The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/03/180 R C 0 MiCROFIIMING SERVICE, IkC. :. .~. . ,,. ~~~ ~I,~ ~~~ .i ~ , i ~ ~ City HaY1 Anaheim, Callfornia March 18, 1974 REt~JT~AR N~ETING OF THE ANAH~IM CITY PLANt~ING COMMISSION REGUZI~R - A r~gulr~r ~nee~tinq of ~he A~ahe.irn Ciky Planning Commi,~ei.on wae MEETING caZ].ed to order by Ghairman 3rtu~r at 2:00 p.m., a quozum being ~roaent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN~ G~.uer. ^ COMMI3SSON~~tSt Compt.an, F~rano, Herbst, Johne~n, King, Marlay~ P,BSENT - COMMTSSIONERS: Nane. ALSO PRFSF.NT - Aasiotant Devc~lapm~nt S~r.v.iaes Directors RonalA ~nc~~mpEOn peputy City Attorney: Frank La~,-ry Chfef Builcltng Inspector: Dan Van llarpe Off.ice Engineer: Jay Titus Traf°ic Engineer: Ec~ward Gra~nzaw Zon3riq Supervieor: Charles Roberts Assista~nt Zoning Su~.ervisor: Phillip Schwartze Commission Secretary: Patricia Saanlr~n L~LEAGE 4F - Commissioner Morley led in the Pledge of Allegianae to the ALZEGIANCE F~~g of the United States of America. APP1tOVAI. OF - Commisaionar Herbat noted ir~ connectian with the Mafich 4, ].974, THE MIVUTES Planning Commission mi.nutes, that page 74-124, paraqraph 4, should zead that "Commisaianer Herbst vated 'nA "'. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by ~:ommissioner H~rbst and M4TION CARRI~D, to approve the minutes of the meet~ ing of February 20, 1974, as submittad, a~tl that tha m~.nutas of the meetin,q of March 4, 197'~4, be approved as corz~ected. ENVIRUNMENTAL ~MPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HrL~LS, INC. AND FcEPORT N0. Z11 TEXACO VENTTJF2ES, ZNC., c/a H~rst J. Schor, 380 Anaheim HilYs Road, Anaheim, Ca. 92807, Owner. Property dea- ItECLASSZFICATION cribed as: An irregularly-~ahaped parc~l of land con- NO. 7~-74-28 sisting of approximately 24 aarea, having frontages of a~proximately 830 feet on the eaat side of Hidden Canyon V~#RIANCE NO. 2566 Road and approximately 2630 fee;: on the north side of ~ Avenida de Santiago~ having a maximum depth of appro~i- T~NTATIVE MAP AF inately 403 feet and being located appraxirnately 500 feet TRAC7C N0. 8520 southeasterly uf the intarsection of Sprrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. Praperty presently cla3~ified COUN~PY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, ~ISTRICT. REQUEST~D CLASSIF~CATION': R-H-22,Ob0, SINGL~-FAMILY (ONE-EI1~LF AGRE) ZONE. REQt7~STED VARIANCE: WASVE REQUIREMENT OF SINGLE-FAM]:LY LO'~S FRONTTNG ON AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY. PENTATIVE TRACT REQUESTs 21 R-H-22,000 ZONED LOTS. Subject pe~.itiona were continued from th~ m~etinc~s of December 10, 1973, and January 7, 1974, at the request of the petitioner to submit revised plans. Aas~stant Zoning Superviaor Phillip Schwartze noted for the Commisaion that the petitioner was requesti.ng a further contin~aanae to the meeting of April 29, 1974. Commissioner King affered A moti~n, seeonded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED, that the public hearing and consideration nf Environmenta~. Impact Repart Na. 111, Reclassification No. 73-74-28, Variance I3o. 256b and Tentative Map of Traat No. 85~0 be continued to i~he meeting of April 29, 197~, a~ re~ qu~eEted by the petitior. ~r. ?4-146 . MINU'l~ES, CITY PL~INNING GOMMISSTON, Niarch 18, 1974 7d-147 AREA DEVF.LOPMENT - CANTINUEU PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BX TIiE ANAH~IM CI:'Y PL1W NO. 114 PLANNING CUNiMI83xQN, 204 ~;ast Lincoln Avenue, An~heim, Ca. i 928051 to conaidex vehicular ci,rculation and nccoss Por epproximately 50 ecree genorally bounded by th• rtortherly Qxteneion of Grove Stre~t to the west= Miral.~ma Avenue ta ~he z~ar~ht Tuetin Avenue to the northyaet~ ~he Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ra~ilxoed on the south- eaett ~nd La Pnlma Avenue to the eouth. 8ub~ecti Araa Devel.opmont ~~lan was continued from the meeting of February 20, 1974, for further input f.rom the affacted ~raperty ownnre, and subeequently cantinued Erom tha meeti.ng of March 4, Z974, in orc~er for S*aff to obt,ain additional tnformatiAn regarding the legal ~tatu8 af. ~ort~.ons ot prop4rty i.n the area affected by the Plaii. Assistar-t :;oniny Supervi~~r Phillip Scliwartze noted frr the Cammiseion that 3tuff wi-a r~~~uesting ar. adclitional two-weeDc continus~nce. Commiasioner King~ offered a motion, ~econded Uy Commi.e~sioner. Jahnson an~ MOTION CARRIED, t.~ .further continue the pub],ic hear.ing and cansideration o~ Area De~velopmer~t P~an No. 114 to the meetirig of April 1, 1974, as raqueated by Staff. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'r - Rec~uest for cons~doration as reguired in conneatinn REPORT NO. 119 ~v' :.~, appr.aval of an ex~enaion of time an TQntative ~z~ct Map No. 7417. Praperty located noxth of the fsture extensinn of I+a Palma Avenne and south of Esperanza rcoad approximatel.y 1-2/3 miles c~ast of. Imperial HighwaX. Consideration of Environment~31 Impact Report No. 119 was postponed frcm the meeting ~f March 4, 197h, at the r•equest of ~he applicant. Assis~ant Zoning Supervisor Phillip 5chwartze not~d for the Commi.ssion that the Environmental Ii~,~~act Fteport Review Committee reviewed the draPt EIR No. 119 at its meeting on March 5, 1974, anc~ determine~ that said EYR was in- adequate as an informa~ive document and would require extensive review before it couid ;ae approved and, therefore, the app:li.cant was requesting a further postponement to the meeting ~f Apr.il 1S, 1974, Commissioner King offe,.ed a motion, seconded by Comml.ss~.one~ Johnspn and N1pTI0N CARRIED, that consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 17.9 be further pastponed to the meeting of Ap.ril 1S, 1974, as requ~sted by the applicant. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-41 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JAYZELLE V, RINKER, 2121 Alga Road, Carlsbafl, Ca. 92008, Owner; MORRTS td. GREGORY, 747 Coastview Drive, Laguna, Ca. 92651, ~gent; requesting that property descriY;ed as: A rectangularly-shr~p~d parcel of land c~nsisting of approximately 1.5 acres located on the n~rtheast cornQr nf~Orangethor~p Avanue and Post Lane, having ~ fron~age of approximr~tely 384 feet on the north side of Orangeth~r~e Avenue and havinq a fro~~tage of approxi- mately 174 feet on the east side of Pos~t Lane be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAZ, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COI~IIrIERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continixed from the meeting ef Februar,y 20, 1974, for revisaon of plans. No one appeared in op~osition ta subject petition. Although the Staff Report to t.he Planning Commission dat~d March 18, 1974, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made ~ part of the ~minutes. Mr. Morxis Gregary, agent for the petitioner, appe~red before the Commission and Str~ted the proposal, as ~reaented on Fek~r~aary 20, 1974 to the Planning C~~nmtission, had been studied and no chany::s were made; a;id that due to the depth of the lot, the buil3ir~g would have to b~ zeduced by at least 5000 square feet in order to comply with CodE requ,~remer,~s, whi~h would make the projec~ econom~.aally infeasible. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S~ CITY PI,I1NNItJG CUMMIS3ION, ~larcl~ 18~ 1974 74-148 RLCLASSIFTCATION N0. 73-74-41 (Contj.z~ued) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE~). Commiseioner Compton inquir~d if Mr. Greg~r.y ~vae indicat~.nc~ that the pzoperty uould naver be dev~eloped with the required '20 feet of 1ai~cl~caping ancl Mr. ~regory stated by providing the 20 feRt of lands~~tping the propert;- c.ould not be daveloped with whz~t they werr~ pr.opoaing ns thc~ bu:llding wou13 be toc amull. Upon inquiry of CommisAiUn~r Compton, Mr. Gr$gory stAt~d he did not believe that Mr. 0'Meara, wh~ spoke to the subject reclassificatinn on Fe:~r~~ary 20, 1974, before thc~ Planni.ng Commiasiun. had contacted the residents in tho area, how^v~r, as far as l~e knew there wexQ no protest~. 1lseistant Zaning ~upexvisor PhiJ.lip Schwartze advi.~~d that ther.e were two lettera receivod ir. opposition to sub;ject pa~iti.an. Mr. Sc.hwartze read the letters in opposition and aaid letters are referred 'r.o as if set forth in xull in #:he minutQa. Commi.ssi.oner King IlOt8C1 for the Commiasi~~n that he had r~viewed ~he aub~ect property &gain in th~ field and r~oted that the homes on the abuLting single- Eamily resi3ential properties were we~11 cared .fort that the hom~s ware preaently protected from the ~ra£fic, inasanuch a~ theX backed up to the aubject pro~ser*_yi that he certainly bplipved the subject property could be devel~pe~ in a mariner auitable to provide continued protaction t~ the adjoining homesj that although the p~titioner was indiGating th~; property was go~high-~~riced that a Iarge building was necessary to make the deve].~pment ecanomically feasible, he did not believe the property was so high-priceu that it sh~~~~'..; ;~e developed to the detriment of the adjoi~ing properties. Mr. Schwartze noted for the Commission that if tl'le subject prr~perty was deter- mined to be appropriate for commercial xoning, the Commission might wish to place on it a resolution of intent to C-l. zuning, subject tu the Commisaion's review af plans which would rirovide a s~iitable buffer at the noz~th and sa~t property lines. Commi.ssioner Herbst noted that the property migk~t be suitable for a convenience market. Commissioner Farano noted tliat previous indic~tions of ~he Planning Commission were that the property was sU~tab].P for commercial zoning and there would be na question in his mind i.n that respectj that the minutes of. the February 20, 1974, Planning Gommission meeting clearly indicated the Commission's ~ositian regarding development of the pr~~perty to the ext~nt that if the proposal was revised ta provide the required buffer by possible rearrangement of th~ parking, etc., it would be acceptable to the area, how~ver, the peti.tioner did not -vant to do this. He continued by stating the four-week continuance from the February 20 meeting was to g~ve the petition~r an opportuni~ky to resolve the problems; however, the petitioner was submi*.cinq tha~ they had to reduce the building sizP by 50U0 square feet. Chairman Gauer Q~fered a motion, seconded b~• Commissioner Marley and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission .recommends ta the City Council that 'the subject praperty be exempt from the requiremeiit to prepare ar. Environmental Impact Report pur.suant to the provisions of the Califarnia Environmental Quality Act. . Comi,lissioner Her~~ ~t offered a resolution rec;.,nmendiny denial a:~ Petition for Reclassificatior. No. ~3-7g~41 on the basis of the foregoing findings, and Commissioner Far~no suggested that the reasons for clenial should includ~ that discussion was held between the Planning Commissioii and M=. O'Meara, re~rcoant~- tive of the agen~ for the petitioner, that if the density of tYae proposa~ for development of the subject property was re3uced it would be a more favorable dev2lopment and tha~ Grego=y had reached a conclusion that he would hawe to reduce the building by 5000 square fePt in order to meet the requirements, ahiah conclusion cvas unverified and uncorroborative as far as the Pl~nn~ng Conuni s s ion was concerned . Cortunissioner Herbst neted for th~ Commission that the master plan indicated comr~-ercial zoning at the corner of KeZloyg and Orangethorpe in the area. ~ ~ MINUT~S, C~TY. PLANNTNG COMMTSSION, Mnrch 18, ],974 74-149 RECLASSIFICATI~N NU. 73-74-41 (Continued) 2oning Supervisor Char.los Roberta i,nguirad if thc~ Plann~.ng Commiseion would be lnalined t.~ go with cammercir~l zoning on the eubject property or what altornate ueo might be maci~: af the proparty. Commiesiarler Farano indicated that the Plax~ni.ng Commis~ion was not in diengree- ment with, tho uee of the stibject proparty for commerci~l purposest khat iP the alternative was other than aingl.e-family developmenr, som~+ kind of buffering etrip far the protection of the adjoining R-1 properties would be requiredt and that the buffering strip had beon requixed everi with R-3 developmeilt. Mr. Robert.s advi~ed if L-he Cammiaston thought the subj~ci: property wAa ~pgro- priate for commercial zaning and if suff~.cietit safeguaards could be placed in the condition~ ~f ~pproval, i.e., aubject ko a 20-foat wide landacape strip being provided at the nar~h and east propertX linea to aexv~ as a buffer to the Rdjoining r~ingla-famill~ ze~:tdentia]. pr~pertiert and to ma•lntain the resi- dent.ia.l integrity, and, furthPrmore, Kub~ect to submieei.on of prQCiae plana And appraval thereof by the Planntng Commiaeion ~rior to th4 introduction of nn ordii~ance r4zoning aubject pxoQerty, that proceeding wi~:h approval on the foregding basis would in the l~ng run savc ti.me ond expenae if someone wanted te develop the property commerciallX. Ccmmissioner tterbst noted that the subject proporty wae a reaiilt o:~ what happ6ns when property is held out, with R-1 bscking up to it with tha idea of development in sume sort o~ comme.rcial manner; that he did not deny it was apprapriatQ for cammercial; however, he did not agree it was suitable for a lot ~f shaps such as was being praposed. Thereupon, Cotrunisgioner ~ierbst withdrew his original mot~.on recommenciing dpnial of the subject pstition and offered Itesolution No. PC74-61 and moved for its passage and ad~ption to recommencl to ~he City Council that Petition fo.r Re~las- si.fiaati4n No. 73-74-41 be approved s~~" -:ct to the condition that a 20-foot wide lt~ndsr.ape strip shall be provid~ ~: the north and east property lines tn serve as a buffer to the udjoining s.:~yle-famil~ residential prapextiea; tha.t ad~quatE safeguards ~:~ould be provided to further. protect th~e living envixan- ment of t.~ie adjozning single-family residential pioperties frozn commErcial devel~pment on the suuject property; that the Planning Commission recommen~a- tion for C-t zonir~g should be made subject to gubmission of pxecise plaris and approva.l thereof by the Planning Cornmission ;~rior to t.he introduction of an ~rdinanc~ rezoniny subject pxoperty~ and subject to conditions. (See Reaolution Boak) Commis~ioner Herbst noted that particularly with convenience market devs].opmenta there were ma.ny complaints regarding the houra of operation v~hich extend al.l night in some cases and the adjoining residentiai properties deserved some protection from this; and that he would l~ka to have the hours of operation ~ontrol].ed if possible to not extend beyond mic~*+'-'~+-. ~ Deputy City Attorney Fr~nk Lowry advised t.hat if the property was zoned C-1, the Gi.ty would have ta I.iv~ with the development s~tandards for that zone. On roll call, the ioregoirag resolutxon was passed by the follc+wing vote: AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Hexbst, Johnson, Kinq, Morley, Gauer. NOES: COMM7SSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - CON'1`INiJED PUBLIC HEr1RING. ROBF.RT ~. 13UPR'~ AND J. RICHARD PERtdIT Na. 145~1 FARLEY, 341 "A" Ba}-side Drive, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660, Owners; PHARAOH SALES COMPRNY, c/o G1enn Blick, 1321 North Kraemer Boulevard, Ansheim, Ca~ 92806, Agen~t; requesting permission ~o RAISE QUAIL IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE an prope~ty described as: A rectangularly-shapec~ parcel of lar~3 consiating of ~.pproximately 1.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 175 feet on the west side of Orangethorpe Park, having a maximum depL-h o£ approximate~ly 361 feet, and being located approximately 760 feet north of the centerline of Orange~thorpe Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. ~ ~ MINUTES, CI'~X FLANNINC COMMIS3TON, Mnrch 18, 1974 74-1.50 ~ONDIT~ONAI ~75~ PERMTT N0. 1454 (Continudd) Subjec~ petiti~on wag aonti,nued f.rom th~ meAting of February 4, 1974, for the petitionar to submi.t An Environmental Impact R~~ort, und fxom the meeting of MArch 4, 1974, in urdsr for the peti.tioner to be pr.esen~. ,Aaei.er~nt 2oning Supervioor Yhillj.p 5chwartze nated far ~the CoT-~nisaion thak Sta~ff had made numc~rous attemp~s by telephone to cantdct tho ~etitianer rd- ge-~r~~.ng the status of his Environmental Impact Re~ort +~nd :ion4 of the calle wc~re returne~i1 anr~ that a letter had be~n mai.led on Merch ].3, 7.574, inPor-ninq the patitionex of the ~ending March 18 meetinq, howeve~r, no ane was gre~enC at the mee~ting to repre~ent thP petitioner, nar had the ETR been suk~mitted. Cammiaeianer K~ng ofFerod a,r.Qaolution to deny Petltion f~r Cunditinna~. Uee [~erm~.t No. 1454, following whi~h there wa~ discugs•lon regarding ttie proced~xre to tollow aince thnre wae rQason ta believ~ tha.t an application had b9en filed far e~nuther uee at the subject locat9on which w~r~ld indicate that tihe qentle- man who filed thQ aubject petition migt~t nr migh+~ not etil]. be there, and s~nce an EIR ~s datermi.ned. to be apprapriate in the considerati~n of the pr~- pasal ha,d not been aubmittQd. Daputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised it wau~.a be proper to ~ake ~he matter off calendar unti~. c~uch time as an FIR was reaeiv~d which would a12.ow the Planning Commic~sion to take an ao'c~on. Zoning Supervisar Charles R~berts offexed a suggesti~n ~hat t.he ma~ter be continuad for f.our weeks with the d~.rection that the Z~ning Enforcement Of~icer aerve notiae an tY-e pc~titioner and if ths propos~d use was atil~ in viol.ation and the ~etit~aner did not take imanecl:late ~ctian to comply, he would be cited into couxt. Theroupon, ~CommissionEr King withdr.ew his oziginal motion for denial of subject petition and ~€fered a new motion ~o reopc~n the public hearing and further continue cansideration af Cnnditional Use Per±nit No. 1454 to the meeting oP April 15, 197A. Commissioner Morley seconded the motion and MOTTON GARRIED by unanimoua vote. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PUALIC HEAFcING. INI~YATED BY THE ANAHET1~i CTTY NO. 123A PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincaln Avenue, An~heim, Ca. 92805; proposi.ng ta amend tlle Anaheim General P~an for the 4240-acre area commonly referred to us Anaheim Hills. ENVIRONMENTAI, IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HERRING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC./ TEXACO REPORT NO. 115 VENTL'R~S, INC., 380 Anahei.m Hills Road, Anaheime ~s. 92807, Owner; HORST .7. SCHOR, 390 Anaheim Hills Road, RECLAS5IFICATION Anaheim, Ca. 92907, Agen~; requeating that property N0. 