Minutes-PC 1972/10/30l~
~
~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
October 30, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLAAINING COMMISSION
REGULAR - A ~•.;lar meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commissior_ was
MEEmING called to order by Chairman Seymour at 2:00 p.m., a quorum
being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour. .
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herb~t. Y.aywood,
Rowlanci.
ASSENT - COMM2SSIONERS: Noae.
PRESENT - Assistant llevelopment Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Frar.k Lowry
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don Mc Daniel
Commission Secretasy: Ann Krebs
PLi~DGE OF - C:ommissioner Ruwland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Appr.~val of the minutes of the meeting of October 18, 1972,
THE MINUTES w~~ deferred to November 13, 19i2.
VARIANCE NO. 2430 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. UNION GIL COMPANY, 461 South
Boylston, 7os Angele„ California 90017, Owner; ARNE C.
BELSBY, Mini Warehouse Corporation, 5600 Orangethorpe,
No. 704, La Palma, California 90620, Agentj requesting WAIVER OF NINIMUM
NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS TO ESTABLISH A STORP.GE WAREHOUSF ~a property
descrlbed as: An irregularly-shaped parc~l of land consisting o£ approximately
5 scres, having a frontage of approximately 592 £eet on the norih side of La
Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximatelp 520 feet, and being
located at the northwest corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues. Property
presently classified M-1, LIG;~T TNDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of August 21 at the request
of the petitioner; September 6 and 18 for the submission of revised plans;
and October 2, 1972 for the submission of an Environmental Impact Reiost.
Chairman Seymour noted that since the petitioner had not submitted an Environ-
mental Impact Report, the Commission was unable to consider the item at public
hearing.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRiED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2430
to the meeting of November 27, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to
submit an Environmental Impact Report as required by law.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. 2NCOME EQUITY LIMITE,D OR INTERNATIONAL
REPOFc: NO. 31 6, INC., 901 Dover Drive, Suite lf'2, Newport Seach,
California 92660, Owners! J& B SIGN COMPANY, Henry
VARIANCE NO. 2453 Chuba, 7562 Acacia Dri~e. Garden Grove, Califusnia
92641, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A
FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ERECT A 50-F~OT HIGH FREE-
STANDING SIGN on property described as: Ar irregularly-shaped parcel of land
havinq a frontage of appraximately 225 feet on the south side of Ball Road,
having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet and being located approxi-
mstely 123 feet east of Palm Street. Property presently classified C-0,
COMMERCIAL-0'r'FICE~ ZONE.
72-689
~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 ~2-69~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 31 AND VARIANCE NO. 2453 (Continued)
Chairman Seymour ncted.that although the petitioner had submitted his Env:iron-
mental Impact Report, it had not been received in sufficient time for sta£f to
prepare a report for the Review Committee, thezefore, he would e_~tertain a
motion for. continuance of subject petition for two weeks to all~w time for
this review.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred an~3
MOTION CARRIED, tA continue consideration of Environmental Impact Report 1Vo.
31 and Variance No. 2453 to the meetir.g of November 13, 1972, to allow time
for the Review Committee to ana].yze the Environmental Impact Report. submitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PRESENTED BY ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC. AND TEkACO VENTURES~
REPORT N0. 2 INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806,
filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1350 (EIR No. 2) and Conditional Use Permit No. 1348
REPORT NO. 4 (EIR No. 4); property consisting of 25 and 36 acres
respectively on the south side of Serrano Avenue, east
of Nohl Ranch Road.
Cnai.rman Seymour no±~d that the Planning Comaission at the last public hearing
had taken action on Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1348 and 1350 and had continued
the Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) to allow the Commission more time to
study the reports, and then requ;:sted that Assistant Zcning Supervisor pon
MeDaniel brief.ly summarize the Report to the Commissicn.
Mr. McDaniel reviewed the impact on public utilities, community facilities and
public services, as well as vehicular access and transportation, impact of
traffic noise, socio-economic impact regarding schools and recreation facili-
ties, impact on landform and the natural systems as it pertained to cut and
fill slope landscaping, and impact on landform as it pertained to grading in
this area, concludinq by stating that the EIR Review Committee had noted that
Anaheim Hills had not presented acceptable alternatives to the progosed devel-
opment or discussed it in their report, and were of the opinion that it would
appear _here was a myriad of alternatives between the two extremes, i.F.,
develop as proposed or leave as is, therefore, the Planning Commission might
wish to determine whether the applicant should submit additional i.nformation.
Commissioner Gauer noted he would like to review the two types of development,
this and Rolling Hills in Yorba Linda; that he did not know if there was a
similarity in terrain oi type of soil, but the residents in Rolling Hills were
experiencing cracking in the ground and house, walls and foundations; that
these people were very concerned; that they did not know whether this was
caused by subterranean water or decomposed granite or whether the pads had too
much fil1, but more cracking was observed, and there was no rain to speak of
which might cause this.
Chairman Seymour noted that Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry had a3vised the
Commission in a morning work session that the Commission's primary concern
with EIR's was to evaluate them and make recommendations to tne City Council,
the elected body who were charged with making the Environmenta7. Impact State-
ment, and it was not the prerogative of the Planning Commission to deny an
EIR, but they could suggest that a report meet the intentions of the standards
established by the City o£ Anaheim or that it did not meet them, and suggest
alternative measures, such as requiring that an addendum be submitted as
3iscussed before the Planning Commission.
Mr. James Sarisic, representing Anaheim Hills and Texaco Ventuzes. Inc.,
appeared before the Commiseion and stated that staff han indicated ~hat the
supplement as presented to the Planning Commission could only be treated as
a part ef the original EZR for the entire ranch, and there was no attempt to
separate the ranch since the first public hearing was held; that this was not
brought into focus, and those that were had been stated in the £irst ~:eport;
that in Jur.e, 1972, they had prepared an EIR for FHA, and this was filed with
the City in August with both the Planning Commission and the City Council;
that during the latter part of August, the Planning Commission haa •~isited
Anaheim Hills and had reviewed the statement whila getting the "feel" of the
land to see that the statements in the report were being car~~.ed ouc; that
Anaheim Hills had been on the property for several years, and as they got
farther along, they became more precise in land use and what was a good
~
.~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-691
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N03. 2 ANU 4(Continued)
master planned community; th>c they had 22 meetings witti the Planning Commission
and 17 with the City Council already; that an at;:empt was made in the meetings
with the Planning Commission to determine what the impact would be, and they
felt this would be a positive impact; that he had reviewed the report regarding
the EIR and would quickly review some of the areas of concern, namely, the
impacc report addressed itself as to public utilities use and how would the two
conditional use permits be serviced as to utilities; would they be adequate for
what was proposed.; and who would pay for it. Mr. Barisic noted that the City
of Anaheim had a:~~ays been very kind to developers, but the City's departments
were very tough in their requirements; that Anaheim Hills had installed almost
90$ of the utilities to service the property and wer.e now working on storm drainsi
that they would bond and construct the storm drains as a cost to the builder;
that they had also installed an underground du.~t system at ±he developer's cost;
that the water facilities were now built als~ at co~~t to the developer, and they
would continue t~ build these facilities; that they had added to ~he Orange Count}
Water Sanitation No. 2, although the City af Anaheim had constructed the main
trunk lines; that Anaheim Hills had also iristalled gas lines and 12 KV lines
through Oak Canyon to the top of the sloper Which would also be extended to the
Hallcraft development when necessary; that every attempt had been made to under-
ground the electrical lines as much as possible, and the company had given their
guarantee that they would not have overhead lines along Nohl Ranch Road, and
where the golf course was constructed, they would place additional underground
lines, therefore. he felt that they had not neglected the utilities because these
cvere a'_1 stated in the PC Zone booklet presented to the City Council; that there
was a two-lane, all-weather road from Santa Ana Canyon Road to the limit of the
property presently under development or anticipated for development it; the im-
mediate future; that he was aware of the fact that staff indicated a3ditional
access was needed, but these, too, were iadicated when the PC Zone was approved;
that they attempted to project the traffic counts and had worked with the City
to e~stablish additional access to and from the pzoperty; that they recognized
that there were not fully paved roads into the properties in every direction
of t1~e ranch; that they had been working with the City regarding the extension
of Nohl Ranch Road, which would be done next year from Imperial Highway to
Anaheim Hills Road; that they had also been working with the County regarding
Serrano Avenue going southerly and extending Serrano Avenue northeast to tie
in with Santa Ana Canyon Road, which was projected for extension to the south
in two years and to the northeast in four to five years; that at the present
time there was not just one road into Anaheim Hills but there were a number of
roadways which could be used in event of an emergency, even though they had not
planned for development of the roads, they could be used to allow traffic in
and out of the property for emergency purposes; that they had been work:ng with
City staff on the entire circulation element for several years, and as they
progressed with their development plans outside of the PC Zone, they knew there
would be a need for additional accessp and that they intended to work with the
City to provide this.
Mr. Barisic then nated that the report on their impact was covered very well,
and the developer had indicated at the previous meeting the manner in which he
would take care of sound problems adjacent to arterials.
Mr. Barisic, commenting on the school aspect, stated that the City of Orange,
the City of Anaheim, and th~ Orange ;~~:iified School District had to determine
the number and quality of sch.ools that would be needed for this entire area,
but he would like to state that he had been working with Mr. Platt, Business
Manager of Orange Unified School District, having set the sights so that they
could ease any burden to the school distric!:, and h~ would assure the Commission
that there would be adc:quate facilities with as little stress on the school
district as possible.
