavat(ny buslness. 11e st~ted this is on attractive bullding with good p~tentlal
and t t coul d be an ~sset to the area. but t-iat t~e does 5~7CH~. i i~ uppos 1 t i on for thc Chambcr
~f Comi~rce an~ asks thot thc Planning Commissl~n not approve this request.
Mr. Carson indicated the objectiui~s of Rockwell Intern~tional ~re p~w~rf~~l because tticy
are a~arest factor in tlie area, but wonde~ed if tl~ey I~aJ actually looked at the site
because with the screenin~~ there is only one side where eyuipment can be seen; khat thls
is an attractlve bullJing and the landscaping will be done, Ile pointed aut the sprinkl~r
syst~m is already in~ but tf~at it does look ntce from the outside and the only place the
equipment can be seen Is from the entrance to the contractor's yard. !le stated they
h~sltate to put screeniny across the f'ont because of the congestion that would --e
created. lie indicated hc• did noi feel t~~e stre~e[ parking is the responsibllity ~f the
Christoffcrs~ns; that he had been down the strcet t.~ see what was stored next door and it
was vacant~ and there were noe any cars parkeJ in front of tlie s(te. Ne indicated he felt
tiie p~rking problem is probably created by same of tlie assemblY ~~^~toinrovidermorebut
that the Chr(stoffersons do have unlirniteci sp~~Ge and would be happy
parking~ If necessary; that they do not need any street parking, Ne Indicated this will
took nicc with the landscaping and they will be wlllinq to meet whatever demanJs are
requlred for the landscapiny, but they felt it was unnecess~ry.
THC PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSLD.
Commissioner Johnson askeJ about cl~e approxim~tely 20 employees r-w ntioned who drive
through to the back, and Nr. Carson repli~d that the fhristoffersons do have an easement
over thelr property tu service the cement contractor's yard, which is about one acre~ 6n~
feet in the back~ but ttiat it i~ ~ot screened very wcll and is relatively unsightly. H~
stated tt~e Chrlstoffersons wauld like to have therti nat drive across their property~ but
they do have the recorded easement and the riqht to drive across their property.
Ct~airma~~ Tolar indicated he felt screening should be provided along the access easement,
across the b~ck of the property line, and on the property iine of the easement so that any
siyht of the storage yard would be screehed.
Commissioner King pointed out thaC on the north an,1 south sides of this partlcular piece
of property there are solid walls ~f buildtngs.
Mr. Carson pointed out that the chalnlink fence nn the back was for the flood control
di t~ch.
Commissio~er Herbst suggested that a slatted gate could be pui across the driveway and the
drtveway left ope~ during the operating hours.
4/~0; 7a
MlNUTLS. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN ' ~MISSION. APRIL 10~ tg78 78-249
EIR NEGATIVE U~CL_ARATfON ANQ CONOITIONAL USE PEFtMIT N~ _1816 (conttnued)
Chal rman Toler pointc~d uut Cirat i f tltiey have an casament they cenr~;~: c los~ i t off et any
tlme.
Jay Taslilro~ Assistant Pla~nr.r~ explained ~~'~ from'addacent~propertles~alsast t~ screen
the fro~t portlan~ but to scrccn thc property 1
Chatrman Tolar indicate he fclt the petitloner would want the property fenced for
eecurity rea:ons.
Mrs. Christofferson Indtceted tliat the chainlink fence was taken down in order to put In
thc paving and tliet it w~uld be put back up as soon as the pAVing hAd bce~ done.
Cliairman Tolar os~c~ the petitionrr c~ stipul.~te to puttiny slec in the fence. and M~;,.
Christoffe~so~ r~•~11ed that she would put slats in the fence~ lf ~ecessery; t~iat they
wanted to prov(dc a nice lool~ing proJect.
Comm(sslaner Kinc~ clarlfled ttiat the chbinlink fence along the south would be ~~ut back up
for se:urity reasons and that the Chairrru~n has asked that it be slatted~ and if the
Clirlst~ff~~sons agrea to that, t~iere is no problem~ and screcniny ~rovlded to Gode
requlrernents does not require a varianr.c.
Jay Tashiro po(nted out th~t the contractor's storage yard wc~ulci requlre a Gondltfonal use
permlt.
Mrs. Christoff~rson Indicatcd they would Itke permanent approval so that they would not
heve to come back every two ~r ttiree ye~rs. She pointed out the; have 11 employees; that
there ~re a lot of peopie w~rl:ing in the o:lier complcxes wfio h~ve thrown beer bottles and
ga~bage into the yards and sl~e had complete sympathy with the parking problems on Mlller
Street. Shc pointed out the esc.iblisl~ment to their right did not have adcquate parking
and should be lc~oked into~ but that those people havP left as of two weeks ago.
Gc~nmissloner King pointed out that the dog nn the premises appeared to bc very dnngerous
and I~e was concerned that a chil~ coulJ be in danger walking onta their property.
Mrs. Christoffc~son painteci out that thd ~1ory is not dangeraus, that he tias never harmed
anyone, but that he will be insiJe the enclosed ar~~ when the tence is p~t back ~p.
Cha(rman Tolar aSkea if they ret~air vehicles on thc premises~ and Mrs. Christofferson
replied that they da rt-ake oil changes and wash and clean the vehicles on the site and they
do have [he nltest construc[ion equipment in tf~e area.
Jay Tashiro pointed out they have incorporated that with the contractor's sto,~~ge yard and
is refe.rred to in th~ staff report under the proposal as repair of their own equlpment.
Mrs. Christafferson replied that they da not do any maJor work at this site.
Commtssioner Juhnson indicated he felt the petitioner had stipulated to providing
suffTcient parkiny and asked che petitioner to stipulate to not using any of the storagc
a~ea for parking.
Mrs. Ghristofferson indicated they would never have to store anything out front and she
would so stipulate.
ai~oe~a
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIAN~ APRIL 1~~ 1978
R NEGATIVE
CONDITIONAL U
(continued)
18~2ao
AC710N: Commissionor Johnson offCnnlne ommission`hasfrs'vlewedmthciproposalg*unpermitOe
~D ~ that the Ant+he i m C i ty P 1 a g
contractor's storago yerd witta i~~sha~odfparceluofn ~~dre~nslsttn~~ofpapp~ ximstelym'1.1
site screening o~ a roctangul y P
acres having a frontage of approxlmately 1G0 feet an the west side of Miiler Street~
roxlmatel 2~~~ feet~ end being located approxim~tely 135~
ha~ing s n-aximum depth of app Y
feat south of the ccnterltnem~ntOtonprepereea~venvironmentelSimpectyreportv~ntthnNbes~sve
Decl~ration from the requlre
that there would be no g~9~~NeCOtiver10cclaration slnceathe~AnahelmcGeneralnPlan~des(gnatas
due to the app rova 1 of th 1 s g
thc subJesct property for genmr~l~tg~d~PtlnvolveddinstheCp~ro osalatthattthehlnltlalsStudy At
no sensftlvc cnvirunrnental I p
sub~~~ittEJ by tt~~ pe!Iti~~n~~ hatithe~NegetivenDeclAratfonisuhslar~lattny'thcVfo w~J~~~9
~nvironmental impacts; and t
findings Is on flle In the Clty of llnaheim Planntng Departn+ent.
Commissioner Barnes ~~di~dtLhaththeplands~aping beycompletedmwitli~nt~~~'days,on the
conditlonsl use permit a
Commisslo~er Jotinson offered Resolution No. PC78-~~ and moved for its passage a^Patitlon
adoptlon~ that~tUseAPe~mit ~o~Yl$1Gnnsubje~tmtasthe stipurlations9that~nonequlpment will be
for Co~d(tiona
storeJ on the on-site par~.ing area~ and SubJect to Interdepartrt~ntal Gomm ttec
rccanmendations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was pass~d by the followin~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNCS~ OAVIU~ NEReST~ JOt1NSON, KII~G~ LI~I~I, TOLAR
NOES : COttiMI SS I ONCRS : t10t~E
AI3SENT: COMMISSlOIIERS: NONC
Commissioner Johnson offered a Coae°re ulrementsbbeCde ied'on theibasisdthat'~theCAP,RIED,
that the request for waivcr of q
petitioner stipulated to F~ovide parking spaces and minimum site screening in accordence
with Clty of Anaheim Code requlreme~ts.
Jack Whtte~ Deputy City Attorney~ polnted out the conditina) use permit could be revoked
at any time if tl~ere are any vtolations of the conditions or if the use becornes ~ publtc
nuisance.
Commissioner Barnes instructed staff to look into the complA(nts regardine~ the parki~g
from the adJacent fmcility.
4/10/78
MINUTE5~ ANAl1E1M CITY PLAI,NI~IG COMMISSION~ APRII 10~ 1978 78'251
IT~M ~NU.,,,~ PUI3LIC IICARIt~G. OWN~RS: A~RAIIAM IIND ESTNER WINTCR~
E~~ CATEGORICAI. EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 177G South Robertson t~oulevArd~ Los Angeles~ CA
0 U ON L U5E EaMIT N. 7 90035• AGENT: JUDITII M. HIIL~ P. 0. ~ox 308;~
Anah:im~ GA 92003. Petttlaner requssts perMisslon
co ESTABL I SII TIIE K 1 I~GSMC1~ DRUM AND BUGLE CORPS
ADMIN157RATION ~FFIGE~ l1C71VITY ANU 91NGQ FAGILITY on propercy describr.d as an Irregulerly-
shsped parcel of lenci consisting ~f approximately 3.~ ecres located north and west of the
northwcst corner of Cerritos Avenue and State College 8oulevArd~ having approxlmate frontages
of ~2~ fcet on the west side of Statc Collegc aoulevard and GQ fcet on the north side of
Cerrltos Avenue~ beln~ located app ro:.imately 1.7~ fect north of the centerline of Cerritos
Avenue. and further descrlbed as 1~~3~~ ~~~33~ and 1~~35 Sautl~ State Callege DoulcvArd.
Property presently classifted ML (INQUSTRIl1L~ LI~iITED) ZONE.
7her~ wAS one person lndlcat(ny th~ir presence (n opposition to subJec:t requ~st~ and
although the staff report to the Planniny Cammisslon date~i April i~~ 197u was not r~,~ at
the publlc lieariny~ it is rcferre~ t.~ ~i~J ~~-aJc• ~ Nart of the minutes.
Jud(th N(Il~ agent~ representing Che Anaheim Kingsmen Orum and Bugle Corp~ indicaeec! sha
would wa(t until shc lieard whe[ tl~e repres~ntative from tfie AriAheim Chambcr of C~rrxnercc
has to say ayalnst the off;cial rnusica! representativc~s of the Clty of Anahelm.
George Giese~ representiny thc Anaheim Chamber of Canmerce~ indtcated the Chamber of
C~mmerce is on reco~d as being opposed to the aff(ci~+l muslcat r~presentative of the City
of Anaheim ectlvitiss in an (ndustrtal zoned area. Ile IndicatnJ the Orum and Uugle Corps
does provicfe some beneflts and assets for tlie City~ but that the Chamber of Ccxrxnerce
Industrial Comm(ttee is tryin~~ to be ob)ective anri has laoktd at this as o siyniflca~t
piece of Industrirl property; tliat it is a beautiful site beinq used for ~the~ than
industrial purposes. Ile statecl this would be a losa of a signif(cant industrlal site for
prospcctlve industrics to the Clty. tie stated t-c ha' driven to 'he site and saw a
beautiful buildtnq which lookPd like it was des(gned for retail ~nd wholesale type salks
in an (ndustrial area ~nd that it is located across Erom a beAUti'ul tndustrlal park. Nc
stated tr~ buildiry hes docks fnr dock loading and 1~, a slgnificantly sized build(ng and
would be a vr.ry yood pro5pective s(te for manufact~rinc~. 11e stated that edJ~cent to thfs
site the units are beiny us~d for wholesale and retail typc saies and that he was in a
dilenma aa to what to rec<~mmer~~i; that t~e is opposed to using this beauttful building for
other than an (ndustr(al siCe and the uni[s surrou~ding it are currently bein~ used
exclusively for oiher than industrial uses.
He indicated he had discus~pd tf~e indust~ial land availahle in Anal~eim with Ronald
Thcxnpson~ Fla~ning Directur, and that in the last year 2~0 acres have been used for
industrial uses. leaving five to t~n years' use of la~d desiynated for Industrial use
within the current clty limixs. Ne stated the industrlal committee's ~reat co~cern is to
bring people to thc Clty of Anaheim with their manufacturing and they are tryinq to be
respnnsive to industries lookiny to the City of A~aheirn. Ile indicated he did not know
where he would ~ant to put a drum and buyle corps; that they are goiny to be practicing
and making e lot of nolse; and that tt~ey will t,e ustng the site for their drum and buyle
corps office actlv(ties and a-+inyo facility.
Ne stated he dld not feel tliere are enough ~sarking spaces to accommodate the bingo
attlvity. He poln:ed aut tiiere is a tena~t which is an Italian-ty~e tile company, another
for r~tail and wholesale used equiprr~ent~ and that Chere would be tars comtng in and out to
those businesses and that designating the 130 parking spaces for the bingo activittes
would be using up all of the parki~o. H~ indicated he hed not had time to pal) the
4/to/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN G COMMISSIQN~ APRIL 10. 1g78 78•Z52
E 1 R GATEGORi CAL EXEMPT ION-CLASS 1 ANU GOl~pl T IONAL USL• PERNI T N0. 1 E31 J(cont i nued)
Indust~la) cltents ln tt~e erea, but. w~uld be I~appy to do thAt if the Cnmmissinn felt It
would be necessary. Ile indicated tie is schedul~.d to speak to the Planning Commisslon on
Apri l 24 and could provide that informatlon.
Jay Tashiro polnted out that thls proporty hes had a var(ence yranced which permits
comme rc 1 a 1 c~ f f f ce s.
Jud(th Hf II stated sh~ realtzed thc drum and buqlc corps Is not An tndustrlal operatlon
end that ahe suppo-ed. techni cal ly~ they dld ~ot fal l into the business c~+tegory. She
Indiceted the Velvet F:n(yhts. the official musical representatlve of the Ctty of Buena
Park~ ploy bingo qultc niccly (n on industriol compfcx in thc City nf Anahcim ond thnt thc
Kingsmen hAV~ loOk~rl ~ii 11~~~nt ~y fnr a Ir~~~ClOn; thAt thpy h:-vP 1nnkP~1 fn~ a r~mmprc.lA)
ptece of property end have •~ppl ted to ur~e the Ra Iph's faci 1) ty and were told they could
not use that facility beceuse ~+11 those Ilttle old ladies playing b(nga and the noisy klefa
would not help the Imagc of the plaza. She stoted they have nat had any problems with the
parktng at the! r present fac i i l ty and thot the ti lc people dc~ not obJect to thei r r-~ving
(n. Concerning the no(se~ she stated the kids do p{ay their InStruments~ but they play
Inside anly at this location ; thAt they da practice across the street at the Anehelm
Stadlum parking lot outside with the caopcratio~ of tha stadium. She state~i Mr. Winter~
the owne~, has ~ndtcated the~e are adequate parking spaces in thc entirc tndustrla)
comF~ex and that because of their liaurs of operatton~ they would not interfere with any
b~siness ecttvtttes.
'iHE PUEII.IG IIEARINf, NAS CLOSED,
Chairmen Tolar asked how ma~y people normally attend a t~ingo garrx.
Judtth Nill replled the average game nlyht is between 1~0 to 250 people at their present
facillty; that the maxirnurn is 3;0 and they did r~ot ht+ve 350 total sets because lt ts Just
too crowded and becomr.s a p ~ab l em.
Chairman Tolar a~,ked if ail 3~0 people cartx and drove their owri cars, where would they
park~ and Judi [ki hi i 1 repl ied that everyone does not drive a car; that they had run a
survey for their p~evious loeatlon and their average crowd is about 125 cars for
approximately 20~ people. S~e indiceted she did not fecl they would h~ve any trouble with
the parkiny ~nd would not co~flict with their n~lghbors.