73-?4-46 descriY~ed as: Qortion A- An irr~gularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of aQproximately 119 a~res located southeast of the in~er.aection of Noh1 Ranch Road and Ymperiai Hiqhway, having a frontage of approximately 5690 fee.t nn the south side of Nohl Ranch Road and having a maximum degth of approximately 17i~0 feet, and Portion B- An irregular~y-ahaped parca~. of latad consistiny ~f ap- proximately 1~5 acres located easterJ.y of the preaent t.erminus of Canyon Rim Ro~d, having a maxirnum depth of approximately 5670 fPet and a maximum width of approximately 1670 feet, be reclassified £rom the R-A, AGRICU''~TURAL, ZONE to the PC , PLANIJEA COM.'tiIUNITY, ZONE . Subject Petition for Reclassification No. 73-74-46 and consideratian c~f Environ-- mental Im~act Repart No. 115 were cantinued ~ram the meetinq of rlarch 4, 1974, in order to advertise General Plan ,Amendment t3~. 123B. Two pergor-s indicated their presence in oppositi.on and waived the full reading of the Staff Repart to the Planning Commission dated March 18, 1974. Said Staff Repor~ ia refprred to and made a part ~f the minutes, Mr. Horst Saho~, Vice President with AnaY.,~im Hills, Inc., appeared before the Cos~nission and stated the establi8kiment of the original Planned Communit,y Zone in Anahe~im Hills had proven to be an effective tool in guiding the developer and the build.exs in allowing the City to provide adequate ser.vice ta the , ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTLS, CT'~'x PLA~INING CCIMMTSSiON, Merch 18, 19'74 "I •15] GENERAL PLAN 1-MENDM~NT NO~ 12;iH, F.NVIRONME;NT~.L INIPACT RF:P~~RT' NO. 115, ANf? ~CLASSII'I ~AT'[ON NO. 73-74-4G (Cantim~ed) projects within tti~ Plannecl Gommunity 'Lonep that ~.heyy wero propoaing to acld two additianal areaa to the PC Zon~, ~s outlined tn tllo Staf~ Re~art, aroa A being a proJect ai.k~ consi.atiny of 119 acrc~e aouth of Nohl Fanch Road between Tmperial I[3ghway nnd Anaheim ttilla Road dn~ the development wuu:.9 ba compo~ed oP R-2, R-H••10,000, R-3 and business-protesr~ionAl propor~y; ~roa B bel.ng e 124-acre ei".:e oast of the go1P c~urse and north o~t the raservoir and would be aompoeed oi R-Fi-10,00n and R-~2 pr.opartyy thr~t denaities werc eatabli~hed in a somEwhat airtii].ar faehion as i.n th~ir pr.evious pra jQCta r~nd wou~.d ~o ultimately developed wit~h the ~~ame perc~r~tag~s aN exFerienced iit the pae~.J thet. as a matter of in- r.e,rest, ttiro~igh ttie dovelopmdnt of azea A, the circulAtion ays~am would be siqnificdr~~tly impx~a~~cd in Anaheim Hills and would allow the extensiun of Canyon Ritr Road 1`r.~ its px•~seni: t~rmination ln tha Northridc~e project to Serrano .'~venue ancl woul.d complQte L-hQ circulr~t.ion w3thin the Anaheim Hilte CommunityT that circL~~atio,~ hacl been o~ some c~ncArn to th~ ~~taf£ and ~hey had workNd very c~iliy.~ntlx~ with t:he Cit~ and Count.y Staf.~' xn malcinq ~'airmc~nt Boulevard which would co~ne~ from Sant:~ Ana Canyon Road to Canyon Rim Road a possib~.lity nnd it Appeared c~t this poi.nt in time that Fairmont would be r.onstructed and in plar.e by the and of 1975 e~nd would provide t:~e much-n~eded s~cond outlet for ths Anaheim Hills C:ommur~ityJ that ai:other installation which wo~ald occur through the 3evNl~~ment of: iirez~ A would allow the Water. pepartment to install a perma- n~nt 20-anch water :~inc i.nto the Mohler Dri.v~ area t~ serve Mohler Dr.ive as well as a portion o1° the Narthridge proiect. Mr. Schar canti.-~d by stating the.r~ was a good com~oei~ion oP land a3es~ as in thP paat, anu ,.hlit there was sume nee3 for a medical-dental proPe~sional- type building which was pr.oposed to be located in the commercial area at Anaheitn H:llla Road ~vhera the pr.imE cummercial c.oncgntration was f and that tihey had :ras~rved a 5-acre eitQ in the R-2 'Lone of area A on which they hoped to attrac;~ a church, Mr. Schor concluded his presentation by sta~~.ng the Staf f Rep~art c~vere~i th~ pr~poaal quite we11, haw~ver, he was avai.lable to answpr any ques±ion:s the Commission miyht have. Zoning Supervisor C'zarles Roberts expandsd upon Mr. Schox's preoentation bX emphasizing some o: the noints c.ontained in the Staff Report. He explained for t`~e Connnission that when General Plan Amendment No. 123 was origina]~.y appr~ved, one ~f the requirement. o:C oart of said General Plan Amendment was that the er-tire .ranch ~,e divided ~nco planning areas and tliat an assigiiment be made to thase in3ividual planniny ar~as for th~ numL~er of units that the developer anticipated would be developed i~l that area; Lh3~ the planni~ig areas wer.e rathe: defi.nitive, al~houglz they werz still general to a certain degree; that the pragosal befnre the Commission pertained to portions of two of the originally-approved planz~ing areas, or 244 ;~cres of said planning areas; and that the number ~ dwelling units being pr~posed for the 244 acres would be deducted Erom the r,unibar af dwelling units ariginally approved fcr the entire development of the tw~ planning areas, whi~^Pi would indicat~ that Flnaheim Hilla was nat proposing to increase the number af dwalling units within the original planning areas. Mr. Roberts ~ontinued by noting that in reviewing the Circulation Element contained in th~ proposal bookl~t pr~vided by Anaheim Hills, Inc., in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 123B, oize of thP ~~treets as orictinally shown did n.~t appear, said str.eet being V~a Escola which connectec? Anaheim u~.lls Road with Crescent Avenue; and that the Cotrmission might wish to discus~ the reasons for that omis~ion. Further, there were 16 ac_es being p.roposed f.or commerci~il dev~lopment which was not approved in General Fian Amendment No. 123A. Mrs. Mary Ainndarf, Presiden~c, Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., appeared before tlze C:ommission and read from ~. Ci ty Council re~solution en- titled "A RESOLUTIOiV ~F THF CT.TX CQUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~M DECLARING THE CITY COUt1CIL'S IN'rE'V'r TO MAINTAIN THE PERA7~TA HILLS AND SANTA e1A]A CANYON AREAS AS LOW DENSITY RESIDFNTIAL AREAS", said resoiution being adopt~d J~:ne 9, 1970. She further etater~ that the days of the frontier were gone and no ionger could the beauty and v~Q rt.h of land be destroyedt that thought must be given in terms of other people in ~~ther times and not to develo~~rs and the profit; that whereooever a man l:lved today another marl would live tomorrow and it wa~ time to reHlize that des:~gn should be for the £utuxe as well as f~r today; and she ~ MINU'I'ES, CITY PI~ANCJINC, Ct~MMISSION, MArah 1.8, 1974 '14~152 GENERa1L PLAN AMEI~DNI~N'P NO. 12313, ~NVIP.ONMENTAL IMPAC7.' R;c:.POR1' NO. 115, AND FtECLASSI'r'ICATION NO. 73-7q~46 Continue~l? ~~~_~~ ` remindod thg P1.anning Commi~aion that th~ crtiz~n~ wero lo~king Por an~w~rg in trying to fin~3 solutions £or the pr.oblc~mA that exceeeive dnd irre~poneive growth wns cxaat:Lng x~r tho pROp1c~ in tho areas of hc~a].th, s~fety and achaols. Upon inqulry of Chal.rman Gauer, Aesistant Zoning Super~ieor Fhilli.p ;~chwartze indicaf~d that the reaolution re~d by Mre. vinnclorf was sti11 in effect ~o hiA knowledge. Mr.. RogQr Wi.lson, Planning Ai.ds, r~preaentln~ ~he Orange Uniflnd Sc.hool. Distriat, appeared befora ~lie Commiaeion an~~i stated inaemuch as tltere~ were three new 1'lanning C~nun~.ssion~rs it: was probably approprixt~ to rc~ad the ~.etter dated March 18, 197a, which was d.Lractad to the Planning Commissian from Mr. Harry H. Platt, Bu~inesa btanaqer n.f ttte Orang~ Unif:ted Schoal District, said letter being in oppoa~.ti~n to ~he General Plun Amendment No. 1235 and EIR rla. 115. Z~her.eupon, Mr. Wilson rer-3 amid letter and it ~s referred t~ as ~.f set forth in full ir- the mtnutc~s. Mr. Wilson stated he w~uld be available during the meeting in case thero we:re any questions which he cnuld ~nt~wer for the Commission. In rebuttal, Mr. Scho:~stated as fF~r as the General Plan for the Hi11 and Canyon Area, the Anahei,;n Ci~.y Cc~unc:il adopted tlie Anaheim Hilla General Plnn as its General Pl.an for that ~artic;ular area and in ap~roving that F'1t~n, a ceiling wat~ aet for ~he total numbbr of living units thttt gliou.ld occupy the area; that the numbe.r of living uni*s over t;ie past years was consiatentl.y rec~uced in that 15,000 were origini~lly pro~ected and ~he total at pr~s~nt was 12,700 and further reductions would b~ incurred a~ time elap~ecl; that the development was c~nsi.stPnt with the dorument read by Mrs. Dinndaxf; and that the overall density for the entire 9200 acres was below the density the City was striving far., Hc c.ontinued by atating ins~far as the schoo7, sitv.Ation was concerned tha~ ~h~:y were pre~ent].y in caurt and there were also negotlati.ons taking place be:.ween Anaheim Hills, T.nc. and the School DiEtriot and he waa c~rtain that schools would b~ provided one way or the other as this had been done in the past and would continue ko Un flone in the future. Mr. Schor cor,tinued by s tating thzt the General Plan AmendmQnt heing reque~ted did z~ot oc~nstitute a final map approval but was a first step; that the builder would have to c~me before tl~e Commisaion for tenta.tive tract map ax~d final specific plan appr.oval ar~d that the Planninc~ Cammission would have many con- trols over th~ ultimate appearanc;e of any project within the Planned Cnmmunity Zone and its ultimate density; that as far as the street at the r.•idgeline location that was mentioned by Mz. Roberts as being removed from the circula- tian plan, thp reason it was not ahown on the new Plan was because of thp un•- certainty as to what mignt happen on the ridgeline; that the cities of Anaheim and O rar.ge ha~ an agreement that the ridgeline was t~ be the ultlma~e boundary between the two cities and ex~ctly wY~ere that boundary was was gti ll aub ject to discussion; however., if it would assist the Staff in determining the plan- ning araas, it coulcl be 3hown . THE PUBLIf: HFRRING WAS CLOSED. Commissianer H~rbst inquired cf Mr. Wilson i.f it wes tru~e fihat the Scho~l Distzict would like the Planning Cort~mission and City Council ta withho?.3 approving the subject General Plan e~Vnen~ment until suck- time as whe Schoal District was able to provide sahools, and Mr. Wilson stated that was a tru~ statement to the extent tha*_ the impact of the large amoun.t of de~~relopment at this particular time would create double sessions in the exi~ting school facilities until more funds or new funds became appacent and presently funds were not apparent. Commissioner Herbst further inquired when could the City te11 the 3~~ve7.oper tha.t schools would be av~ ~.larle; that there was a considerab~.e amount o~ growth ir. the area and s ince the School Distxict wanted the City to coordinate i~~s planning with that of the School District, the Sch~ol Distric} s~hould be able to indicate what th eir plans werP. ~ -~ ~ MINUTF.S, CI~Y P.LIU~1NiNG COMMISSTON, March 18, 1y74 74-15~ (3ENC1tAI. PLAN ~NDNI~NT NU. 1238, ENVIRONM~NT}IL IMPACT REPORT Nb. 115, P,ND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 73~74-46 (Con~inuod~ Mr. Wilson roplied thdt it was di•Ffic~ilt to giva a timo when the School District would be Perm~tted ~y tho votere t.n ~ex rhem at a greater c3j.1AC~.ty and A bond election would have to be pasaadl th~+t the political bou:nddrj.ea cause+d prabl.eme, hcwever, ~he School ni.e~tri~t w+~s c cying to ACIL~Cdt~' tha vatern through a public rolations c~mpeign to pass a band el~c~ianj tl~~t another bond oleotion was b~inq conaidered but had not beQn finalized to dake. ~ommi.~sionar Herbst n~ted that the 5ahr~~1 Dietrict ~vas aekin~ for eomething they had no plane for l ttiat taxes had baen collected Por the AC~'1OQ18 in the aren; that the Planning Commisstan had no contro~. over s4honl dietriote but that th~ Commir~~ion's responsib~].ity wae land uee and whether the proper~y wae auitablo for homes in thA Canyon arex or not~ that tha Schmol Diatriot was requeating the City to h~ld up d~ velopment until the School Dietrict had soma timo to do eome futuXO ~lanning; th at the School Dis~trict had had ten yAara to plan; that the City hAd be~n planning for. tt~~ ~.anyon for many yeara and the Sr.hool District had apparently ignored that pl,.~nning; anc~ that he would suggest the School Diatrict reprasatit~tives com3 back to ~ he Planni.ng Canunisaion with somQ epecific etatements ae L-o when and h~w t!~~y w.>uld plan for th~a schools in the areaj that tt-e Planni.ng Commission hac3 ar, obligation ~o t.ho c~~ ~lupera and the School District had an obligation to tl~e peaple who owned th~ proper- ties from whom th~s l.axcs f~r the School Distx•ict were derived. Mr, Wilson statod that the damands wriich the City was placing on th~ Schoal District had c~me abaut very rapidly and the School Di~trict had bQen making plans based ~n thQ knowledge they had; that the School llistrict had a master pl~nning consultant firm wtio liandled the master ~lar~n.ing for achoal facilitiss and provided palicy statsments as ~o wh~t wauld l~a needed in the di.strict; that sites were being planned and considered, however, they coulci not be pur- chased until funds wsre avai~able; thst they did not know whan ~hQy would receive the maney and t:hey were r.equesi~ing that the growth in the r~rea be phased to eliminate the po~sibility af doub~e aessions and bussing miles away to aouth Oranre. HIe c~ntiitued by statir~g the School Distxict was rsquesting ~h~ Plar~niny Commission and City Counci]. ta look at the impac~ on the children a~d their education. Upun furtk~er questionin~ by Commissioner Herbet, Mr. Wilsor. stated the growth in tha area should coincide with the construation of new school faci.lities. Upon inqui.ry of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Wilson stated he was not prepared to state tha exact numbex of pupils pr~sently bei.ng accommodated from Nohl Ranch. Chairman Gauer noted that the suilject areR had been master ~lanned for a very long time and perhaps the School District cou.ld have m~de plans for tPmpora.ry facilities if they had anticipated a need; that several schools had beon abandoned ~n Whi~~tier and in other areas f that schoo?. enrollment r~eemed to be dropping *-ather zapidly and such migltt o~cur in tk~e suh j~ct area. :ie sugges ~ed that rath '+an talking to thE City of Ar,aheim, Mr. Wfls~n should ~robably be ~alking to ~. : ublic in Orange and letting ±•hem know what the Distria~ ex- pected i,rould h~pp~n . blr. F/i2son indicated that thQ recent bonc~ electi~n failed by a~arrow margin. Upon questioning by Coirnnissioner Herbst, Mr. Wilson s~ated a"cQmmittee for better srhools" had considerQd ~he year-round schual progru~n and to date did not feel strungly about it for quality education, and possibly ~he community itself did not a~cept it; nevertheless the committee was not moi:ivated to ask t}iQ superinter.dent for such a policy statement. Upon inquiry of C~mmissioner Farano, Mr . Wilson stated the mas~er plan consult- ~nt was employed by the School District- at different period$; that t~~e District haa been atudying the master pla±i for Anaheim Hills since aprr~::i;,~ately 1:~?2, although he a~as not ab~olutely sure of the length of. time; t:~at he was un- certain about m~ny it~ms that dated back befcre the time he was firet employed with tlie School Aistrict; however, if fhe Planning Commission so desir~d, they cou13 address a letter to the Superintendent af the School District tco obtain any specific informmtion; and that he did not wish the ~lanning Commission ~o discred3t him becausE he ould not give concrete data in reply to many question$ raised by the Commission~:r~. ~ . ~ ~ MIN~]xES~ CITX ~~ANRTNG COMMISSI"~)N, MarcY: 16, 1974 74-154 GENL~RI~L PLAN AMENDM~;NT N0. 1238 , FNVIHONMENTAL IMPACT REPaRT NO. 115, 11ND RECLA.SSI~ ICATION N0. 7~-74-46 Cantinued) 4_ Ch~f.rmen Gauor nnted that the Commi.beion could not e~].va t.h~ p.roblema of the School DistrictT that the School Distri~t xepreeentAtive hr~ been very in- definite and particularly in re.~pect to the curront averag~e daily ai:tendance and whe~t was expectAd in that regarcij that the School District wr~u13 probably not have as man,y peo~le ln tha Anahc~im Hilla area ne they expected1 and that kho h~mea would bo L•-uilt and sold at eeparate timeb which would stayger the numbar nf People ac~nerated at ono timc . Mr. Morl~y noted that he waA conceraed about the 16 acrea for commerc:ial development and quoationed thc~ ty~o and function o£ the proposAd of.Qices. In rAply Mr. Schor statc~d the gr.oss acreaqe wae eompwha~ deceiving sj.ncc on].y 5 ot thoae acres would be pad ar.ea ancl the remainder of 11 acres would be slopa area, as inc~icated in the Land UsA Element of tha proposal; that tho offices ware, pro~osed to satisfy the needg of the conununity r~n8 wouJ.d ba loc~ted on a p.rofessional site nAar the ahopping ce~nter for. convenience; and that a faod mar.k~et was locat~d immediately acrosF the str.cet From the proposed oEfic~s. Commisaioner Farano queationed the ir~formation contained on page 5-f of the 3taf£ Repart to the Planning Cammi.ssi~m and indicated fliat it appe~red to conflict with tt~e e~rliPr sl:ateme, +: of Mr. Roberta that the densities pxoposeci did not excaed those ori.ginal.'. y appr.oved. For furthr.r clar3 Pication, Mr. Rob6rta adviaed that his statemFnt was to i.ndicate L-hat ~he peti~tioner was not pxa~+osiiig a yreater number of dwelling units within the originally-definad aroas f however, the over~ll density of just the 244 aores exceeded the overall. denai.t~~ that was approved f.or tl~e 4200 acr.es= that ti~h~re the petition.er was increasing the density on the 249 aares, a corresponding:ly lesser density would havz ~o be cons~.dered for the remaining acreagej t:hat the ~roposed General Plan Amendm~n~ was to add 244 acras to the Planned Community 'l.one which would have a gr.o~s denaity of 5.2, however, to date there was no chanqe ir. the overall density for the entire 4200 acr~s and the pattern was that the overall density was decreasing . Upon further questioning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Schor stated the Plan indicated a total of b7 ~cres of commercial located within the ranch; that sor.~e commercial wauld be pr~vided ar.ound the reservoi.r; that they would atay with the 67 acres , however, the final commerc=al development would probably be below t-.hat acreage. Commissioner. Farano r~otad that during the work seRSion held for the purpose of reviewing the proposed. expansion ~f thP planned Community Zone in Ansheim Hills on February 25, 1974, it was understooci that the Plan*~pd Co,rmunity ~on~ when adopted cuuld not exceed. the d~nsities specified in t.he originally- approved Plann~d Community Zone, howpver, the denaities coLild Ue less than those specified. Mr. Schor ~urther stated that the final ciensitiss would be approved by tract maps . Upon inquiry of Commi.ssioner Herbat, Mr. Schor st~ted that studi~s had been prepare~: in terms of buildabl~ land ar.c3 for a 20-acre gross site, the pad area would be about 12 to 15 ac~:es. Commissioner Herb~t made an observation that by using the densities a~.