Commiesioner Rowland ir:quired what was really meant by that statement, since
after having read newspaper articles regarding the meetinq r~ferred to, they
indicated the City of Orange and the school district did not know what was
going to happen. while the City of Anaheim took the position that the City had
nothing to do with schools because the schaol district:. were autonomous; that
the City af Orange asked who ~•ould hplp their tax base if the tax base was for
the City of Anaheim, while they had to supply the schools, therefore, the only
thing constructive he derived from the newspaper articles was to look to the
State for school aid. In addition, he understood that it was not wise to burden
the Orange Unified School District with purchasing land too far in advance for
these needs since there were 17 to 18 school sites proposed for the ranch, and
inquired what was planned for the 640-acre PC area as it pertained to schools.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-692
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 2 AND 4(Continued)
Mr. Barisic replied that an elementary and junior high school were proposed at
this time, which the Orang= Unified School District indicated was sufficient
to take care of the nee~?~ for this development according to statisti.cs on file
with the school distric.t; that about a month ago he had given the school
district a building u=e schedule which indicated 600 to 700 units per year were
planned, and a map i~.idicating the location of these units was also presented so
that the sch~•. district cou].d plan future school locations, and then in re-
sponse to a q~t:stion by Commissioner Herbst, stated that they had projected the
number of students that aould come from the area, and this rae based on the
::'~~ school's'calculation by type of dvellinq units.
._.__ . _.. .. _._... , ,
Comonissioner Ba ood noted that the sohool distriot s roblem ~as not ]rnowin where the mene
im. The problems go beyond the i
would come £ro ~o build all of the neW Sschooi a~stra~tn All ~ g ~ Y ~
boundary linas of the City and different of the children must receive a
good eduoation. _,_
_.... . _,. _ _. .. . _ . _ ._. _ ..~ . ._
Mr. Bariaic noted that ths achool'~ problsa was not one of the isaediate tiDe,
but three to four years from now, because they were doing long-range planning.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the one high school planned at Imperial
Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road would he sufficient to handle the additional
students; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated, to his knowle.dge, it would, while the
junior h.igh school and elementary school would handle a portion of the require-
ments, however, it was difficult to project other areas of the ranch, such as
Northridge, etc., as to school population, and the only statistics they had
were based upon their studies where four schools were indicated, which would be
adequate to handle students from the PC Zone.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether these four sites had been set aside and
would the land be donated; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that the sites would
not be donated but Anaheim Hills would make it as easy as possible for the
school district; that he had talked with the Orange Unified School District
Board of Trustees, and the first two sites were selected and the acquisition
rate was projected; that they had set aside a 25-acre flat area, or a gross aF
45 acres, for both the junior high school and an elementary school which were
contiguous and on both sides of Serrano Avenue and also abutted the Edison right-
of-way which was being designed for a public hiking and riding trail system.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that although she had not attended the meeting of
the City Council of the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange with the Orange
Unified School District, from newspaper reports it would appear that both the
City of Orange and the Orange Unified School District were very fearful of the
entire development project of Anaheim Hills if, in the future, there would be
no schools available; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that one could not always
believe what one read in the newspapers, but as he understood it, after having
worked with Mr. Platt for some time and reviewir.g a map which indicated these
would be the first two school sites, there would be no problem in the next two
years, although the school district was doing long-range planning.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the schools in Villa Park were going on two
sessions a day, and when Canyon High School was completed, there would be
sufficient students presently in the Villa Park High School to fill the new
high school when built.
Mr. Barisic noted that Mr. Platt was very aware of the need for a flat site
for another high school, and if no schools were available, they would have to
tell people purchasing the homes t}tC t~:~rc were insuf£icient school facilities.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that in the original Anaheim Hills General Plan of
Development prepared by Chapman Phillips, etc., there were eleven elementary
schools proposed - and then read from the report, noting the areas where
elementary schools were proposed - and then stated that it now appeared the
number of schools had been reduced to only two.
Mr. Barisic replied that this was not correct because when the report was first
published, Anaheim Hills was planning the area for 45,000 people and 15,000
dwelling units, but as they became more precise in their planning, they had
reduced the density by about 20a, and when this reduction was projected for
school requirements, it would also reduce the requirement for additional
school facilities - this was one reason why they had to work so closely with
the Orange Unified School District, because now they knew how many schools
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOFT NOS. 2 AND 4(Continued)
72-693
would be needed; that four schools would serve the PC Zone, or about 700 acres;
that tnere would be other school sites in other areas, and before plans were
even considered for gradinq those areas, they would plan the school sites with
the Orange Unified School District.
Mr. Barisic then reviewed the recreational facilitzes, stating that the City
Council had recently formalized an 81-acre park for the PC Zone area, whereas
only 21 acres would be required; that several parks were planned, one being
next to Nohl Ranch Road, another one being next to the reservoir; that another
51-acre site was proposed next to the American Housing Guild, which was alco
very close to Hallcraft; that the City Council had also established a mainte-
nance district for hiking and riding trails, and their company wanted to estab-
lish more of these trails; that there were some along Hidden (;anyon Road, and
these trails would criss-cross the entire ranch; that they planned to build the
equestrian center in the next year for those who wanted to bring their horses
or rent them; that tennis facilities were also planned to be built next year;
and that from this it would appear there were considerable recreational
facilities.
Mr. Sarisic then notEd that Finding No. 4 made reference to adequate landscap-
ing, which they proposed to provide to prevent erosion; that these slopes were
created at considerable expense and would be planted and maintained by the
association itself, thereby guaranteeing perpetual maintainance and landscaping
in accordance with the City's specifications; that they had already been obli-
gated to have irrigation facilities on the slopes that would not be within the
aforementioned area, and many slopes would have timing devices with valves to
prevent overwatering; that a great deal of conservation as it pertained to soil
stabilization had been proposed, and he wanted to assure the Commission that this
would be in conformance and blend in with existing landforms - every attempt had
been made for soil stabilization since the ranch had been under study for the
past ten years, and what they planned for the ranch would be more stable than
what was there be£ore; that on the slopes, these would be with Gunnite and
terraced for runoff and planted; that they had been trying to have the manu-
factured slopes blend in with the natural slopes; that the Commission must take
into consideration the original impact report, not just the alternatives for
use of the property because in the original report thera were four to five
alternatives rather than what staff indicated, because they had given careful
analysis to the terracing along hillsides, an3 alternatives were presented in
the original report; and that he had tried to review the staff report and the
impact, because he felt they had tried to give consideration to every impact
possible to the area.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised Mr. Barisic that the comment regard-
ing alternatives was his own as a member of the Review Committee. although he
realized there were two reports, however, if the Planning Commission felt that
the supplement that was psesented adequately covered what was intended by the
Envir.onmental Impact Report on an area, then this could be accepted, but when
people submitted supplemental reports, it would be of help to the Committee
if a key to areas not covered in the supplement were indicated since it was
difficult to review 30 reports and have to refer to separate reports, which
was almost impossible.
Mr. Barisic noted that a great dea~ of the information was given in the original
report as to alternative grading wherein it would be in accordance with the
City of Anaheim reauirements, and that the PC Zone had been approved by the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Rowland noted that Mr. Barisic had stated the 12 KV lines would
go through Oak Canyon and would be extended to the Hallcraft development
(CUP 1350 and 1348) and inquired whether this meant the lines would be over-
head to Hallcra£t temporarily, and what was meant by "temporary".
Mr. Barisic replied that these lines would be overhead while this development
was under construction, however, they could not firmly fix the location of
the lines on Serrano Avenue until precise plans of development were approved,
particularly because it was difficult to fix an easement.
Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether the lines would be underground when
the development was finished; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that he had informed
the Commission at the last public hearing that they had employed an electrical
s
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 ~2'694
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 2 AND 4(Continued)
cosisulting firm, anA they needed to know the exact number of units and their
approximate location before they could make any statements, and this report
was expected in November. Furthermore, they had gua=anteed the developers
that they would not obstruct the view by any utilities.
Commissioner Seymour noted tizat at the las•`.. public hearing Mr. Bar•~sic had
stated that the Hallcraft and American Guild developments would have the
utility lines undergrounds whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that they would make
every attempt to place these underground, however, they had no precise plans
until the electrical consultant presented his report.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the question as to whether electrical service
could be provided was of importance, particularly since there appeared to be
a coal-gas-oil crisis already upon the nation which involved the supply and
prices of energy for fuel and electricityt that this crisis was caused not 0~.~
by a shortage of materials but because the demand was growing and would double0
by 19E5 because of the growing population and industrialization, and the outcry
for r,leaner environment meant cutting on pollution in the production of vital
energy just at a time when more energy was needed. In addition, it appeared
that the government was now requiring better insulation in their military
buildings and also required better insulation in FHA and VA hoa,es, therefore,
the developer should consider this measure to conserve energy because the
nation could not ignore any of these concerns, and all of the homes in the
Hallcraft development were planned to have air-conditioning units, thus if
each home had an additional 5100 spent for insulation of the walls of the units,
the air-conditioning may not be tiecessary - the natural resources did not go on
forever, and this could mean the City could experience a brown-out - an ounce
of prevention was important.
Commissioner Gauer requested that staff inquire of Parks and Recreation how
much electricity was found to be needed to light the football and baseball
fields; that staff should also ask the Parks and Recreation Department how
they figured the load they would need over a period of years, because if this
entire area were developed with all of the units having air-conditioning, the
recreational facilities' lighting to play football, baseball, or tennis,
particularly since this electrical energy was purchased by the City, then the
suppliers would need permission to build more facilities for electricity f~r
the future demands of this area.
Chairman Seymour inquired whether there was anyone representing Electrical
Utilities on the Review Committee; whereupon Mr. McDaniel noted that although
copies of the EIR's were sent to Utilities, they did not have a representative
present.
Mr. Roberts noted that a representative was psesent at the rirst meeting of
the Committee only, although they had sent copies of these reports, and the
purpose of submitting these reports to them was to obtain feedback on the
needs of these facilities - however, they were present at ICPS&GW meetings,
but the impact reports were not considered by that committee in ihe same manner
as they would be at the Review Committee since their concern would be the
street lights.