Chairman Tola~ asked Mr, Giese if there is enough spsce for fndustriel growth for
approxtmataly five to ten years~ why there werE so many vacant tndustrial but Idings at the
present time~ and if they wovid bc opposed to the Kingsme~ Drum and Bugle Garps using this
faci 1 tty on an interim bas i s unti 1 tl~at grawth is reached.
Mr. Giesc Indicated they would not havc any objectio~ ta this as an interim use; that thcy
would probably make good neighbors~ but their concern ls the consumption of industri~)
lend or the dilutton af this land. Concerning the question of vacant buildings at the
present time~ he tndicaied this was an economic problem and referred to the vacancy rate
in the area~ and [hat the industria) realtors and developers make a dcterminatton if they
wa~nt to mske an investment i n industrial p~operty. Ne Indicated there are a lot of
industrial properties vacant at the present timc~ but the thing that bothe~s him more is
how many of them ara bcing used for non•industrlal type uses. He indical•ed hc did not
1 tke to see thesc retai 1-type sales places in the industrtal zone and that maybe one of
the reasons for so many vacant Industr(al properties is that they ~re being co~sumed by
non-industrtal type uses. He stated when the vacancy rate changes, the ratio changes for
4/10/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANt11NG COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978
78-253
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1817 (continued)
- -
the formul~ end industrial developers decide •o bulld more units. He Indicated he did not
~ealtze this partlculer locatlon was epprovod for ~ion-tndustrla) type uses.
Commtssioner Linn Indicated he was concerned about the parking and felt If they could
guarantee they would have enouyh parking~ tie would have no problem wlth the use, a~d
suggasted an egreement with the surrounding property owners th•7t would guarantee adequate
parking.
Jack Whlte~ Deputy City Attorney~ polnted out that for the(r use they are not substandard
In pa rktng.
~ommissloner Linn Indicated he felt at tl~is puinl ll~e; l~friyo use was probat~ly small cnough
to be accomnx~dated~ but he was sure they would ltke to see 500 people there to play bingo.
Judtth N(11 indfcoted that technically speak(n~ they could hAVe ;~+~ r-~~r+~~ In the
bullding~ which was the nurtb er the Fire Department haJ given them~ but that they dld not
wfsh to scQ thc size of tt~e gamc incrcased and tliey hAd no intentlon of IncrGasing the
s(ze of the crowd,
Cha(rma~i Tolar suygeste~i that a condltion be added limitiny tf~e maximum number of people
to 2So.
Melody Miller stated they have I~ad as rn~+ny as 3~~ p~pp~c in a qa~+e~ but chey do not heve
350 chalrs; that tl~eir maximum occupancy at their present location is 2$0~ but thet the
proposed site ts larye r and could handle more people. She stated she did not feel there
would be any problem with tt~e parking. She indicated ttieir games are on a rotating basls
an. wld not like to see the ~aximum ::;0 limi[ ;~laced on the condttiona! usC permit.
Cl~airman Tolar pointed cwt they have only i34 parking spaces and the nnly way to control
the number of people woulc' `~e to put a I imit on tl~e numbe~ of persons attending the b(ngo
activitics.
Ms. Miller asked how the parkiny spaces are determined~ and Jay Taahira pointed out
industrtal uses require one space per 500 square feet of flour area and for offices, one
space per 200 square feet of floor area. so the scaces are calculated on the use of the
buildiny.
Chairman Tolt~r polnted out the only way he could considEr approving this would be with the
maximwn number of players tied to the bingo activitEes; that they are running a business
inside an industrial Qlant and tl~e only way t~ control tt would be by limiting the number
of patrons.
Jay Tashiro polnted out that the plans submitted sha~- 134 parking spaces~ however~ 9 are
unusable sinct they do nnt n~eet Code requlrements. leaving 125 parking spaces for the
entire site.
Chairman Tolar =nd(ceted there are other uses in this complex and asked where they would
pa~k If they decide they had to work at ntght.
Ms. Miller replied there are a lot of induscrial groups who do not work on weeknights or
weekends and according to Mr. Wi~ter, the owner of the compiex. the uses going inio this
complex are daytime operations only.
4/10/7a
MINUTE5~ AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ApRil 10. 197$ 78-254
IR CAT~GORIGA~ F.XEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1817 (continued)
Commisslonar llnn asked if thls were a cortwrk:rclal slte~ how many people could tl~iey have in
tf~ol r bustness.
Jay Tashtro replled that they are talkiny about one spacc for ev~ry 20~ sryuare feet of
~ross floor area and pointcd out that a variance has b~aen gr~ntecl for commerc(a) affice
uses.
Cf~airman Tplar Indicated he felt bad because he was ttie ~ne who had sugyested the Kingsmen
Drum end Buyle Corps find ~n industrtal site~ but tliat Lhey r,av~ fou~d o sitc with less
parking tt~an they had before.
Cu~miissiuner rierest indlcat~d tlie drum and bugle corps wes one operation~ but a bingo
activity does n~t belon~~ in an industr{al ,irc~,
The i ndust r i ~ 1 bus i ness cus taim:rs Jec I cJe ll~e h~urs a bus i nes s works and when they tiave a
rush order tf~ey sometimes work on Saturdays or Sundays~ ancl if the 12; parking spaces are
betng usecl for the b(ngo yarnes, then they have no place to park. Ne indicated that the
parking slalls were desig~ed for that particu~~r building and that to use other parking (s
infrinying upon the parking rlghts of the rest of the complex, fle stated he could support
the drurn and buglc corps but could not support tlie bingo activ(tir_s because they do nat
belong In an industrial complex~ and if they arc allaweJ to infringc upon c+ther renters'
park(ny riylits~ tlie other renters will move.
Judith ~~il) pointed ouc tfiat the prev(ous approval in an industrial area complex had 30~
parking spaces and that the previous manageme:nt was planning to apply fc,r a~tcense to
open a biny~~ game for 6Q0 people on the basls [hat they could use the p~r~.ing for the
entire complex, She pointed out the Velvet Y.niqhts par~, all over the complex they are
using. She indtca~ed stie realized tf~(s is a prohlem but tfiat thc Kingsmen Orum ancl 8uc,le
Cc~rps does need a place tc~ yo. She pointed out [hat at their present location~ since Thc
Wlndbreaker Iias opened, two-thirds of thcir parking belongs to The Windbreakrr and they
have been very careful to see tf~at the restaurant gets all of thetr par~(ng. She stated
they do nat anticipate a problem with the ~ther tenants in the proposed location.
Commissioner Johnson indicated that the drum and buyle corps keeps coming ln and ask(ng
for approval of a cond~~ional use permit and the Commission is tellir,y them they do not
belong in an industr~a) or cGmmer~ial zone and asked staff where they dtd belong. Ne
indicated he felt they were being bounced from pillar to post~ however~ he felt tfuy do
not have enuuyh parkiny spaces at the proposed location.
Judith Hill indicated they do not plan to stay ti~erc for a long ptriod of t!me; that they
recognize tl~e fac[ that tt~ey need sometliing more suitable tl~an an industrial site. She
indtcated they have a five-year lease and hoped the City of anaheim and City Council would
work out sumething in the meantime.
Commissioner Nerbst indicated he felt the growth of Anaheim depends upon the indust~lal
areas, that this treates jobs fo~ people~ and there is only five to ten years of
industria) growth available today and that about half of that is contro~ied by the
railroad company ~nd cannot be developed. Ne pointed out that Anahe(m is in the center of
Southern California and a lo[ of businesses have cons~dered com(ng to this area because of
the distrtbutlon points of the free~ways~ etc.~ and he felt tr, was vital far the Comnlssion
to take that into considerat(on. He felt that if Anahetm is to graw~ the industrial area
must be preserved.
4/to/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 78-255
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 181~ (continucd)
It wss noted the Planning Director or hia outhnrised representative has determined that
the proposed proJect falls wlthln the deflnitton of Categorlcal Exemptions~ Class 1~ as
deftned (~ paragraph 2 of the Clty of Anaheim E~vironmcnta~ Impect Report Guldeltnes and
Is, thesrefore~ categarically exempt from the requtrcment to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Chalrman Tolar offcred Resolution No. PC7~-7~ and moveJ for lts passagc and
a~copiTon~ that the Anahetm Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Petltion for
Co~dltlona) Use Permit No. 1a17 for a period of fivc years for ~ maximum of ?.50 bingo
playo~s at eny one time~ to be controlled by the Kingsmen Drum end Bugl•~ Corps, and
subJact to Interdepartmental Corm~lttec recommendAtfons.
On roll call~ tl~e foraguing resolution was p~ssed by thc following vote:
AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ DAV I U, JOIItIS01~, L INII ~ 701AR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HCRi~ST, KING
AOSENT: COMMISSIO~~CRS: NONE
REC~SS A recess was called at ~:40 p.m.
RECONVENE
~_ The meet~ng reconvened at 4:4a p.m.~ with all Comnissi~ners ~resent.
ITEM N0. 10 PUEiLiC FIEARINC. N. C. TAORMINl1, ET AL~ 512
EIR CATEGORICAL EXENPTION•CLASSES 1 b 11 East Vermont~ Anbheim~ CA 92f~~. Petitloner
OND IONAL U ERMI N0. rcque~sts permission to ESTABL~SII AN AUTO
c~ DETAILI~~G AND STORAGE FACILiTY WITH WAIVER
Or (A) MINIMUM VEHICLE ACLESSWAr ANO (~)
MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF PARKING SPA~ES on
property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.4 acre lqcated at the northwest corner of Cypress Street And Anahetm Boulevard~ havlnc~
approximatC frontages of 185 feet an thc ~orth side of Cy;~ress Street and 100 feet on
the west side of Anaheim ~oulevard~ and further described as 30) North Anahetm Boulevard.
Property presently classified CG (COMMERGIAI, GENERAL) ZONE.
7hzre was no one indicating thefr presence in opposition to subJect requesi, a~d although
the staff repo~t to the Planning Comnlssion daxed April 1f1~ 1978 was not read at the
public heorln9~ it is referred to and made e part of the minutes.
W. C. Taormina~ owner~ was present to answcr any questions. Ne alsa asked for
clarification co~cerniny lnterdepartmental Committee reconmendat(on No. 1~ that the owner
of subJect Qrope~ty must deed to the City of Anaheim a strip af l~nd 40 feet ln width.
Chalrman Tolar polnted out the condition indlcates that land must be deeded to the C?ty
without consideration.
THE PUBLI C HEARI NG WAS CI.OSED.
Commisslone~ King asked the petitioner if he understood the two driveweys on Anaheim
8oulevard would have to be closed~ and M-. Taormina replied that he did. Commissioner
King also pointed out the petitioner has indicated that all pump islands and canopies have
been removed, but that anc canopy is still exlsting.
4/ 10/78
i
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 197a 7$-256
GIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 6 11 ANU CONpITIONAI USE ~ERMIT N0. 1818 (co~tinued)
Mr. Taormina pointed out that cenopy Is part of the buliding dfld is t(eci tnto the roof.
Ne prasented pliatographs of before and after the restoration and stated it was an eyesore
before~ but (t is quite an Improvemcnt a~d they have rcceived an awsrd f~om Anahelm
Beautiful.
C~mmtssioner K(ng clarified that redwood stats would be put Into the chalnlink fence and
that all work would bc done inside the building. with Mr. Taorm(na ~eplying thls was
cnrrccC.
Chatrman 7olar asked why the parking stalls were reduced in sice~ with Mr. Taormina
replying that tti~y IiaJ ~~vt l,~san lined ln; thot thc drawiny a~as in error and he co~.~id
provide standerd parkiny spaces. He also indicatec! tl»t with standard spac~s he would
have plonty of parking.
Ch~+irrnan Tolar poinxed out thc walvar of the Codc requirement for minimum sizc parking
spaces would not be necessary if h~ cuuld ,~rovide the standard p~~rking spaces.
Commissioner King referred to the landscaping reyuired for canverted s~ervfce statlons and
indicated he did not see liow Mr. Taormina could do any landscaping. a~d Mr. Taormina
replied thac he wented to landscape the site~ but that t~e~ had been told he dId not haue to
landscape (t. He stated he wanted to put in trees and asked how that should be done~ with
Chairman Tolar replying tl~at If he war~ted to pux in landscapinq, It would be up to him to
do i t .
Mr. Taormina lndicated he had Just acquired the land to the north and the wh~le block
would bc made to look nice.
It was ~oted that the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined
that the praposed proJect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptfons~ Classes i
and 11~ ~s defined In parac~raph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental lmpact Report
Guidelincs and is, therefore~ categorically exempt f~om the requirement ko prepare an EIR.
ACTIOt~: Comniasioner David offered Resolution No. PC78•71 and mnved for its passage and
ado otp i n~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Comnission does htreby grant Pet(tion for
Ccm ditional Use Permit No. 1818. in part~ subject to the condltian that the two drtveways
on Anahetm Boulevard will be closed and replaced w(th standard curb~ gutter ~nd stdtwalk,
and subject to Interdepartmental Cortmittee recomnerdations.
On roll cally the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONE.RS: aARI~ES~ ~AVID. FIERDST~ JOIINSON~ KING, LINi~~ T~LAR
NaES: COMMISSIO~~ER5: NONE
ABSEN7: C~MMISSIONERS: NQNE
Commlssioner David offered a motion, seconded by Camnlssianer Linn and MaT10~~ CARRIED~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny the request for wa(ver of Code
requlrements of mtnimum vehicular accessway width and minlmum dimensions of parking spaces
on the basis that the petitioner has Stipulated to meet the Code requirements.
k/10/7~
MItIU~~S, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10. 1918 78-257
ITEM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MAX AND RUT~1 B.
~t~ICAL E~XENPTION•CLASSES 1 b 3 GATOV~ 5f.~20 Neplas Canal~ Long Beach~ CA 90403.
CONpI ION~U5E~ERMIT N0. 9 AGENT: NEIL 0~ RUYTI:R. ~3~ Colgate Street~
W R 0 E Q I EM Anahelm~ CA ~12F01. Pctltianer requests per-
mission to CXPAND AN EXISTING CARWASN WITH
WIlIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT ANO
(d) MINIMUM SID~ YARD SETBAGK on property dcscribed os e rectangularly-sheped parcel of
land conslsttng of approxtmately 1.0 acre havin9 a fronta~~e of approximately 1G4 feet on
the south ~tde of Ltncoln Avenue, liaviny a maximum de~th of approxtmately 278 feet~ being
located approximately 355 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street~ and further
described ~s 2230 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classlfled RS-A-43~000
(RESIDENTIAL/AGR'Cl'LTURI~I) XONE with a rasolution of intent to the Gl (COMMERCIAL~
LIMITEO) ZONE.
7here was no o~r, indlc~ting their presence in oppc~sition t~ sub,jece request~ and although
the staff report to the Planniny Go~~xnlssion dated Apri 1 1~~ 1~7~i was not re~~ At the
public heartng. it Is referred ta and made a part of the minutes.
Neil pe Ruytesr~ agent, indicated tt-at as of April 13, 1976~ the minimum side yard setback
would not be necessary because :his area wtll be zoned conxnercial. He polnted out that
throe entrences on Lincoln Avenue are necessary for the trafflc pat[ern going throuc~h A
3Q-foot alley to make tt easier for tl~e cars to come in straight.
TNE PUBLIC 1iCARIr~G WAS CLOSED.
Chalrman Tolar statod that in relationship to the drivcway from Llncol~ Avenue~ thc
Traffic Enyineer I~es recommended that those driveways be closed off anci that in looking at
the plan, he was not oppos~d to the expanslon of the use~ but that I~e feit it would be a
bettGr plan with one wide driveway approximately 40 feet wicle in the center of the
project~ rather than three. Ile indicated he did not feel he could support the three
driveweyS onto Lincoln but would consider one wider driveway in the center of the
property.