~i applying them to gross acreage, the develop- ment could coneeivably have 20 units per acre. Mr. Schor furth~r stated taat tlie density stated wou11 not necessarily be buiJ.t; that the Plar-ning ~c~nmisaion wou].d see the layout and be able to deter- mine wh~ther the product w~ul~ be a goad one alang with th~eir review of the densities at that tin~e. Com~nisaioner Herbst indicated that the figures and data such as was being discussed was sometimes us~d a~ leverage and he would like to have the densi- ties specified in usable pad sizes. Mr. ~chor stated it was possibls to do what :ommisaioner Herbst was suggestin~, howevex, it was a li~tl.e diEficult at tim~s ailc? i.t was almost impossible withoLt a p1An. Commie3ioner Herbst furtl-.er noted that if. the netitioner would say in plain ter.r-s that they had a 16-acre commercial site but theX would only havp 5 acres of commercial development, everyone wau].d understand that. He ~lso made reference ~o the R-3 zoning i.n th;e petitiomer's prnposal which indicated 20 ucres at 10 units per acre for R-3 zoning, and that this would sum up to 200 uni+:e. ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS, CZTX F~11~VNING COMMISSIUN, March 18, 19 i 4 74-~155 GENFRP-L PLAN AMENDNi~NT N0. 123$, ~NVIiNNMENTAI, IMYAC''i' REPORT NO, 115, ,ANp RECLASSIFICATIOrI NO. 73-74-46 (Cont~.nued) _ _ _, Mr. RobertiR clArifie~' for the Commi~eion that to da~a all of. the £igures for ttie Anehelm HJ.lls Community h~d been on a grnas baai.aJ tha~ h~ could aec~ tho Commiasi.an's cancern ta chRngo to a ueable pad ~r nut figure; that therQ hn~i baen an apprnximato 20~ reductian ao far in relaCion to the devel.opment approved and the final r~ciuct.ion w~uld remai.n to be sean~ au~ that the in~ent was that the overall dQnsity of the dQVelo~ment of t11o 4200 aczes would be 3. 3. Commisaioner Herbst rioted that aomewhere along the w~-y, ~ha bo~ks would havQ to be balancedj that he had no argunient that r~ome ~f the peop:le in the Hill and Canyon Area would want to liv~ in apartmentat howev~r, ho felt thR numb~r of dwelling unii:~ t~hould be apelled out on a given pad si~e rat~her than a total aite= that there had been some confuaion as to haw much density should be in the different planning ar.eas, and if th~re would bo high-risQ, conda- miniums, etc., in order to achieve the propoaec~ densities. Mr. Wayns Cr~lluhan, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., t~ppe~red before the Commisaion and stated ttiey were working wi.th a~ot of unknowns nnd the actua.l densities would not be known until site plane wer.e submitteci, howeve~~, in ju3t about every ca~e they had made r~duc~ions. Commissioner Johns~n note3 that according to the Stmff, r.eductions ]zad bee~n made in ttie densiti.os, however. he w~s not sure that thz commercial acreage had been allowed in the General Plan for the Anaheim H~.11s and in ~:he parti- Gular area a3 was bexng pr~p~sed. In reply, Mr, Schor stated that the ort7inal nl.an allowed 67 acres of commer- cial; that the area should provide for supportive commercial devel~pment so that the residents would not have to travel outside of. the area to do their shopping; and that the area was a considerable distanoe away from medical and dental services. Mr. Jim Barisic, Vic~. P.r.esident with Anaheim Hills, Inc. ~ appearec~ before the Commission and stated he was inclined to g~t heavil}' involved in rPlation- shipe with tihe people who purchased lan~ ~~rom them and those who were looking to Anaheim Hills for the amenities being ~:;ivertised such as parks, shopping center, equestrian and hiking trails, tennis club, etc.; that tlze builc~ers were also questioning if there would be business and professional development; that they were planning a signifiaant community with~n a commu.ity; that every need could not be satisfied but they were trying to do ~verything they could; that in the original sr.opping center, unfortunately, there was not enough room for o£fice-•professional; •that they had given ~he matter some thought as to where the l.ogical place would be to concentrate the commercial and the location shown on the Plan, being a heavily-travelecl corner~ was selected which would be separated off by the slope areaj that. they di.d not want to cut themselves out of any additional commercial as it would hurt Future residential develop- ment; ~~d that he hacl originally said "no" to R-3 develc-p*nent. Conunissioner Farana inquir~c3 if Mr. Barisic was not in the position of making pr.omises and asking the Planning Commissian to fu1fi11 them. Commissioner Compton inquired concerning the amount o~ acreage that would be deducted for the propoaed 5-acre connnercial~office development from the to~al 67-acre allotmen~t for commercial development, as referred to by Mr. Schor. Commi.sr~ioner ,7ohnson noted that at nu pfl int had he read that there would be afficeg located in the area and that he wuuld nee~ more than just the peti~ tioner's say-so that the people wanted that type development in fihe area. Mr. Barisic stated that they had b~en request~d by the people to indicate where the offices would be located; th3t there were very few peopls living in the area at the ~resent time; and that the Yorba Center was one and one- half miles away and it seemed to make ser.se from a planning standpoint to h~ve commercial-office in t.he proposed location. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CI~Y PLANNZNG CONlMISSION, March 18, 1974 ?4-15G GFNEttAL PLAN At~IF:NDN~NT NO. 123B, FNV7:R~NMF:r~TAI, IMPACT REPQR~ N0. 11.5, AND RECLASSIFICAI'ION N0. 73-74 FA6~Continued~. ! Commiasioner Farano iriquirac~ if ~lte petitioner hnd ar.y idea where the remain- ing 49 acrea of commorcial wotild bo locatoclt tha~ he did not want, neceseazily to gat into L•hose datails at chis time, however, it wuuld aeiv~ ~.o givQ the Commiasi.on a better feel for what was tranepiring ~o have either an officia:~ or unufficial idHa. Mr. Roborts call.c~d to the C~mmisal.on's attenti.oz~ itdm 15 oit page 5~g of the 5tia£f Raport ~o the Planni~lg Cammi~eion regarding traff.tc circulation and ddvieed that the Trmfftc En~7ineer tiad expresaed some concern ovcr the effoc- tivenesa of the present system if the traffi.c volumes genazated by the exiet- ing, approved and proposed development~ now in procese were developed without an additional acc.eas to Santa Az~a Canyon RoadJ that in that case the treff.ic aould not bo adequately aceommodatedt that if the propnsed extension of Fairmont Boulevard wae accomp].ished within the t~.m~ frdme i.ndi.cated in the planning of Anaheim Hills, the tr.affic could be aceommodated; that the numLer of dwelling units r.ould not exceed those dwelling units as proposed in Genaxal Plan l~mendmen~ Nos. 123A and 123B until Fairmont Boulevard was constructed. In reply to questioning of Commissionor Farnno, Uffice Eragineer Jay Titus advised that Fairmont Aoulevard wae proposed as ~n A.H.F.1~. pro~ect during thQ coming year for acqu.i~ition as a right-of-way, with construction to ~e d+.~ring the F.Y. 74-75. Upon further questio»ing by Commissloner Faran~~, Mr. Bax•lsic atated in teLtin3 of "sel.l out" the developmc~nt in process wouLd pr.ob~bly be only half-way through by the time Faizmont Boulevard was completed. Commissianer Farano noted that Anaheim Hills, Inr.. and the b~~ilders ahould be put on notice regarding the potential problom ii~ relation to the construc- tiun of Fairmont Hculevard; that he would suggegt that wl~en tYie developera came before the Planning Commission with their plans that Fairmont Boulevard and ita coincidence be handled at that ta.mef that the petitioner should also b~ prepared to discu:;s the completion of Fgirmont Boulevard along with the various Planned Communzty Zone reques~s so that the developm~nts would not exceed whaL- the streets could adequately accommodt~te, Traffic Engin~er Edward Gran7ow advised that the section o£ conc~rn in the area was between Canyoii Rim Itoad and Nohl Ranch Road as it was the only area that could be serious enough to cause a traffic congeation problem; and that if Fairmont Boulevard was extended northerly to Canyon Rim Road prior to fu7.1 development without an extension between Anaheim Hi.lls Roa~i and Canyon Rim Road, an im~ossible ~ituation would be areated. Commissioner Farano inquired if ~he cor,cern could be sati~fied if the schedul- i.ng of t~e homes and the resi3ents that were contemplated by the subject Planned Community Zone were reconciled with Fairmont Bo~~levard so that thQ City and the developer were aware of the sche~ule, and Mr. Granzow indic~*ed in the affirmative. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, ~hat the Planning Cummission recommends that the City:Counci'1 certify to having zeviewed and considered the information cont~ined in EnvironmPr~tal Impact Repart No. 115 in conjunction wit.h EIR TJo. 80, and that tlle tinal EIR l~as been completed in ~ompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines. Commi.ss~aner Morley iioted thati if the G~neral Pla~n Amendment No. 123B was ap- proved, th~ Commission woLZld be voting to appro~!e commercial in the o«e area as shown on the Plan. Commissioner Fa.rano stated that a stipulat.ion would be in arder by the peti- tioner that t;-e amount of ground being indicated on the Plan for coirunercial application consi~te~ of 16 acres although only 5 of those acres would in fact be commercial property; that he woiild agree with thnt cnmmercial in the area, however~ he was not enthusiasti.c at~out it; tha~t there was some commercial ~ ~ ~ MTNUTES, CITX PLANNINC CUMMIS5ION, March 18, 19;4 74-157 GENc~RAI, PLAN AMEN[` ;NT N0. 123D, RNVIItONMLNTAL IMPACT REI~ORT NO. llti, AND RECLASSIFICATTON NU. 73-74-46 (Cont.inue~ci) cant.c~mplatod on the or.iginal Plr~n ta be at trarioue pui.nte throughout Nohl Fanch and thc~ proposal ~~ould be consic+t~Yxt with the Plan aa origin~+lly conceivedt ~hat the placement o£ commc~~-cia1 was senei~ive and that wda why ho roquEoted to know where the remair~ing ~19 acres would be located. Commieaioner Farano then requeated the petitioner to provide plane indfcatir.q ~he location of i:he r.emainir~g commercial out of thc~ total E7 acres refarred to by Mr. Schor. Thereupon, Mr.. Schor stipu].ated that the entire 16 aares praposed to be deval- oped commerciAl-office would he deducted in totAl. from C.he 67 acres originally approved fox commercial development within the 420G-acre Analieim Hills Communi~y, although th~ 5 acz'QS of tho 16 acres •~ould no pad a~ea anci the remaindex slope land. Cammissi.oner F'axano then noted far the petitione.: that tt~ere wms an~thar 10 acxes of commercial in ~the Northridqe ~:evelopment and Mr. Schor ~tai:ed that was probably the preaent shopping center si.te, however, he would eubmit a plan a~t soon as possi.b.le to show the commercial s~ties throughout the entire 4200 xcres. Commi~sioner Farano affered Resolution N0. PC74-62 and moved for ita passage and a3option to recommend to the City Couricil that Ge~tera]. Plan Amen~ment N~. 123B be approved subject to the foregoinq findi.nga and the atipu.lation by the petitianer. (Se~ Reselution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote: AYES; COMM7SSIONF.RS: Comgton, F'arano, Herbst, King, Morlsy, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson. ABSEN'": COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Farano aoted that iit the past Staff had £urnished a n~~aster plot plan on previous applications as to the status af the densitie~, e~c., and h~ would r~quest that Staff be directed to continue to furni~h that type infor_- matior. in the Staff Reports in order that. the Conuniasion would know where they stood speci.fically; that it was ane thing ~o be within the densities but due to earlier reauctions, the develaper might fe~l ha had the ability to unduly unload denaity in later areas of development; that the total Anaheim Hills Community no longer had the connotation t;hat it once hadt and it was esser~tiaZ to know how i~~any acres had been develaped, what the densities were, etc.; that as far as he was concerned, the deve].opers stood notified that these matt~rs would be looked at very careful].y inasmuch as the resident~ did not like t~ur~ p_ises any more than the ~,etitioner dide Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC74-63 and mo~ved for it~ passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 73-74-46 be approvec] subject to the foregoing findings and the stipu- lations by the petitioner. (See Resolut.ion Book) On ro11 call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed ~y the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Com~ton, Farano, Herbst, King, Mor.ley, Gauer. NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: Johnsox~. ABSENT: C~MMISSTONERS: None. RECE5S - Chairman Gauer declared a rece~s at 4:15 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman G~uer recanvened the meetinq at 4;25 p.m., with all Commissioners pres~nt. s MxNUTES, CxTX PLANNING COMMISS]:ON, M~rcii 1A, 1974 ENVIRONMP:NTAI~ 'IMPACT R~PORT N4. li0 RECLAS9IPICATION N0. 73-74-31 _ VARSANCE NO. 2559 TENTA`~IVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. $~63, 8464, 8465 AND 8466 74-158 CONTINUI:D PU}3L1C HEAR.LNG. ANAHETM HILLS, INC. AND TEXAC'~ vEN"URES, INC. , c/o James I,. I3arisic, 380 Anaheim tittl~ Road, Anah9im, Ca. 92807, Owner. Propcrty descrthed aa: An irregul~rly-ehdped parcol of land conaieting of approximatsl,y 65 acre~ having a fzontage of approximatQly 24'15 fQet on thQ e~uth aide of Canyon Rim Road, hav~.ng a maximum dapth of approxi- mately 1800 Feet, and being located ~+pproximately one mi'le north~ast of the centerli.ne of. Nohl Ranch Road. Property proaently classified It-A, AGRICUI,TUR,~-L, ZONF.. REQU~STF.D CS,ASSIFICATIUN: R-H-10,000 RESID~NTIAL H'LLL5TDE, I~OW D~N'~ITY, SINGLE-:AMTLY, ZGI~E. REQUF.STED VAF2IANCE: WAIVk; (A) SII~iGLE-FAMILX STRUC'I'URES R~ARING ONTO AN ARTBRIr'1L HIGHWAY AND (B) MINTNIUM PRIVATE ACCESSWAY WID'PH TO E57'ABLISH E'OUR TRA.C~S ZONED R-H-10,00Q CONTAINING A'r0'rAJ~ OF 163 LOTS. TENTATIVE TRR(;T REQUESZS: ~NGINEER: WILLUAN ASSOGIATES, 125 5ou~h Claudina Streei:, Ant~lzeim, Ca. 92805. Sub ject property is proposer3 for subdivieion as ~ollows: Trac*_ No. fl463 - 40 R-H-10,00Q zoned lots; Tract No. 8464 - 42 R-I~-l0,b00 zoned lots; Tract No. 8465 - 45 R-h-10,000 zoned lots; 'rract No. g466 - 36 R-H-10,000 zoned lo~s. Subject peti,tions were continued from the ineettng af January 21, 1974, at tlie request of the petitioner, and from the meetir.g of March 4, 1974, in ordPr ~o be hear.d in conjunction with Fteclassification No. 73-74-46. Upon inqutry of Chairman Gauer, Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President, Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., indicated her presence in opposition to sub~ect petitions and waived the full reading of the Staff RPport ~o the Planning Commission dated March 18, 1974. ,aid Staff Report is referred to and m~de a part of the minutes. Mr. Horst Schor, Vice President with 1lnaheim Hills, Inc., appeared before ~he Commission and stated as indicated in the Staff Report, the praposa~, was for develo~.~ment on large lots which would be ~n asset to the entire community; that i.n connectiori with Condition No. 11 as set forth in the Staff Report for Txact No. 8464, they w~uld like the final claasification of the r.oadway left to the Pir.al development and that there be a two-lane road to Cari}•on Rim Road as a condition o£ the subject tract to provic~e accesG and exit. Deputy City Attorne~ Frank Lowry advised tha~t the Engxneering Division had indicated that th~y would like the condition to remain as set forth in the ~taff Report, although they were willing to insert the werd "u].timately" so that the developer could contitz~~ct two lanea but that the road would remairi a secondary access constructed to City of Anahaim standards for. a hillside collector, ulti.ma*_ely. Thereupon, Mi•. Schor etipu:Lated to the ultimate construction of the second access to Canyon Rim Road to hillside collector s~reet s~andar3s, however, it would be constructed concurrEntly with the improven,ents for subject tract as a two-lane roadway. Upon questianing by Camm;.sai.oner King, Mr. Lowry a~ivised that the width would include two 12-foot t•ravel lanes and 8-foot parking lanes; and that the peti- tioner had stipulated ~o con~tructing the two 12-foot travei lanes now and as the i;ract developed the road would he construct~d to hi.llside collec~^*- stree•t standarc3s . Assistant Zoning Su~ie.rvisor PhilLip Sahwartze noted for the Planninq Commission that with the approval of Reclassific~tion 1Jo. 73-74-46 earlier in th~i~z meeting, the subject property was now included in the PC, Pl~nned Conm~uaity, ZorE and it was not nece~sary to Froceed fuxther wi:.h the Peti*i.on for Reclassification No. 73-74-31. ~ MINUTE~~ c:I,TY PLANNING GnMMISSION, Mnrch 16, 1974 74-159 ENV'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 11.0, W;C'LASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-31, '~ARTANCE NO. 2569, AND TENTAxIV~ MAP AT' TFtACT N03. g463, 8464,_8A65,_AtJD 8466 (Cant'd.) Thereupon Mr. S~hor stipulated to withdr.•aw.~l of Petition for R~~la~seification No. 73-74-31. Mre. f4ary Dini~dorf, Presidont, Sa~ntA Anr~ Canyon ImProvement Aesociakion, Inc., appeared before tha C~mmi.ssion in opposi.tian to sut~~ect Environmental Impact Report and ota~ad it wa~ her underatanding i~rom ~a'lki.ng with varioue legal aqenciea tha~t environmental impact .rc~por.ts wer~ required to indicate the cumu- lative impact on tho air que-l.ity ae each indivic~ual development went through and that EIR No. 110 did not inc11ca4:e that informat.ion anh in tltat reapect was not adequaCe. Ir- rebuttal, Mr. schor stAted he understoocl thnt there had boan an omi~si.on r~nd a correction was being preparod to the EIR. Thereupon, he stipulated to furnishinc~ the addittonal information pertaining to tha cumulative lmpact on the air quality in the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Gene B. Scott~o~n, President, Envis*_a, Inc., appeared before the Commi~aion and stated sub;~ect EIR had already been app.roved and he did not feel i~ was appropriate to be considc~red at this time; however, they w~uld be more than happy to pravide the information a~ r.equested from the Air Pollution ContrUl Uiatrict eince it was not sQCret in~ormation. Upon i.nquiry of Chairman Gauer, Mrs. Da.n~.