Chairman Seymour and Commissioners Gauer and Kaywood expressed strong feelings
that if the Commission as a body was to make an accurate report to the City
Council, this input from the various City staffs was necessary, and if they
were not present at these meetings, perhaps the Commission should make a
recommendation to the City Council that there be representatives at thESe
meetings.
Commissioner Rowland noted that in the past the ~ommission had not been charged
with the responsibility of obtaining that input, but one's aommon sense told
them there were some natural resource problems, but to what degree he did not
know; that the Commission also knew canditions could be placed on a conditional
use permit to help alleviate these problems, such as requiring superior thermal
insulation which could be resolved in the same manner as Hallcraft proposed to
insulate against sound where units were near arterials. Another suggestion
was made, since giant bags for ~ewers would be needed i.n the near future until
such time as the sewer lines were increased; that the Building Department
~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-695
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TtEPORT NOS. 2 AND 4(Continued)
employees and consulting engineers had suggested that each house built in the
City of Anaheim be equipped with pumps on the hot water system, and research
indicated that th ie co~ ~l~,d_ be a reduction of 15 gallons of water per day per
person with these~`p mu ps; wJhich could cut down the need for some of the sewer
disposal systems; that most of the time more water was used while one waited
for the water to get hot; that the Planning Commission had no real influence
on EIR's except to suggest to the City Council whether they were adequate or
not adequate.
Commissioner Farano entered the ~ouncil Chamber at 2:59 p.m.
Commissioner Gauer noted that he had heard speakers from Southern California
Edison Company say that it took four or five yeare to obtain a site and then
to develop it as a plant to produce more energy, and people were using up all
of the energy that Edison was producinq now, thus the public would be faced with
brown-outs in some areas, and Anaheim purchased its power from Edison Company,
thus if there were not sufficient energy-producing plants to serve everyone,
Anaheim would also be faced with brown-outs; that approval of a small portion
of development in Anaheim Hills might not be significant to create a problem,
but when one considered the entire area with many other cities in Orange County.
building at the same rate, how much energy would be needed and how much could
be produced; and that it might be necessary to stop all of this rapid develop-
ment until more energy-producing facilities were built.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-256 and moved for its passage
and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 2 with the following
findings:
1. That Environmental Impact Report t~o. 2 pertains only to the
area considered under Conditional Use Permit No. 1350 and does not
apply to the entire 4200± acre Anaheim Hills property.
2. That the developer shall submit in written form for City Council
consideration data delineating the specific lo~ations of the school
sites that are intended to serve this area, since the developer
indicated that site selection has alreadp been discussed with the
Orange Unified School District.
3. That the statements made by the developer at the Planning
Commission public meeting relative to secondary vehicular circula-
tion, public utilities, recreation facilities (including bicycle
lanes for bicycles or electric carts which may reduce the air
pollution through non-use of automobiles to transport people to
nearby areas), type of landscaping for slope areas to prevent
erosion, and techniques to be used in grading of the slopes shall
be submitted in caritten form to the City Council as an addendum
explaining topics that were not adequately discussed in the
Environmental Impact Report; and recommend to the City Council that
said report be adopted as amended in the findings set forth. (See
Resolution Book)
Prior to roll oall, discussion was further held by the Commission regarZing
setbacks along Serrano Avenue and traffic problems, as well as the resolution
proposed.
Mr. Lowry stated that since the developer had made certain statements, which
if they were in written form could be considered evidence, that would supplement
the concerns expressed by the Review Committee and the Planning Commission, and
it should be part o£ the recommendations of the Planning Commission by re£er-
ence, which then could be considered by the City Council in their determination
of the Environmental Impact Statement.
On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allxed, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP.S: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
~...
~
~..
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-696
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 2 AND 4(Continued)
Commissioner Seymour ~ffered Resolution No. PC72-258 and moved for its passage
and adoption to accepL Environmental Impact Report No. 4 witn the following
findings:
1. 2hat Environmental Impact Report No. 4 pertains only to the
area considered under Co+ditional Use Permit No. 1348 and does not
apply to the entire 4200- acre Anaheim Hills property.
2. That the developer shall submit in written form for City Council
consideration data delineating the specific locations of the scheol
sites that are intended to serve this area, since the developer
indicated that site selection has already been discussed with the
Oranae Unified School District.
3. That the statements made by the developer at the Planninq
Commission public meeting relative to secondary vehicular circula-
tion, public utilities, recreation facilities (including bicycle
lanes for bicycles or electric carts which may reduce the air
pollution throngh non-use of automobiles to transport people to
nearby areasj, type of landscaping for slope areas to prevent
erosion, and techniques to be used in grading of the slopes shall
be submitted in written form to tne City Council as an addendum
explaining topics that were not adequately discussed in the
Environmental Impact Report; and recommend to the City Council that
said report be adopted as amended in the findiags set forth. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that at the previous meeting when Conditional Use
Permit No. 1350 was approved, the Commission failed to terminate Conditional
Use Permit No. 1271 £or the equestrian center, and this should be done since
Conditional Use Permit No. 1350 encompassed the same property as No. 1271.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-280 and moved for its passage
and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 1271
on the basis that subsequent zoning action would appear Y.o negate the use
originally granted. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution waF passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIOtdERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COtdMISSIONERS: Farano.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - SUBMITTED BY ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES,
REPORT NO. 3 INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806,
filed in cor.junction with Conditional Use Permit No.
TENTATIVE MAP OF 1347.
TRACT NOS. 8104,
8140. 8141, 8142 DEVELUPER: AMERICAN HOUSING GUILD, 17831 Sky Park
Circle, Suite J, Irvine, California 92707. ENGINEER:
Willdan Engineering Associates. 125 South Claudina
Street, Anaheim, California 92805. Subject tracts, consisting of approximately
49.6 acres loca±ed on the ea~t side of Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 1,000
feet north of Serrano Avenue, are proposed for subdivision into 52 R-2, 63 R-2,
70 R-2, and 66 R-2 zoned lots respectively.
Chairman Seymour noted that Conditional Use ^ermit No. 1347 had been considered
by the Planning Commission at the last public hearing and had been granted,
however, the Environmental Impact Report had been continued to this date to
allow time for the Commission to review the EIR and then inquired whether
pertinent information given on EIR Nos. 2 and 4 was also applicable to EIR
No. 3.
•
~
s
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 ~Z'G97
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 3 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8104~ 8140~
8141, ANr 8142 (Continued)
Mr. James Barisic, representing Anaheim Hills, appeared before the Commission
und stated his comments made previously under EIR Nos. 2 and 4 were applicabla
to EIR No. 3.
Cornmissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-257 and moved for its passage
and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report'r7o. 3 with the following
findir.gs:
1. That Environmental Impact Report No. 3 pertains only to the
area considered under Co~ditional Use Permit No. 1347 and deea not
apply to the entire 4200- acre Anaheim Hills property.
2. That the developer shall submit in written form for City Council
consideration data delineating the specific locations of the school
sites that are intended to serve this area, since the developer
indicated that site selection has already been discussed with the
Orange Unified School District.
3. That the statements made by the developer at the Planning
Commission public meeting relative to secondary vehicular circula-
tion, public utilities, recreation facilities (including bicycle
lanes fcr bicycles or electric carts which may reduce the air
pollution throuqh non-use of automobiles to transpart people to
nearby areas), type of landscaping for slope areas to prevent
erosion, and techniques to be used in grading of the slopes shall
be submitted in written form to the City Council as an addendum
explalning topics that were not adequately discussed in the
Environmental Zmpact Report; and recommend to the Ciky Council that
said report be adopted as amended in the findings set forth. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSICNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that a revised
tract map which had been requested by the Interdepartmental Committee for
Public Safety and General Welfare had not been submitted, therefore, there
were no comments that could be made, nor would any recommendad conditions of
approval be given.
Mr. Horst Schor, representing the engineer, appeared before the Planning
Commission and noted that at a meeting with staff, the tentative tract maps
had been reviewed, and there was one remaining question to answer, which was
to determine the precise west boundary of the tract adjacent to Oak Canyon;
that at that meeting it was indicated that a revised tract map would have to
be submitted if the engineer requested one because the west boundary was not
acceptable.
Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the Engineering Division
had met with a representative of the tract engineer in the Development Services
Department, at which time this was discussed, and the representative had been
informed that revised tract maps would have to be submitted.
Zonir.g Supervisor Charles Roberts suggested to the Commission that staff
members meet with the representatives of the developess and engineers on the
tract and try to resolve the problem in order that the public hearing not be
delayed, but cou13 proceed on other items.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Titus advised the Planning Commission that the
problem had been resolved, and the Engineering Division would permit the
developers to go ahead at this time, subject to the tract map being approved
and subject to standard conditions, as well as the additional condition on
Tentative Tract No. 8140; that Anaheim Hills, Inc. shall post a bond ensuring
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30. 1972 ~2-698
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 3 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8104, 8140~
8141, AND 8142 (Continued)
the landscaping, irrigation and maintenance and for said company also to enter
into an agreement with the City of Anaheim to otherwise ensure the landscaping,
irrigation and maintenance of che manufactured fill slopes adjacent to the
tract's easterly boundary prior to the approval of the final tract map.
Mr. Roberts noted that the map which would be presented was identical to the
site plan presented at the last pubJic hearing when the Planning Commission
considered Conditional Use Permit No. 1347.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8104, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8104 is granted
subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 1347.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta-
tive form for approval.
(3) That all lots wiEhin this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the
office of the Orange County Recorder.