Mr. De Ruyter pointed out thare are vacuurns sct back approximatciy 35 feet; that thcre is
an existing carwash which is in bad shape and that the new butlding will be a Spanish-
mot(f bullding and wllt look nice; that the existing bullding is set too close to the
street~ but there was nothin~ tl~ey could do about thr old building. Ne indicated when
people ere vacuum(ng~ it would only leave about 18 feet to the front bumper for s~meone to
come in and w ash his c~r.
Chainnan Tolar indicated he understaod their problem, but I~e was not going to support
three accesses onto Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. De Ruyter polnted out these would not be accesses~ they would be entrances to the
carr+ash; that Lincoln is a divided highway and people would not be making a U-turn because
they would be yoing the wrong way.
Chatrman aarnes asked if Mr. De Ruyter was indtcating that viith o~e drive~ay, with people
vacuuming their cars, ai~att~er car could not get by. He replied this was correct.
Paul Sinyer~ Traffic Engineer, asked why they could not put their vacuums behind the
carwash in the drying area, and Mr. De Ruyter replied they have them there also.
4/10/78
i
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNI~IG COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 78~258
EIR CATCGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 b~ ANO CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 1819 (continued)
Chat~ma~ Tolar tndicated the petitioner is indicotinQ ft would be hard for the cars to
msneuver an-site; that if a car wss boing vr~cuumed and they were using the driveway~ cars
could stack up on Ltncoln.
Paul Singer agreed that If [here is a back-up they could he stacked up on Lincoln with
;hat acceas.
Chalrman Tolar tndlcated he would rather have the cars stacked up on the site rath~r than
on Lincoln Avenue.
Commissioner Barnes pointed out that even wtth onc driveway they would have the same
stackln_y problem.
Chalrman Tolar Indtcated they were going tu have circulatian problems and he wuuld rather
hav~ the problems on-slte then on L(ncoln.
Commissioner Ktng polntecf out tt~pre is no parkiny allc~wed on L(ncoln.
Comnlssioner Devld asked why the vacuurr-~ are needed in the back~ and Mr. De Ruyter replied
those vacuums are quite active; that peoplc can vacuum thetrcars Whlle another pers~n is
washing his car.
Chalrman Tolar asked tf tt wo~ld make sense to have two driveways rather than one for
ingress and egress into the vacuums, a~d Mr. Sinyer replicd they still would have the
back-up problem; that he did not know haw to operate a carwash~ but he looked at this from
a circulatlon stendpoint.
It was notod that the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined
that the proposed project falis within the definitlon of Categorical Exemptions~ Classes 1
and 3~ as defined in paragraph 2 of the Clty of Anaheim Environmen;~) In~ act Report
Guldeltnes and Is~ therefore. categorically exerr~t f~om the requlrement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Nerbst offered Resolutio~ No. PC1a-72 and moved for its passage and
a~opt~on, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for
Condltional Use Permtt No. 1819, subject to the conditio~ th~t only one access point will
be providod o~to Lincoln Avenue, smid locatton to be approved by the Traffic Engtneer~ and
subje+ct to Interdepartmental Committee recanmendations.
On roll call~ the fore9oir+g resolution wes pessed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOtJEP.S: BARNES, CAVID. HER~ST~ JONNSON, KING~ LIMN. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOF~ERS: NONE
Commissioner Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Oavid and MOTIOt~ CARRIED.
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver (o) on the basis that
effective April 13. 1918, said waiver will not be applicable; granting waiver (b) on the
basis that the abutting prnperty does have a resolution of int~nt to the CL Zone and is
de;veloped wi th a motel .
4/10/78
i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 10. 1978 ]8-259
ITEM N0. 12 PUBLIC HEARING. AWNERS: BENJAMIN N. AND LEE SAT'l..
~~T~bRICAL EXCMi'TION-CLASS 1 22Q0 South Loara Str~et~ Anah4lm~ CA 92&12.
. AGENT: JOIIH EMtL SAYOUN~ 3~+14 Nest 8a11 Road~ ~'K,
`~~ A~aheim~ CA 9Z~~u. Petitioner requests permisslon
ta ESTABLISII A VETERIIIARY CLINIC on property
describe~ as an Irregularly-shap~d percel of fend consistiny of approxlmately 1.4 acres
having a fruntage of approx{mately 107 feet on the south side of Bdil Road~ having a
maxtmum dspth of epproximetely 625 feet~ being locAted epproximAtely yS~ feet east of the
centerline of Knott Str~et~ and further described as 3~+1~+ West Ba~ll Road~ pK. Property
presently clessifted CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZOHE.
There was no one Indtc~tlny tli~lr presence in opposltlon to subject request~ anJ although
the steff rep~rt tu the Planning C~mmisslon datcd April 10. 1978 w+~s n~t rrnd nt the
public hcerin,y~ It ls refprrcd to and made a part of tl~e minutes.
John Sayoun, agent~ was prescnt to answer eny ~uest~~ns.
TNE PUBLIC f1EARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner King asked lf there would be anr outslde activittes At thls veterinary tllnic~
snd Mr. Sayoun rep~led there would be none.
Commissioner Herbst Inquired about the size of the animals~ and Mr. Sayoun repitcd they
would be smali animals.
Chairman Tolar asked if there would be any overnight boarding of animals~ and Mr. Sayoun
repl(ed they do have cats and dogs that stay overnight when the owners did noi get back to
pick them up~ and lic pointed out tltie location is presently be(ng used as a pet store.
CortKnlssionur King indicated those people within 300 feet had baen notified and thcre have
been no cort~p 1 a i n ts .
It wes ~oted that the Planning Dtrector or liis authorized repr~sentative has determined
that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of Categoric~l Exemptfons~ Class 1,
as deflned in parag~dpl~ 2 of the City af Anahelm Environmental Impact Report Guidellnes
a~d ts. therefore. categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PG7~-73 and r~oved for its passag~ and
a~ap-tTon, that tt~e Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission docs hcreby yrant Petltlon for
Conditional Use Permit No, it~21~ subJect to Interdepartmentaj Committee ~ecommendatlons.
On roll cmll~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOr~ERS: BARN[5, DAVID, HERt3ST~ JOHNSOtI, KING~ LIN~i. TQ~AR
NOE,S: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEtJ7: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
4/10/78
~
MINUTES. A~~Al1EIN CITY PLANNIIIG COMMIS510N~ APRIL 10~ 1978 78-2G0
ITEM N~0. ~1 PUIiLIC HEARING. OWNER: J. P. EQMO~lOS(111 PROPERTIES.
~~~~TCCOitICl1L EXEMPl'IUN-Cl.ASS 1 8nQ Wilshire OoulevArd~ Los Anqeles~ CA 9~017.
. Pet(tl~ner requests permtsslon to ESTA9L15H A1~
AIVER OF CODE EQUIREMEtIT AUTAMOBILE RENTIII AGENCY WITH WAIVEti UF MINIMUN FRONT
SETBACK on property descrlbed as e rectAngularly-sh+~ped
percel of land consisttng of aonroximatety ~.y acre
located at the southeast corn~r of Mdnchoster Aven~e and Narbor Boulevard~ heving approximate
frontagas of 150 feet on the south sidE of Menchestcr Avenue and 150 feet on thc eest side of
Harbor 6oulevard~ and furtt~er descril,ed as 1~~OQ Soutl~ Harbor pouleverd. Property presently
cl~ssifled R5-A-43~000 (RCSIDENTIAI/AGRiCUL7URAL) ZONE.
There was on~r pr.rson 4ndicati~y their presnncc ln oppasltton to suSJact request, ~nd
altl-ough the staff rcport to the Plan~in~ Cemmisstun datsd April i~~ 197C was not read at
the public he~riny, it ts referred to and made a part of the mtnutes.
U~ve McNally~ Gi?, Amber OrivP~ I~untington Beetlt~ representinq the autcxnobtle rental
ayency~ Indicated they agreed witl~ tlie staff recomrtx:nslottons and I~e was present to answer
any questions.
Bill Reed~ 8108 Plaza Way~ Stantan, representiny Dollar Rent-a-Car~ indicated they hed
triod to open this same IocaCion and went through the prop~er channels end wera told they
could not open the doc~rs until the proper construction was done to the butlding as listed
In the staff report. fle stated this applicant hes done Just the opp~slte, he opened the
doors before going through the Planning Commission. Ne indicated thelr con[rector had
indlcated construction costs for those thinys required to be done would be approx-mately
$10~00~) and they would have to be completed before they could open their buslness; Chat
the owner af the property would only give a onc-year lease on thls location at 140Q South
Harbor Ooulevard~ and that $10~OQ0 Just does not justify opening the doo~ for one year.
He Indicated the proposal states the. applicant is going to have ~ maximum of 22 vehicles
on the site~ and he did not f~el that with the visitor and tourist trade in thc are~~ 22
cars would operate the business and asked where they would sto~e the cars for a large
convention.
He Indicatcd the petltioner does not want to remove the canopy or the pumps. and this is
unsightly at present; that there is ~n empty gas statfon sign and canopy sticking out and
the pet+tloner has submitte~i no plans for the proposed sf~ninc~. He stattd his argument is
that this business will be unattractive in a tourist locatlon.
Mr. Mckally indicated that Mr. Roed's _~mrnenta were partlally correct; tt~at thcy had
le~sed the praperty from Mr.Edmondso~,, a„rner of Howard Johnson moteis~ on a year-to-year
bagis and intended to be the re for a long time~ provided they couid get approval from the
Plannirig Commission~ and would be there as long as the praperly did not farce the Noward
Johnson Notel to lose their parking and have to go into the parklny for the Acapulco
Restaurant. Ne indlcated they ha6 nat m~ved in without making the proper application;
that everythtng was turned in and there was a requirement that snme S1,5AQ fees paid in
advance before the use permit could be obta(ned for street lighting and landscaping, which
was a condition of qualifying thfs praperty for C-R zoning. He indicated the owner had
paid these fees and submitted Che application and they had ~noved in bscause they had been
evicted from thelr previous i~~cation through the work of Mr. Reed.
He stated they w~re surprised when the Nermit did not go through; that the owner had run
into a problem with the title and they had requested forebeara~c~ from the City to get
these details together.
4~~o~~a
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~PRIL 10~ 1978
78~261
EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0.,1824 (continucd)
. ---
Na indicated thnt as f~r es the parking Is wncorned, they h~ve agreed the parking area
w(11 only be for th~ numbmr of cars as stlpuletnd and thst even ~hough somctimee they have
more vnhicles on the ~ot, tl~ey ara taken to Los Angelcs Internetianal Airport ar the
Orengo County Airport~ that thetr vchicles float from are~ to area~ and they see no
problem with cars stored on this sito. Ile Indlceted that when they have a larqe number of
cars they would be shifted tu be put back tn service. Ile painted out this building Is a
defunct gas station et present and has been an eyesor~~ but assured the Commisalon thet
since tlialr opcratlo~ de~is with thc rctail public~ it would bn pleasinq.
Concerniny the canopy~ he indicated one island of pumps was necessary to thelr operetton
and Chey had not removed thc afor~rr~nt(onecl cano~y inasmuch as they would have had to
dpstroy A lot of property and in the future thls site might be used for a gr~ statlon
A9A~11.
THE PUf3LIG NEARING NAS CLOSED.
Commissioncr King polnted out he felt this property was not an eycsore~ that it looks very
attractive now with the red tile roof and all the grepnery. Ne asked Mr. McNally to
stipulate that all work would be done insiJe~ whtch he dld.
Commissioner Kir,g pointed out the Planning Comnissic~n had approved a strnllar use an July
13~ 1977. but for the storage nf only four cars.
Mr. McNally Indicated he dld not know about thr prrviously-app~oved permit~ but that at
certatn tlmos there would be mc~re cars at the location~ but that tt~ey are usually out on
the road. He indtcated thesc cars would be shif[ed within a time peri~d of one day.
Commissloner Kiny pointed out the Tra~fic Enyineer recommends that the two driveways
located ciosest to the intersection of Mancheste~ AvQn~e and Harbor Boul~vard be closed,
ancl Mr. HcNally indtcated he would stipulate to doing that.
Cormiissioner Jolinson indicateJ he ag~eed that the driveway should be closed off. Ne
ind(cated he did not believe the operation needed those pumps; that when gas st~tions are
converted~ they are made to not appear as an abandonrd gas stati~m so t'~at the owner can
come back and put tn a gas station at a later time~ and he felt one of the (slends shoula
be removed.
Mr. McNally indicated there are two grades of gasol~ne~ lead~d and unieaded~ and Lhat
would be the purposc of having two pumps. fie indicated there were two tanks under tHe
ground supp~rttny these pumps and there would be ~ loss of those tanks if they had to be
destroyed.
Cor~unissioner Ba~nes asked hvw many cars on the average would he on the site in one day,
with Mr. McNally re.plying they would aver•aye approxtmately 10 Co 15 and the average 1Gngth
of thc rentai ia three to four days.
Commissioner Linn indiceted the conditional use pcrmit previously approved was for a
smaller n wriber of vahicles and that they were to be for display purposes only. Ne point~d
out the previous tonditional use permit was approv~ed as a place to display the vehicles
and here tfiey will be trying to servtce the vehicles also. He indiceted he did ~at feel
this site looked attractive and would be a detriment to the area.
4/t0/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 78-262
EIR CA7EGORIC~L EXEMPTION•CLAS: 1 AND CONDITIONA~ US~ PERMIT N. 1824 (concinued)
Cormilsslon~r King polnted out the previ~usly-Approvod candittone) use permit refe~r~d to
had not been ~equtred tn remove the pumps.
Annika Sentatahtt~ Assixtont pirector for Zoning~ po(nCed out the prev(ous use was for a
servl~:e statlon w(th the rental as a secondary use.
Commis.sioner King indlcated he did not see enything unattracttve about the site; that it
looked attractivc Gven with the purt~ps.
Commission~r Johnson indicated his concern reyarding the 50-fo~t sett~ack,
Jay Tashiro~ Asststant Nl~nner~ polntcsd out there Is .~ 50-foot s~tback r~qulred along
Harbur auulevard and the canopy would be !n thnt sethACk.
It was nc~ted that the Plnnning Director or hts authorixed rGpresentative has cletermined
that the proposed proJect f~lls within the definttton af Categortcal Exemptions~ CIA45 1,
as defined in paragraph 2 of the Ctty of p~aheim Environme~tal Impact Repo~t Guidellnes
and is~ tlierefore~ categorfc:~lly exempt from the requirement t~ prepare ar~ EIR.
Commissloner King offered a resolutian for approval of Condltional Use Permtt Na. 1824.
Commissiorier Joh~son (ndlcoted he co~id not support this resolution unless the canopy and
tanks were~ removed and sorre landscaping providGd.
Cammissioner Herbst (ndicated hc agreed with Commissioner Johnson.
On roll uill~ the foregatng resolut(on failed to carry by the follc~wing vote:
AYCS: ~;OMMIS~IONERS: KI'.~~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ HERE35T~ JOHNSON~ LINN
AfiSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Annika Santalahti pointed out the previous condittonal use permlt was granted for a gas
station with ca r rental.
Commissicmer Johnson offcred a resolution for approval~ subJ~ct to the st(pulatlon that
the peti•ttoner would remove the canopy~ the two drivcways closest to the intersec~ton~ une
of the pump lslands, and rr~et the minimum 50-foot setback.
The motion for the resolution was explained to the petitioner~ indicatinq the changes he
~dould hr9ve to make,
Commtssianer Herbst potnted out he felt this was not a very good l~cat(on for a car rental
agency and if the canopy was removed completely, the pumps still would be In the front
setback~ and Jay Tashiro explatned they were set back ap~roxirnately 36 feet.
Commtssioner Linn indicated he d(d not feel they should hev; the pumps.
Annika Santalahti pofnted out that 6-foot fences have been allowed in ehe setback under
spec(al circumstances, but It was her persona) feeiing thts is not a speclal ci~cumstance.