~dorf stated the ~seociat'on was happy about the R-H-10,000 de~relopment proposa.l because it had been a long time since they had seen that type development. In repl;~ to questioning by~ the Commission :regarding the requssted va.riance, Mr. Schwartze advised there was a substantial grad~ differential af the five lots that Y~ould be rea.ring oii an arterial highwax. Commiasioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC74-64 and movod for i*_s passage and adoption to grant Petitinn for Variance No. 2559, granting Waiver a on the basis that the five lots within the propased subdivision which would side-on an arterial highway w~ie at elevations 7 feet to 40 feet abave an arter.ial highway, and would have no comme.rcial intent; that Waiver b was withdrawn by the petitior~~r.; and subject to conditions. (See Reaolution. Boaky On ro11 call, the for.egoing resolution was passed by the fo'llowir-g vQte: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, F'arano, Herbst, ~~hnson, King, Mor.ley, Gauer. NOES: CU1~9MISSIONERS: None. P-~SENT: (:OMMISSIONERS : None. Com~missioner Herbst of.fered a motinn, seconded by Commissioner Morley anc~ MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map o.f Tract No. 8463, eubject to tr,e following conditions: (1} That the approval of Tentativ~ Map af Tract No. 8463 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-46 and Variance No. 2569. (2) That should this aubdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each aubdivision thereo£ shall be submitted in tsz~ta- tive form for approval.. (3) That all lots within this tract shall be serve~i b} nnderground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of subject property ~hall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the af£ice of the Orangp County Recorder. (5) xhat s~reet nam~s ehall be appr.ove~ by the City o~ Anaheim prior ~o ~pproval of a fina2 traat map. ~ . ~ M~NUTES, ~"[TY PL~INNING COMMISS:LON, Max~ch 18, .L9?4 74~160 ENVIRONMENTAL JMPACT REPORT N0. 1.10, RECLP.SSIP'iCA'rIQ~1 N0. 73-74-•31, VAR~A,~'VC~ NO. 2569, AND TFN'~ATIVE MAP UF TRACT NOS. B463,_8d64y 8465, AND H466 (Cont'd~? (6) That ~he owner(s) c~f subject praparty ~hr~ll pAy to hhe City o~ Anah~im the apprapri.ate par.k ancl r~creation in~-lir~u fees as determined to bN appro~riate ~+y tha Cit}- ~'ounoilr eaid fe~QS to be paid at the time tha building pe~miti ie is~uod. (7) That drain~ge af aaid ~roperty ~hall bo ~isposPd of in a manner satisfactory ta t;ie Clty Engineer. Tf~ in Ch~ preparation of the ssite, au.fffcient grading ia required to neaessi.t~te a qradiriq pQrmit, no work on grading will be p~rmitted between Oct~ber 15th and Apzil 15~h t;nloss all xequired of.f~site drdinaqe facil~.ties have be~n installed and are operative. Poeitive assurance ehall be provided *,he City that auch drainRge~ faci].ities will be com- pleted pricr t~.o October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for of~-eite clrainage facili.tios ~halt be dedicated to the City, or the City Council ahA21 hr~v~ initiated condomnati.on proceedings thQrefor (the cosi:s of wlzi ti ahall be borne by the developer) prioz to c~mmencoment af grading operatians. The r~,aLir.~d drainage Pacili- ties ahall be of a size and ~ype suffi.r,i~nt to carry runoff wat~rs originating from hiqher pr~.P~rtiea through ~aid property to ulti- mate dian~~sal as approved by the City ~ngineQr. Said drainage facilities ~hal~ be the first item o£ aonstrtci:ion and aha11 be completed and be functional throuqhout the tr,~ct and fram the downstream baundary of the prope~ty to the uli:imate point of dis- posal prior to the issuanc~ o£ any final build.ing iz~spection~ or occupancy permits. Drainaye diatr.ic~ reimburaement agreements may~ be mauc availabl~ to the deve'lopers of said propexty upon their request. (8) That grading, excavation, and all other construction activiti~s ahall b~ c~-nduc~ed in such a manner so ~~ to minimiza the possi.- bili4:y o£ any silt origin3ting f.r~m this project being carried into the Santa Ana River Ly atorm water originating Erom ~r flow- ing through tYiis project. (9) Thai: fire hyd.rants shall ~P installed and charged as required and determined to be nec~ssary by the Chief. of the Fire Departsnent prior to conunencement of structural framing. (10) That in accordance with City~ Council policy, a 6~foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the north property line separating Lot Nos. l, 5, 6, 11 and 14 and Canyon Rim Road. Reasonab].e landscap- ing, inclv3ing irrigation facilities, sha11 he installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial high~aay parkway the full dis- tance of said wall; plans for said ].andaapinq to be submi~ted to and subject to the a~,proval of the Super.intendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptar.ce, th~ Ci.ty oE Anaheim shall as3ume the responsibility for ma3.ntenaiice o£ said landscaping. (11) That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly ~hie~ded from vi~w, and the sound buffered from adjacen~ p~-operties. Commissi.oner Herhst of:ered a mation, seconded by Commissioner Mvrley and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8464, subject to the f~llowing conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentati.ve Map of Tract No. 8464 is qranted su'~iect to the approval of Realassification No. 73-74-45 and Variance No. 2569. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- divisi~n, each subdivision ~hereof shall be submitted in. tenta- tzvF form for approval. ~3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilixie.s . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLM~,NNTN6 COMM.LSSI:UN, Maxah 18, 1,974 74e~a,61 E;NVZRONMENTAL IMPAC'~ REPORT N0. 110, RECI,ASFZF~CATXON NO. 73-74-3]., VARIRNCF. N~. 2569, ANU T~NTATIVE MAP fJF.T~tACT NAS. 9463~ 8464~ R465, ANU 846b (Corxt'd.) (4) Thnt a final tract map of aubjc~ot property sha11 be suk~mitted to and Appr.oved by the Gity Couno~.l iand then be recorded in tha offiae of th~ Orange County Reaozdor. (5) That street namea shall be approved by ~h~ City o~ Anahei.m prior to approval of a final traat map. (6) 7'hat the awner(s) of subj~sct. property shal~. ~F~y to the City of Anahej.m the appr.opriate park and xecrAation in-~.iou feea ns datermined to be appropriate by the City Counci~., sai.d Pa~as to bQ paid ut ~hh~ i:ime tha bui7.ding p~rmit is .iseuad. (7) That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a mailner ~atiefactory t.o th~ City Engi.neer. Ify in the pxeparation o~ the stte, sufficient grading is roquir~d to nc~ce~sltate a gradinq p~rmit, no work on grading will be permitted between Or.~ober 15th and April 15th unless a11 required off-site drainage facilities have been ins~alled and are cperative. Pasitive assuraace sha11 be providec~ the C.i~y that auch dra.tnage ~aa~lities wi~.~ be com- pleted prior to Oct.obQr 15th. Necessary right~o~-way Pnr of~-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the CitX C~unci.l sha11 have i.nitiated condemnation procsedings thereEor (the costs af which shall be b~rne by th~ devalopex) ~r~.c+r to commencement of grading ope~.dtions. Th~ required dra~.nage facili~ ties shall be of a si.ze and type sufficient to ca,rry runo~~ waters originating from higher properties through said ~ropex~y to ulti- mate disposal as appraved by the City Eng~neer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of cor~struction and sha1~ be completed and be functional throughout the tra~t and ~rom thE downstxeam boundary of the property to the u],timate po~.nt o~ d~.s- posa:_ prior to thc i3suance of any final bu.ilding inspect~.on~s or ._• occupancy p~rmits. Prainage district reir~bursement agz'eements may be made availabl«; to the developera af said property uQon their request. (8) 'Pha~ grading, excavation, and all other construction ac~ivities shall u: conduc~e~~ in such a ma.nner so as to minimize the possi- bility of any silt ori.ginating from thfs project being carxied into the Santa Ana River by atorm water origtnat:ing from or flow- ing through this project. (9) That fire hyclrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to ~e necessary by the Chief af the Fire Depar*..ment pri~~r to commencement of structural framing. (10) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry w~ll shall be constructed on the nor~h property line separating Lot Nos. 1 through 8 and Canyon Rim Road. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation faci?ities, shall be installed in the un- cemented portion of the artierial highway parkway the ful~ d,istance of said wall~ plar~s for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of ~9 Super.intenden~ of Parkway Mainte- nance. Fallowing installation and acceptance, the Gity of Anaheim shall assurne the responsibility far maintenance oY saiQ landscaping. (11) That a second access to Canyon Rim Road sha11 be constructed through the property easterly of subject traat concurren~kly with the improvements for subject tract. This street sha11 ~~ltimately be constructed in accardance with the City of Anaheim standards for a Hillside Co~i~cicor. (12) That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffexed from adjacent properties. ~ _~ ~ MxNUTF5, C:[TY PI~AIJNTNC COMMISSION, March l~, 19''4 74-16?. ENVIRONMENTAL IbIFACT EtEPO[tT NO. 110, RECLASSIFICATIUN N0. 73-74-3'l, VARIANCE N~ 569 ,_ AND TENTAmiVE MAP or TFUICT N SO . 8A63_, 8,464 `(34G5, AND 8466 (cont"d. ) Commi.H-ioner [Iorbat ofFazed a motion, aeronded by Cammiasioner Morley and MOR~ION CARltiLf), t:a npprove Tontative Map of Tract No. 8465, subjec~ to the following conditior~s: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map ~f Tzact No. 8465 ig grunted subject to tho uri;~roval of Rc~c:laseificr~tion No. 7:~-74-46 and Variance No. 256y. (2) That should L".1119 subdivision be dsveloped as more than otiF• aub- division, each aubdivision thereuf ehal.l be submi.tted in tenta- ti.ve form for approvrzl. (3) That all lots within this i:ract ahall be aerv~d by underc~round utili~ies. (4) That a final tract map of subject prap~rty ahall be submitted to and appxuved by the City Council and th~n be recorded in the office of the Orange County Rec~rd~r. (5) Th~t atreet names shal.l be approv~d by the City o£ Ac~aheim priar to approval c~f a final tract m~p. (6) ~rhat the owner.(s) of subject proper~y shall pay to the City oP Anatieim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu £ees as determined to hr appropriata by the City Council, said ~ees to b~ paid at the time the bui.lding permit is issued. (7) That drainage of said property sha11 be disposed of. in a manner satisfactory ~o the City Engineer. If, in tre preparatiun of the site, sufficient grading is required to ,~ecessitate a grading permit, no work on yrading will be permitt~d between October 15th and April 15th unless a11 required ~ff-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shail be provided the Ci~y that sueh drainage tacilities will be com- pleted prior to Oc~.ober 15th. Necessary r.ir~ht~of-way for of..f-site drair.age facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Counci.l shall have initiated condemnation proceeding~ therefor (~he costs of which shall be borne by the devetoper) prior to commencen,;~nt of grading operakions. The required drainage facili•- ties shall be of a size anc~ type suff~.cient to cari-y runoff waters originating from high2r properties through said property to uli:i- ma~e disposal as approve~ by Lhe City Engineer. Said drainage .facilities shall be the first item Qf aons'~r~tctiAn end shall bF completzd and be functional throughout the tract and from the dcwnstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of dis- posal prior to the issuance af any f.inal building inapections or -~-- occupancy pprmits. Drainage dis~rict r.eimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said propEr.ty upon their reqaest. (8) That grading, excavation, and a~l other c~nstruc:tion activities shall be conducted in suc:~ a manner so as to minimi.ze the possi- bility ef any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating fr.om or flow- ing through th~s project~ (9) That fire hydrants shall be installed and charg~d as required and deternti.ned to be necessarx by the Chief of the Fire Departmer+: prior to commer.cement of structural framing. (10) That the alignment of t.he storm drain wi~hin the golf course shall bs approved by the City of Anahea.m. Constructinn c£ said storm drain shall be accomplished with no inter''erence with ~lay on the golf rou~se. (11) Tr.at aZl air~conditioning facilities sl:ail be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered fron, adjdcent properties. ~ ~\ MINUT~S, CITY PI,T.NNING COMMISS?UN, March 18, '1974 74-163 ENVIRONM~,NTAL IMPAGT REPUR'f NO. 110, FIECLASSIFIGATI4N NO. 73-74-31, VARIANCE N0. 2569, ~1ND TF;I~TAmIVI: M}1P OF TRACT NOS. 84C3. 846n., 84G5, ANA 8465 (ConL•'d.) Commissi~ner Herbst offarec~ a m~~ion, secona~d by Commiaoi~ndr Marley and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tent kive Ma~ of Tra~t No. 8466~ subject to the fo~lowing conditinns: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map uf 'lr.act No. 8~66 is grented subj~c~ to the approval of Reclaasification No. 73-74-46 And Variance Nu. 2569. (2) That Qhould this subdi~•ision ba developed aa mnre than one sub- division, each ~ubdivision thereoE shall be submittec~ in tenL•a- tive form for a~prUVt~l. (3) That all lats within this tract ahalZ b~ aerved by underground utilities. (4) That a ftnal tract map of subject. property shall be st,thmittoc~ to and approvPd by the Ci.ty Council and thon be recorded ir, the offlce ~` the Orangca County Recarder. (5) Tht~t street names shall bF approveci by the City of Anaheim prior ta approval af a fina'1 tract map. (5) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the Ci.~y o~ Anaheim the apprnpriate park ana r~creation in-liEU fecs as determined to be appropriate by tne City Council, said fees to b~ paid at the time the building permit is issued. (7) That drainage of said p.roperty shall he disposed uf in a manner ~atisfactory to the City E~gineer. If, in the preparation of th~ site, sufficient grading is requ~.red t~ necessitate a graaing permit, no work on grading will be pei-mitted between Oc~o~er 15trx a~d ~~ril 15th urless all reguired o£f-sitP drainage facilities have been znstalled nnd are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drain;~ge fa~ili.ties will be com- pleted prior to October 15th. Neces~ary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities sh.all be dedica*.ed to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation prr,c~edings therefor (the costs of which shdll be borne by the developer) prior to commencEment of grGding operatians. T:~e required drainage facili- ties shall be of a size and type suffic.ient to carrl~ runoff waters originating from higher properties throuqh said properLy to ul~i- mate disp~sal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of canstruction and sha11 be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the dowr.stream bounaary ef the pr~perty to t~e ultimate point of dis- pasal prior to the issuance of any final buildin3 in~pPCtions or accupancy pern~its. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made availab.le to the d~velopers of said pr~perty up~n their request. (8) That fir~ hydr.ants sha~l be install.ed and cl:arged as required and deterntined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fiie Department prior to commencement of structural framing. (9) That gradinq, excavation, and all othex construction act-ivities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to n-ir~imize th~ poss~- bility of any silt originating rrom this project be~ny carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originatzng from or flow- ing through this ;~rojecte (10) That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent prcperties. _ . ~ ~ MiNUTGS, CITY PL11NNZNG COMP1ISS10N, March 18, 1974 74-•1G4 I,NVIRUNMENTI~Ia IMP1~C'I` - CnNTINUrD PUfJLI~ 1iFARING. I711YMGNA SYrNAR, 913 P~tlama l2EPORT N0. 118 Plnect, Fullerton, ~'ri. 97635, Ownort reZue~tin,y WAIVFR .._..~...._~.._..__._ _ ~F (A) TYPGr OF PCiu~t['rTED SIGN, (H) P~R.MTTTL~D C-J. I7SES, VARIANCE N0. 2580 (C) Ft~QUiRFN~N'1~ TNn r!, SERVICF 5TAT70N AE LOCA7'EU NOT Y~ ~~~~ CI,QSER 7'f[AN 75 F'rET TO 11 k,^SIbENTIAL Z~JNE, (D) MINSMiJM STRUC'rUR}lL SF'PDACK AI)JACENT TQ l2E3IAFNTII~L 7UNE, (F) M'[NIMUM ~1NUSC]1PFU 5~'TBACK AD~TACENT TO REuIUENTI1lL ZON:., (F) REQUIREMFN'.C THAT A SERV7C'E STA'rTON DE INx~GRAT~Q WITH A SiIOPPING CENTER, (G) MINIMU2~ STRUCTURAL SFTIIACK AnJnCFNT TO ARTRItIAL 1iICFiWAY, (H) MINJMUM LANDSCAPE S~TBACK AT.kTACENT Tn ARTERIAI, H.[G1iWAY, 11Np (I) MINTMUM SCRF~N I,1~NASCIIPING ADJ'ACEN^ TO R~SIAEN'PI11I, 20N.r^. , TO ESTAl3I~ISfi A CARWASH AND SEP.VICE STA'PION on property dASCribed acs c An ~ rregulurly-~hapc~d pAZCOl of. ~.anc~ con~isting of appr.oximately . fi5 acres locatad at the northe~ast corner af La Palrna Avanuc and Impori.al Hi<Jhwmy, having a front- age of z~r~i•oximdt~ly 248 feet on ::hc~ north side of La Palma Avenue and a~~proxi- mately ].40 feet on ths east side of Imperial Highway. Property ~reseTit.1X classific.d C-1, G~NF.I21-T, C;OMMERCIAi,, ZONE (SC, SC:ENIC CORRI[N~R OVI;FtIJ\Y ZONE) . 5ubjec~ potition was cai~t~.inued froi., the meeta ng of. Marah 4, 1974 foz Auk~mission of rc~visecl ~,1ans. No ~ne appoared .in oppa~i.tion to ~ubject aetitiom. Alth,~uqh the 5t~i'f. RP.