(5) That ar.y proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior
to City Counci2 approval of the final tract map, and, further,
that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
(6) That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete
synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corgoration,
including but not limited to the articles of incorporation bylaws,
proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of
common property and buildings, and such other information as the
City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and
the purchasers of the project.
(7) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
(8) That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall include construction
of drainage facilities of a size and type sufficient to carry
runof£ waters originating from higher properties south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultimate disposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Reimbursement agreements may be
made available to the developers of said property upon their
request.
(9) That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possi-
bility of any silt originatinq from this project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flow-
ing through this project.
(10) That the full traveled way of Park Ridge Road within or adjacent
to subject tract shall be constructed concurrently with, or prior
to, tne construction of the improvements for this tract or other-
wise approved by the City Engineer.
(11) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Nohl Ranch Road shall be dedicated to the City of
Anaheim.
(12) That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depart-
ment prior to commencement of structural framing.
e
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 ~Z'699
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NC. 3 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8104, 8140,
8141, AND 8142 (Continued) -
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred azd
MOTIOPl CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8140. subject to the
followinq conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8140 is granted
subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 1347.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereoP shall be s~ubr.~tted in tenta-
tive form for appraval.
(3) That all lots within this tract shall be Qerved by underground
util.ities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Counail and then be recorded in the
office of the Orange County Recorder.
(5) That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be suhmitted to and approved by ahe City Attorney's Office prior
to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further,
that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
(6) That prior to f3ling the fir.al tra~t map, th~e applicant shall
submit to tkre City Attorney for approva'1 or denial a complete
synopsis of the propased functionina of the operating corporation,
including but no~ limited to the asticles of incorporation bylaws,
proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of
common property and buildings, and such o~her information as the
City Attorney may desire to protect the Ci~:y, its citizens, and
the purchasers of the pro:iect.
(7) That street names shall be ri'ykTOVvd by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
(8) That drainage of said property shall be di~posed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Enqin~:er and ~hall include construction
of drainage facilities of a=ize and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultimate disposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Reimbursement agreements may be
made available to the developers of said property upon their
request.
(9) That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possi-
bility of any silt originating from this project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flow-
ing through this project.
(10) That the full traveled way of Park Ridge Road within or adjacent
to subject tract shall be constructed concurrently with, or p~ior
to, tha construction of the improvementR for this tract or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
(11) Tnat fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determineA to be necessary by the Chief of thp Fire Depart-
rent prior to commencement of structural framing.
(12) That Anaheim Hills, Inc. shall post a bond ensuring the landscap-
ing, irrigation and maintenance and enter into an agreement with
the City of Anaheim to othezw9_se ensure the landscaping, irriga-
tion and maintenance of the manufactured fill slopes adjacent to
the tract's eastern boundary prior to the approval of the final
tract map.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-700
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 3 APiD TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 6104~ 8140,
8141, AND 8142 (Co,tinued)
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and
:~IOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentat~ve Map of Tract No. 8141, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8141 is granted
subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44 and
Conditianal Use Permit No. 1347.
(2) Ttiat should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta-
tive form for approval.
(3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Counci'1 and then be recozded in the
office of th~ Orange County Recorder.
(5) That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to an3 approved by the City Attorney's 9ffice prior
to City Council appro!•al of the final tract map, and, further,
that the approved covenants, conditions, aad restrictions shall
be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
(6) That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicar.t shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or deniel a complete
synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation,
including but not limited to the articles of incorpcration bylaws,
proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of
common property and buildings, and such other information as the
City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and
the purchasers of the project.
(7) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
(8) That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
. satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall include construction
o~ drainage iacilities of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultimate disposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Reimbursement agreementra may be
made availahle to the deveiopers of said property upor their
request.
(9) That gradiny, excavation, and all othc-- construction activities
shall be conducLed in such a manner so as to minimize the possi-
bility of any silt originating from this project beinq carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flow-
ing through this project.
(10) lhat the full traveled way of Park Ridge Road within or adjacent
to subject tract shall ;~ constructed concurrently with, or prior
to, the construction of t:?e improvements for this tract or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
(11) That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chie£ of the Fire Depart-
ment prior to commencement of structural framing.
(12) Thac the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Nohl P.anah Road shall be dedicated to the City of
Anc?+Pim.
~
...
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-701
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 3 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8104, 8140,
8141, AND 3142 (Continued)
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8142, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8142 i.s granted
subje^t to the completion of. Reclassification No. 71-72-44 and
Conditional Use Permit• N~. 1347.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta-
tive form for approval.
(3) That all lots within this tract, shall be served by underground
utilities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by zhe City Council and then be recorded in the
o£fice of the Orange County Recorder.
(5) That any propose3 covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to tind approved by the City Attorney's OFfice prior
to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further,
that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be recorded concuzrently with xhe final tract map.
(6) That prior to filinq the final tract map, the applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete
synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation,
including but not limited to *'^ articles of incorporation bylaws,
proposed methods of managemer bonding to insur.e maintenance of
common property and builcinys, and such o*_her information as the
City Attorney may desire to protect the City, ~ts citizens, and
the purchasers of the project.
(7) That street names shal]. be agproved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
(8) That drainage o£ said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall include construction
of drainaqe fac?lities of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultimate disposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Reimbursement agreements may be
made available to the develogez's of said property upon their
request.
(g) That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall b~ conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possi-
bility of any silt oriqinating from this project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flow-
ing through this projQCt.
(10) TlLat the full traveled way o€ Park Ridge Road within or adjacent
to subject tract shall be constructed concurrently with, or prior
to, the construction of the improvements for this tract or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
(11) That fire hydrants shall :e insi:al~he Chiefhof+theaFireqDepart-
and determined to be necessary by
ment prior to commencement of structural framing.
(12) That the vehicular access riqhts, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Nohl Ranch Road sh:.ll be dedicated to the City of
Anaheim.
~
~
MINUT:.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 ~Z'~02
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUHLIC HEARING. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
REPORT N0. 9 DISTRICT, Attention of C. R. Nelson, 400 Civic Cent.er
Drive, Santa Ana, California 92701, Owner; PACIFIC
RECLASSIFICATION AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC.. Attention of Bernard Perlin,
NO. 72-73-8 3670 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010,
Agent; pruperty described as: A rectangularly-shaped
VARIANCE N0. 2403 parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.8 acres
having a frontage of approximately 600 feet on the west
CONDITIONAL USE side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of
PERMIT N0. 1330 approximately 27G £eet, and being located at the south-
west corner of Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue.
Property presently classified R-a, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAI~~ 20NE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDIhG HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENT.T.AL ZONE TO CONSTRi7CT THREE
OFFICE BUILDINGS ON PORTIONS B AND C.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL US~: ESTABLISH A CARWASH ON PORTION A.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 24 for further study;
August 7, September 6 and 18 at the request of the petitioner and for the sub-
mission of revised plans, and from October 2. i972, for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission was very familiar with this proposal
from pzevious public hearings on the petitions.
Mr. Harry Knisely, 1741 South Euclid Street, attorney representing the peti-
tioners, appeared before the Commission and stated ~hat there were office
buiidings already existing to the south, ar.d the office buildings proposed
would be a logical extension. Furthermore, commercial uses were to both the
east and south.
Chaixman Seymour noted that Mr. Knisely was fully aware of the Commission's
action on the commercial property on the east side of Brookhurst Street - the
Yellis property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussfon was held by the Commission regarding the proposal; that because of
the approval of the sPrvice station site on the east side of Brookhurst Street
by the City Council, che die had been cast ~or similar approval; that the pro-
posal for office buildings was consistent with existing development on the west
side of the street; and that approval of another service station, adding to the
already existing 22 service stations withir. l~i miles of this intersection, to-
gether with the fact that there was a 15$ vacancy factor for service stations
in Anaheim, would appear to be rather inconsistent planning.
Commissioner Rowland inquired how could the Commission turr~ down this service
station request when the City Council made it a policy, even though the
representative of the oil company stated he would be pumping 80,000 gallons
of gas per month, which would be adjacent to high-density residential use -
with the City Council admonishing the Planning Commission that they should not
be denying things that were of benefit to the city, and if the City Council
felt that a station pumping 80,000 gallons of gas per month adjacent to high-
density residential was a compatible use and a compatible barrier to the traffic
on Brookhurst Street, what would the Commission be protecting in this instance
since this would be adjacent to the golf course.
Commissioner Gauer observed that the service station would not be similar to
a regulation service station since it would not be having lube bays nor tire
sales.
Commissioner Herbst observed that there were several hardship items facing
this property, one being the covered flood control channel which limited the
type of uses that could be established on the property.
Commissioner Kaywood stated she could not believe that the office buildings
could not be continued over the balance of the property rather than having a
self-sesvice station again.
e
~
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-703
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 9~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-B, VARIANCE NO.
2403, PND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330 (Continued)
Chairman Seymour stated that he did not feel a policy had been established by
the approval of the service station on the east side of Brookhurst Street, and
he was not convinced that the Commission should base their future decisians on
such approval - if so, then every condominium proposed in Anaheim would be
over 18 dwelling units per acre instead of that which had been approved in !he
past ~f only 12 dwelling units.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not staff had been directed by the
City Council to set for public hearing two portions of the Code which had
re-occurred, such as the Sign Ordinance, and to a certain extent this was an
econ~mic phase of service statioris. Zn addition, he did not feel there was a
desperate need far a service station in that area of Anaheim.