Chairman Tolar pointed out that (f they wish~d to proceed wEth this pro,ject, they should
revise the plans and bring them back. He asked the petitioner if he would like to have a
continuanca to b~ing back revised plans in relaxionship to praviding landscapiny and
removing the canopy.
4/1Q/7$
MINUTE5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ;.OMI'lSSION~ APRIL lp~ 1978 78-263
EIR CATEGORlCAI, EXEM^TION•CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1824 (conti~ued)
Gomniissloner Johnson withd~nw his resolutlon for a~+proval.
ACTION: Chalnnan Tolar off~r~d a rrx~tion~ scconded by Cc~nrnissioner Linn end MOT101~ CARRI~D
Comm ssloner Herbst vating no), thot cansidarat(on of the aforementloned item bc
continued to tt~e regular meetin~~ of the Planniny Commisslun on April 24, 1978~ In order
for tl~e petltloner ta submit rcvlsed plens~ ~'~~+~~ovt7y the canopti• and pr~vid(ng landscap(ng.
ITEM N0, 1~~ RfQUEST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOtI - Rertioval ~f 18 specimen trees
at 2~ou~tli~wens br ve.
There was no one Indicating t1,o(r presence in oppc~stt{on to gubjuct request.
The staff report to the Planning Gommi~slon dated April 10~ 1~7E~ was preserted, noting
the applicent has requested rer.~oval of 18 s~-eclr-xn trees at 24~~ South Ow~~s Drfv~.; that
the Planning Commission I~ad grant~d sald approval at thelr n~eecing ~f Marcf~~ ?.7, 1979.
hc~wever~ after further considerati^~n~ staff drtermincd thst a Negative ~leclaratlon sh~uld
have been advert{sed and revieNed prlor to app~oval of th~ request for rcmoval of speclmen
tre~s.
TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU.
AC710t~: Commissioner Barnes ~fferr.d a rn~tlon~ scconded by Commissioner Davtd and MOTION
CARRIED~ that the Anaheim C1ty Planning Cammisslon has revlewed thc proposal t~ remove 13
spaclmen trees on an irregularly-shaped parcel cf lar~d con~istina of app~oxtmately ~a.-'3
acre having a frnnta,ye of approxinwtely 112 feet on thP east side of Or+ens Drive~ loca!Pd
approximately 53~ feet ~~orth of thr. centerl ine o'F r..hl~r prlve; Pnd does hereby apprave
th~ Neqatlve Declaration fram the requlrement to pre:~.~re an envlronmenlal impact report on
ttte basfs tltat there would be na signtficant individuai or cumulative adverse
envirnnmental impact Jue to the approval uf this Negative Declaratlon; that no sensitive
envir~nmenta) Impacts ere involved in the proposal; that the Inltial Study submltted by
the petitioner i~dicates no slgnificant individual or cumulative aJverse environmcntal
impact5; and that the Negative Declaration substanti.~ting the foreyoing findings ls on
file in th~~ City af Anaheim Planning Depertment.
ITEM N0. 1~ RE UEST FOR EIR NE6ATIVE DECLARATIOt~ - 7o dcmolish the existfng
sw mning poo aci ity~ renovate the affected area~ and construtt
a new swirtming pool fscility in Pearson Park~ nr~rtheast of the
intersection of Narbor Boulevard and Cypress Street.
This item was not cons(dcred by the Planning Commission~ but is schPduled for
consideratlon by r.he Cfty Council at a latc~ date.
4/10/la
MIIIUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10, 197a 78-264
ITEM N0. 16
q p RECOMMENUATIONS
.~ -
A. COIIDITI01lAL USE PEf~MIT NO~ 1 0~3 - Request for apE~ravel of speclflc plans,
The steff report to the; Planning Cammission dated flpril 1(1, 197i3 was pres~nted~ noting
sub.iect property is a rectangulerly-shapecJ parcel of land consistfnq of approxir~ately 0.1
acre having a frontrg~ of approximately 133 feet on the east si~ie of Anahetm llllls Road
end that the petitioner requests approv~l of specific pl~ns for a servicc st~tlon,
Commissloner flerbsi as~ked the type of lighting planned for this 5tte~ and Mark Murphy,
2760 5outh Na~bor doulevard~ pe•.i~loner~ replled the lighttng plans will br, sutmitted wlth
the lendscaping p~ans at a later datt~.
Annika Sunl~~+ial~tl ~ AsstsLant Gi rector fnr 7~ninq, p~lnted out this is a planned u,nmuni ty
ove~lt~y area And thc petitlon~r was r~q:~~sted to submit :he~.t plans seperatcly.
ACTION; Commissioncr flarn~s offered n motion~ sec~nd4d t,y Commissioner Dav(d And MQTI0~1
C R~t D. that the Anahe 1 m C t ty P 1 ann i n~ Commi ss i on does hei e-,~,~ app rove spec i f i c plens fc~r•
Conditlonal Use Permit tlo. 17')~.
$. At3AfdDONMENT N0. 7J-18A - Request to abando~ a publ ic al lay located betwecn
au na an a c phia Strcets~ south of Llncoln Avenue.
The s:wff report to the Planning Commission dated April 10. 197~ wes presrnted, noting the
publtc alley is locaced between Claudina and Philadclphia Streets from 200 fect~ rn~re or
lc5s, to 6"ll feet~ more or less. south of Lincoln Avenuc~ and thA~ this request has been
reviewed by all departments of the City and affected agencies ar, approva) is recommended;
a~d that an environmental revfew of the proposed abandonment indtcates this proposei is
catego~ically exempt from the filing of an EtiR.
ACTION: Comm(ssi~ner King offPred a motion~ sewnded -~y Comintssioner Dav(d and M0710N
CARRIED. that the P.nahelm City Planning Commission d~f•s hereby recortmiend to th~ City
Council that Abandonment No. 77- 13A be approved.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 323 - Request for termination.
The st+~ff r~port to the Plan~i~g Commission dated Aprll 1Q, 191$ ~as prGS~nted~ noting the
subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximate~y 0.44
ecre having a frontage of approximately ;?0 feet an the east side of State College
Boulevard; that the aNplicant is requesting terminatia~ of Cor.aittonal Use Pcrmit ~l~. 32?
as a condttion of approval of Reclassificat.ion No. 77~78-35.
AC710N: Comn-ifsion~r Linn affered Resolution No. PC78-/~+ eno r--oved far tts a5 age and
a~'~optTon~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon dxs hereby termir~ate Petit(on for
Cend(tional Use Permlt No, 323-
~n roll call~ the foregotng res olutlon was passed by the following vote:
AY~S: C~Mh115510NERS: BARNES, DtiVID. HERBST~ .IOHNSaFI~ KING. 'NN~ TI,LAR
NOES: COMHISSIONERS: NaNE
ABSENT: C011MISS1(~NERS: NONE
4/ 10/ 78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ APRII 10~ 1978 18-2b5
D. CONOITIONA~ USE PERMII NO~. ~55 - Request for termtnetlon.
The ~tteff report to tha Planning Commi ssion dated Apr! I 10, 1973 was present~•' noting Che
subJmet property is s rectenyulsri~r-sh~ped percel of land consisting of approx~~nat~ly t1.~+3
ecre locatad a; tha northeast corner of Orsnge Ave~ue and Knott Streot~ and that the
petitlonar r~questt t~irntnetion of Condltione) Uae Permir. N~. 555 In that subJect pronerty
has bean sold •nd (mp ~ovenxnts are to be used for purposes ~ther than e servic~ statlon.
ACTIOM: Commisst~ner Linn offerod Resolutlcx~ No. PC7H-75 and mavesd for its paas+~ge end
~nptTon. that che Anahcim City Planning Commisslon does hercby terminate Petition for
Condittonal Use Permi t No. 555 since subjnct prooerty has becn sold and improvaments are
to be used for purpos~s ather than a servlce statton.
On rol~ call~ the foregotng resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMiSSfnNERS; BARNFS, DAVIO~ HERBST. JQNNSQN~ KING~ LINN~ TOLAR
NpES: COt1MISS10N~RS: NONE
AB~ENT: COMMI SS IONE~S; NONE
RECESS Commtssioner Bernas offered a motlon~ secanded l,y C~rtimisslon~r Kl~g snd
!- MOTION CARRIED~ that the meeting be recessed to 7:00 p.m. The meeting was
recess~d for dinncr at ~:45 p.m.
REC^NVENE The me~tlny wss reconv~ned at 7: 10 p.m. wlth ~~11 Commissioncrs present.
.~.
4/10/78
MINUIES. ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL i~?~ l.+J$ 78-2Fi6
I1'EM N0. 1' PUI~LIC NEAkING. Circulut(a~. Clcr~ent tca tha G~nero)
ENVI 9NMEl~TAL IMPAG7 REPQRT Ni), 212 Plan (r~~acfway widths~ 1o4~~t~uns anJ Gity ~c~licics).
GENERAL PLAI~ I1ME:NUIICNT N0. 1 i~ !
Ron Smith~ ASSU~iatr_ Planiu•r~ ~rc.sentc~l tha staff re~~~rt t~~ the Planninc~ C~~mmissfcm datecl
Apri I 1~), i!~Ji;. Uo nutc~l thc L( rculst(cm Cleme~t is nnc• c~f ninc ~~men~fe~f el~ncnts th~t
moke up the c~mplcte c.~~~~nrChCnsivc~ Gencr,il Pl~ri. Ile ex~l~~in~~1 thc rr~~p~~s~+ls .~5 ~reparcd
by thc Plnnn(ny Uchartment ~~re lon~~-r.inye ~~ler,s ; that thc City acl~{~t~~d a Ci rcul~:tlon
Elc;in;nt to Ch~ f,et~cr.il f'l,~n in Noveinbcr 1~)G} which inc:lu~ed an llrtcrial Stre~ts and
116~~hways Map .3nd a Ili~~hway Riyhts-c~f-~lay Ma~~ a~d that ~'; an~enclr~ents h~~ve. occurred to that
slc•iiwnt and the devclopment of ,~n exceptirn I ts t~~e~rt,~ininc~ to cert~iln street widths~ an~i
i t was fe 1 t th I s shou 1 d be ch~~ngc d an d tlie new e I cn~en t wou I d r~~ 1 ic.e thr ex i s t i n~ mApa and
exceptton list with a new map. tle e~cnlained the m.ip also ~escri~~ , thc Uowntc~wn llnaheim
Schemat i c wh i ch ( 1 1 us t rates Ll~e new a I( ynm~~nc ~ f l, i nco 1 r~ Avenue ar~d <~enc ra 1 1 ancl uses
proposed in the centra) c~re ~f ~'.nahelr•i as r.~vi tal iz~[ian and r~:dr_vel~~pment occ~.r. 11e
presented ~n exliil~it shcn~rin~~ thc i~njor propcrty cnvn~~rs in thc canyc~n ~rea~ includi~r~ the
Bauer Ranch, Wallaee Reneh~ Douylass Rancl~, Larl RAU pr~perty~ lln~heim N(Its~ Ine.
properky~ ctc.
Hc explalneJ that tl7c recoi.x,Kenuati<~ns of the Ct ty Enyinccr .inJ the Plannl~c~ DepartmenC are
included in Exh(bi[ A. Exhibit ~ de~ic:ts the Canyon fener~~l an with rec.orTnende~
modific~tions ~y the Gi[y Engineer anJ offers sequent(al spacing b~:twcen roadways, Via
Eswllo wc~uld be upyrade~ ta hillslde secundary t~~ ~ffset traffic on Im~~erial Ilighway and
provide an al terna[e flcri~~ ancf i t was obs,:rvetiS that al 1~~l i ~nnx~nrs shr~wn are yeneral in
n.~turc. Ile statecl ReclevcloNment Gonrnissfon rc~c~mr,cnd~zt(ons w( 11 be ineor{~c~rate~'
pertaininy to tf~e schcmatic.
Mr. Smt th expl~~ined Cxhibi t f3, the ~lan prc~hoseJ by Anaheim Ni I Is, Inc.. , rrnpc~ses tf.~ee
intersections wi[hin 3nno feet; whereas h~)~~ fPet is currently utilize~f between each
art~rrlal hi~~hway gencrally ii, Santa Ana Canyon, anJ th.~t proposr,d V(sta Del Rio cann~t bc
eanstruc[eJ off of Cenyc~n Riin RoaJ withou[ ac~uiriny an~ removin~~ newly cor,tructed homes;
that _yraci ~ ny wou) J be exeens ive and the r~ ~~ciway wou 1 d cross f)epr Canyon ~ a des i qnatecl open
sp~ce ~jrea; that yradc Icvels above 1'L;, wnuld be necessary to achievc 1 lnkage wi th Canyon
Rim Road; that this proposal depicts ~~state ~e~si ty and c>pen space ar~as being bisected by
arterial hi~hways; that tt~e feasibi I ity nf int~rsectiona re~uires furit~cr study; that the
proposal ~ollows land contours anJ canyan areas; and ttiat tt~e deletion of Via Escollo east
of Imperial Hiyhway eliminat~s inte~~rated circulation pattern,
Exhibit C is tfie request caf Art Pryor~ ~,rc~perty owner and realtor, which would me~n the
relocat:ion of Monte Vista RoaJ to the cast in elose aroximity (2~~') feet) to a major
intersection (Sonta Ana Car~yun Roa~ anJ Weir Canyor~ Road)~ anJ the pl~ysical constraints of
terratn in rel~tion to tt~e roac)way would make tt~is rroposal ~ifficult.
Cxl~ibit 0, a staff prop~sal elimi~~ating proposed Montc Vist~ Raa~ and Vista Dcl Rio, does
not provi~e for secor~cfary ;~oint of ingress and ~:gress for Anaheim II11ls proper~ and if
estate density is actuaily built~ ttien local street pattern could be viable~ simllar to
Mohler Ui~lve, Peralta Hills~ an~ integrate~ ci rculaiion is not a;.hipved.
Exhibi t E is a staff proposal Tor providiny ci ~cular loops in thc area weste~ly of Weir
Canyon. This proposal reyuires ~xt~nslve yrac'.in~,~ but is flexit~le to roadway standards.
The 1970 County of Orange study on the al ignment of Wei r Canvan was reviewed. This
proposal tias two alt~ ~natives for preclse alignmenc of the roadway to achieve ~ maximum
4/,o/7a
MIIIUTES~ ANANEIM C17Y PL~NNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 7~'~67
Et~VIRONMCNTAL IMPACT REPORT N0 ~_212 AND GENERAL PIAN AMENpM~ttT N0. 146 (conttnued)
104 yrade. In 811yning the roadwdy~ topoyraphy was consldr.~ed and recognition of the
diff(culties of plAC(ny Weir Canyon RoAd Qastcrly of the ~roposed alignmcnt.
Ron Smltli showed slides of the arets being di~cuSSed In tl~e canyon ond polnted out tl~e
t~pograpf~y~ etc,
Phillp ~ettencourt~ Vic~ Presi~lent o(' Puhltc Affalrs for Anaheim flills, Inc., steted
Aneheim Hills~ Inc. is probably the sp~~nsor of tt~is serles of amendments whlch t~egrn when
they flled ~ request wtth the Clcy Cnyineer last October to take a look nt what they felt
werQ some unrealtstic aliynrt,ents for tl~e clrculation system In the canyon area~ whlch may
have been overlook~~1 at tf~e time th~ Canyon Area General Plan was adopted~ and they felt
were worthy af fu~ thcr atten~ion. h~ lndicatcd tl~ay F~ad presented a Gener~~l ('lAn
amendr-Mnt for a 90-acre area at the Intersectlon uf Canyon Kim Road end Serrano Avenue
whi~h the Plennlny Commisslon I~acl denleJ, but inJicated there were ~~me~ inconsiste-ncies
between the Anahelm I~ills, Inc, study~ the Generel Plan~ and what the NEOCC study called
for. Ne indicated there i~AVe been extcnsive studiPS end a tupoyrapliical madel built for
study purposes, AnJ that tt~a staff tias developed a series of alternakives which Mr. Smtth
has prasentcd; thet other p roperty ownars in the area who were not involved in the
preparation havc comc forth. Ne stated that, unfortunetely~ they should be able to r~port
more or a degree of consensus of agreemcnt than thcre really ls; that the st~~ff has their
~pinlc thc Nlll and Canyon Municipal Advis~ry Gommitt~e (IIACMAC)~ the property owners~
end even some members of thc har heve their own oplntons; and that the houndaries of the
study have expand~>d beyond what they have suggested.