~Uit to the Planning Commission dated March 18, 1974 wa3 not .read at th~ pub.l.tc hearti~g, it is referred to and rnade a part of. the minut.es . btr.. Ray Spe:har, th~ pP~ltioner, appeared befure the Commissioz~ and stt-tQd h~ was reque~tiliy thzt ths Commisston vote on the subject variance and no+: c~n- sider. a poq~ponem~:nt; that it was his understa;zdi.ng fzom the potontial pur- chassr that any cY~anges would make the proposal unreasonable and tYiere was an ~ption in the purchase contract t.o abta3.n a varianae; thdt there was no ques- ~ion in his :nind that if he had a~poaled th~ potential Plt~nnin•.; Commission deci.eior~ from tlie meeL-ing of March 4, 1.974, that that would havo delayed the matter; how~ver, as a r.esult of that meeting, ~everal. cllanges were being mad~. Mr. Spehar then discuss~~ the waiver~ being requested; that Waive;r a was necessary and althougr ~. ~e~stand~ng signs were not rermitted 1.n the Scenic Carriclor Zone, identification was ~.eeded as well as retentiUn af the company image; that ~hey had submitted a plot plan and reduced the hefght of the top of t},e propose3 sign to 25 feet to ma.tch wh~-~t was allowed for the service sta~ion operation acroas the streetj that :Pgarding Waiver b, he stated that when he originally aought informat~_~n from ti.e Flanning Department, k~e was advised that service stations would automatically be allowed cn thp corner pronerties and the sarvice station was then nroposed with the R-~ adjoi.ning to the north and he was further advised that the _arvice statiun ~cvas an appro- priatL uae of the property; thst Waivers d, e, h and i wer~ witlCrawn as they were no lan~er necessary; that reg4rding Waiver f, a 3hoppinc~ cent.er would be cunstructed with~n two years ~~id they were pzaposing a~all between the car- wash and the slio~ping cent~r only because of the possible problem with car controZ; that regar.ding i~'aiver g, the canopy proposed was not defined as a building strur.ture but a~ortian of a building i:hough it was not attached to any build~ng an3 not a whole building in itself; and that the Cade section referred to a whole building, and further.moxe, a similar situatiun with a canopy had been approved for the service station across the street. THE PUBLIC H.,.~RING WA~ CLOSED. Upon inquiry of C~r<<missioner Herbst, Mr. Spehar indicated in the affirmat.ive that he was the owner of ~che pr.operty acr.os~ the 3treet which was subdiviaed for a service station use. Co.*,-anissioner •~rbst noted that it appeared that bec~us~ the City Council l:ad yranted the service stntion use on the one corner ~roperty in the i.mmediate vicinit~ that the property owner f.e.lt he was entitled to another ~imilar applica~ion; that he recalled that the previous apPlication was filed juat prior to the eff.ective ciate of the Saenic Cor~idor Ordinance and the peti- tioner was st.5stantially into negotiations fur the pr~psrtya that the Planning Commission had denied that petitior. an3 it was subsequently approved by the City Council; that the Commission took the position that by approving ttiat M:.:dUTEC, CITY PL:INNING COMMISSTON, March lA, 1:' 4 74-165 ~NV.RONMENTAL IMPACT R~PORT N0. 118 AND'VARIANCE NO. 2580 (Gontinued) .~. ~~.~~...._...~.._...~......~... petition the wozk don~ ~o protr~ct th~ Scenic Corri.dor would be harmodt that ~.f free-etanding signe were rllowed, the Cii:y wrould loee ite idamti.~.y in the Scenic Corric9orj that inaemuch Aa the peti.tioner wa~ qranted one vdrie~nce from the Sc~nic Corrf dor. ~rdinence, ha did not quite uncYerstanc9 why tha peti- tiAnar £eit he tivao en tit.led to dnother= that the prnpoeal wae not intagxated with a ehoppinq conta rt nnd thnt approval o~ ~lia eubjec~ Peti~ion for Variance No. 2580 wou1~9 eet an undaei.rabl.e proaedent ~n the Scenio Corxidor Z~n~. Mr. Spehur ~tated that the ~roposc~d Arco statian was really an im~rovc~ment as fnr as aervioe stat lone were concerned; that 14 g~+et nf le~nclscbpinq was j~ro- poead on both I,r~ Falma Avenue ~xnd Tmporial Highwr~y and it would be a~n asset to the~ areaj and that the propaAed aiqn wae not too large. Ccmmissianer Herbst notod th~-~t the SLato w~~a very ap.~cific regarding the Saenic Corridor and w ith variances as requoate3, the City might f±nd i~self no longyr entitled to State protection. Upon 3uaetioning by Conunieeioner King, Mr. Spehar stipulated to cons~xuati.n~ a shopping center ~d}oining thE proposed use within a two~year period. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advi,sed that thc forec~oing at~.pula~ion could nc~k be utilized in any manr~er ar.ci waa, in ef.fect, uselesa. In reply to questioni ng by Commissioner King, Mr. Spshar indicated tha~ the service stati~n would be separated fr~m ~khe shopping aenter by a 6-Poot wa11. Zoning Supervisox Ch a rles Roberts advised that to be an integr~], part oP a ahopping center, the service station would need to have froe m4vement to the shopp~ng center anci n at be backed up ro s highway. Mr. Spehar stated ~t might be possible to remove the wall, however, it would not appear to be good bus; nFS~s to do so. Cummissioner :;erbsti added to hie aarlier. remarks that in view of the Pact that the petitioner had already bAen allowed a varlance he shoulci be w~].ling to live within the ardi.nance; and that aaother probler~ to be consi.l~ere~ in L•he Scenic Corridor was roof-mounted equipment. Conunissioner Herbst offered a motion, seaonded by Commiss3oner Iting and MOTION CARRtED, that the Plar~ning Commission recommends that the City C~uncil. certi- £y to hav~ng reviewed and considered the information conta~.ned in E~ivironmental Impact Report No. 118 and that the final EIR had been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act anfl ~he State Guidelines. G~mmissioner Herbst o~fered Resolution No. FC74-65 and moved Por its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 25Q0 on th~ bas~.s oP the Pore- going findings. (Se~ Regolution Book) On roll call, the foregoi,~g resolution was passed b5~ the tollowing voi:e: AYES : COI~Nl3SSIONERS : Compton, r'azano, Herbst, Johnson, King, Morl.~y, ~auer. NOES: COMMISSlONERS: Nane. ABSENT: COMMISSIONE RSa None. COMMISSIONEft FARAI~TO LEFT THE NI~;ETING AT 4:55 P.M. ~ r ~ ~-T ~ NC[NUTES, C,ZxX PI,ANNING COMMISSxON, bte~rch 18, 1974 74-1f ~ L~NVTi:ONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEA~2ING. HENRY 1'. AND FTHEL C. DEL G'[ORGIU, ItEPORT NO. 120 2535 Weet La Pa1ma Avenue, Annheim, Ca. 92801, Ownerat , ~~~ w '1`I~E MaCA~'1'HY COir1PA1VY OF SOU'!'H~RN CALIT'01tN:[A, c/o E. R. ftECLA~STF'xCATION Full~r, 2~35 Weat La Palma Avenue, Anr~heim, Ca. 92801, NG. 73-74-49 Agant. Pzoperty de~cribocl ae: 1u1 irrog~xlaxly-~haped ~ pnrcdl nf lnn~ con~isting ~f approximdtely 62.5 acres T~'NTATIVE MAP OF l.c~ca~ed southerly of Sa~1tr~ And Cdri~-Qtl ROACl~ appraxi- TRACT N0. 85G0 ~~~ately 7800 Pe9t east of Imperial t{ighway. Property ~ ~ pr.oRently cla~si.fied R-A., AGRICUI.TURAL, ZONE. Ft~CLASS:[FtCATION R~QUES~': :-:i-i0,000, RESIDE~ITIAL HII,LSIDE, LOW-DENSTTX, SINGI.E-FAMILY, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT IiEQUEST: ENGINEER: WILLAAN ASSOCZATES, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, C:a. 92R05. Sub~ect proporty ie proposQd for guk~diviaion int~ 99 R-H-10,000 zoned lots . Deputy City Attorney Frank I~owry advised that it was the r.ecommendation nf the City Attorney's Offic~ and the ~ngineering Division that the public hear- ine~ on subject netitions, a9 well as the pub'lic liearinq for Conditional Lise Pc~rmit No. 145?, be contiriued gendi.ng receipt of information regardinq the dam lacated on the aub ject property heneuth which approxim~~tely 30 hom~s were pro~osed to be consi:ruatea, in view of thQ potentiul liabi],i.ty which might be incurred . Office Engineer Jay Titus advis~d that the Enqineering Uivision wnuld rQCOm- mend t.hat if the auk~ ject tract was approved by the Commiasior~ that a oondition be placed on it that a geoloyical report be submitted to pr~vi.de e~ecific i.nfo:mation to the City Engineer prior t~ approval of the fina~, tract map. Approximate].y 12 persona ind~.:ated their presence in opposition to sub ject petition. AaQistant Zoni.ng Supervisor Phi~lip Sc,: artze read Plan~ing Commissinn 3ated March 18, ].974, and ~aid to as if set foz~th in full in the minutes. Mr. Scl received From Radney and Patricia Lee and a letter oppos:Ltion to subject petition . It was a~.sc noted received from t: e Santa Ana Canyon Property O~~~n~rs Gaylord. the Sta!.f Raport to the Staf.f Report is referred zwartze alan xead a telegram from Art Reynolda, both in that let~.era had been Assoaiation and I~r. Sam Mr. Bernard Smith, President of t~e Southern California Divisian of T.he McCarthy Company, appeared before tht~ Commission and stated ~he propoaed subdivision was unique; that The McCarthy Company was an environment$llp a,.u ecologically concezned developer; that .they ]zoped the proposed concept wou].cl set a pracedent for futur~ development in the ~rea; that tho devel~pment w:,uld be compatible with the Mohler ~rive Study Ar.ea which would prevent i~ ~rom becoming an i.: ~ and situation; that they were trying to preserve the rur.al. f~eling an~i effect in the area; that the proposed develo!~ment would be con- sistent -ai..n the iiatural terrainj t.hat the construction wc,~~ld be a~ong the lines of all radwaod F iding type hames f that the groposed grading oP thQ si.te would be neg'ligible in terms of yardage, as there would be approximately 25,000 to :i0,000 cubic yards of. ear.th involved whiah wou.ld be incidental grading for the sitP~; that they in no way intended to pad out the si.tes but to huild to the sites as they ~teod, preserva.ng all of the fol~.age and wind-• breaks possible, and removing only ~h~se tr~es that were absolutely necessary to make way for the construction; that in requesti.ng the R-H-10,000 factor they arrived at a density oF 1.5 units per ac;re ~s opposed tu 2 units per acre an R-H-22,000; and that there was a considFrabla amount of ogen space that was unable to be developed in the program. Mr. Ban Rowland, architect, 1000 West La Palma ~lvenue, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and presented Xenderings of the proposal and ~tated that the program had been discuased formalZy and infur.mally with all members of ~he City Interdegartmental Coinmittee, the Orange Unified School Distric;t, and interestecl home~wn~rs groups in the Canyon areaj that the Mohler Drive Study Area would be a big help to the ~leveloper in that i:, would enable the S~aff to look a+. its value as a dr.velopment rather ti.~n a statiatict that eo far MZN~1T~8, t'.:[TY PraANNING COMMISSION, Mar~, i R, 197A 74-167 ENL'IKONI~NTAL IMt>ACT REp01?T N0. 120, It~CLA~STI'TCATION N0. 73-74-49, AND TEN'~AT~V'k; MAP OF '~'RACT NO. 8560 SContinued~_ ~ therc~ had been no development in the er~a thut ~~.tilized the gc~ography as i~ existedt that with the ~ro~osal ~he CIeVAlU~6Z' Pc~~in'', it rather difficult ta determine hia coetA in advanceJ that if mass y, rdages of so1l were being moved the CU8~~4 cuuld bo determinecl more readily, however, they were prapos- ing to develop un the natural cont:oura aE the land uaing a modified grade b~am ~znd pi].i.ng system and the houeQS would be built ~:p il~~m a variety of slopes to meet the laval af the wooden floors and i.t was quite diYfir,ult to determine ~he co~ts on an individuul basi.s; that ~he: McCarthy Company, fortunat9ly for Anaheim, was willing to undertake the subject project. Chairman Gauer noted that eince the City hacl recQived a letter from the U. S. A.rmy Corps oE Engineera regarding thQ dam, he was sure there woulr~ have to be some a:surance ae to th~ a~nditions that would pravail if i:he dam was kopt in ita pressnt statE. Mr. kowland statec~ from a personal liab.ili•ty standpoir~t he ahared the Plan- ning Commie~ion's conaern regarding ~he d~m and he cau~.d assure the Commis- sion as an individual pract~itianer that thare would be nothing built below the dam t.hat the subject pr~perty was connected with without the certifiaatian of. a cump~tent go~z~gist and soils ~iigineer and hydraulic epecialiat~ ro advis~ that any suctl problem l~ad been ~liminatedj that th.ta was a natural wa~er course aixd the area ther~s would not be sub ject to the type of Elanding antici- pated iE in fact the dam gave way; that be~ause of the to~ography and the grade t:,ey really did not have a volatile situation and were ~afe because of the low level= that ~he dam was so sma7.1 that it. did not qualify f~r State jurisdic- tion as a dam and the State inspecta everyt2iing that h~s as much as a 25-PoAi-. fHCC and 15-acre fee~ of water; that the highest Faint of eartY~ retainage on the dam waa approximately 12 feet and the depth of water probably would aver- ag~ from 4 to G feet and th ere was not a tremendous problem to begin w ith; that tr,e fact it was a body of water and was imponded made it significaiit; that they were aski.ng for every consideration that any other property received i.n that soil tests were not requested ahead of zoning; that a soil investiga~ tion would cost from $6,000 to $10,000 just ~o determine what tho prob lems were; that they had been assured ln an informal manner by a compe~ent firm of engineers that they had an iiisignificant ~roblem, however, they did not have tlie statistics ta baak that information :~or would the develo~er be willing to invest tr.at kind of money for soil investigation on property that they did not have zoning far; that th~y had stipulated and were willinq ~o acceot any reasonable condition that b~~il~ing permi.ts not be issued unti.l the City was satisfied that the body of water was in place and would stay there. Mr. Lowry adviaed tha~ h~~ had ta].ked with the City Enqineer during the reading of the Staff Report and it would appear that such a condition could be worked out satisfactorily if it was the desire of the Commission and in line with wh at Mr. Titus and Mr. Rowland had stated. Mr. Rowland continued by stat•ing their first step in analyzi.ng tha pronPrty was to orepare a base map which was a t.opographic map shawing in daxk .,cli.nes the property in question. Mr. Rowland explained the map and state3 tha~c the body of. water would nut drain toward the subject property but rather toward the school site to the south; that in order to develop the subject property they had preparEd a slope analysis and the slopes 10$ to 208 were ~onsidered buildable; that much of the property was too precipitous to build on without mass grading; that the windbr~aks on the subject Property would be preserved, however, the School District had removed one windbreak although The McCarthy Company had contacted them and tried to have it saved; tt~at t.hey did not in- tend to dist.~.rb the sycamore grove and ravine which wa~ locatQd to the south- east; that they wer_•e proposina to ucilize a'_1 af the accesse. ';~cluding v~hicular and fo~~~ paths on the sub~ect property as it ~ias felt tha~ since thc property was dEV~loped years before mass grading techniques, probably the traffic patterns were the easiest to travPrse; that the proposed devel~pmerit plan was based on the natural contours and vehicular and f~ot paths and in so doing had eliminated a quarteY-million square Feet from tne developmen t at the south end of the property in order t~ tie into the preci~e aiignment that was ~ ~1INUTES, CITY PI.ANNZNG COMM~SSION, M~rch 18, 1974 74-168 ENVIRONMENTAI~ IMF~ACT ItEPQR'r NQ. 120, RECLASS.TFICATTON NO. 7~-79-49, AND T~NTATIVE MAI~ OF TRAGT N0. 8560 (Continuad) adopted i~, the Circulntion ElemQnt of the Cenaral Pldnf ttiat they had planned a procise alignment oE Fairmont Boulevard thAt woulci be th4 leaet damraging to the propQrty khst th9y could aoej that~ th~re werc~ probdbly peopl~ in tha area who would like to sae Feirmont dbar~~.luned nr put un eom~ano elt~o's propoz•ty, but the prop~~ed aliqnment, th~y ielt, conformed it1 every way ta the City atandards and it could be liv~ ~l witht that they had last about 4U,OOd ~o 50,000 square feet oP the sl~uj~ct property whirh Fai.rm~nt actually crossad over j that the circulr~tior~ si.mply fr~llowed Del Giorc~iu Road and Mok~ler Drive WOl11Cj be connected for. ~~ccess; and that tY~e circulAtion would be loopod to k~ep as much traf£:t.c as poeaible away fiom the school site. Mr. Rowland continued by stating the propo~ed dwellinge would be constructed with from 1800 t~ 2700 square feet of floor space; that there would be five bas~c plana; tha~. they h~d taken advantaqe ~~f the l.and planning and zoninq provisions of thA City and L18@Cl flag l~ts so that they could have rdmote houaes that slid down behind other housesj that the lots were varying sizes and were thought of de building sitAaj that since thQ 65 aares was ~o limited as fa.r a~ abso].ute bui].dabl~ site, th~y had consUlidated the buildings into th~ buildable areas ~nd left ttie other areas alone • that each of the houaea had four distinct elevations wii:ti no front, back oz sides but were treated uniform.ly througtiout because they had ta be; that eome people wauld be look- ing at the backs of houses because o£ the views that were possible; that in the site plan they had done something very unique and sided each house indi- vidually for view as well as for topo~raphyt that this particular ~rojec~ had r~ceived more care than any development that he knew of for as small as it was; that there were 99 units propnsed un the 65 aares; that the de~~elopment would be ^onstructed in three phases; that Phase I was i.n the middle of the prajec~; ~hat thPre would l~e a minimum of six parking space3 per ~init and each unit would have a three-car garage; and that Phase II was the uppermost part of the pro~- erty. In conclusion, Mr. Rowland stated regarding density that the p~oject was well under R-H-22,000; that at t.he time the propsrty was ann~xed to the City, a portion was zoned in the Caunty f~r '10,000-square foot lots; and that the s i tes were adequate for what the developer wan+-.ed to do. Mr. P hillip Jou-jon Roche, Presi.dent, Santa Ana Canyon Property Uwner~ Assor.i- ation, appeared before the Commission and stated the Association had met with The McCarthy Company a couple of~times during the past two months; that the prc~po s al had been reviewed in detail by himself and a number of the other membe r_.; that the Association was founded about four years ago for the main purpo se of preserving a rural atmosphere i.n the Mohler Drive, Del. Giorgio and E ucalyptus area; that about 20$ of the peuple living in the area ~wned horse sf that the area was quite rural with. narrow tree-lined streets, etc., and tYie people liked it very much= that the aspects o£ the propc~~^d dpvelop- ment which th~ people liked was the approaLti of minimal grading, saviny all of the trees they could although they would like to hear a little more about how many trees woiil.d actually be removed, and the narrow private streets that fit in wi th what existed at the present time; that there was some mentfon of egues trian trails in the EnvironmEntal Impact Report arid he would like to hear inore about how those would tie in with the e:cisting trails and also ~.:he trail s that Anaheim Hills had proposed; that the p.reserved open sp3ce was a nice feature although he questioned how the developer would guarantec ~his since another map he hac~ reviewed showed the entire area z~ned as R-H-10,000; that there needed to be som~ guarantee that the 23 acres of open space would be other than R-H~10,000 and it appeared that it might be left open for devel- opment other than open space; that regar.ding the loL• sizes, which was the key issue, the present zorie in the area was R-H-22,000 and a good deal of thp area was developed R-H-22,OU0; that R-H-22,000 pr~ ~rty surrounded the subject prope rty on about three side~; that in lookiiiy at the detai].s of the lot lay- out, only 7 c~f the proposed 99 lots actual.ly met the area requirement of the R-Ei-22,000 2~~ne which had a gross of 22,000 square feet or a net of 19,000 squar~ feeL; that the lot sizes were indicated in his letter to the Commission in connection with subject petition; that the density for the development of the area exceeded the dar~aii;y for R-H-22,000 becauae in the develcpable area the developer was proposing three ~.,~ts per acre average whereas the R-H-22,000 ~ --"~. ~ MINUTEa, CZTX PT~A~INING COMMIS9I~N, March lA, 1974 74-169 ~N'VIRANMENTAL Ib«~ACT REF~ORT NU. 120, RFCLASSIFICATION NO. 73-7A-49, ANQ TENTATIVE MAP OF TR11CT t30. 