Commissioner Kaywood read excerp~s from the Environmental Impact Report sub-
mitted by the petitioner which indicated this would be the first service
station facility reached from the £reeway, however, there were four service
stations just one block to the south which would not r:~eive business they
formerly had from the freeway traffic, ar.d she could see three more service
stationSineAnahei~/.PdFUr~t rmor 1'~s~hey~`c~o ldunotnseeVwhy anrentire~projectice
revolved around the Commission's approval of the service station, and if this
was a self-serve station, then the word "service" shou~d be eliminated becausP
this was just a gas station.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since the City Council had approved a major
market at the southeast corner of this intersection, this would change tne
concept of commercial uses for the area, and ~lthough he did not agree with
what h,ad occurred on the southeast corner, the die had been cast, and if one
property owner was granted the privilege of haviag a service station, there
was no reason why the property owner at the opposite corner could not have a
service station.
Commissioner Farano inquired whether the applicant would be permitted to
establish a service station with the zoning request; whereupon Assistant
Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the C-1 Zone would permit a service
station, and that at one time there was a carwash proposed, which would have
required a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Herbst o£fered a motion to approve Environmental Impact Report
No. 9 on the basis that the impact report as submitted would indicate that
there was no substantial impact on the environment in compliance with the
Public Resources Code.
On roll call the foregoing motion lost by a vote of 5 to 2, Commissioners
Herbst and Rowland voting "aye"; Commissioners Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood
and Seymour voting "no".
Continued discussion was held by the Commission, Deputy City Attorney Frank
Lo•~vey, and the staff regarding the manner in which an EIR could be processed
by the Planning Commission, with Chairman Seymour being of the opinion that a
service station would have a definite impact upon the environment of the area,
Commissioner Rowland stating that a project of this size planned in the general
area proposed would have no significant impact upon the community, and EIR's
must be taken in strict context o£ the overall impact to a community as to
noise and visual pollution.
Commissioner Allred stated that the report c~as deficient as it pertained to
Guideline No. 3 in reference to the service station.
Mr. Lowry advised the Commission they could accept the EIR as submitted, or
make a finding that the report was deficient in Guideline No. 3 and request
that the applicant submit additional information regarding this.
Commissioner Farano noted that Guideline No. 3 required submission of a].terna-
tive measures for the proposed development, and the Commission felt that the
mitigating measures were not given, and this should be covered.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-704
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 9, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-8, VARIANCE NO.
2403, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330 (Continued)
Commissioner Farano then noted that there was some question in his mind whether
this EIR met the requirements of the action of 1970, since a conclusion was
drawn by the Review Committe:~ whether it would be affecting the environment,
however, staff said this was reviewed - therefore, how d3d this meet the guide-
lines established - there were two uses and no statements which indicated how
or why they complied.
Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that his impression of the Committee regarding
this propexty was that they felt the project would have no significant impact
on the environment, und an Environmental impact Report was not necessary.
Mr. McDaniel noted that the Development Services Department was one of the ~~gs
in a large wheel known as the Review Committee, and the report before the
Commission on EIR No. 9 was intended to summarize the feelings and comments by
the Review Committee, and each member had no comment because they did not
submit special reports indicating their concern, therefore, it was staff's
determination when the report was written that there was no environmpntal
impact.
Commissioner Farano then stated he was just trying to determine how the
Committee reached this decisior..
Chairman Seymossr noted that it was his opinioa the service station proposed
at that intersection should have been reflected in the EIR, therefore. the
EIR was deficient in r..gards to environment.
Mr. Lowry, in response to Commissioner Herbt's s¢ggestion that the Commission
take action on the zoning cases first: stated that the Supreme Court ruling
z•equired that the EIR be considered first.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the EIR guidelines had been made avail-
able to the applicant; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that the report was sub-
mitted prior to establishment of the guidelines, but the staf£ felt the
report was adequate for what it proposed.
Commissioner Seymour o£fered Resolution No. PC'2-259 and moved for its passage
and adoption to accept Environmental Impact R~_ort No. 9 and recommend to the
City Council that said report not be adopted as the Environmental Impact State-
ment of the City Council until and unless the deficiencies of providing alterna-
tives for other uses for the service station site were submitted since this
service station would have a detrimental environr~ental impact on the area, and
these alternatives should be explored by the applicant and presento,(in written
form to the City Council for consideration prior to Council action on the
zoning cases. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing re~olution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-260 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica-
tion No. 72-73-5 be disapproved on the basis that subject property ~•ould be
ideally developed with office buildings to continue i:he pattern of office
structures existing to the south, rether than establishing a service station
and convenience market on tlze property, which would be detrimental to the
surrounding u~es; and that the C-1 Zone would permit, by right, the establish-
ment of a service station on subject property, but when the vacancy factor of
over 15$ of the sPrvice stations throughout Anaheim was considered and the fact
that there were more than 21 service stations within l~i miles o£ subject
property, the establishment of another service station in this area would
appear to be poor planning. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Rowland.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~
..~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-705
ENVIRONMEPITAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-8~ VARIANCE N0.
2403, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330 (Continued)
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-261 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2403 on the basis that the
Planning Commission had recommended disapproval of the zoning request, and
the variance could not be exercised. (See Resolution Book)
Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
P.BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to permit withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 1330 since
the petitioner no longer planned to establish a carwash on subject property.
RECESS - Chairman Seymour declared a ten-minute recess at 3:54 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 4:05 p.m., all
Commissioners being present.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LESLIE R. BOATWRIGHT, 319
REPORT NO. 34 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner;
DESSIE BLANKENSHIP. 121 North State College Boulevard,
CONDITIONAL USE Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; requesting permission
PERMIT NO. 1340 to ESTASLISH A CHURCH, WAIVING (a) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK
AND (b) REQUIREMENT THAT FRONT AND SIDE YARDS NOT BE
USED FOR PARKING on property described as: A rectangu-
larly-shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approximately 180 feet on the
west side flf Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet
and being located approximately 166 feet north of the centerline of Cypress
Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 2, 1972, for the
submission of an Environmental Impact Report.
No one ap~eared in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel brieily reviewed the location of
subject property and the proposal to utilize an existing home on the property
for a church to conduct religious worship and rela;ed social functions in
addition to using the second floor for a residence for the priest; that the
adjoining lot to the south would be used for automobile parking; and that
access to the parking area would be provided by means of the public alley along
the westerly boundary of the property.
Mr. James E. Ryan, 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, attorney for the
petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the parishioners
were in existence, having used the St. Catherine's Military Academy about one-
half block to the south as their meeting place; that there were no adverse
effects from the use of the school property in the past, and no objections had
been given by the surrounding property owners; that the second floor of this
single-family home would be the residence of the priest, while the lower floor
would provide services and meeting rooms and classes.
Commissioner Allre3 inquired as to the type of classes proposed; whereupon
Mr. Ryan stated that these would be Sunday school classes, and there would be
no classes held during the week.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry inquired whether the attorney £or the peti-
tioner understood fully what was said regarding access rights to Harbor
Bou].evard; whereupon Mr. Ryan stated that they would request that since this
was or.ly one driveway for the residenoe going to the garage to the rear of
th~ property and no access was available otherwise, that this driveway be
retained for ingress and egress for the priest of the church,~and that all
access to the parking area would be by way of the a11ey.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-706
ACT REPORT NO. 34 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1340
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner proposed to have
signing on the propertyi whereupon Mr. Ryan stated that they proDOSed a 3-foot
high sign which would be in conformance with City Code.
Mr. Ryan, in response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, stated that the
Syzantine Church was affiliated to a certain extent with the Catholic Church,
but was not the same; that they tried to keep their membership small in this
type of church; that only one mass on Sunday would be held, with a maximum of
35 cars.
Commissioner Herbst noted that there were only 18 parking stalls adjacent ~o
subject property and inquired where did the petitioner plan to park the balance
of the 35 cars; whereupon Mr. Ryan stated that they had permission from the
Military Academy to use their psrking; and then in further response to Commis-
sion questioning, stated that this building would be owned by the church and
not be leased.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the Commission should establish a maximum number
of cars that would be permitted so that there would be no problem with the
neighbors; whereupon Chairman Seymour noted that if a maximum of 35 cars was
established, then the Commission would have to require a copy of the agreement
with St. Catherine's Military Academy for overflow parking.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since the petitioner had indicated they were
purchasing the property, what plans did they have for growth if the church
became larger than its existing structure would hold; whereupon Mr. Ryan stated
that since this was a very small church, he could see no additional improvements
to the structures, but if there was an expansion, in all likelihood they would
have to purchase addiLional property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the City had a regulation setting forth a
minimum of one acre for a church site; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles
Roberts noted that the Code did not specifically state the lot size for a church.
and there wae no provision for it.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that there had
been a policy established ten years ago, but it was no longer in effect.
Commissioner Gauer then noted that the Commission might establish a time limit
on the use and review it in one year to determine whether there was anp parking
problem, sinae there was no parking permitted on one side of the street and
stopping of vehicles was not permitted, even for a mail drop, due to the speed
of vehicles and number of vehicles going down the street.
Chairman Seymour noted that if the petitioner had been leasing this property
then the Commission could establish a time limit of one or two years, but since
they were purchasing the property, this would be rather difficult.
Cammissioner Farano stated that the Commission still could grant them five
years for the use, this would give them time to determine the growth of their
church, and at the end of the five years if there was no appreciable church
growth, this time extension could be discussed and possibly permitted since he
was 3ure they would know within three or four years whether or not the member-
ship was growing and whether or not they would have to seek other quarters
because of the limitation of the parking.
Mr. Ryan noted that for the record he wanted it to be understood that they pre-
ferred not to dedicate access rights to Harbor Boulevard.