F1e stated th~tr request does not (nclude any change for Weir Canyon Roed; that they wnuld
be opposed to any cl~~nge in [he current~ a~opted proposed alignment of Nelr Canyon Roed.
He indlcated one of the prope~ty owners has pr~duced a document tdentified as the county
study of altynnxnts for Weir Canyon Roau and that is the one which I~ACMAC~ on a mixed
vote~ hao recommende~i to the Planning Ccrnmiss(on for approval. I~e indtcated he felt the
County of Oranye would dPfer Lheir Judgment to the Planning Commissfon since It would ue
in the Gity of A~ahe(m's sphere of influence; that there (s no mo~e evidence and no County
c,fficial sponsors th(s roaciway alignment.
He scated thetr concerns were obvious; that if the City officials coul~l be persuaded that
the six-lane~ divideJ highway shoulcl be buSlt on Anaheim I+ills property ancl convenfantly
sklrt the other proNerties so they could take access onto tliat highway. they would wlnd up
building somebody else's hiyhway. Ne ~tated they want to meet their traffic needs and
indicated they felt there Is insufficient evidence to )ustify any change tn Lhe current
altgnment of Welr Canyon Road; chat there is merit to the two altern~tives presented~ but
they felt the subJect needs turther srudy; that probably the property own~rs at either end
of the allgnment wil) Qrepare development plans and studies of their own and file them
with the approp~l.,te public agencies for the purposes of precistng the alignment. Ne
indicated this is a roadway which is going tu be bui1C starttng At 4 or Z~ but nqt in the
middle. He stated there was a strong difference of opinion as to where We~r Canyon Road
shoula be located.
He stated there is a~~eneral agreem.nt that the proposed alignment of Serrano Avenue as
suygested by Anaheim Hllls, Inc. was n~ore reaiistic due to the terrafn~ etc. He ind(cated
the red ptns on the topographical model indicate the current adopted alignment, which
would requtre massi.~e cuts to meec the grades as rec~uired by the Fire Department.
G/10/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM C1TY PLANNII~G COMMISSIOIJ~ APRIL 1~~ 1978 18-268
ENVIPONMENTAL IMPACT REPOaT N0. ?.12 ANO GEIdERAI PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 146 (continued)
Ha stated that Viste Del Rlo. which goea tl~rour~h approved trActs or wfiere homes are under
constructlon~ should be dcleted simply ln tne interest of practical(ty and chat there Is a
gonaral aqreement Qn this deletlon.
Ho Indicated they have proposad an emended alie~nment for Monte Vista Rnad which they fnlt
is more ~osponsive to the terrnin and suitt the needs of thelr awn prop~rty better than
the current e) ic~nment, He stnte~ tt~e~e is no a~areert~nt on that al ignnrnt.
Ne in~icated they have sugyesxed to the Trefffc: i:ngine~r that Vlo Escollo Road be
ellmtnatad~ and the Traffic Engineer I~as said it sho~~ld be up~~raded to secondary
standerds. He indicated that was the dividing line of their property~ between thr, edopted
C(ty of Ar~aheim s~hcra of influence and the Clty of Orange bounda ry, and that thn m~Jorlty
of the probable allynment falls w(thin the City uf Orer~ye; tl~dc Anatieim Htlls~ Inc. has a
carmttmcnt wikh th~e City of Orange that they w(1) do tl~eir utmost to preserve the exlsting
ridgeline. Ne stated th~t road would da a lot of damage to the ridgeline and would be
ve ry axpensivc tu ~onstruc[ and they would s~irt devclopment of that area. He stated they
did not think t-,c. density supports such a roadway; thRt [hc opproved de~slty is 1.61 unlts
to the ncro In ~~aheim and cven lower on the Orenge slde of the r(dge.
Ne stated that concludes his remarks; they liave provided a~Implc~ written justificatlon
of thelr proposel an~ felt tfiat as the principa) developing proper•ty owner withtn the
current Gity limits~ they have given thls study [heir most c~reful attention; that there
arc other praperty c~wners who are ~ow in thc County and .~ant to preserve th;.~lr own
development opt(ons. lie indicated it was tl~eir Jeslre to keep [he Genera) Plan as current
as procttcal and not to preciude the development op~tions of other pr~pert{eS. Ne
inditaCed they do have a responsibility wtth tt~e sort of fnvestment thcy have made in
the(r property already~ ~nd that they arc operating within an a~+proved pl~nned community
zone and they have a major canmitment to their residents Insofar as clrculation is
co~cerned~ anJ they are go(ny to ~o ait that is fair and reASOnable.
Mark Armbrewster~ Kaufman b Broad. Jevelopers of the Bauer Ranch~ indica[ed they support
tiie staff recommendation far approval of ~xhll~ic A with regard to Welr Canyun Road and
Monte Vtsta Road as that would affect Eiauer Ranch.
Sam Gaylord~ representiny the ~anta Ana Canyon ?r~perty Owners Associatlon~ indicated they
werc concerned about Che eliminati~n of Vista Del Rto and felt Monte Vista Road sha~l~ b~
discontinued fro~^ Weir Canyon Road to SantA Ana Canyon Road as traffic wauld be put onto
Santa Ana Canyon Road, an~ tl~at is airead~ a heavily-traveied strcet.
Ron Smi:h explained that i~ was Mr. Gaylord's recommendatian that Monte Vista be
eliminated because it is nat providing access to the freeway. but would not be provtdfng
any arterial access (nto that area. I~e indir,ated this would be practical if the
development of that area was slmilar to Peralta Nills or the Noh1Qr Drtve area~ that is,
(f it is to remain estate density. but [hat tliis becomes a decision ~f the Planning
Commission as to whether or not it is practical.
Chairman T~lar pointed out that would leave a large area witt~out any arterial access~ and
Ron Smith replied that it wc~uld be about ~son acres without any arteri~l acess tf that road
is ettmtnated ard tliat area is yoing to be developed.
Mr. Gaylord ref~rred to ~ loop road sitvation and pointed out the only connectlon would be
out anto Weir Lanyon Road~ it would be the same as guing out onto Imperial Nighway and
Fairmont Boulevard. He asked why another arterlal st~culd be added~ it would ,just be
ai~c,i~a
MINUTE5~ ~NAHCIM ClTY PLANNINf COMMISSICN~ APRIL 10 1y78 78-26~
~NVIRONMlNTAI IMPAGT_REPORT N0. 211 ANU GENERAL PI.~N AMENUMENT_NO. IA6 (cantinued}
c~eating m~re traffi~:~ and in3i~~~ted tliere wuuld be no place for th~se people to go and
they wouid liave to go through a residentla) area. Ne indicated tt would Le much better
gotng out Welr Canyon Road and puinted ~ut an expressway wo~ld bc running parallel to the
f r~owoy ~ u~d th~y tt~augli t the; t dGe wae to g~ t tl~e t ra i F( c t~ the f reeway and d 1 d not 1 I ke
the Idea of runninc~ the-n through a populated area where ~~~~re are no cortxnercla)
bustnesses. Ne polnted out the builders would stfll have access to get In and out throuyh
11etr Canyon Road.
Ron Smith pulnted ~ut the ar~.~ of the inter~:ecti4n being discus4ed wt~s owned by Carl Rau;
that thare are four or flve nr~~~erty owners befare you come ;o the Anahclm Ntlls, property.
Chalrm.~ TolAr aakPd whn nwnS th~ ~ rn~Prty wherp Mnnt~ Vistt+ ~op5 t~ ueir C~ny~n~ an~! Ron
Smtth replied part of it goes across Analseim Nllls. Inc. pro~~erty~ the Dauer anch
propcrty~ tl~e Car) Rau property~ and th~ Wa11ACe property. He stated th(s ~ a general
alignment and that the actual road would probably yo up the canyon. He stated in terms of
genera) corridor patterns~ it would actually cross AI1 of these properties and provide
access as lt goes alony and would also ~~ompletc purt of the reglonal system of acccss. ~'e
indtcated this woul~l serve as an erteriai status road, being a collector for Welr Canyon
Raed and Santa Ana Ganyun road. lie also pointed out the commer~:ial drs(gnattons on t~e
plan.
Marcla Forsythe~ Rutar b Tucker~ Santa ~1na~ attorneys r~presenting owners ~f the Wallace
Ranch~ indtc~ted the Wallecc's hsve hlred an engineering firm of Nilliamson 6~chmid since
thcir propert•i is In the mlddle of the properties being discussed. She stated the
engineering ~~rm has made stuJles of the area conststing of topographical studles~ as wr~l
as verticbi allynments~ and ttiat they are looking at a very rough terrain which will
present problems as far as feasible locations for different intersectiuns for ~orth-south
and east-wrest arterials; that tliey had plotted the proposed amendments to the Pla~ and
also the arterials as shc~wn on r.he Gen~ral Plan; that sl~ce very little attention has been
pald to the vertical aiicJnment study~ most every plan prescnted presents some kind of
infeaslble sugges~ion~ whether it f~e t~y way of actual running of that particular arte~ial
or by way of having any ktnd of e:ast-west a~tcrials beino ablc to cross (t and stil) be
able to malntain the 10~ grade. She indicated they would be happy to make these vertical
olignment studies available to the City Engineer. Planning Commission~ ar rny property
owner in the area~ and indicated (t was their suggescion that until everyone sits down
wlth these studies ln front of the - and can discus~ where the align~nents should be~ she
dId not feel any declsion should be made.
Douylas Nird~ with the law firm of Wr.nke~ Taylor, SGhumacher b Evans~ Santa Ana~
representing the Baptist Church, landowners of the Douylass Ranch~ tndicated they had
studles done by an engineerfny company~ Toups Corporatlon~ and that thcy had looked at the
studies d~ne for the Wellace people and have come to the ;.onclusion that if the altgnment
as shown ~n the current General ~'lan is the pracise a0lgnment for Welr Canyon Road~ it
would not be feasibls fo meet the 10~ grec~e from an engineering standpoint because of the
topography of the area. Ne stated their enginter's tentative suggestion is that the
County study is more feasibie from an engineering standpoin~, which means thetr ebility to
eventually construct a road. Fie stated the County study would run slightly more to the
west and, further, they we~e not talcing any particular position as to which exhibit was
best. Fie indicated he would support wh~t the wallace Ranch has to say concerning further
studies being done before any amandment ts adopted. He fett the Planning Commission should
co~sider whether or not they would get locked into an alignment for ~leir Canyon Road if they
adopt one of thP exhibtts; that there is a good possibility they could get tocked in as
other roads are developed in other directions~ and tt was their posltion that they should
take a further look at the prccise alignrtx:nts; that they have some engineering expertise
they would be glad to offer and they w~uld be haFpy to m.ak~ tt available tn anyone who
desires to study it.
4!10/78
MI ~TL'S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 78-270
ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND GENER,4L PLAN AMENDMEII- N^. 146 (contlnued)
Ur. Glo ry Ludwick indicatvd slie ownad ~~0$ of the Live Oak La~~d Company and they were
gett(na close to picking up thelr uption on the Baptist Church loan Corpc,~~ation property
on the Douglass Ranch, She presented a cont~ur map of the Douglass Ranch property and
raferred to the Pxhibitg of Anahelm Nills' recommendation and the County study. She
indicate.d that the terretn is not as smooth as sl~own on the mc~del prepared by Anahelm
Hills. Inc ond that the mndel is n~t complete; that the area Is very rough~ wlth very deep
gullles In it, end she polnted out Che County study alignment~ an the map. She Indicated
there (s o 1Q~ grade eve ry blt of tlie way anJ is such that the~~ could not get nccess off
the road. She Indlcated ihey did not think they should have a street like that yoing
throuyh thatr pro~erty that they could not utilize. She indicet d r.hey have only been
allawed ~300 un(ts on thc property and a property wftfi a~Jt) unlt5 should not have to have
one and a half miles of a six-lane freeway thruuyt~ il; ll~al th~y would like Lo get thc
roAd as fAr to the west as ppssible. She indtca[ed t`~ey weru trying to prevcnt h~ving
tract maps and master pl~~ns filed that do nut include the road and do no[ account for the
size it is ulttmatcly to becomc. She statud thcy would like to support the p1An of the
tw~ previous speakers (n opposition~ and tl~at is tf~et the City~ property ownE~S~ and
engineers of various property owncrs ~et togfther and plan whcre those streets should go
before any tract maps are allowed. She indicated she dld ~ot fee) an amendment to the
Genoral Plan would be require~'. She stated the Caunty study is a few years old~ but the
land has not changed~ and Ron Smit~~ has pointed out [I~e General Plan is compatlble with
whatever the engtneers can decide upon.
She referred ta the bubble of the modiflcation of 5~•rrano Avenue and indicaked she dld n~t
feel they would want a change to tFie General Plan~ but if the engineers for the property
awncrs on bothsldas aqree where it should be~ then she did not see the need for a change.
Ron Smith stated it would ~ecessitatc an amendment s{nce it would be moving from one side
of the hlll ta the ather si~°~ crossing a ridyelin~~ and tl~e Planninc~ staff felt that was
a suhstantlal change and that i: makes land uses of her propercy vcry difficult.
Dr. Ludwi ck I ndl cated tf~at i f 1 t~~ ere rr~ved to the ott,er s I de of the h( 1 1~ i t would make
davelopment very difficult and shc felt S~rrano Avenuc as shown was not properly
engineered. She indicat~~ she fel the whole Serrano Av:nue necds to be lincd up on the
Irvtne pr~perty before they could ~ell where it takes of° on Anaheim Nllls prop~rty and
the Douglas~ Ranch~ and more precis~ studies for the ali;nment should be done. She stated
they would like to get precise alig+ments on the r-x~jor roads in the area before any
further devc:lopment can take ~lace.
Dave Downs~ represent(ng a future interest in the Douslass Ranch~ indicated when tht
Planning Commission adopted the ~eneral Plan~ he had thought it wss to be a ge~ ~al plan~
but ne felt the ttme h,d come to have s~eciflc plans rather than general plans. Ite
indicated he had understood that if you moved ttie linc from one side of the property to
the ocher~ that would be acceptable on the General Plan. as long as generally it is in the
same area~ but chat he can see the time has come for the Planning Commission to appolnt a
committee of eng(neers representiny all the property owners and Instruct them to bri~g
back an aliynment which they have agreed upon.
Lynn 6uffington~ Chairman o!` the Hlil a~d Canyon Municipal Adv(sory ~Committee. lndicated
he was present to clarify ar.y of the comments made in the minutes of the HAf,MAC meett~g,
and he felt it wes the feeltng qf HACMAG and thetfeeling had been ecnoed here by varlous
property owners as to why the General ?lan amendment ts being ~;onsidered. Ne indicattd it
appears the eltmination of sorne of th~ roads~ such as Vista Del Rio which can:~ot be butlt
anyway, is a housekeeping task and nceds tc be done and NACMAC wlli generally agrec with
4/~o/7a
.,.
MINUTES~ A~~AIiE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ APkIL 10, 1978 78,271
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN IIMENOMFNT N0. 146 (continued)
chat~ but that there secmt~d to bc a stronc~ push by i+nahelm Hllls~ Inc. for some prec(se
altgnm~nt of the raads and yct no one hes scen any precise plans of the aroe; that they
hac, requested a General Plan amcndment for approximately 90 acres at the end of Serreno
Avenue wixh maJor intersectlons sh avn At Scrrano Avenue~ Weir Canyon~ Viste Del Rlo and
Monte Vista Road~ which -auld generata severe traffic (mpacts from the vartaus lend uses.