8560 (Continued) provided for only ~wo lota per acre= that ano~t~er impurtant ite*~ weB that the propoeul was th~ first tract pronoaed in tho ar.ea ot:her than Tr~at No. 4i77 which w~-s intercQpted tsy tho School Die~rict p].ans for the :9evc~lo~~ment af E;~. Rnncho High Sct~ool; that th9,s was thg firat tract with such axtaneiv~ bound- ari~s with the exiati.ng tt-H-22,000 and ehould it be appxoved in ite pr.es~-n~ form, it would he setting a dangeroua precedont because 1~here wae eubatantial undoveluped arot~s in thQ immediate Mohler Drive arQa vther than Mr.. Del Giorgio's pro~Qrtyr thxt tY~ere were aleo sam~ 10 and 15-acre parcels in tha area that were surroundec3 on nl~oul• three oides by the exiating R-H-22,OOA properties; that by appr~~~ing tha proposed pro;ject thc~ Commiesion would be openipg th~ door t~ ath~rs dnd the prasent residents woul~l have a hard time preaerving the ±ural. atmospheres ~hat the R-H~1U,000 lots wers not bed com- pared to some of the d~velopmank in the Anahe.im Hills but nestlad right nexl: to the R-H--22,000 ~hey would be out of context and incomputible with tha c~xisting dovelopment~ thai: had been established for many ye~r.a wi~h low- denaity, hali-acre l.ots; that regarding the t.rees that ware removed by th~ School District, he had talked with Mr. Nlntkins, who represanted the Del Giorglo property in real estate dealings, ~bout the possibility of aaving those trees if the HomeownPrs Association, The McC~rthy Company t~nd the School District r.ould come to some a~greement, and the ScY~oo.l Distri.ct seemed somswhat willing to stop the tree cuttinq and did hold up far a couple uf clays, however, in talking wi.th Mr. Wai:kins it wae made quite clear tY-at he could realign th~ road and save the trees but ~t the expense of creating even smaller lots on the adjacent parcel. He concluded by stating that the remainder of the trees sho~.zld be saved. Mre. Mary Dinndorf, President, Santa Ana Canyon Im~rovement Association, Inc., appeared before the Commission and statQd she had mixed emotions and would like ta see the R-H-22,000 lots but the proposal was ~n~ of the better pro;iects she had seen and with more aeathetic values; that with the 23 ~~ares of open space the development would give ~n illusion of space; that she would like to see all R-H-22,000 lots if it was economically feasible; and thaL• she really could not see too m~ny objections from the Association's standpoint concerning th~ proposal. Mr. John Oatley, Del Giorgio Road, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and inquired concerning the new Fairmont Doulevard whiah would come through his property and some other. properties in the area as it was pro~osed. He questioned if the road would be a li.mited access road or one that driveways could be opened clirectly onto= that at least one home and a few building sites would be destroyed if the road went t'~rouyh; and would his easement which provided access to his home be available if Fairmont was constructed as propoaed. Mr. TXtus advised that the questions raised by Mr. Oatley could not be answered at thz present time as it would be a matter af design and alignment; that at the present timP the City did not have a precise a13.gnment ar a pxecise pro- file; that The McCarthy Company was pr.oposing an alignment, however, the City was conducting an a].ignment study; that acce~s ta Mr. Oatley's easement would have to be worked out at the time of design and there might be aonsiderabl.s embankment or cut i.n places. Mr. Sam Gaylo.rd, 7261 Del Giorgio Road, Anaheim, appeared before thp Commission and stated he wist~ed to bring out that the Anaheim Gener.al Plan provided that present City policy provided for a transition between various residential densities meaning a transition from a hig;~-density in one place to a low~- density in another; that he Qabmitted that the proposal ~vas to build something between exi3ting identicai cl~nsities as the proposal ~;oulcl be constructed down th~ middle of an existing R-H-22,OOQ arPa; that another item of conaern was that the ~.raffic ~lowing From Anaheim Hills ~o the Fairmont extension would be tr.emendous; that c~ther roads in other area~ leading into schools were not as heavily traveled as the one in the subject area would be; tr~at the tiaffic would flow through the housing develapment= that regarding the zones of the ,ubject t~roperty during ths period of annexation, the dividing line between • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~qMN9IS3IQN, March 19, 1y74 74-170 ENVIRONMLNTAL IN~AC7 REFORT NO. 120, RECLASSIFTCAT:i:ON N0. 73-74-49, ANp TENTATTVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8560 (Continuad) R-H-10,000 ~nd R-H-22,U00 waa located furkhex ~outh than aub~ect pxoperty and +~~ thAt time ~hare was a que~tion rogarding an oxisting half-acre l.ot1 and t.hat th~ ~ropaeal was boauti°ul excopt far th~ plACement of the hames on the varioue pad areas. Mr. Ronald Bevina, attorney, 300 South Harbor i~aul.ovar~l, Anaheim, appeared before the Commi~aion and 3tatac~ he reprasen~efl Mr. PiQrre Ni.colas, who own~d approximately 13.3 acras at th~ n~rtl~ nnd wQSt ends of the ~ub~~ct propertyt that. his c~.ic~nt was objecting initiAlly not to the zone or the plan as pro- gos9d but to the alignment of Fa~rmon~ Boulevard as propossd= that they w~re concerned that they had been r~dviaed th~re wns a precige alignment of r'n~irmont ~3oulevard1 that inj.tially ho was adviaed the alignmc~nt would run along Mohler Drive which would be fairly c~neietant wi~h what had be~n done ~.n tl,e Canyon and in other cases r~uch aa walnut Canyon turning into Anaheim Hills, etc.T that there hsd k,een talk about Eucalyptua going ~t~rough which raauld be gAner- ally a].ong the alignmdnt of Euc~-ly~,tus Hillsi that another alignment had bee~n cliscusaed that would run generally along Mohler DriveF however., logically, two atrr~ ~ht lines could be used betwe~n two painte for said alignmentt that the secondary accesa wauld be an 88-foot wide street equivalent to La Palma Avenuej that the ali.gnment could ver,y well cross th~ subject propertyf thr~t in dis- cussion with tY-e Engineering Div~.sion~ he was advi.sed that the ~ctraight linE method was feasible from an er~gineering atandpaintT that if' the map was approved and his client came back in with a development and was told that Fairmont was planned t.o cross his property and if the development went through and the City carried throuah ~n Fairmont, the need beina created by Anaheim Hill~ ,-~bove, the ultima~e canclusion of the actian would be to foroe the City to coi,dpmn his client's property; that he did not think the precise alignment of a major street should be based or who got there first. or who comp].ained the loudest but if the street was g~~ng to be put through and actually needed far the Anaheim Ha.lls development above, a secondary higlzway thr~ugYi the area, would apen it up and the zoning would have to be compatible; that with the secondaa.y highway he did not see how the rural atmosphere of the area c~~ld be main- tained; ~hat the accPS~ street was rnoved ovPr L-o tY~e Del Giorgio ~roperty because of the complaints oi the Mohler Drive residents and now t.hat they were propo3inc~ a deve].opmeni:, the street would be runni.ng through his clien~'s property; that from a leqal standpcsi.nt if the map was adopted it might be a pu~lic announcement of ~che City's intention to take the Nicolas property and put riim in a position of inverse condemnation; that he hoped the City would not choose th~t situation; and that he would sug3est his comments be taken into consider.aLion by the Commission. Mr. Smith stated regarding density that~ in rsality, the format used was based on fihe acreage in the project and would stil]. be 1-1/2 awellin~ units per r~cre as opposed to 2 dwclling units per acre for R-Ii-22~000 property; that in or.der to obtain the 2 dwelling unit3 per acre, they would have to masquerade and would end up with smaller pads because a larger porta.on of the area would have to be ae~ot~a ~ko massive slope areas which created the standard subdivision problems of erosion cont.rol, poor planning, elimination of trees and a complete loss of any natural concept; that the pads an :±-H-22,000 lots, based on some studies they had made, would in Fact be sma?i.ex than i:he lot sizes being pro- posed and they were talking ak,~+ut a minimuzt of 1G, 000 square feet:, with an averaga ~f 13,000 square f.eet and up; that from the standpoint of the Fairmont Boulevai•d alignment, The McCarthy C~mpany dicl~,~t create Fairmont Boulevard, however, aft~er much detinitiv~ study through tlleir engineers and in aontact with the City, they had come up with the alignmEnt which they felt would br-st serve the needs in the area= that someone was going to get hurt Fron- the align- ment of. Fairmont and The McCarthy Company was ir.cluded since a c~uarter-million square feet of usable property was devoted to the proposed alignment; and that tk~e proposed alignment was done scientifically ~nd fron, an engineering stancl- point. THE ~UBLTC HEAKING WAS CLOSED. • ~ ~ MINUTES, C]:TY PLANNING COMMTSSIOrI, "1~rah 18, 1974 ~a-i~i ENVIRUNMENTAL IMPT,C'1' REPOItT N0. 120, R~CLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-49, AI~p TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8560 (Continued),_ _ Cnrtm~iasiono.r 1Cing inquired why sa rnuch property was being devoted to the s~root alignment at tha south end o£ the sut~)ect propexty, and Mr. Row].and explair-od tltat preciee alignment of. F'dirmont Boulevard to the AnahPim Fiille ~roperty brought tr-a ~trept into a ravineJ that in order to provi8e the radii that wero necessary far an 88-foot etreet to handle the traffic at the spc:od angineering requiremc~nta dicta~ed, the stre~t hAd to maintai.n a certain gradual s1~pP both horizontally and verticallyj and that there was approxim~te~ly 60 feet of vertic-a.l grad~. Chai.rman Gauer inquired zegar~inc~ tha 23 acrea of <;~en space and tho comment fr.om Mr. Jou-jon Roohe thst it. might not alrvays remain open s~ac~ but could possibly be built on, ~ancl Mr. Rowland statod thRt che 23 <«:i~s r~ferrc~d to enc-~~ •nass~d a body of water and ravine, ar the sh, ~iy-sloped property } that n~ ~Zg was impoasible to build on although the ae~eloper felt. that property had n-ure valua to all of the residenta in it~: natural stato in that it wAS a ceasonable si.ze as a harbor for preditors; and tt~at the open space area with the body af water would also assist in the rodent control. Chairmaii Gauer further inquired if the open space would ba maintained through an associs~tion contract, and Mr. Smith stated The McCarthy Company had na intention to allow the referencpd 23 acres of open space tc~ b~ developed; that by dc~ed restrictions in the CC&Rs, th~ developer would guaran~-~e that that property would rpmain a common ar~a= that they would be wili-..~ to guarantee its non~develnpment. Chairman Gauer inquired if the body of water dried up and yrew up with wesds, wha~. would happen to it then, an~ Mr. Smith stated it would have its natural character and nothing would be dune about it, and h~ was surP the people in the area would not want anything to be done about it but woald want it left in its natural envir~nm~ntal ~tate. Conunissioner Herbst noted that he had made a field visit to the s~•', ject property earlier in the day and in looking at the open space it ~ppeared to carry a tremendous liability; that there was water and very steep banks; that he could see how the op~n space could be develoQect into a recreational area; that a lot of work and even a little fill ~ould get rid o~ the lake and make a football field on the property; that he would question thE feasibility of the lake in its present state; that the design of ~h~ development was fine but looking at this particular ope;z space that encompassed the lake, the liability would be placed with the homeowner~ association which might ~e detrimental; t~-.at he for one cauld see that a small child could roll down into the lake; that he had visited the area for the purpose of taking a close look at the open space and t~o review what type of an open a~ea was being left; that by accepting the unusable area for the open space, it was trading otf for the R-H-].0,000 lot; ~hat looking into the future on the particular site, if th~ open space belonged to th~ homeown~rs association and they did nat accept the ].iability fnr it, it could becomp a liabilit~ for the City; that the open space arPa could be developec~ into something more usable for oper. space since it presently was not usable £or hiking tiai].s or anything of that nature as he viewed it. Mr. Smith stated that the conditions which Commissioner Herbst stated existed had existed for some time; that he could not condone that the area wauld con- tinue to be dan,qerous; that what was considered to not be usabl.e open space was subjective because many people would disagree and would pre~er to use the area in its present state; that they had entered into some preiiminasy dis- cussion with th~ City and the City had indicated that they would at least like to discuss the possibiZi.ty of taking the area into a park situation, howev~r, nothing had been determined along those lin~s and it was The McCarthy Company position ta keep an open mind for said discussion; that he was not aware of the involvement or legal problems whicl~ The McCarthy Company or the association might get involved in with the areat that he would certaiiily dis- agree that it was not detrimental or unusable as Commissianer Herbst had indicated. ~ ~..~. ~ MJNUTES~ CXTX PI,ANNING COMMISSION, ~1az'uh 18~ 1974 74-172 F.NVI~ONMENTAL IMPACT It~PORT N0. 120, RECLASSIFTCATI0~1 N~. 73-74~49, AND TLNTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8560 (Continued) Commisaioner l3erbst .further A~ated that he si.ill bE~lieved tha devel~per wan askinq for a t~radd-off wi.th rcaepect to th~ ope~- space an~, as a Plnnning Commiaeian~r, he was looking P~r the best trade-ofP if .ir,de~ad there wae any trading-aff to be done~ and that he di~i not think the opQn upac~ ~~as d good tra-de-c~ff dt this point in tirne U~ilesa t.Yiexe wae somo work done t~ the ared. Mr. Smith atated he h~d nev~r consiclerc~d ~lie opan sprace area as a trade-off but ea a part of tt~e t~tal concept~ that a certain portion of tho auhject property wab to be dPVeloped and a uert~in portion would be left undeveloped ~or uso probably not anly by the property owners within ths eubj~ct r~ubdivision bu~ by the property ownara in the adjoining areas~ that they wQre proposing to leave an untouched, virgin, natural area and if by huilding homes in the vicinity they weie creating a mare hazardous condition, that woul.d bQ dobatable. Chairman Gauer inquired how the develop~r was proposing to integrate thQ exist- ing ridinq trail a~ rait~ed by Mr. Jou-3on Roch~, and Mr. Smith atatea he was som~what confuAed regarding the question aince he did not believe they had ~ver indicated that riding trails would be provided on the subj~et property. Commissioner Comp~on noted that the Si:af.f Report :.ndicated unlesa khe property was devoloped kt-H-22,000 the residents would not be permittec~ an~y horsea, and therefore he could nat see whe.re they would be providing any i:rails. Mr. Rowland stated that Chairman Gauer was prcbably very familiar with thd Par.ks and Rer.reation evaluatian nf the Hill ar.d Cttny~n Aren wherein the act vities and sports wauld have to be related closely with the schools since there wa~ v~ry little fl.at land available, and Mr. Col1ier had spaken on many occasions regardiny L•he need for a natural park s3te ii~ the area ar.~ the pro- posa: was the closest thing he had seen t-.o that so far. Chairman Gauer notecl that the C~ty wau.ld hlve no money to purc.hase ~he open space at this time~ and Mr. ~towland stated •tha~ was a probler.