Mr. Roberts noted that Conditioa No. 2 of the recommended conditions required
an encroachment permit to be granted by the City of Anaheim for the existing
6-foot wall located in the ultimate right-c~-way of the alley, 3nd this might
be difficult for the church to meet conditions of approval if this encroachment
permit were not granted since it took considerable ti~e for processing through
the City.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72'~~~
NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 34 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1340 (Conti
Mr. Roberts, in response to a question by the attorney for the petitioner, stated
that if the Commission felt there was no problem in permitting access from
Harbor Boulevard to the garage, at the time the irrevocable offer of dedication
for vehicular access riqhts was submitted to the City Engineer, the City Engineer
could permit use of the driveway until or unless traffic problems would require
dedication.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-262 and moved for its passage
and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 34 and recommend its
adoption to the City Council as the Environmental Impact Statement on the basis
that there would not be any environmental impact to the area with the groposed
use. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, 3auer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-263 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1340 subject to
conditions, with the added condition that the Commission recommende3 the north-
erly access be allowed to remain on a temporary basis until and unless the City
Engineer determines that a traffic problem would exist and require full dedica-
tion rights, and waiver of the required parking on the stipulation of the
petitioner that St. Catherine's Military Aca@emy gave them reciprocal parking
agreement, said approval to be for a period of five years, at the end of which
time it shall be determined whether the petitioner requires additional space
due to expansion. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst. Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBI,IC HEARING. PAUL J. AND RUTH E. KNAAK~
REPORT NO. 40 1751 S. E. Skyline Drive, Santa Ana, California 92705,
Owners; LEWIS C. CANFIELD AND/OR MICHAEL ESTEY, 302
CONDITIONAL USE Apolena, Balboa Island, California 92662, Agents;
PERMIT NO. 1343 requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RETAIL SALES LOT
FOR AUTOMOBILES AND TRUCKS WITH WAIVERS OF (a) LANDSCAPED
SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND (b) FREE-STANDING SIGN LOCATION
on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land being the
northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue, having a frontage of
approximately 154 feet on the east side of Srookhurst Street and a frontage on
the north side of Lincoln Avenue of approximately 105 feet. Property presently
classified C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the October 2, 1972 meeting for the sub-
mission of an Environmental Impact Report.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Chairman Seymour noted for the petitioner that the Commission was very familiar
with the property under consideration.
Mr. Lewis Canfield, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
s`ated they proposed to have a retail auto sales business; that he could not see
Y. .a the proposed use would affect the adjacent retail uses; that other business-
men in his field had been very successful; and that this would remove a use from
automobile row.
•
~
MINUTSS, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-708
NVIRONMENTAY, IMPACT REPORT NO. 40 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO
Chairman Seymour inquired whether this use was proposed for a used car sales
lot, and would Mr. Canfield operate it, and did he plan to remove the existing
structure.
Mr. Canfield stated that there was a possibility they would be selling new cars
as well as used cars; that the location would be beneficial to many people
because it w~uld not be necessary to go to another section of the city for an
automobile= and that they planned to remove the existing structure and replace
it with a regular commercial stru~=u~~.
Commissioner Herbst requested that the petit!.oner stipulate that trucks, if
sold, be no larger than 3/4 ton because he di1 not want to see semi-trailers
stored or sold from that small lot; whereup~:n Mr. Canfield stipulated that if
aay trucks were sold, they would be no larger than 3/4 ton.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired why the petitioner could not meet Code require-
ments for landscaping since the Planninq Commission had required all automobile
dealerships to provide some low-type landscaping in front of their properties;
whereupon Mr. Canfield stated that they already indicated landscaping along
Lincoln Avenue, and if the Commission so desired, they would relocate the land-
scaping proposed along the east property line to along the west property line
adjacent to Brookhurst Street, thus he would meet Code requirements.
Mr. Canfield then noted that the proposed type of business would not ~sttract
a high trafEic count, such as most corners had where service stations, grocery
stores, etc. were located and which handled small items, creating an increase
in traffic count, while the proposed use would ease the traffic flaw, or at
least not add to it.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired w5ether the petitioner planned to sell
recreational vehicles in addition to the 3/4-ton trucks; whereupon Mr. Canfield
stated that these would be the camper-type recreational vehicles, however, at
the present time it was not his intent to sell recreational vehicles.
Commissioner Farano then inquired where the source of stock was expected to come
from since there would be no space on the property for repair work on these
second-hand vehicles; whereupon Mr. Canfield replied that he had five other
similar operations, and no repair work was dune on the premises since they had
an agreement with the local repair shops to safety check and repair the vehicles
so that they would be saleable on the lot, and that the only thing they might be
doing on the lot would be to rinse off the vehicles, however, no soap would be
used.
Chairman Seymour then inquired whether the petitioner would have any problem
meeting the Sign Ordinance requirements; whereupon Mr. Canfield stated he was
not aware that the proposed signing w~uld be a violation of the Sign Grdinance
since they were using the sign as a i_nce as well.
Commissioner Rowland observed that this was typical signing of used car lots;
whereupon Mr. Canfield stated that the signing would be to identify the business
only.
Commissioner Eerbst observed that most car dealers used these large backdrops
as signs, and they appeared to be very huge signs.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the wall sign proposed would be visible
from both Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street; whereupon Mr. Canfield replied
negatively.
Commissioner Kaywood then inquired wnether the petitioner would stipulate that
there would be no signing on Lincoln Avenue; whereupon Mr. Canfield replied
that their business had certain signing requirements, and he felt that the sign
proposed may be seen from Lincoln Avenue since it would be located toward the
rear of the property line, however', he wou13 stipulate there would be no signing
specifically directed to Lincoln Avenue or on Lincolr Avenue.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel, in response to Commission questioning,
stated that the proposed sign conformed with Code requirements except for its
location, and then inquired of the petitioner whether he proposed to have a sign
at Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue; whereupon Mr. Canfield replied
negatively.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMN,.SSION, October 30, 1972 72-709
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 40 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1343 (Continued
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired why the Commission was now considering a used car
lot for subject property after all the problems the Commission had at this
location in the past.
Chairman Seymour noted that this was a different request in that the petitioner
was not proposing to utilize an existing service station building but was
demolishing it and erecting a new building.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not feel a 50-foot s.;. aas necessary for a
used car lot, and this type of signing would make it less than desirable because
car dealers seemed to overdo their signing; that he felt the signing should be
in conformance with Code requirements, because any other commercial business was
required to do so; and that approval would be granting this petitioner a privi-
lege not enjoyed by other commercial uses.
Commissioper Y.aywood inquired whether the petitioner proposed to have prices
painted on the vehicles' windshields, and if so, she fo~undPthem~to~~ a~
u~attra~e~gh~~o~~s i._ntgrdasection. 7~~~/,~ ~'~
X ...v-s. x~ ~~..~.iz ~~ C,~•r/~
Mr. Canfield advi,-ed the Commission that it was not his intent to sell self-
contained recreational vehicles but only those that would be camper-type which
would fit over a 3/4-ton truck bed, but he did not want to be restricted from
sellinq the Volkswagen bus.
Commissioner Farano noted that although Code required a 10-foot landscaped
setback along Lincoln Avenue, the petitioner was proposing only 3 feet t~ within
15 to 20 feet of the radius return.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-264 and moved for its passage
and adoption to receive Environmental Impact Report No. 40 with the finding
that although it did not conform to the guidelines established by the City of
Anaheim, because of its size and locat ~n of the property and the nature of
the proposed development, the impact of the proposed project upon the environ-
ment would be trivial and there would be no need for an Environmental Impact
Statement, and recommends to the City Council that due to the trivial impact
upon the environment as set forth above, there was no need to make an Envison-
mental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-265 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1343, in part,
denying waiver of the sign location on the basis that signing of the property
could be accomplished within the Code requirements, and a sign at the proposed
location would be detrimental to the area, particularly the adjacent property;
that the petitioner withdrew waiver of the minimum front setback landscaping
and stipulated to complying with Code requirements in granting the use proposed,
subject to conditions and stipulations by the petitioner that a maximum of 3/4-
ton trucks would be sold on the premises and that no self-contained recreational
vehicles would be sold on the premises~ (See Resolution Book) ,~ ~~e,,,~+,
a.rc.t' ~.o ?+u<lu......:-c.cL'. ~..e:.~!*.~'~ ~~.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-710
Chairman Seymour suggested that the Planning Commission consider Items 8 throuqh
13 together since they pertained to the same type of request, namely, self-serve
signs.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. STAFAC, INC., 120 Broadway,
REPORT NO. 25 21ew York, New York 10005, Owner; SHELL OIL COMPANY,
P. O. Box 4090, Anaheim, California 92803, Agentj
VARIANCE NO. 2442 requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMLTM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING
SIGNS, (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS,
AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ALLOW A
"SELF-SER4~:" SIGN IN ADDITTON TO TWO EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property
described as: A rectangularly-shaged parcel of land having a frontage of
approximately 150 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum
depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located at the northwest corner of
La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUSLIC HEARING. EDWARD W. BONKOSKY~ TRUSTEE~
REPORT NO. 26 600 West Lincoln Avenue. Anaheim, Cslifornia 92805,
Owner; SHELL OIL COMPANY, P. O. Box 4090, Anaheim,
VARIANCE NO. 2443 California 92803, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, {b) MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) MINZMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-
STANDING SIGN, AND (d) MINIMUM DZSTAD1f;E OF FREE-STANDING SIGN FROM ABUTTING
PROPERTY TO ALLOW A"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING
SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a
frontage of approximately 140 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having
a maximum depth of approximately 139 feet, and being located at the southeast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street. Property presently classified
C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ 20NE.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED Pf]BLIC HEARING. SHELL OIL COMPANY, P. O. Box
REPORT N0. 27 4090, Anaheim, Cali,fornia 92803, Owner; requesti.ng
WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMTJM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b)
VARIANCE Nn. 2444 MINZMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c)
MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SIGN FROM ABUTTING
PROPERTY TO ALLOW A"S~LF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel o£ land having a frontage of approximate~ly 135 feet on the west side of
Euclid Strr.et, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being
located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Glenoaks Avenue. Property
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, Z~NE.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EDWIN J. ERICKSEN, 800 Pine
REPORT NO. 28 Ridge Knoll, Fullerton, California 92632, Owner; SHELL
OIL COMPANY, P. 0. Box 4090, Anaheim, California 92803,
VARIANCE NU. 2445 Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAY.IMUM NUMBER OF FREE-
STANDING SIGNS, (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-
STANDING SIGNS, (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING
SIGN, AND (d) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ABUTTING PROPERTY TO
ALLOW A"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN F.XISTING FREE-STANDZNG SIGN on
property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage
of approximately 125 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum
depth of approximately 125 feet, and being located at the northwest corner of
Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Property presentZy classified C-1,
GEI3ERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~
~
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-711
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HELEN B. GRIFFES~ 2810
REPORT NO. 29 Seaview Avenue, Corona Del Mar, California 92625, Owner;
SHELL OIL COMPANY, P. O. Box 4090, Anaheim, California
VARIANCE NO. 2446 92803, Agenti requeating WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO ALLOW A"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN
ADDITION TO AN EX2STING FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectan-
gularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 148 feet on
the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 150
feet, and being located at the northeast r..orner of Euclid Street and Romneya
Drive. Property presently classified C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. SHELL OIL COMPANY, P. O. Box
REPORT NO. 30 4090. Anaheim, California 92803, Owner; requesting
WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS,
VARIANCE NO. 2447 ~b) MINIMUM DISTANCE HETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND
(c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ALLOW A
"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FREE-
STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
having a frontage of approximately ~_60 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe
Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 f~et, and being located at
the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. Property
presently classi£ied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Subject petitions wese continued from the meeting of October 18, 1972, to allow
time for the submission of Environmental :mpact Reports.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Reports to the Commission were not read at the public hearing,
they are referzed to and made a part of the minutes.