He polnted out the G+ rel Plen currently shows estate destgnation and that the requcst
submitted by Anahelm .~ills. Inc. shc~ws a cons!derably higher restdentiat density and same
coR~nerclal zoniny, t1e pointed ou~ the comments of committee members were in the minutes
as to their opini ~~ on ea~h proposal. He Indicatcd that generr~ly they agreed the plan
most acceptable as the County alignment of Weir Canyon Road~ which was not a part of the
Anahelm Hllls~ ~nc. request; tF~at most members felt somc road needed to be runntng in the
some directlor of hbntc Vista Road, whether it be that or srxnething else for the reasons
prevlously stated~ but the quest~on the committee ha~i Asked was~ if a lot of these
alignments ars that close to the General Plan as staff has indicated, maybe it woula be
better to yet inl., mc~re preclse pl~ ~niny, He inJicateJ that Anaheim Hlils~ Inc. ~~~t
stated to the corrxnittee the reason they had rCquested the Ganera) Plan amendment was that
the Plenntny Cornmission had indicated that would be tl~c firsC step (n the plann(ng of that
parttcular area at the en~! of 5errano Avenue and that he fe!t HACMAC w~uld like som~+
gulda~ce as to the thinking of the Planning Commisslon on that po(nt, but they would be
happy to answer any questions.
Cha(rman Tolar indtcated he dld not know haw the rest of tl~c Comm)ssion felt~ but he dld
not think at thi~ point he was ready to discuss the prectse alignment or even a generel
allynrt-~nt that is more precise than what they Already have, ti~ indic.~ted the most valid
suggast(on he had heard ~as in relationship to app~incing a committee of large lendowners
in the area to discuss the alignment; tl~at basically there are about three or four mejor
parcels of land that are going to be affecteci to ~ large extent and it would appear a
committes of thetr representacives and engineers~ In conjunctlon with Planning staff~
HACM/1C~ and a couple of Planni~g Commissioners~ should s*.udy a specific plan; that the
magnltude of these amendments fs such thac he is not ready to make a declston tonight.
Jack White~ Dcputy City Attorney~ indicated he had he~rd statements about :.aeciflc
alignments And wanted to make it clear that regardiess of what de4istons are made tonlght
or anoth~er time, tt~e locatiorts of the streets thet are shown on the General Plan ;~e in no
way to h~ construed by the Glty or the populdce as beiny precise alignments; th3t the
requlrements of the State law say th~t we will have a cir,:ulaiion elemeni which sets forth
the gener~) locations of streets and highways. Ha indicated he did not know `~ow far they
could go when lt comes !o actually putting in che street and highway and devtating from
the map~ but he fe?L if they were talking .~bout going around a mountain from left to
ri~ht. tha! mi~h,[ be a deviation that is more than mEnor !n nature~ but that simply mc~ving
a llr~a from one poi-~t a f:w feet, or even a few hundred f~et~ would not be a signtficant
change~ but if yo~ a~e talking about natural boundaries being circumv~nYed~ that would be
a significant change. Ne stated :hat whatever ehe Planning Commission daes or m(ght do in
~he future will not set in concrete wher~ a stree[ is goirig ta be located; that it may
have to be built in a slightly different location.
Chairman Tolar indicated maybe the two words "prec.ise" and "general" were the problem;
that maybe such a study wouid deterrnine a more precise General Plan.
Ron Sm1tF: po(nted out tl~at the yeneral dESlynat(ons shown are transp~rtation corridors and
the alignmen[ might occur anywhere in the vicl~ity of thtse~ whether .:ast~ west, nort~~ ar
s4uth~ and t~ tn~ :eneral Plan is nothing more than that.
4/10/78
MI~~UTES~ ANAiIEIM CiTY PLANNING COMNISSION. AF'RIL 10. 1978 1~~27z
ENVIRO TAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND GENERHL PLAN AMEN~r~ENT N0. 140 (conCl~ued)
Cammtsslaner Il~rbst potnted out this graup of property c~wners is looking for a r~ethod of
developmont and loakir~ f~r yuidencc fran thn Plan~ing Carnnlsslon .~~7d need to knaw where
the roads a~e going to be located in order to develap th~ir praAerty and that every road
tles into the denslty of lhe arem and what is gotny to be devcloped o,, that parcel
determines whether there should be a ma)or arterial or a secondary~ and that every a~ea
must have a good callector strnot. Ne indicated he did nat find any difftculty (n rrying
to dotermine some sort of access out of tl~ere; that the Gener,l Plan is generai and he
aqrees (t can be changed if ~a better ~recise allgnment is pravided. I~e felt !he ~'lanning
Comnfaston should ylve the rroperty awners sum~ tdea as to whethcr or not there ~s going
to bc a collector street or an arterial highwey. Fle felt they desPrvsd that typa of
consider•~tic~n and it was up to the Plann~ny Commission to give thom a place to sta~~t.
Commissioner Barnes indiceted slie agreed wlth Commissionor Herbst; that when Anahetm
Nills, Inc. ceme before tt~e Plan~iny Cortmisslon witti thetr General Plan amendmant~ it was
the Pl~nn(ng Commisslon's tntention that the mnJor property ~~ners ~et toa~•t-~_r with the
City end she assumcd that was what had been ha~:~nning all this timc~, but c.. -tously there
had been sume communication yap. She atated she felt thix could c,: ceivably be discussed
for the next two years~ but that the Planning Commissian has to give some kind of
directlan. She askPd Philip Bettencourt of Anaheim Ntll;, Inc. 'f Plan B was his cholce
~nd if Weir Ganyon Road is aligned on chat plan as it is on the current Genera) Plen~ an~i
Mr. Bettencourt replied that It was.
Mr, Bettenc~urt presented another exhibit which st~owed Welr Canyo~i Road w(th Its cu~rent
allgnment on the General Plan and the maJo~ praperty ownars in tf,e area and potnted out
the Caunty alternative mos[ supporced by tIACM-+C.
CommiSSioner Herbst referred to the grades as rn~^tioned earlier by Mr. Acttencourt and the
cost feasibility and asked how chis would affect che Anahefm 11%lls~ Inc. property.
Mr. E3ettencourt replicd that he was not sure tht feasibility c~f the grade could be
measurad; thet there have bnen comments from the Fire Oepartment that they find a grade of
8$ to 10$ acceptebl~~~ but that is really not within the Jurlsdittlon af the Ftre
Department but the City Englneerinc Oepartm~.nt. Ne pointed out that Falrmont doulevard~
Nohl Ranch Road~ and Canyon Rlm Road all have tt.o grades and that when ine City
Engineering Depa~trr~nt design secti~,n savs it has given serious study to weir Canyon Road
and they are ready to precise it~ it means they are ready to fix grades and indicate cuts-
and-fllls and utiiity casemenc pro~t~ction requi.ed, and that Anaheim Hills, In:. will
trust their Judgment; that usually a property awner would ~~ave an engtneered design of th~
roadway and present it to the City fa~ purposes of checking to see tf it has been fixed
and that [hey c•ould not indicate wheeher or not it would be 1d$ or 1"L~6 grade; that the
grade is a valid cc.~~sideratlon~ but that it could mcan moving a lot af dirt ~nd it ~~oul~
require a certain degree of study. Ne indiceted the C~mmissinn should not h~ve the tail
wagging the dog in this case; that there are property ner~ ln the area whose land is
landlocked and tlie Commission should not design a road trom the middle to the end.
Comntssioner 1Ctrtg asked Keith Murdoch~ present in the audience. if he would like to make a
conrnent .
Keith M~irdoch indicated he represented Kaufman 6 Broad on ?ome occasions~ but that he r~as
present an his awn ;onight; that he had the pleasure ~f lis~eni~g to th: discussson at thE
HACMAC rr~eting; that there had been a great deal of d~!;cussion about the precise
~~Itgnments and the General Plan cheracteri;tics bu~~ quite frankly, it looked like the
Commi~sion was at a~osition where they shuuld leave the Genera~ Plan Circulatlon Eiement
4/10/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 10~ 1978 78-273
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE~ORT NOt Z12_AND GENERAL PLAh AMtNOMENT N0. 146 (contlnued)
ss it ts currently adopted w~thout any chenges untll further informatlon (s provided on
pracise locatians that miyht change tho ci~culation plan. NG indtcatRd he had heard very
itttle dlscuss(on which would indic~~e the General Plen should bo ~mended; that when
precise a;iynments do come ol~ng as dev~lop~nent takes place~ the pr~cise alignment could
be adopted at Lhat ttme wlth input trom the Engtne~rinc~ Depar~ment. Ne polnted out that
nune of the alternatives show an alteration from the almost precise location as shown on
the circulatian plan. f1e p~inted ouC that Anahefm Nllls~ Int. h~ad stated the ones who
have access Nill most likely be the ones who w!11 make the baslc determinetion along with
the Engineeriny and P1Anning D~rarttnPnts~ ~nd when thP r~~ints become fixed the athers will
Jo(n with them~ but Chat (~ not ta say one should c~peratc in a vacuum; *.hat they will have
to work w(tl~ ad~acent neighburs and he felt that could be done wlth ~recise plans. He
stated he ~greed wi th IIACMl1C's conclusion that tt~ere was nott~tny wrang w! lh the
circulatlon plan as it naw stands.
Commissloner Nerbst indic~ted he felt the o~~ly major change would be the elim!natlon of
Viste Del Rio Road which~ if put tf~roug-~ now. would ya right through a yroup of homes.
Commissioner Jahnson (ndicated he felc if eve rything had been in order this ~robably would
not havs happened; tteat the Planning Comrt-iss(~n has gone ahead on th~ basis of tl~ F~•esent
General Plan an~ allowed tracts whi~h have obliterated the posslbi~ity of using that ~oad~
and he would Iike t~ know if this c~~id have been avoided if [he ?'anning Cormiission had
watched thc precise plens morc clos~•ly.
Ron S~nith pointed out tliis particular alignment was shown on a variety uf tentatfve Nlans
wh{ch were reviewed by the 7a:;k Force during the early part of 1977 and late ~97b and
during tliat samc time, the tra~:t maps were goiny through actual precise ali~r.,~ents ovcr a
plan which had not been adopted and the development was aheaJ of the Gpneral Plan.
Comrnlssianer J~hnson sugyested that probably the first srep wnuld be to s~e !~ the
Plann~ng Commission agreed that thc Circulation Eler-ent c~f the General Plan is a way to
g~t from Noint A to polnt B and if lt is pretty m~ch 'n line w'th wh3t tl~e Planning
Commission thought it would be or a few rninor chenyes are needed~ a~d wondered if that
would be the proper way to start rather than to start looktng for anything more prpcise.
Commissioner Barnea indicated the Ptanniny Comr,~i~sio~~ I~as already seen one of tt~e reasons;
that they have a developer who needs some mc~P prec!sP 31(gnmen~s tn order to have tracts
approved an~i that is why Anahei~n Nill~~ ~nc. is waiting fo~ some indicatian as to where
the roau; are going to be.
Philip Bett.:ncourt indirated that i~~~ c•der to file a ley i de~elopment plan on Vista Del
Rio without accommodating that r.il~t-of-way would not be consistent with the General Plan
and that they would prefer not h~ve conformance wlth *.he Genei'al Plen~ a questlon i~
the issue of these two areas.
Comrri;sianer Linn (ndica ed he felt if thls wes started piecemeal at one end, ;hey may
wind ap with property owners in the mid~fie wh.~ cannot develop because of the grades. He
felt the circulation has to be planned at o~~e time so that the property owne~5 can agree
as to whether they can tle into Lhe road,
Dave Downs Indicatsd he did not feei this was a matte~ of the tall wagging the dog; that
aithough their !and is landlocked~ if they want to devetop at present they have ert
easement for a 4G-foot w(de road. He fe't the specif'~c alivnment has to be determined.
4/t0/78
MINUTkS~ AN'.11EIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978 18'274
~NViRONME~~TAI IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND GEN~RAL PLAN ~MEN_ ~MENT N. ~6 (continued)
Lynn Buffi~gton state~ that as a d~veloper ~t is his understanding that gencrally the
v~rlous cities d~pe~d upon the developer to dn the precise planning and studies to
esteblish whether or not his plans are In conformity with the Gener~l Plan; therefore~ the
anginocriny ynts done~ and the various studles needed to dQtermine prGClse ~lignment of
those roads w~uld cost mlllions of dollars. Ne (ndicated he was a member of the Task
F..cP and remembered many hours studying the general alignment. It was emphaslzed this
was to be a yencra) plan and every tlme the Task Force attempted to gGt more preclse~ they
were cautloned they were trying to d~velop a genera) plan. Ne indicated he thougt~t the
request for reallgnment really had a more precis~ ~~ ' chan someone trying to change the
Ge~eral Plan~ and that as chalrmbn of HACIIAC he ~o see what tl~ey were trying to
davelop on that pi~ece oti land. Ne felt ic was aF ~atr ll~ol ll~r Planr~ing Commiss(ar.
ask Anaheim Hills, Inc, to ~r_r. those precise ~ians before they make any chanqes.
Philip Bett~nc~urt pointed ou[ they had a grading plan devcloped for Serr~no A~^nuc that
follaws morc realistically the propased alignment they have sl,c~wn. He pointed aut the
present adopted allgnmcnt for Serrano Avenue on -":. ^~odel and (ndicated tt would be
Impractlcbl. Ne i;~dicated they would like to have that allnnment approved wlthout havtrn
the tssued rais~d as to whether or not it would be in confarn~ance with the General Plan.
He (ndicated he supposed there woutci be tl~ose wlio would say tt is ln conformance~ but that
a great deal of time and money have been spent on enyineering stud(es and they would like
to not have th~t an issue. Ile pointed out the c~rrent alt~nmi:nt of Vista Del Rlo whlch
passes right through approved tracts where canstruction is underway and stated that lfi
they filed a davelopment plen on thac property that dld not in~lude and protect that
right-of-way~ he felt it could be sald the plan was not In conformance with the General
Plan, and that no one t-as quarreled with Vista Del Rto.
He ind!cated as far as Mr. Buffing~~n's sug,yestion thai they have suspiclous motives, that
Anaheim Hills, Inc. is in this to make ~none•y; that maybc the other property owners arc not
considering that~ but they are taklny a look at [he density on their propcrty as he felt
every property owner is daing the same thiny to determine if it is r•ealistic and whether
or not the density ~s supp~rtable. He pointed out thcre ar~ no plans filed; that they had
shown their lntentions on the 90-acre parGel which vias denied. F!e stated the questlon to
th~ Commission should be~ in the interest of keepir-g lhe plan as current as posslble, do
the applications represene more realistic~ general alignments for the ro~dways than are
naw depicted on the General Plan.
Con tsslonar barnes asked if the proposed realignment of Serrano Avenue goes th~ough the
Anahelm Hills, I~c. property as~d he • plied that ic did.
Philip Bectencourt replied that the Engtneering Department wouid precise Che alignment or
agree w3th their propasal for the alignment~ and he felt they would make the best faith
effort to accommodate the needs of the adJacent propcrty owners, knowing the planned road
and t~-e route (t ts exper.ted to serve; that grades wuuld have to be adjusted~ but that
would be the case with anyone else who I~a:~ a Gcneral Plan arterial highway on their
property. Hs indlcated he felt that was a~ eng'neering design function that could be
reviawed ln the Public Works Department.