- that Mr. Smith had recoqnized and had an open mind ab~ut. Gommis~ioner Compton inquired regarding a comment that R-H-10,000 was possibly iiivad~ng R-H-22,000 zoning, and recognizin:g that there was R-H-22,000 on all sides of the subject property, would the developer classify that as an invasion, and Mr. Smith indicai:ed in the negative and stated the property might have some extenuating circum3t~nces but that the concept was in keeping• with the aurround- ing development. Mr. Rowland atiated there seemed to be too much concern regarding the transition; tha.t the General PJan called for the transition between area~, however, R-H- 10,000 and R-H-22,OOC bath had the classification of low^~density residentia].. Commissioner King noted that he understcod the density would be 1.S dwelling units per acre and the lot size averaged 13,000 square feet, ancl Mr. Smith indicated those figures were correct. Mr. Donald H. Vanderbilt, Anat~eim, appeared before the Commiss.ion and inquireci if. the proposed dwe].lings would be surrounded by 6-foat high fences. Mr. Smith stated the ~ veloger had no plans for fences at all; that they wauld like to see the development withou't f.ences, however, inaividual .iomeowners would put in their own fences as they so desired; that any fences woulcl be lesa intrusive than usual considerin~ the number of trees that would not be removed and the s~tes wer~ conside~abl.v steeg= and that the dev~laper would probably desa.gn a rustic-type fenee 'a recommend to the hom~owners. Commissioner Herbst stated he did nat know what thp s3tuation was for riding ttn~ hiking trails in the subject area, however, he could see tha~ no aonsidera- tion had been given to it because of the R-Fi-10,040 zoning; that inasmuch As there was R-H-2'1,000 on both sides of subject pz'ope~ty~ same considerati~n should be giveri to some way of transvexs9.ng the property with riding trails or a trail to get from one side o~ the subject property to the nther where riaing trails existed so that the x~,ders ~ou1d not i'lAVP to go comple~ely around the subject property. ~ -~. ~ MINUT~SR CI~X 'PLANNING COMM7SSION, March 18~ 1974 7a-173 rNVIRUNM~NTAT, IMPACT RFPOItT NO. 120, RECI~ASSIFTCATTON NO. 73-74~49, ANG TENTATIVI: MAP OF TRACT NO._8560 (Continuod) ~ Mr. Rowland statod thE windbraake were 7ot a pa,tt of the individual ~ites hut w;z•e part of the common apen space and the ri.dera co~xld traverde the prnp9rty ].ongitudir.ally and in aome casos lar~rally Rlong the windbreak lineat and that eince the windbrealcs were c~nsid~red open space they could ioA uued as riding traila. Commisgioner Herbst further st~ted regardinq zoning that R--H-10,000 would not all~w horses and lf cons~.deration was fio be g.iven to the ric~ing trails, ~erhaps this should be inclt~ded iz~ the develQpment atandards £or the property so the Ci.ty would know there were trails thorel ~hat the ~p~n epaca w~uld k,e owned by the R-H-10,000 property ownera and thoy might nat want horsea traversing their prop~rty. Upon inquiry of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Rowland s~ated the open sp~~e wauld be owned in common by the property ownora ir. the subject tract~ t t he did not think the subject property could be at~ddled with an e~uestrian ~r.ai1 b~cause thp propert,y did not register ~n the state-wide plan for hikina and riding trails; that if thase people wer~ not pE~rmittPd tA have horses~by statute anc3 the property be~.ng private praperty, any horaes thexe wouZd be for the bc~neva- lence of the property owners in thd tract and he did noL• see how they coulcl be required by statute to p.rovide for thp hor.ses oi othexs. CUmmisei~ner H~rhat sta~ed the planning was to provide riding and hikiny trail~ thruughout the Canyon and tha subject property waa next to R•-H-2?,000 property which permi::.tecl Yiorses~ that he did not knaw where the trails were, iP there were any, or if there ghould be some; buk that the R-H-22,000 properties wez•e entitled to horses and by having R-H-10,000 down the middlfl of R~H-22,000 the concept was being changed, and theze needed t~ be an ovPrlap. Mr. Smittt sta~ed that if the subject property was to be included in the Mohler Drive Study Area, he believed it was permissible for the penple in ~hat area to ride hurses in the street and for certain access they did ride down the ~treet, it was not inconceivable that they ~•ro?ild do so; however, th~re were areas that w~uld allow for an easemE~nt to the property, e.g., ac;r~~~ *_??P common area to Mohler Place, then ta Del Giorqio Road, and then on thr.ough the sycamore grove, and he stated he did not object particularly to making such an easement; and that as far as thP lats were concerned, as a matter of Code ho•rses cou].d n~t be pxovided for. Mr. Jou-jon Roche stated there was a question as to whether on the groposed R--H-10,000 tract that 7 of the lots wer.e ~ne-half acre or larger, if the awners of those lots so wanted could they have horses since gurely by square foot st~ndards their lots were equal to the R-H-22,000 standards; and in discussion with Mr. Smith and Mr. McCarthy, the cammon area woulcl be a dandy place to keep horses; that even ~,vith the small lots and the rural atmosphere, the people could keep tYieir horses in the designated comtnon area in a coverEd corral; that they would be using the area ar~d with the nearby schaols there would be tennis courts, basketball courts, etc., which the people ~ould use= 30 it would be feasible for the people to own horaes and, if so, where would they ride them; that they could use the existing pri~ate trails ar.d it would make sense that while the tract was being laid to take this into consideration especially sinoe people wou~d be allowed ta build. fences; that the ~xi.sting fences were mainly to hold horses and not fenae prop~rtiea; and that unless f:hese matter_~ were taken into consideration ahead of time the area weuld get fenced iz-. Upon inquiry of Mr. Gay].ord, Mr. Titu~ advised that the .'nginezriz~g Division was recommendir.q tha~ Del Giorgio Road from Santa Ana Car~yon Road to a point ab~ut 86~ feet north of Mohle.r. Drive plus the eonnecter street to Fairmont be hillsic'~ colleator. Commissioner Johnsan stated that he identified with both sides af the issue being considered since he lived in a rural area; that he had served on property owner committees and associations for many yp~rs; that xhe homeowners were comparing what they prPSently had, the open country and the wilderness, with ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.S, CITY 1~LANNING COMMIS5IQN, March 18, 1974 74-174 ENVIRONMEN'Y'AL IMPACT ItEPORT Nb. 120, RECLASSIFTCAT~ON NU. 7:3-7A-49, P.N1D TENTATIV~ MAP OF TF~ACT NO. 856U ~Continue~) _ _,_____~__ what they wou].d have when The McCdrthy Company clevoloped the subi9ct propertyt that ~he propoxty awnera ehaulc~ compare the proposal wi~h what could happen if th~ area was developed piecemeal, one lot or Pive lo~s at a time, or the develapmont of the ur~a with gradera a~nd peda~ that thc~ kind af developmant proposed needed encouragem~nt in thA Gunyon areat that he had d great ~'er~r of the graders a~~d earth movera v~hich made steppiny atanea out of the hil~es that progr~as c.ould not be held back and it wAa his opinian that tho propasal wAs a good ut3lization of the property w~.fih the exception o~ the varioue prablems that had been discuesedt that with xespect to tradinq ofy, he felt the whole concept was being tradad off cor~verse to tk-e graded building m~th~d. CommiBaioner Iierbst stat~d he agreed with Commiasionex Johna~n's thougiits, however, h~ did nosc think the Planni~ng Commiasion had enough informatfon ag to ox~ctly how the devalopment would happen= that hg was not sure abaut the outcome of L~t "A" which was c3usignated for open s~ace; whether tt would be included in the CC&Ra or whett~er it would be dedi.cated to the City for a park, snd that many thinga could happen: that the develop~z was saying thare could posaibly be samQ ridiiig trails ~ut through the ~rr,perty And r~lthough he .Liked the concep4 dnd what he saw, he did not think 3t was Finaliz~di that he was not aure that tha alignment on Fairmont wa~c where it should be and the City Staft should prov.ide more informat~.on, particularly in view cf tho fdct that Fa~.rm~nt would be i:ransversing Mr. Nicolas' property; that although the devel- opment would be giving a lot of property for Fairmont Aoulevard, tliey were also recommending taking a l.ot of pxoper~y; and that he wpuld li}ce tc~ see more thought in regarci to some of the questions in his mind before he was ready to vote for it. Com~nissioner Johnson stated regar.ding the alignment of Fairmant Boulevard that the City Engineer had stiated that the City had not studied the dlignmen~ and that the proposal would not constitute an acceptance oi Mr. Rowland's aZi.gnment of thai: street . Mr. 7.'itus advised that the City was in the procesa of making the street align- ment study and one of the rscommended conditions on the i:ract, if approved, ::~R that it would be subject t~ the precise alignment by the City. Commissionzr Compton inquired if approva'1 0~ the tract would in effect be designating where Fai nnor.t Boulevard would go, and Mr. Lawzy advised in the negative and that the street could conceivably cyo through the middle of •the subject proper~y. In reply to questioning by Commissioner Her.bs~t, Mr. Titus advised that the referenced alignment study would be available in approximately three we~ks. Commissioner Morley inquired if the peti.tionPr would consider a four-week continuance in order f~r the Planning Commission ta have an opportu~zity to review the alignmeni: study. Mr. Rowland stated if the Planning Cc~mmis~ion pleased, the progosal was the most extensively studied pr.ojer.t he had worked on in ei.ghtaen years; that this was the most complete package tha~ was possible nn a piece of unzoned property; that the developer would much pref~r to be flat denied so that they could abandon the praject rathPr than go th~ough ~n ~dditit~nal four-week period; that there was a fantastic investment in the project; that the~~ felt this was the best prud~uct for the property; that a coridition could pro~ect L•he City insofar as the alignment of Fairmont Aoulevard and the Staff Report was very extensive and included that condition; that if the Pl.anning Commission did not act upar. the proposal at this time it could never be ac~ed upon, although that was a personal aside; and that The McCarthy Company wou13 not want to be continued but would much rather be denied. Commissianer Morl~y stated although the project was very gaod and very well thought out, he was sugge~ting the aontinuance ta possibly imprnve upon ~he developer's p~sition. i . ~ MINUTE5 ~ CI~Y PLANNING COMMISSION, rilarch .1.8, 1974 74••175 ENVIR('~NMENTAL IMPACT R~PORT Nd. 120, RECLASSTS~ICATION N0. 73- 4-49, AT7D T~NTA~TI\TE MAP OF TRAC:T N0. 6560 (Continued) Commiasionar ,7nhnson aFf.4:°ed a moti.on, eoconded by CommiasionAr King and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Farano being nbaent), that the Planning Cr:;~~nissfon recom- mends that khe City C'ounail eortify to having reviewed an~i cansiderecl the informa~ion contain~d in Envirnnmental Tmpact Report No. 120 n~nd thak the final E:IR had b~-en campleted in comp].iance with tho Ca].ifornia Environrnantal Qun:ity Act and the State Guidelines. Commisaioner Johnson offerod Resolu~ion No. PC74-66 and moved for its passage and adapl:ion to recommand to the City Council tliat JPetition for Reclaesifica-- tion No. 73-74-49 be appr.oved, subject to conditions. Conani.ss~oner C'ompton noted that ulthough the pro3ect was beautiful, he was incli,ned to agree with Commisaionex Herbst that he was not prspared to vnte an acceptance ~n tho projectt that he would ].ike more diaci~asion ~buur the possibility o£ a cont•inuance= that i.f th~ ~aveloper had r~p~~n~ so much time, money and eff~rt on the project, why couldn't th~y wait fo~- the in~ormation regarding i:he st•r~et etudy and also tha aur~sideration Eor the ridit~g tr.ails; and that there were several unanswered queations although the Planning Commis- sion seemed to be lea~ing *.oward the Frojeat. Mr. Smith sti.pulated that the develaper woul.d be more than happy to provj.de any defiziiti.ve engineer.ing re- quired to estT.blish ~hQ dam in a s~fe condition; that as far as tha eagement for ridiny accesg into other areas, there was ;~o r.eason why these aculd not be provided; but as far a~ the c:ontin~xance, he wauld have to take the positiinn that it was something that could nat b~ accepted. Commi~asioner Herbst stated he did not like the positiori the Planning Cammiasian was bEing placed in by the deve]opert that further stud,y was needed; that al- thouqh the developer had s~ated he could da the thinqs discussed or provide for the:n, he had not stated he would do them; that the Planni~g Commisaion should see a tract map that would show that the matters of concern were provided for and tt~at he would not vote for the petition un1:i1 such time as he did see a r.evised plan; that the sub;ect tract would affect the area very much; tYi~t he recognized t•h~t Mr. Rowland made a veiy fine preseritat~on and had done a lot of hard work, however, the Planning C:omm~.ssion had the material on it foz~ review for only a8 hoursj and t.hai: he was not aboui: to be rallroad~d into some- thing that neectt~ further study. ~ Mr. Smith stated he had no intentian of railroading the Commisgion but un~ortu- nately he was faced with s~me circumstance~ that prealuded him from having any additio~,al time for £urther cansideration. Mr. Schwartze inc~uired if Cornmissioner Jahnson would wisl-i to ix~clud~ in the resolution of appraval that the CC&Rs would provide for the retention for open apace of I~ot "A" ~nd any riding ~r hiki.ng firail~ on the sub je~t property; th~t :hose areas o~vried in common were no.rmally fncluded in ~the CC6Rs and, thereupon, ~ommissioner. ~7ohnson indicated he would amend Resalution No. PC7a-66 to ~nclude said item. (See Resolution Dook) C~mmissioner Johrison further stated the Co:nmission was placed under undue ~pressure ~y the developer, howevPr, he could r.ecogni.ze that the~ were indicat- ing they did not wish to have a continuanae. Chairmaxi Gauer noted that thE matters of concern tio Commissioner Herbst could certainly be handled by the Staff and incorporated in the development proposal prior to City Council. review. On roll caZl, the foregoing resolution, as amended, was pass~Q by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: Herb~t, Compton. AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS : Faraiio. ~ MINrtTES, CI'~X PIaANNTNG COMMISSION, March 18, 1974 74-~.76 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 120, ~CLAS~IFTCA2`TON N0. 73-74-49, AND Tp'NTATIVT; Ml1P UF 'xRACT NO. A5G0 (ContinuAd~~ . . .~.....r.._.~ Chiaf Building Inapector Aan Vail Dorpo advised the F].anning Cammieoion that c:ertain ad~itional conditiona Ahould be im~aosed 1.n connoct:ion with approval of 7Centative Map of Ti'ACti NO. 8560, due to the toroqraphy anc9 the fact that ~he l~te ~v~re not: tho pad type: That plot plans submitted f~r building permita be drawn at a auffioient saale wit~h contour iritqrvals of not moro tk~~n 2 feet to show all an-aite improvemen~s inc~.uding retairiing walls, stairwt~ys, wr~lks, and drivc~waya. Th~t a'l1 roof ~vater be collected in guttera and conducted to non-erosive dxainage devices unless atherwi.se rect~nunendad by a soils enginQer. Tha~ all building aites ~~ inspected and approved by a s~ils engineer for removal of t.ree roots and other cle].etexious aubetance pr~.or to foun~atinn inspectj.on. Theraupon, tlze petitionpr si:ipulate~i t~ accepr.ance o£ the abovQ additionnl conditions. Mr. mitus advised the P~~nning Commission that the apprapriate wording for a c~ndition r~lating to the dam ~n the subject property should read as follows: That the developer should furniah certification to the City whether the dam in Lot• "A" is :,ubject to regulatien by the Sta~e of Ca].ifornia Departraent of Water Resources and, if it is exemp~, under what provislon of ~he State 1aw it is axempt. If the d~.*n i~ not subject to Sta~e regulation, the 3evelop~er shall furnish the City with a report tr~m an engineering geologist with a r~commenclation cnnaerning the safety of the dam. Sai~ report sha11 includQ, but not be limited to, the following information: height of the dam, storage capacity oF the reservoir, ar.ea of the drainagP basin, data concerning ~ubsoil and foundation conditions, mat~rials of constructian, geology of d~m site~ and ar>~ possible geolagic hazards. There~ipon, the petitioner stipulated to the above c~riditian,as outlined. Cormissionp.r Johnson afiered a motion, se~onded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRTED (Commissior-ers Compton and Herbst vo~ing "no" and Commissioner Farano being absent), to approve T~,nt<~.tive Map of Tract No. 8560, subj~ct to the following conditxons: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract P~a. 8560 is graizted subject to tnp approval of Reclassification P~o. 73-74•-49. (2) That shauld this subdivision be developed as moze ~han one sub - divisxon, each subdivisiAr. therEOf shall be submitteii in tenta- tive form £or a~proval. (3) Tha~ all lots within this t~.act shall be served by underground utilities. (4) Th~t a final tract m~p o.f subject prop~rty shall be subTit~ed to and app.roved by the City Council and then be recorded in the o£fice af the Orange County Recorder. (5) That ariy progosed covenants, conditions and restrictions shdll be submitted to an3 approved by the City Attorney's O£~ice prior tc, City Cour~^il appr.'oval of the final tract map; that the covenants, cor~ditions and restricti~ns shall provide for the retentic,n of the prnposed 23.5-acre commonly-owned~ open space area whi.ch shall be maintained in a naturaZ state with riding an.i hiking trails proposed through the area; and, fuxther, that the ap~roved covenants, conditions and restrictions shali be recorded conc~ar- rently with the final tract map. . _ ~ • M1NU'1'~S, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, Maroh ]'t, 1974 74-177 ~NVIRONNQs'N7'AL IMPACT It~PORT NO. 120, RLCLAS~Ib'IC.ATIUN NO. 73-74-49. AND TEN"_'ATIVE MAP OF 'TRACT NO. 8560 (Continuad~ ~ (6) ~rhat prior to flling tha final tract map, the mpp~.i4anh s~iall oubmit. to tha City Attarney for approval or denial a complete synop~.is of ~tr~ prap~eac~ tunctioning o~ the opc~r.ati.nq corporatic+n, includiny but nat limiked to thA Artictes o.f incorpor.ation byle,ws, prupoae~7 methods of mdn~gement, bondinc~ ro inaure m:xlnten~nce of r.ommon ~~raperty and buildinys, dnd such oth~r in~ormdtian as the City Attorney may desire to pr~tect the City, it~ citizc~ns, r~nd the purchasers of thd pruject. (7) That street• names ~r-all be dpproved by the City of Anahoim pr.lor to appioval of a final tr.act map. (8) That drAinagQ of saicl proparty ahall bn disposed :~f i,: a manner sal:lafactor.y to Ehe City Enqineer. If, in th~ prapar.ation uf the F~te, aufficient qrading ie required t~ neceseitate a grading pei~mit, no work ~n yrading will be pc:rmitted betwoen Octaber 15th and Apx~il 15th ur-].eas a11 required ofE-si.fi.e drainage facilitias hav~ aeen ins~all.ed aT~d are ape~rat.iva. Posit:.ve ass~rancQ shall be providecl the City that such drainage fac:ilities w~11 be com-~ p~.et~d prior• ~o Octobc~r 15t'~. NecPSSary right-c~f-way for ~fY-site drain,~~Je facilfties Rhall be dedicated to the City, or the City Co~sncil shn11 hav~ ir~itiateci condPmnati~n p.roceedings thereP~r (the costs of wh::ch sha11 be borne by the devel~per) prior to commencement of grading ~pArati.ons. The required dx•ai+iage Pxcili- ties shall be of a~ize and t:ype t~ufficient tn carry runofP ~~aters originating from higher properties t:~ro~.gh saicl pxo~carty to ulti- mate d~.sp~sal as approved by the ~'ity Enqineer. 5ai.d dxainage faCilities sh~ll be th.~ firsx it n of con~truction and ahal~. be completed and bE functional thLOUghout the tract an3 from the duwnstr.Eam baundary of the ~ro,~erty to th~ ulta.mate point i dis- posal prior to the issuance of ariy final buildin~ inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage distr~ct reimbursement ag,reements may be made available to tl~e deve.lapers uf said pro~erty upon their request. (9) That g~ading, excavati.n, and all. ott~,er aon3truc:t on activities shall be conducted ir. such a manner so ~9 to mininize the posai- bility of any silt ariqina+-i.ng f.rom this projec:t being carried into khe Santa Ana River by •~'-arn: water originatin~ fram or flow- ing tY:raltgh this project. (~0) That the owner(s) of subiect property shall pay to the Ca.ty of An~heim the appropriate park 3nd recrea' n in-li~u fees as determined to be appr.apriate by the City Coun.:il, said fees to be paid at the time the i~uilding peXtnii; 9.a ? ss»ed. (11) That Del ~iorgio Road f.rom Mohl~x U.rive to 850 feet ~ so~sth of Mohl~r Drive shall be cons*_ructed in uacordance with the ~'ity of. Anaheim ~stand~id fc~r a hi.llside ~oll~ctor.. (].2) That Mo~?