Commissioner Rowland noted that since the City Cou;icil had instructed staff to
revise the Sign Ordinance to permit what was being requested, there was no need
for further testimony to be presented.
Mr. Glen Marshall, representing Shell Oil Company, appeared before the Commis-
sion and stated that at the last public hearing staff had suggested a four to
six-week continuance for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report, and
now because of the recommended conditions, he would request an additional two
weeks to determine whether or not the property owners would be willing to
dedicate for str~et widening purposes.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that lighter boxes
had been approved for Standard Oil Company, while "self-serve" signs were
approved for Mobil Oil, and Shell Oil Company's request was similar to Mobil
Oil's approved request.
Mr. Marshall noted that two of the requests had recommended conditions of
dedication, and Shell ~il Company did not have the authority to dedicate since
these were all on contract or lease basis.
Dir. Roberts noted for the Commission that in order to avoid a rather lengthy
agenda some time in the future, if the Commission felt these petitions could
be granted and if the petitioner then could not meet the conditions, he would
not have to exercise the variance.
Chairman Seymour then noted for the petitioner that during a recent City Council
wozk session with the Planning Commission it was determined that staff should
review the Sign Ordinance and requests such as this should be considered accept-
able, therefore, the only problem would be those variances on which dedioation
would be required, and in order to expedite these items, the Planning Commission
could take action on the variances, and then before the City Council reviewed
the Environmen7:a1 Impact Reports and the variance petitions, the agent could
aontact the property owners regardinq this dedication.
Commissioner Herbst stated some of the service stations under consideration were
considered for upgrading, and by granting these variances, this would continue
the life of the service stationsj that many of the service stations needed
upgradinq in order to meet the City of Anaheim site development standards,
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 197'l 72-712
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 25 THROUGH 30 AND VARIANCE NOS. 2442 THROUGH
2447 (Continued)
therefore, if the agent for the petitioner wanted to discuss this with Shell
Oil Company management or the property owners, these suqgested conditions
should remain a condition of approval, and the only reason for a two-week
continuance was to allow the agent time to contact manaqement and the property
owners.
Mr. Marshall then inquired that if the Commission did qrant theae variances and
the agent could not meet conditions of approval, if they did not exercise the
variances, then would those variance petitions where conditions could be met be
considered "riding on free"?
Chairman Seymour indicated affirmatively that would be true.
Commissioner Allred noted that when one looked at all of the signs exi.sting
on service stations, it would appear that a service station needed only one
sign because people patronizing would know whether the station was self-serve
or not by the large sign at the corner which quoted prices of self-aervice
gasoline.
Chairman Seymour noted that in light of the comments made at the work aession
with the City Council in which the City Council interpreted that a free-standing
sign did not include lighter boxes or similar siqns, and then directed staff to
review the Sign Ordinance, he would conclude these requests were in order with
the City Council's direction at the work session. Perhaps other siqn requests
might not fall within this intErpretation, but the proposed signs did.
Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that for safety purposes, self-serve
pump islands should be so identified.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-266 and moved for its passage
an2 adoption to receive Environmental Impact Report No. 25 and recommend to
the City Council that due to the trivial impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, there was no need to maka an Environmental Impact Statement. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NonE~
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-268 and moved for its passage
and adoption to receive Environmental Impact Report No. 26 and recommend to
the City Council that due to the trivial impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, there was no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, ICaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: None.
Commissioner ~arano offered Resolution No. PC72-270 and moved for its passage
and adoption to receive Envi.ronmental Impact Report No. 27 and recommend to
the City Council that due to the trivial impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, there was no need to make an Envizonmental Impact Statement. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. Rawland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-713
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 25 THROUGH 30 AIJD VARIANCE NOS. 2442 THROUGH
2447 (Continued)
Commissior.2r Farano of£ered Resolution No. PC72-272 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption to receive Environmental Impact Report No. 28 and recommend to
the City Council that due to the trivia]. impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, there was no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (5ee
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
IiOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolut3on No. PC72-274 and moved for its passage
r.nd adoption to receive Environmental Impact Report No. 29 and recommend to
the City Council that due to the trivial impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, there was no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered Rasolution No. PC72-276 and moved for its passage
and adoption to receive Environmental Impact Report No. 30 and recommend to
the City Council tnat due to the trivial impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, there was no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See
Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foregoinq resolution was gassed by the following vote:
AYES: ~~~yISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISS20NERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-267 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2442, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-269 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption to qrant Petition for Variance No. 2443, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the fa:egoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-271 and moved for it~ passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2444, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer. Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
o ~ - ~-
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ::OMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-714
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 25 THROUGH 30 AIdD VARIANCE NOS. 2442 THROUGH
2447 (Continued)
Commissioner Fazano offered Resolution No. PC72-273 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2445, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed ;~y the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSSONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano o£fered Resolution No. PC72-275 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2446, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Farano offered ResoluCion No. PC72-277 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Vasiance No. 2447, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour. •
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ALDOR CORPORATION, 363 South Main Street,
REPORT NO. 5 Suite 105, Orange, California 92668, OWr•-; DICK VAN
ECK, 627 Gaymont, Anaheim, California ~:=`~4, Agent;
CONDITIONAL USE requesting permission to ESTABLISH A TRIICK MAINTEN~NCE
PERMIT NO. 1351 FACILITY WITH iVAIVERS OF (a) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES AND _
(b) OUTDOOR USE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS on property
described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
having a frontage o£ approximately 84 feet on the seuth side of Miraloma Avenue,
havinq a maximum depth of approximately 214 feet, and being located approxi-
mately 463 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street. Property presently
classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
Chairman Seymour noted that the purpose rf having a public hearing was in order
that someone might presen~ evidence that would affect the Environmental Impact
Report.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct a
3840-square foot building for truck repair and maintenance; that the building
would maintain the appropriate setbacks along Miraloma Avenue and had provided
parking in accordance with Code standards; that the plans also indicated the
repair work would be done in the building, however, an open truck wash rack was
provi3ed at the rear of the proposed buildinq; that while it appeared the pro-
posed use would be a suitable conditional use at this location in the industrial
zone, it would appear that the requested waivers might have a significant effect
upon the surrounding area; that the proposed open wash rack was located at the
rear of the proposed building, and while it was not a permitted outdoor use, it
may be considered appropriate if adequate screening was provided surrounding
the rack; and that the request to eliminate the 6-foot masonry wall to provi8e
a 6-foot high chainlink fence may, consequently, be the primary issue, there-
fore, by surrounding the open azea and open wash rack with a 6-foot high, solid
masonry wall, the C~mmission might consider the outdoor use to be appropriate.
Mr. A1 Fishman, President of Aldor Corporation, the owner, appeared before the
Commission and noted that they proposed to sell this property to Mr. Van Eck,
who operated Sweet Maintenance Service for various manufacturing concerns; that
most of the business would be done away from the site under consideration; that
any service done on this site would be within the building; that there was one
critical point in the report which they would like to clarify; and that they
~
•
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSS10N, OctObe7c 30, 1972 72-715
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 5 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1351 (Continued)
would stipulate to providing a ti-foot masonry wall since he had discussed this
with Mr. Van Eck, and he had indicated he would comply with the requirements,
therefore, this waiver cou~? be withdrawn, however, they did express concern
that a 6-foot masonry wall wou2d also be required around the carwash rack, in
addition to aro~ln4 the property, and this they would like to have clarified.
Commissioner Farano inquired whether these facilities would be used for main-
tenance and repair of special fleets of trucks or open to the public; whereupon
Mr. Fishman stated that this was maintenance of fleets of trucks, and the agent
for the petitioner had a number of manufacturing truck fleets; that he had
special rigs on his trucks which serviced customers' vehicles at the customers'
place of business, but where heavier type work was required, the vehicles were
brought to the shop for repair purposes.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that although the suggestion was made
in the Report to the Commission, there was no requirement in the Code that
would require the wash rack area to be enclosed if the petitioner stipulated
to complete enclosure around the periphery of the propertyt that the plan
indicated a wall already existed along the east property line, however, the
carwash would be at the south, and if the wall that was already started along
the east were continued along the south and west and near the street along the
west, the bay doors for maintenance would be along the aest wall, and he did
not know what was intended to be developed to the west, but these maintenance
bays would be objectionable to the adjoining properties if they were developed,
therefore, *_he staff suggested that the wall be extended toward the front of
the building.