Chai:-man Tolar indicated he agrecd with M~. 9uffington that generally when sort~eone comes
in with a development plan for a piece of property the englneering ha, usually been done
in ralattonship to the specific precise plan~ and asked Mr. Bettencourt !f the Planning
Commtsston elected to maintain that the General Plan is sufficient until someone comes tn
with more specific plan-~ and they did not feel at this time it would require any
4/10/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 1Q~ 1978 78"~75
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AN~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 146 (continuad)
modificatlons or clianges, what would Anahaim Hills' position be~ would they go ahead witF~
thelr plans and suggest the ~ealignrt-ent of Serrano Avenurl
Mr. Bettancourt tndicated he thougt~t they would certainly proceed on Serrano Avenue; that
they have p~epared a grading plan for the Serrano Avenue cxtension In antlcipetton of that
sort of determinatlon. but thought tf-ey would like the more speciflc assur:.~ce a conscious
amendment of the General Plen would inv4lve. I~e Indicated they cPrtoi~ly coul~ not pl~n
the Vista Dal Rio area ln confldence and pointed out the Lakeview all~nmen~. connect~ng
Santa Ana Canyon Road with Nohi Rench Roed t~aJ tl-e same situntlvn nnd asked what chey
wouid do with tlial situation. tt~ indicated they thou~ht in rhl~ Instance it would be
im~r~ctlcAl and that no one in a policy-mal:ing position intends that that road be bu(lt
rlght now~ and asked if they would have a legal riyht to plan ~rnund (t. He felt If tli~y
came In with a set of develo~menC p1~1n5 that did not acGOmmodate that road i!nkage~ thelr
plan would be thrown out as not being ln confarmance with the Gent~ral Plen.
Commissioner Johnson Indlcated he followed wh~at Mr. Bcttencourt was saying~ and icoking at
Exhibi~ ~~ felt it really involved three or four maJor chenges and indic~ted he did not
think the suggasted reallg~rnent of 5errano Avenue was significant and did not alter the
deflnitlon of a General Plan; h a.ever~ the rea115nment of Monte Vlsta F~ad and eliminatlon
of Vista Del Rio should be a Gencral Plan artwndment and he did not feel he shauld yo ahead
with his plans since he would be on dangerous gr~~nd in those areas.
Mr. aettencourt Indicated there had not been a corsensus of opinion on the changes to
Mo~te Vista Road o~~J that he thouyht all the parties had ylven (t ~n honast try, but they
were not successful.
Commissioncr Barnes asked if it was true that Anaheim tlills, Inc. is the nnlv prcperty
owner who had finished their engineering studi~~5 for Serrano Avenue~ .~nd Mr. E3ettencourt
replled that this Has truc. She askcd if il were true of Weir Canyon Roa~~ and Mr.
Bettencaurt replled it was not true for Weir Canya~ Road; that the Wallace and Douglass
Ranch people have more at stake in chat location, but that Anahcim H111s, Inc. would trust
the judgment of the City Engineering Department for the Welr Canyon Road alignment.
Ccxnmissloner Nerbst asked if the realignment uf Serrana Avenue where it crosses Weir
Canyon Road on the topographic model ls tt~e area of dlspute or discussion on Exhibit B.
Mr. Battencourt ~eplied that I~e felt the Wallace and Douglass Ranch people were saying to
the Commission that if a precise alignment far Serrano Avenue was approved and followed
the General Plan alignment~ ~o nnt let it preclude cheir optlons that are available for
41air Canycm Road; that they do not want the Commisslon to forestall a Weir Canyo~ Road
alignmsnt by adopting a precise alignment on Serra~o Avenue. ke pointed out thelr
proposal does not move Wetr Canyon Road, that it stays where It is and only Serrano Avenue
moves~ end they did not think these changes wauld preclude any reasonable alternattvts for
Weir Canyon Road that are now knor~n.
Commissioner Nerbst refer~ed to Exhtbit B i~ reiationship to th~ movement of Vista De) Rio
which was shawn as a"Y" connecting into Monte Vista Road and asked how close that would
place that road to Weir Canyon Road~ an~ Mr. Bettenco~rt repiied they w~uld be too close
for the Traffic Enginee~'s liking.
Mr. B~ttencourt pointed out the exisYing Monte Vista Road, Canyon Rim Road, and Serrano
Avenue on the topographical model and where the alternatlves would come in and cross each
other.
4/~o/7a
MINUTES, ANAHEIH C~tY pLANN,NG COMMISSION~ APRIL 10, 1978
78-276
EI~VIRONME 1L IMPACT REPORT N0. 212_ AMD GENERAL PI.AN AMENDMENT N0. 146 (continued)
.~..~.~.. .~.....r- ~ ._~
Commlasloner Herbst ~sked if Weir Canyan Raad wera moved~ how clase would tt be to Anaheim
Nills~ liic. property and asked if it would cross xhe othcr two propcrtios or if it would
al) be o~ Anaheim Hllls~ Inc. property. He indl~ated he was referring to the naw
elignment on Exhibtt 6.
Mr. ~etten~.curt replied that this linkage Is not supported by the Treffic ci~glneer because
there would be threc se wnd~ry arterials within a`eirly sho~t distance. He potnted out
~hiy are ~ntir~ely on Anehelm Flills~ Inc. propdrty. He indicated they feli this alignment
best serviccs the terraln and that it was for thelr benefit.
Comm{ssloner Herbst ask~~d why the "Y" loop wes shc~w~ on Exhib(t S going both dlrectic.i3
from Serrano Avenue to Monte V(sta Road~ and Mr. Bettencourt replied It was because of the
terrain snd (t would givc bettcr traffic elrculatlon t~ thetr property and indicated the
terrnin dlctates that and !hcy hed b~en close to n co~~sensus with the other p~operty
owners wi th that al Ignrn~nt.
Commissioner Johnson indlcated that to take that piece of Monte Vista Road out entlrely
wouid drasttcally change the use of Monte Vista Road. He indicat.ed rr~vfng Vista Del Ri4
over was not e drastic change.
Philip Bettencourt presented his most recent aerial photograph of the area~ and
Commtsstoner Joh~~son stated he felt wher Anaheim Hilis~ Inc. gets th rough with thElr
bulidozers. thP topography doesn't really matter anyway.
The Commisslon~rs took a few minutes to study the topographical model and exhibits on tl~e
wa l l .
Or. Glory Ludwtck refErr~d to the exhibits and ppinted out Serrano Rv~nue and where it
comes onto thei~ property Immedtatcly when it goes an the other sidc of the mauntaln and
indicated she doubted it makes very much difference to them where it crosses thetr
property. She polnted out the places where it would tnt~rsect with rlelr Canyon Road c+r,
the various alternatives and pointed out Exhibit A is the most reasonable: alignment
because it is (ntersectiny betweer~ two biuffs, but that it has a 50-foot cut and it was
higlily questionable whethe~ or no thst intersection cauld take place there, and that by
moviny It to the other side of th.: mountain would be p~~tting another brick in the wall to
move Weir Canyon Road to the east.
Chatrman Tolar Indicated it was his opinion everyonc wants a stx-lane highway as lon~ as
it runs rl~ht next to their property so that they can have eccess onto it, but they ali
want i t oi~ someone e 1 se's property.
Commisslnner King indicated it seems you cannof please eve rybody.
Phillip Sc'riwartzQ, Assist~n*. Director for Planning, referred to tl~e Land Use and
Circulation Element adopted a year ago and pointed out that as develapment moves furCher
east, more reque~;ts for General Pian interpretations will be cropping up and mare
prcciseness concerning the General Plan in terms of circulation and land use wlll be
neednd. Ne stated o~~ of the reasons for this hearing is that staff i:, continually
queried abou~ the Interpretation of the General °lan,and their rule of thumb is that if
ther•e is a natura) or man-made boundary and you would have a dlfferencc on one side or the
other, such as a freeway which wc~uld be a good man•made boundary and separate land uses o~
a natural boundary~ such as a hlll, peak~ valley or something that separates Cwo kinds of
land uses, and that this was the thought behind the circulatton patterns presented. He
4/10/78
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APR~I 1Q~ 1978 7R-277
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT N0, 212 ANO GENEML PLAN AMCNDMENT N0~ 146 (continued)
sf~ted it was his Interpreteti~n of the Gene~al Plan that mc~ving Komething IQ00 feet is
not in keeping wlth the plan as A rule of thumb; It may only mean ~ small distance on the
map but when It chengcs the Intcnt on o~e sidc of the hill or Che other at that polnt, It
is steff's recommendation that the Planning Commisslon Is the policy maker of the City and
the ite m is bruught before che Commisston to give thHm tl•P oppo ~tunlty to interpret the
ptan. Ne stated the Pl~nnlny Department ts concerned about tliis beceus~ the~e ere
imminent dev~lapments in [ha ~~r.~a end every day things will occur which wlll conttnue to
reduce :he number of optlons (f the Plannin~ Cammisslon desi~es to exercise dn edditlonal
optlon In terms of circulat(on. He staleJ It would nat be too long bef~re they would see
e developrtx:nt plan for the Elauer Ra~~cl~ and that Analielm Ht l ls~ Inc. has been trying for
sorne months to work out o flnalized pla~ for the developmont of the oasterly portlfln of
their property. He stated if It was Chc thouyht of the Planning Commisslon to form a
subcommittee t~ develop some mc~rc preclsz alignment opport~~nitles whlch might be a way to
flnd out what kind of precise alignment plan woul~i be acceptable to the variaus property
owners~ hc dld not know what k.ind of time was being cnnsidered~ but that with the kind of
dynamfe r~pe~At(on golny on at the east end uf the CiCy wlth maJor developments occurrtng~
same optlons could be I~st.
Hc l~dicated thls was just a warning to let the Commissl~n know what wAS going to occur.
Chalrman Tolar (ndic.--ted it was his feeli~7g that Comm(ssioners Herbst and Barnes thought
the Plannine~ Commission should give the landowners something nare tangible than the
Generel Plon bnd that in looking at these plans he was not satisfied that he could give
them an•~thlny more concrPte; he could eppreciate thely d(lemma and that sometlmes
developmenr, f~orces decislons, anci maybe that wac not bad; that maybe the Planning
Commission does have too many altern~~tives to considcr.
Commissioner Nerbst indlcated he ac~reed with Mr. Murcbch's statement regardtng Weir Canyon
Raad's present alignment where it starts through the Bauer Rsnch, that being the flatt'st
part~ and goes through the canyo~ and into the upper ranches~ and since 41e1r Canyon Road
seems to be the main point of disagrecment between the ranches abuttE~t~ Weir Canyo~ Road
and since we know where it is going to come out on Santa Ana Ca~yon Road~ the Bauer Rench
may be the ~tarting point; that if they are in scudies now and eventually will be coming
up witn a prcc:ise development of their own~ the three parties should yet tog~ther and flnd
out where the best alignment weuld be rs it comes out of the Bauer Ranc,h and if it would
be prectical from thelr property. and that he agreed wlth the ide~ of a subcommittee. Ne
stated he realized we do have prob~ems with the Anahelm Hills, 1nc. property at the
prescnt time since immsdlate nlar:, and iract maps are betng studied currently. He
indicated he has no di~agreement with Exhibit B in accordance to Serrano Avertue
rea~ignment arou~d the mountain and thought that roadway could be changed tonight. He
indicated as far as hb nte Vista is concerned, there ls sorne dtsagreement and that as far
as Vista Del Rio is concerned. it will be rt~oved because it now goes through existing
~racts end that it could be moved son~ewhere ln alignment with Exhil~it B to service the
houses that art going into that area~ and he would heve no obJection tc that. He
indicated he did not agree wlth Paul Singer that Via Escollo 3hould be upgraded snd asked
Mr. s::,;c; ar~out the t~emendous cuts that would have to be done to cross the ridgetop.
Paul SinQer Indlcated the reason they were ~equnsting Via Escollo be upgraded to a
socat-dary is for two speciflc reasons: that a study conducted by Weston, Pringte b
Assoclates for Anaheim Hills~ Inc. has shown a deficfency in Nohl Ranch Road to the
paralle) facillty to Via Esc~llo, and this portion of the roadway is going to be close to
ove~-capacity at some tlme in ihe futurr~ a~d the other reason ts the ~xtension of Serrano
4/10178
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APaIL 10~ 1978 78-~78
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT t~0. 146 (continued)
Ave~ue to Taft over thc hill is stil) tn question,end untl) Se~rano Avenue Is settled ~r
const~ucted,he felt Vta Escollo should be kept on thc Ge-~~ral Plan.
Commissloner Herbst r~sked Mr. Singer if 5errano Avcnue Is put down through Into Ora~nqe~
which evldently has sterted~ wc ~ld he still want tha t upgradeJ~ end Mr. Singer roplled
they would I~ave to laok at lt +,yaln to s•~c what Impaet Serrano Avenue wc~uld make on Nohl
Rench I~ad because It Is supposed ta serv(ce o parallel facllity.
Commissi~ner Herbet Indicated he had some reservation s about running that type of ro~d
across the rldgetop stnce it ts g~i~g to be an estate arae or waul:t ba very law denslty~
and he did not feei that type of ~oaJ wuu1J ~a consi:tant with chP development.
Paul Singer pointed out he was looking at ft from ~ circulation stendpoint; that if
Sarrano Avenue does not extend southerly and h~ve a good cnrnection westnrly to the
freeway~ all the trafftc wtll flow nor•therly tawards Santa Ana Cenyan Road and impact Nohl
'tanch Road~ and that there would be no way to yet to Impertai from there unless you have
Via Escollo.
Commissioner Herbst clarifled that th(s wuuld be imp a cting frnm Serreno Avenuc to Nohl
Ranch Road and asked if Imperial Ilighway was scheduled to be extended.
Mr. Singer polnted out that extension of Imperial Hi ghway would be declded next Wedne~sday;
thst there are questtons as far as Imperial and Ser~ ano are concerned. 11e stated Serrano
Avenue would lessen the impact on Via Esco{lo~ but if Serrano is not bullt, trAffic would
stlll heve to get tA Imperial in order to take th~ loop cfown~ and that the whole question
of Via Escollo depends upon the extension of Serrano Avenue ar~ci at the present tin+e that
has n~t baen decided.
CommOssioner Nerbst aske~, w~~y it could not be left as It (s~ and Paul Singcr stated that a
collectur straet could be >'~own and could be used wi th many right-angle corners and offset
Intersect'~ns to pravent straight-tl~rough traffic. He stated a secondary is a straight-
through~ travel connecting-linkage roadway.
Commissione~ Bornes indicated she coulJ see wher~ there was a need for a connector,
depending upon what happens to Serrano, and Gommtssionerl~erbst lndicated, again. that he
would not ltke to see that kind of road across the ridgel(ne.
Chalrman Tolar and Commissloncr Jahnson agreed they would not like to set that type of
road across the rtdgeline either, and Commissione~ J ahnson indtcated he dld n~t see the
need unle~s Anahetm Hllls, Inc. is wa~ting to do s~n+ething in that area n~rtherly of Via
Escollo. Fie stated the Commiss(on would come obreast of that problem when plans dn come
in.
There was a response from the audien.c that there is a grading plan and an environmental
impact report being prepared for that area.
Commissloner Herbst referred to Exhiblt B and the e llmination of Yista Del Rio with Monte
Yista cuttl~g Into Serrano and suggested leaving MWnte Vlsta Road as (t is and moving
Vista Del Rio over to act as a crossroad be hvnen Mo nte Vista and Serrano io service the
residential communtty in that area. Pau) Singer s t ated lt would depend upon the land use
permitted in that area~ and Cnmmissloner Nerbst sta ted that right now it is deslynated
estate d~~sity.
4/to/78
MiNUTES~ A~~NIIEIM CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ APa1L 10, 197~ 78-279
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. Z12 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 146 (conttnued)
Commissionar B+erne~ steted where Monte Vlste Road goes dicRatrs where W~ir Cenyon Ro~d
w( I I go~ ao tt forces Welr Canyon Rosd to the east.
Mr. Singar polnted out th~ connection referred ta by Commisstoner Herbst would fell ~t the
same genere) polnt es one of the al ignr~ents c±f Welr Canyon Road as shown.
Cummiss ioner Barnes i ndl cated this 6 s why she fel t the Planni ng Commt ss ion shoul d be very
carafuj about this; thet they may end up with twa arterlal htghways a block apart.
PAUI Singor indicnted as lnng As tha designation ~f eStetQ density rematns, he felt Monte
Viste~ os stiawn~ could service that parttcuisr area; that It al l depends upon the land use
allawed in that ar~a.