Commissioner Herbst inquired what was proposed to be developed on Lot No. 3;
whereupon Mr. Fishman replied that Lot No. 3 was proposed for surplus parking,
and the building would be located on Lot No. 4.
Mr. Dick Van Eck, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the C~mmission and
noted that he had no plans for construction for Lot No. 3 at the present time,
and perhaps one-half of it would be used for parking, and in the distant future
there might be another building; and that the existing wall was constructed by
+.he plumbing company.
Chairman Seymour inquired whether Mr. Van Ecl: had a wall along the easterly
property line - would he then agree to providing a wall along the south and
west instead of the chainlink £ence; whereupon Mr. Van Eck stipulated to said
wall.
Mr. Steve Archer, representing the plumbing company located at 3261 East Mira-
loma Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he
was unaware that the petitio~ier had acquired the property to their west, how-
ever, they were opposed to waiving of the outdoor screening; that there
appeared to be some confusion, and they were concerned as to the exact boundary
of the west property line for subject property. In addition, was he to assume
that the petitioner was proposing to construct a wall along the south and west
if so, then they would withdraw their opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that
tion and legal notice that only one lot
Commission could not consider Lot No. 3
and allow staff time to readvertise the
it would appear £rom the legal descrip-
had been advertised, therefore, the
unless subject petition were continued
balance of the property.
Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner proposed to construct a wall along
the west property line of Lot No. 3.
Mr. Roberts noted that this would be a truck maintenance and truck parking
awaiting maintenance area.
Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner had stated that presently they were
not planning anything for Lot No. 3, and if anything was proposed for Lot No. 3
for other than M-1 uses, this would have to be considered.
Mr. Van Eck inquired that if he paved this area., could he park a truck on it;
whereupon Mr. Roberts replied negatively, and then stated that if the Commission
apgroved the truck maiiltenance business for only the parcel advertised, then it
was possible a less compatible use might be proposed for the other lot, there-
fore, he would suggest that subject petition be contin•aed in order to readvertise
the entire parcel.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-716
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT__NO. 5 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1351 (Continued)
Mr. Roberts, in response to Mr. Fishman's request for clarification, noted that
the Planning Commission could approve the use on Lot No. 4 only, since that was
the only lot that was considered in the legal advertisement; that the agent
could not use Lot No. 3 as part of the truck maintenance business, and if subject
petition were continued for two weeks, this would give staff sufficient time to
readvertise and there would be no later delay in handling any uses proposed on
Lot No. 3.
Assistant 2cninq Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that Mr. Van Eck was given
alternatives prior to advertising this petition, and the indication was that
at this point in time he did not know how he would use thia pxoperty, conse-
quently, that portion on which no plans had been submitted 'nad been deleted,
and this de~ision was made about four weeks ago becausa of no definite plans
for Parcel 3.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since the petitioner proposed to utilize Lot
No. 3, at least a portion of it for parking purposes, he would suggest a two-
week aontinuance in order to readvertise the property since it was his opinion
this was a proper use in the M-1 2one.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Conditional
Use Permit No. 1351 to the meeting of November 13, 1972, to allow staff time
to readve;tise both parcels proposed for utilization. Commissioner Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Rowland suggested that since the Environmental Impact Report was
considered trivial, he would suggest that action be taken on it, and offered
Resolution No. PC72-278 and moved for its passage and adoption to receive
Environmental Impact Report No. 5 and recommend to the City Council that due
to the size and location of the property and the nature of the proposed develop-
ment, the impact of the proposed project upon the environment would be trivial
and there would be no need for an Envirnmenta.l Impact Statement. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resol~:tion was passed by the following vote:
AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIO'NERS: None.
Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 5:35 p.m.
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1131 - Property located
at the northeast corner of Hroadway and Loara S~reet.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proxi~ity, and the request for an additional
five years' time for outdoor storage of building materials with waiver of the
50-foot setback adjacent to an arterial highway= that Condition No. 12 of Plan-
ning Commission Resolution No. PC69-185 required that the storage of material
shall not be more than the height of the masonry wall, i.e., eight feet along
Broadway and Loara Street along the front 50 feet along the east property line,
and six feet for the remainder of the propert; as stipulated by the petitioner;
that presently materials were being stored ir. the yard at a height in excess of
the walls, and this material could easily be viewed from the adjacent streets.
In additlon the landscaping was poorly maintained, and the chainlink gate into
the prc+perty had many of the plastic interwoven strips missing; and that staff
would recommend a one-year extension of time in order to allow the applicant
time to bring the property into con£ormance with the conditions of approval
of the conditional use permit, and once the site had been brought into con-
formance, consideration could be given to extending the use for an additional
period of time.
Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the violation of the Planning
Commission directive in the resolution and thE appearance of the chainlink
fence, as well as the poorly-maintained landscaping, and upon its conclusion,
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to grant a thirty-day extension of time to allow the applicant
to bring the property into conformance with the conditions of approval of the
conditional use permit, and directed that a letter be sent to the applicant
advising him that any consideration of an extension of time would not be given
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAN'NING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 72-717
ITEM NO. 1 (Continued)
by the Planning Com~aission until stacking of building materials was in conform-
ance with the requixement of Resolution No. PC69-185; that the landscaping be
improved; and that ~he chainlink gate be repaired. (Commissioner Farano was
absent)
ITEM NO. 2
VARIANCE N0. 2160 - Request for termination -
Property located on the sovth side of Linaoln
Avenue, approximately 190 feet east of the
centerline of Brookhurst Street and zoned C-1.
pssistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted the location of subject property,
uses established in close proximity, and the request to terminate the estab-
lishment of a brake servicing shop, noting that none of the conditions of
approval had been met, and that one time extension had already been granted.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-279 and moved for its passage
and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 2160 at the request
of the petitioner. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONk~RS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ITEM N0. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1286 - Request for
an extension of time - Property located on the
west side of State College Boulevard, approxi-
mately 265 feet north of Via Burton Street.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McPaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, and the request for a one-
;~ear extension of time; that there had been no previous requests for an
extension of time; that none of the conditions oF approval had been met;
and that staff would recommend a one-year extension of ti.me retroactive
from August 7, 1972, to expire October 30, 1973.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the Commission might make the
finding that no Environmental Impact Report would be necessary because of
the trivial impact this use would have on the area.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time retroactive to
August 7, 1972, to expire October 30, 1973, with the findinq that no
Environmental Impact Report would be necessary because the request at this
time was trivial. (Commissioner Farano was absent)
ITEM NO. 4
URGENCY ORDINANCE PROPOSAL
Chairman Seymour noted that because of the joint meeting with the City Council,
it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to take action regarding condo-
miniums, and the Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council
to re-implement the urgency ordinance on the books about a year ago, which
would require a density of 12 units per acre on planned residential develop-
ments and parking of 2~ spaces per unit until such time as staff and the
Commission could make further recommendations and hold public hearings on
Code amendments.
Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5;40 p.m.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that it was the City Attorney's opinion
that this ordinance could not be re-implemented, and he did not know whetiier
the Commission could recommend a similar ordinance in ~he future because this
would be an interim urgency ordinance and it would be extremely difficult to
find any justification because the City had been approving projects of this
nature in the past.
Chairman Seymour noted that the urgency was very clear because the City Council
agreed with the Planning Commission that condominiums were different and the
needs were specific, having special standards, and in light of the approval o£
the condominium at Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street, he felt this was a great
urgency
~
~
r•--+-~
.~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1972 ~2-~18
ITEM NO. 4 (Continued)
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the Commission could recommend to the
City c:ouncil that they adupt a policy until such time as an ordinance was
enacted limiting the density of condominiums to 12 units per acre and parking
requirements at 2~ parking spaces per unit could be implemented in an ordinance
form, because this was a desirable minimum goal.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the difference between an urgency
ordinance and a regular ordinance was that the urgency ordinance became effec-
tive immediately, while the regular ordinance required a thirty-day referendum.
Mr. Lowry noted that an urgency ordinance required special findings that the
urqency oxdinance was needed for the protection of life and limb~ etc.
Mr. Roberts noted that if the City Council enacted an ordinance as augqested
by Mr. Rowland, said ordinance would become effective in thirty days.
Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission and staff regarding the request
of Chairman Seymour, previous court findings on similar cases, previous require-
ments by the City, and the fact that the City was granting waivers 99B of the
time from Code - staff felt it was not a good ordinance but was a means of
developing.
Commissioner Rowland stated that the thing that was different was the fact
that there were proposals with three or more buildings, and the various waivers
appeared to be justified since the Commission was considering multiple-family
development with 100-unit complexes, however, the variances became so'numerous
until it was determined the ordinance should be changed.
Mr. Lowry noted that the City Attorney's of£ioe would attempt to draft a
vehicle that would accomplish what the Commission desired, however, the
conditional use permit gave the Commission the ability to produce something
that could not have been done with other types of zoning, and this could be
done by the planned unit development type of conditional use permit.
Mz. Thompson noted that based on the joint meeting with the City Council, this
was one of the four major areas that would be given a very high priority since
the City Attornep's office was ir~ on the meeting - he would attempt to get to-
gether to develop some type of a package for the Commission to review.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner
Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Kaywood secunded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~J ~~~ -~.
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
AK:hm
0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVIGE, ItdC.
:nio i,~, ti:~~ n~ 32:0
An;~h~,m. ~;.~I,I~,.n~n