Commfssloner Johnson ~eferred Co the eliminatlon of Vlsta Del Rlo and asked if that area
of land wes too large to service wlthout any roads going through~ and Peul Singer replied
thero would bs about $00 9cres wlthout ~ny access other thon Weir Canyon Road. He polnted
out the major commerclal area ls Imperial Nighway anc± that car triqs would be attracte,d to
that ored.
Commissioner f3arnes IndicAted if that area is to be developed with estate density~ there:
does not seem to be any need for o col lectar street.
There was a general dl~cussion with the Traffic Engineer concerning the eltminatton of
Vista De) Rlo and thc number of uni[s and ca~ trips per day~ with M~. Singnr polnt(ng out
that there has to be sAme way to ge[ to We( r Canyon Road end that Wei r Canyon aoad Is
planned to be an expressway wi th Ilmi ted access.
Commissloner Johnson suggested leaving Monte Vista in the General Plan and eliminattng
Vista Del Rio.
After a 4rlef d(scuss(on ~.,f thn various ex;~ibits and whether c~r not one fitted the
discussion regarding the eliminat(ng of ~iista Del Rlo and Icaving Monte Vtsta on thc
General Plen~ Commissioner Nerbst suggest~d elimination of Vista Qel Rio and realignment
of Serrano Avenue as dep i cted on PI an B as p ~esen ted by Anahe t m N t 1 I s~ I nc. ~ i nd i cat I ng he
had no probiemwith that alignment.
Or. Ludw(ck Indicated that would make an imposslble intersect(on which would mave che
allgnment~~ making an Imposstble alig~ment to 41etr Canyon Road.
Ron Smith pofnted out the realignment of Serrano Avenue close to Anaheim Hills, Inc.
propcrty and the al ig~ment of Welr Canyon Road as suggestcd by the County and where
intersecttons would be occurrinq.
Mercia Forsythe lndlceted she ~~ished Yo enforce wha~ Dr, Ludwick had stated~ that what
seems co be an Pnsignf(cant actlon in the realignment of Serrano Avenue could actually
~~reclude cJQi r Canyon Road beiny aligned in accordance w(th the County al ignments, and that
by makir~q a small action they are linsi tin9 consideration t~ the al ignment of Wetr Canyon
Road; that every smai 1 thtng affects the other thing; that they have done vertical studias
and that the terrain is rough in the area and they felt the Plan~tng Commission will be
box i ng thems e I ves i n by mak i ng ctiat dec i s i on ~ and tha t i s why they wou 1 d 1 i ke to ~ee the
enginee~s si t down s~d discuss it.
4~~0/78
MINUTES~ A~~AHEIM CtTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 10~ 1978
78-z 79
ENVIRONMENTAL _IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND QENERA~ L PLAN AMENOMENT N0. 146 (conttnued)
Commissinner Ba~ne~ stated wher~ hbnte Vista Roed goea dir.tates where W~Ir C~nyon Ror~d
wi 11 go. so t t forces Wet r Cenyon Road to th~e east.
M~. Singe~' polnted o ut the connectlon referred to by Commissl~ner Herbst would fel) at the
same ganara) point es one of the alignments of Wetr Canyon Road es shawn.
Con-missioner aarnas indlcated thls is why she felt the Planning Commissfnn should be very
careful about this; that they may ~nd up with two arterfal highways a block apart.
Paul Singer indlc~ate d as l~ng as the designatio~ of estate denalty remalns, h~ felt Monte
Vista~ as shawn~ ~:oul~- ~~rvice that particular area; that it all depends upon the land use
allnwed (n that erea.
Commissioner Johnson refe rred co the ellminatlon of Vlsta Ucl Rlo and asked if that arna
of land was too la~~ge to sarvice without any roads g~ing throuqh~ and Paul Singer replled
there would be about H00 acres without any access other than Weir Canyon Roed. He polnted
out the maJor comme:~clat area is Impcr(al Highway a~d that car trips would be attracted to
that aroe.
Comm~ssloncr ~arnes indicated if that arca is to be developed wlth estate dcnsity~ the~e
does not seem to be any need for a coileccor street.
'fhGre was a general dlscusslon with the Traffic Engineer concerning the eliminatlon of
Vista Del Rio and tf~e numbar of unlts snd car trips pcr day, wlth Mr. Singar polnting out
that thera has to b e some way to get to Welr Canyon Road and thac Welr Canyon aoad is
plsnned to be an exp~essway wi th 1 imlted access.
Commissloner Johnso ~ suggested leaving Monte Vlsta in the General Plan an~ eliminating
Vista pel Rio.
After a brltf dlsc usylon of tha vartous exhibits and wheiher or not one fittr_d the
discussion r~gardin g the elimtnating of Vlsta Del Rlo end le~ving Mante Yista on the
Genera) Plan~ Commissioner Nerbst suggested elimtnat(on of Vista Del Rio and re~lignment
of Serrano Avenue as depict~ed on Plan g as presented !~y Anaheim Hills. Inc., indicating he
had no prob lom wl th that al i gnment.
Dr. Ludwick tndicated that vrouid make an impossible intersection whlch would mo~re the
alignmants, making an impossible ali9nrn~nt to Weir Canyon Road.
Ron Smith pointed o ut the realignment of Ser~ano Avenue close to Maheim Hills. Inc.
property and the alig~~me~t of Weir Canyon Road as suggested by the County and where
intersections would be occ~rriny.
Marcia Farsythe in dic~te d she wished to enforce what Dr. Ludwick had stated, that what
seems to be an Insignflcant ~ction in the realignment of Serrano Avenue could attually
preclude ~~eir Canyon ~osd bei~g aligned in accordance with the County al(gnrrKnts, and that
by meking a small actton they are limfting constd~ration to the allgnment of Weir Canyon
Road; that evary srt~ll thing affects the other thing; that they have done vertica) studies
and that the tsrratn Is rougn in the area and ihey feit the Planning Commissian wil) be
boxing themselves in by rr.aking that decision, and that is why they would like to see the
engineers sit ~a~vn and dlsc~ss it.
4/t0/7~
MINUTES~ ANAHlIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ APRIL 10~ 197~
~c~-z~o
~wVIRANMFIJTA{. IMPACT REPORT N0. 21x AND GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT N0. 14G (co~tin~~ed)
Commissioner Herbst indfcatad he f~it Vista Dal Rlo could be aliminated end ha did not
agraa o~ u{~gradi~g Vla Escollc-~ ~,nd that the only change he could make tonight would be
that allgnment. Ne felt thec sincp the aligrnnent of Wei~ Canyo~ Road ~eems to be the
whole problem, end since Welr Ca~yon Road is destgneted ~n expressway wlth limited
access~ he wuuld not want to meke that declsion and fol~ !t does need more precise study.
Chntrmon Tolar indicatad he could ayree on those two chanqes~ and Phillip ~chwartz~
suggested that 9~$ of the problems could be takan care of on this General Plan amendme~t
If everyone was happy with everything west of the Newpart ~recway.
Ron Smtth polnted out that Cxhibit A with thc 1G changes as suygestad by the englneering
steff~ with the elim{r~ation of Vlsta ae1 Rlo tiYith Vla f•,scollo remainlnq as It is~ could be
appr~ved. Ile polnted out some g~aidAncP Is needed conccrning Serreno since tl~e grAding
plans are going to be submltted.
Chalrman Tol~r indlcated hp felt if Exhlblt A was adopced wlth the two modlfications
rocomme+ndad~ it would be general enough in nAture and close enough to the Gene~al Plan
thet engineers of the property awners end the committea could get tog~ther and com~ up
with e more preclsc alignment.
Cortmissionar Barnes tndicated she did not feel any purpose would be served by getting
NACMAC and the Planning Commisston mertbers together until the property owners have declded
what is econan{cally feaslble for them.
Chairman Tolar indicated he dld not fecl they would get together unless th~ Plan~ing
Comnission Instructed thcm to, and that was the reasan he wovld Ilke a comnittee to be
formed.
Commisslon~r Barnes indicated sf~e agreed with getting togethcr and f.:lt they should have
the enginea+'s' stuciy done before they get together.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Conmissioner Barnes offered Resolutlon No. PC78-76 and moved for Its passage and
aci~' piion, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission adopt and racommend to the City
Council adoptlon of Exhibit A as modified to retain V(a Escollo as a"hiliside collector"
and dcleting Vista Dal Rio from the plan~ ~epres~nting the exist(ng Circulatlon Element
with the addition of the "Uov+ntown Anaheim Schematic", inclusive of the recomn~~dations of
the Redevelopment Commission and 13 Polictes~ and which replaces the Arterial Nighways and
itights-of-Way Maps as well as Exception List ~s part of the General Plan be adopted.
On roll call, the foregoing ~resolution was passed by the foltowing vote:
A`fES: COtiMISSI0NER5; BARNES, DAVIU, NERBST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: LOMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COl1MISSIONERS: NONE
Phillip Schwartze pointed out he did not feel the realignment of Serrano Avenue was in
conformance with the General Plan F,ased on the ter~ain~ etc.
Chairman Tolor pointed out one of tha reasons they had taken this action was because they
felt they needed more enginesering stu~les~ and tnay felt the property owners should get
4/10/78
t
MINUTE5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 1Q~ 1978 78-281
ENVIRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 14G (contlnued)
together to evaluats thn fnterse+ctlon and give the Plrnning Lommi~slon the kind of
directto~ they need.
Philllp Schwartza polr-ted out plans arc I~ for g~ading approvr~l and if It is the Planning
Commisslon's intentton that they want no activity in the~ areo unttl thr ellgnme~t Is
retu~ned to the Plenning Commisslon, then they shauld make that clerr.
Commisaloner Linn pointad out th+~t maybQ the staff is thc vehicle for getting thls meeting
organlzed and efter the meeting Is over~ he would ltke to s~:e somc recommend~tlons; that
he felt on whtch slde of the hill the ~Ilynment is going to go (s critlcal.
Commissloner Ne~bst indicated it would be a yond idea to find out rlght naw whether or not
these four property vwners could get together and how long it would takc them to get thelr
eng(neering studies togPthor bcfore meeting.
Cortmissioner Barnes pointed out tfiat time is nf the essence and that she did not
partlcularly 1(ke to hold people up with ihal~ developments.
There wes a dlscusslon among the property owners, wlth the ~eneral consensus being that
they could get toqether in about a two-week period.
Commisstoner Bar~es asked Phillip Schwartze to make it hls responstblllty for ca111ng
these people to_yether.
Phillip Schwartze pointed out It wes I~is interpretation that tt~c gradina plnn was not in
confornwnce with the General Plan.
Phillp Bettencourt polrted out they had preparcd a plan and thla is the risk they ere
taking; that the g~adtng plan was based o~ a logic ! aiignment; that tt is staff's opinian
it is not in conformance end half the Commission thtnks tt fs in con`ormance. and they do
not want to preclude whatever opt(ons the other property avne~s have~ but that they cannot
prep~+re their plans in confidence.
Run Smith po~nted out there are differences shown on the cxisting General Plan and thc
alignment shown on xhe topograph(cal model.
Chalrman Tolar poi~ted out it shpws the alignment going across the highest peak when it
could go on the floar of the canyon or duwn the side of a hill, which would not be in
conformance wich che General Plan.
Commissloner 8arncs pointed out the fir~ road in the alignment showr~ on the topog~aphical
model was quite a distance from that of the Canyo~ Plan.
Mr. I~orst Schor~ rtpresenting Anaheim NYlls~ Inc.~ pointed out the raad could be built to
handle a 45 m.p.h. speed ltmli and that t~tis ~oad meets the City Engine~r's staneards.
Commis!~ioner Herbst indicated he would De wllling to sit on the committe~ to discuss che
alignments for Weir CanyQn Road and Ser~ana Avenue~ etc.
Cormissioner Barnes asked Phillip Sthw~rtze to repeat his interpretation of' the General
Plan as she felt that was the way the Planning Commission fe0t about interpretatlon of the
Gencral Plan.
Phillip Schwartze indicateJ he could not remember the ~xact words he had used, aut the~e ;
are technical aspects a~sd that attttudes do differ~ but to him the int~rpretatiari he ~
shares with the Planning Division staff is that the General Pla~ cannot bn construed as ~
4/to/78 ~
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ APRIL IQ~ 1918
~a-za2
ENVIRUNMENTAL IMPACT RE~ORT N0. 21Y A~~O GENERAi. PLAN AMENDMEFJT N0. 146 (cantl~ued)
bainy preclse. Ne polnted out on the back of tt~e Gencral Plen there Is a lot of wrltl~g
which Is also a mttiqatlny factor~ but that If the lntent cl~snges fram one side of the
mountaln to tha other, whcther it is because c~f thA to~c~gra~hy or e mon-m~de ar natural
bounds~y and the lntent of whot you are try~ng to do with thP iand use~ a chanqe of $00
feet or 1000 fcet Is significant. He st~ted th~t most people generAlly look et the
Gonerel Plsn as balnca vary procis~, but that It 1~ ~~neral.
Commisaloner Ba~nes polnted out that since the ma}or d~vclopprs ere present~ shc would
like them to take into thetr cnnslderatlon this was her vlew of I~tr.rpretatlon of the
Genarol Plan.
Cheirm~n Tolar recommcnded that since most of the peoplc tnvolved in che meetings are
present tn~~~ht, he would likc t~ ask Lynn Buff{ngtan af HACHIIC, Lewis Herhst and
Commis5loner BarnPs if they would be w111(ng to serve on thc cc~~M~~lttee and ~~skcd them to
decide tonlght when they cen get together.
Jack M1hl tc. UeputY CI ty Attornr.y ~ po{nted out he I~aJ no problcm wi th thAt ~ b~-t that ihey
should set a dAtn tonight and steff comc back with a datc certain.
Commissioner Barnes polntcd ou-. that there are four diffcrent property owners in
dtsagraement and that they wnre gain~ to have ta come back with s~me agreemnnt~ and when
they carr-~ to the me~ting they should comc prepared that eve rything Is not going to be one-
sided. 't has to be sati:.factory to all the properCy owners~ and they should be prepared
wlth some comnromise (deas of their own.
Philllp Schwartze pointed out they would set up e meeting and come back to the Planning
Commtssion ir~ fo~~r v!eeks and that sometlme during that pe~iod the rre~etings will be held~
but they will be bsck wlth a recorm~endatlon in four wecks.
Dr. Ludwick asked if a mn~atoriucn could be placed an this property s(nce she has hesrd
some mention of grading ~lans~ etc.
Chairtnan Tolar pointed out it is very important that all property a+ners underscand the
Planning Commission tS ~ot ~trying to railroad anybody, but that these people are ready to
develop thelr property.
pr. Ludwick indicated her feeling that once these things are settled, options would be
removed.
The property awners present left the Council Chamber.
PARK ( NG _SPACES FOR PLANti I NG C~~-"M~ ~_ SS ~ ~M_ ERS
Cammlssioner Herbst indicated lie hed observed the parking spaces on Claudina Street had
been vacant all day and he felt the ''ianning Commissloners should be allowed to utillze
those spaces~ particularly in ~riew of the fact the other nearby parking lots are
overcravded.
~ommissiner Herbat offered a m~tion~ saconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED
UNANiMOUSLY that. due to the perking shortage fn the parking tots behind City Hall, that
the Planning Commissionars b~e allowed to park in those spots designed `or "Council Members
Only" on Claudina Strest on Planning Commission meeting days only.
4/10/78
~'~ ~~l
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRII 10, 1978 78•Z83
ADJOURNMENT There ba(n~ no furthBr business~ Commisilener pavid offered a matton~
seconded by Conmtsaloner Kin~ and MOTIOPI CARRIEU~ thet the maattng ba
adJaurnad.
Tha meettnq ad,journed at 9:50 p.m.
Raspectfully submlttad~
'~,~.,~ .~ 2~..~.
Edlth l.. Marri~~ Secr~t~~ry
Anahatm Ctty Plan~ing Con-m(ssln
ELNthm
4/i417~