~r Drice from Santa Ana Canyo,l J;oad to Del Giorgio Road shal; `^^ ~~^~+Y~~cteci in accor8ance with the City of Anaheim Star "' ' t•- I--.: i:IC ~'Ci.l~:r.'L:.+i . (13 ) TI, :.t Ue 1 :... ~~G'' Str~~~., ~~ ~; Fairmont S::reet Anaheim standar side only. Rc~cl .__..,~ 'ui:~J iee~ ~ soUtY_ ~~ i•:.~hler Jr.it~e t~ ~~~;~~ ,•• ~~t °_ ~, .;m De3 Gi.c~r~i~ . ~ad ~o future be c~nst~ucteu in accoraar.:~e witY~ the City of 3 f~r ~~. hillsiclP callector ~~ith access ~n one (1A) That the proposed ter~tat.ive tract map gha71 be apgrovz3 subject to the official dPtermina~t.ion by the City ot' the precise aligri- r~ient of future Fainmont Street. (15) Tizat fire bre~ks sha11 be ~rovidea as required and approved by the Fire Chtef. • ~~.e. • MINUTES , CITY PI,ANNINC COMMISSTON ~ ~~iarch 18 ~: 974 74-].78 ENVIRONMENTAI, rMPACT 1t~;POnT N0. ~.20, RECL118~TFICATION N0. 73-74-49, AND TENTATT.VF: MAF AF THACT N0. 8560 (:oritinued~ _ .._..,_._..,.._____ (1.6) Tha~ the developdr ~hall farniAh verti.ficatl.on tc ~hc~ Gi~y whechc~.r thp dam i.n Lot "A" ie sub j~ct ~o z•ec~u].ation hy the 5ta~e oP ~alifornit~ Uepartmant of Watar Rebources ar~d, i~ it ia exsmpt, undor what provision of the Sk~t9 law i.t is oxc~mp~. `' ;.yp dam in not subj~ct to Statc~ r~gulatian, thc~ dev~alopar aha. ~'urn:leh the City a r~port from an enqinaering gealagist w,fth a recam- mendation cr,r.cerninr~ the eafaty of tlte darn. Said report ahall include, but n~t be lirnited to, the following information: '~eight of the dar1, at~raye capACity af t}i9 ro~Ervo,ir, area of ~Y~e dra~nege baein, data aoncnrning suhsoil and foundation con~liCions, n-rsi:orials of constr.uation, geology o~ dam si.tn s~nd any p~eP;...le goo7 ogic hazurds. (17) That p1~t plane submitted for building permit~ be drawn at a sufficient scale with car~tour in~ervals of not more than 2~aet t~ show all ~n-site ~.mprovements, ~.ncluding retaining wall~, stairways, walks, and driveways, ae st~ipulat~d to by the ~~~titioner. (18) Thmt all roof water be coll.E3ct~d in guttera and conducked to non-erosive drainage devicea unless othexwise recommc~nded by r~ soils engineer., as stlpulated to by the petitioner. (19) That all building sites be insp~cted and approved bX a soils enyineer for rernoval of tree roots and other deleteriuus substance prior to foundation inspection, as atipulated to by the peti~ioner. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC IiEARING. HENI;Y F. AND ETHEL C. DEL GIORGIO, ~535 FERMIT NO. 1457 West L u Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92$O1, Jwn~rs; TEIE -' McCAR7.'HY COMPANY OF SOUTHER:~V CALIFORNIA, cj a E. R. Fuller, 2535 Weat 'La Palma Aven :e, Anak~ein-, Ca. 92901, Agent; requesting permisslor. ta ESTABLISK A FIVE-t7NIT MODEL IiOME CON~'LEX, WAIVING (A) MAXIMUM NLrSBFR OF F".tEE-STANDING SIGN5 AN~ (A) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA on property described as: An irr.e;ulr~.rly-shapea parcel of ~.an3 consisting of appr~ximr~tely 6 acrPS located suu~:~^:.~y of Santa Ana Car~yon Road, appr.dximately 7800 Feet eaet o~ I~nperial Higt:wai. Property prPSently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZUNE . N~, one ~.pF~earnd i.n ~pposition to subject pet~tior~ . A~thouyh the Staff keport to the Planning Commission dated March 18, 1974 wea not read at tk~e public hearing, it is reFerred i;o and macir. a part of the mini~tes . Mr. A~rn~rd Smith, Pre9ident of the 3outhern California D:.visior~ eP `Phe McCarthy Com;~any, a~peared before the Commisaian and 3isp'layed a map show~nq the propos~d model c~mplex which would be lacated wit.hin the center portion of. the ~ubiect ~roperty, and ~tatFd that the proposed landscaping was based on .• n~tur~a. ~<?-~cept. TIIE I'UA-•TC i;.~:~RIAIi, WAS CLOS~D. T.~., rep7.y to ques*ioning by Chairman Gauer, Mr. Smith s*,ated the m~del home~ would be sold ancl not torn do~n. In z~ply to quest.i ~~, ~ng by Zon~ t~g Supervisor Charles Roberts, Mr. Smit.h stated th~ propeseu siqna would be tPmporary in nature and would probably be ner,essary for a maximum of two years. Mr. ~mith gtipulatec: that the signs would be removed at ~he time al'1 of the homes in the tract wer~ sald. Chai±-man Gaue noted that he aould rat:h~r set a udte cer.tain for removai o~ the signs an3 approve extensions of time if r.Qcessary, and Mr. P.oberts advis~3 that the previous signs considered for thP Anah~im Hil?s had been o,f a perma- nent nature rather than a temporary nature. s ~e~. ~ MINtJTE3, CITY PLl,NNING COMMTSSION, March 1E3, 1974 74-t79 CONDIZ'I0~'AJ~__USE_PERMIT _ 02~,`. ,_1457 (Continagd) Commisaioner King uffered a mr~ti.on, aaconded by Conunisslonor Juhnsan Rnd MOZ'ION CARRIED (Commisa~.oner. F~x•a:.o beinq nbsent) ; t:c.~ sustain the ~r.evi oue dction oF the Planning Commis~ian cancerning Environmental Impact Rep~~rt No. ~.20 (geo P].anning Comm.ission nd.nutes ~f Meroh 18, 1974 ~- Petition for R~c:laeaification No. 73-74-49), th~t the Pl~nning Commi~sion reoummends that the City Gouncil certi~y tn l~aving reviewdd a~nd •~~ns~dered rhe information cantAined in F.nvironmental Impact RApart Ne. 12u 3nd thnt tY-~ ~inal EIR had bec~n camplet~d in compliancQ with the Ca11F~rni~ ~:nvt~-onmen~~a1 pua.lity Art ar~d the State Guid~~linea. Comm.i~eioner King offered ROAOLUt~.011 No. PC74-67 and r~ved for ita pasasge and adopti~n to grant ~etition for Condition~l UsQ P~rmi~ No. 1457, gr.~nt.ir-g Waivers a and b on th~ ~;as~e that the rr.opooec~ aigniny was ~f ~ tF+mnorar.,y AA~UrP. and thP ~etitioner stipulat~d !-o ~•pm~~..~~ - , . ;; ,~ ;-~, :..~m~~~it-t.;ly upon "sell out~~ '' rhe t~-act horn,.~;; and ~~.Lj~~t to cczzui;,i;~,~,q. (Seo Resolution Bn~~~~ On roll aall, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by th~_ .~ollowing vo~e: AY~;: : COMMISSIONERS : Jnhnson, King, Morley, Gauer _ NOES: COMMI5SIONERS. Compton, Herbst. ABSF,NT: COMMISSIONERS: Faiano. GOMMISSIONER JOHNSON LEFT THE N~ETTN~ i' 6:55 P.M. ENVIRONNiENTAL IMPACT - Ten~ative Tract No. 7587 - Prope~ t~ consie•ting of REPORT N0. 11.6 appraximatel,y 35 acrea loca*ed ir, the Eastridge Unit of Anaheim :Iills, app.roximazely 1200 feet so~ith of the intersection of Nahl Ranch. Road and S~rrano Aven~ie . Assistant 'Lon.ing Supervis~r P,iillip Schwartze pres~ntad the 3taff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 18, 1974 and noted Eor tha c'on~nissian that Tentative Tract No. 7587, proposing a 39-lot, 3ingle-family, i•e:~idential subdivision was approved oLi November 9, 1971 ~y the City Counci.l~ i:hat an ~exten~lon of time of one year was grpnted retroactive ly by ~ounc.il action ~n February 20, 1973 to ex~ire on Nevembex 9, 1973; that the City Co~ancil on January 22, 1974 qranted another Pxteiision of time of one year sub ject to several conditions, ~ne of which requirec. an Environmental I:mpact Report to be £ileG• Commissiorier King offereu a motion, aecondec3 by Cummiasion~r Comgt~n and MOTTON CARRIED (Commissioners Farano and Johnson being ab~ert), that the Planning c:~mmisaian r.ecommends that t~he City Council certify to having ra- viewed ar~d conaidered the informati~n contained in En vlronmental Impact Report No. 116, in ^~njunr.tion with EIR ho. 80, and tha~t the final EIR had been completed in compLiar.ce with the Califorriia Env ironmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines. ENVIRONME:JTAT, IMPACT - Tent~tive ~i'ract :Io. 7556 - Property co;~sistinc, of REPORT N0. 117 approximat.ely 31 acres lo~:ate d i.n the Eastridge Unit of F,naheim Hills, approximate ly S00 feet south o~ the intersectic:l of Nohl Ranc~ Road at~d Serrano AvF:nue . Assistant Zoning Supervisor Philli.p Schwartz~ presen ted the Staff Report to th.e ~l~nning Corimi.ssior~ datEd March 18, 1974 and noted that Tentative Tract No. 7558, pzopos:ing a 22-lot, single-family, rpsiden }ial subdivisiun was appro~ed on February 15, 1972 by the City Couricil; that a.n extens~on of time ~f one year was grantsd by Council o:i Januaxy 22, 19 74, subject to several condii~ons, ~r.a of which requir.ed an Envir~nmental Irnpact Report to be filed. Comm.issioner Kazg offered a motion, secanded by Commiasioner Co:npton an~ MOTION. CARRIED (Commisr~ioners Farano and Johnean bei ng absent), that the Plann.ing Commission rec~mmends tha.t the Clty Counci 1 cert-ify to having re- ~~iewed and consi.ciered t~ie information aontainad in Ez~vironmental Impaat Repc,rt No. 117, in cor.ji~nction w~th EIR No. 80, und fihat the ~inal EIR had baen completed in aompliance witn ~h~ Califarnia Env ironmental Quality Act and the St~ate Guidelines. ~ ~ ~ MINUTT;S, CITY PLAIVNING CUMMISS:CON, March 18, 1974 74-180 REP(.ctT5 AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOt~IMENnATIONS ~ 'E NO. 2267 -}tequeat ~ar servicing canoQy - '"-~' ! Proper.ty laoatod at thH nox'thwoet cor.nex~ of yicAway Drive ~nd AnahQim noulevard, f~.irther. describPd as 1~511 South A~ic~heim Boulavard. Assistant 2onin~ Supervi~or ~hi]..tip Schwartxe preaented the Str~ff Report t~ thti Planning Commisaion dAk.e,d March 18, 197A, nnd sexid Sta~f Report ie referred ta and made a~art of the mt;~utc~s. The Planning Commisaion ei~tered into diacuesion regarding the ~ub ject r.P- quea;:, during wh~ch questicna were rt~ised conc~rniny the purpose of the proposed f~P.P-atanding c~:u~opy, the te~ling af the adjacent proper~y owners concern~ n~ ths use, ~i-e ty~:~ ~L sexvices thAt would be o~fered, ot,c. The Commisafon dQtc~rmined that in order to obtain fhe necesa~ry information the applicant would need t-o '~e present. Commissioner h:.ng offer~d ~ motion, c,er.on~lecl by Commis~ioner Morley and MOTION CAR:tIED (Comniigsioners Fa.rano and Johnsan bAing absPnt) ,~o continue coneideration of the aubi~~ct requ~st: to April ~, 1974, ~"~~r. th~ applicant i:o be pr~ sQnt. IT~M NO . 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1008 - Request for clariPi- cation oc permitted use - Property being a rc!ctangularly- shat>ed parcPl oF land cunsiating of approximately 5.61 acies, having c't t*'OIl~c1gE,' af ap~roximately 330 feet on the north side of: I~incoln A~-enue, h~ving a maximum depth 3f approximately 775 fe~t, and beiriq located approximately 320 feet easter.ly of the centerline of Fseach Aoulevard, and furth~r. described as 29~l7 West Lincoln Avenue. Assigt3n~t 'loninq Superv_ •~r. Phillip Schwart-ze pre~ented the Staff Re~ort to the P'lanning Commission dat~d March 18, 1974, and said Staff Report is refer- red ta as if :~et forth in full in the minutes. He advised tnat the Planning Commi~asion would wisti to determine whether the proposed expansion af the prese~~t go-kart sales and service operation at ~he subject Zoca•tion t~ in- clude approximately 30 game arcade machines in an existing building mi~ht be permitted in conjunction with the existinq use, although the zoning was nct appropriate, or whc~ther Conditior,a~l Use Permit No. 1008 shotild be readvertised ta includ.e the prop~ a exparision of uses. He furtber ~.xplained that the pr~posed expansion would basically r.eplace the sa~es~ an~. service oper.ation presently being condacted withir. the building ar.d t;zat the ~:oning an the ~rop- erty :.~ ~-A, whereas, if it were a ~ommercial z~r.e tlie proposed expansion wouid ~~ossibl.y be a permitted use. Upon inquiry of Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Robert A. Bethiaum~, 9451 Asbury Circle, Westminster, t}-~e ap~~licant, appeared bpfore the Commi~s.ien and atated he had been doing business at the subject location for the past ten years and had no problems as far as the police were concerned since he had employed off-duty paliuemen to tiork with himt that at one time h~ did have a problem when a ga~e was installed and admission chsrgedr that as a result of the ad- cussi.on charge he began losir.g ~ome of hia family trade and was getting some ur.desira;~ie customera; th3t ;~.e went to the Police Department and a nrugrarr-n was worked out so that a:i off-auty Anaheim polic:aman could be hired to woxk on cveekends and holidays; tha~ although ~he cost was approximately $7 an hour to obtain an off-duty ~olicem3a he had fou~nd Aver the years that it was wor~h~ while; that he had tried tc work alosely with the PQlice L~gpartment because he needed a family-~y~e trade to exisL= and that he ~ou13 admit that it was definitely a problem ~a keep out the undesirables. Up~n inquiry of. Commissioner Mor~ey, Mr, Hethiaume stated he dic3 not think the prop~sPd expansion would bring the undesirable element ~.nto the e~tablish- ment; that he felt he could handle thP expanslon and maintain the family-type trade; that he wou]_d continue to have a policeman an duty as often as neces- sa :y; `_haL• he was desirous of continuing the s;~all parts and r~epair servi.ce to thP customers whum he had sold equipmen~ to over the past few year~, however, the sales and service would be limited ~3 he was tryinq ' o.~hase it ~ut; that -~ ~ MIT'~'rF.;i . CI'1'Y PLANNING COMMISSIOT', Maxc`1~ 18, 1974 1TEM N0. 2 (Continuc~d? 74-181 t~he p.ropoeod dreade would be op~n fram :1.2:00 nc~n auring th.c week tsnd 9:00 a.m. unti.l midniqht on weekande ~.nd holidaya, t-nd ~uring the aunnne~r between June 10 and Septeml.ier 5, the hours would be from 9:00 a.m. until midnight d.aity; and that the proposed activity wnuld be aupervieed as h~ did nnt want his equipmont torn up. Commiaeinner Herhs~t noted that ina8much as the appl~.cant had been in business at tho subject lacation for ten year.s, allowing the usc~ t~ cr~ntinue with t.hQ proposed ox~ansion would bo wtthin tl~e intent of the Plr~nni.ng Cammiasion's ap~,roval of Condit.3 ~~nal Use Permit Np. 1Q08. Commisaioner Hler.bst atfared A motian, seconded by Commi~~ioner King and MOTt~N CARRIED (CommieAioners Farana ana Johnaon hoing ubsent), that the PJ.anning Commiasion finda and determines that the proposed expanaion as requested is in con£ormance with thQ use a~s ariginally approved for Condittonal Use Permi~. No. 1U08, b;y R~solution No. PC63-84. ITFM NU. 3 COND T 0 AL USE PERMIT N0. 1230 - l2equast fc C alari.fication of conditions for usa - Property ~onsisting of approximatc:ly a acrea, lpcated on t"e wesL• side of Beach ~oul.evard, approxi- matel.y 1000 feet north of the centerline af Lincoln Avenue. A~sistant Zoning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze n4ted for the Commission i:hat the applicant was reguesting a two-week cantinuance in order tltat h~ might be present. Com*nis~YCr.t~ xing ui.L~;:~d a mot ~~~n, ,econded by Cr~mmi3sioner Johnson and tdOTION CARRIED, th~:;. ~onsideration of the subject rec~u~st k+e continued ta the meeting of Apri]. l, 1974, as requested by *he app] ~ant. ~h;~s ~tem was consider.ed at the beginning of the meeting. ITEM N0. ~ VAi2IANCE N0. 228.'• - Status of sc.~reening ro~f- mounted equipment - PropArty located at the southweat aorner of Santa Ana Can}-on Road and Imperial Highway. It was noted that on M~irch. 4, 1974 , the dE•-elopex to pre~:~re additional dra~,~- ings Znd d,esigns to enc:lose and cover the roof-mounted air-c~nditioning equ ~ment,_ v+hich was i~istalled on the shopping center units, in a aatis- factory manner. Mr- Charals riaagen, the developer, appeared before the Commission and pre- 5cr~~ed faur. mode].s as possible enclosures and cover~ for the r~~of-mour.ted e~uipmez~t. FIe stated there was some concern for the visibilli:y from '~~~ slope behind the sh~pping center; and thut ~he roofless enclcsu~es or .-:cr.f~ens would work beti:er thar. others for ~F,e equipment ~hat ha~~ be~ti ~ n~talled. Commisaioner H~rbst noted that 3pv~ral concessic:s nud bEen given to the Yorba Center and that the original understan&ing concerning the root-mounted equipment was that it wQUld l~e allowe3 provided it was an integral par~ of the archi.tecture ~~~ld the discuss~on between the Planning Corunission and the architect w~s set iorth in the Conunissi~n miizutes. Mr. Haagen explair~ed that the air-conditioning equipment anc~ ~ts scrc:ening would be paid for by th~ tenants of the units in the shopping center and he briefly exp].ained the h.isto~ of the plans for the roo£-mounted eq~ipment that had been appraved by the City Staff and subsequently instu'i.ed. He stated hP was naw tryins to resolve the problem that had arise: from the appraved plans. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S~ CITY PLANNING COMMI3SInN, Mmrch 18, 1974 ITEM NO. 4 (C~ntinuec~) 74- ~.82 Commisaion~r f~erbet notiod tha~ the acreening p].aced oz~ a roof was not con- si.dered to be an integral part of a roof, or a building, and the remedies beinq di.scusaed d~d nut qive rh~ offQCt that was dasirable from ti~e surround- ing s].opes. Up~n inquiry ot Commiy~ion~r~ Ki.ng, 1lssistant Do~velopment S~rvico~ Direc~ar Ronald Ttiompson a~lvised that thore had been a communic~tion ~~:o~ylem and the I3uild.fnq Divieion ,~ad approved the ~crec~ning de~ice as to atructure and with the understc~ndir.~ that o~ne instr+llatinn would be ch~clsed in th~ field f.rom ~a zoning standpofnt to determine whether it met the inter.~ of the zoria pr.ior t7 proc~edinq with the reat c~£ t;~~~ installationaJ that r~pparontty tho devel- o~cr proceedad with installacion af ull uf the air-canditio~ling equipm~nt ori t11P. r~of nt the ti.mQ tho Buildinq Division approved the cti;ructural plans, and that t~ad been the communication gap that ~ccurred. Upon inquiry of Commiesioner Morley, Mr. Haagen stated the builclin:~ were nat c~esigned to havo ~econdar.y r,oofs; s~nd tliat he would ~suggest thc equipment scre~n mou~,?. whi.cYi ~ould be covered with ro~fing paper thQ same co? ~r as the roa f. In r.eply to questi~nin.g by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Haagen sta~ed ~i'le ~:laced on tixe screening deviaes woulfl be toc. c~nspi.cuous and that they were propos- ing to use light-weight material. Mr. Haagen further stated th~t the "ciog- hduse" look waa less c:onspiciious than a c~ntinuoua ahield which might be 150 feet in length. Commiss?.~ner tierbst noted that he thought~ the Developnien~ ~ervices DepartmF•nt should r.•eview the matter further and n.~?;e a decision ~:hich would adequately satisfy the intent of •the Planning Commission. Commiasioner Herast ofFPred a motion, secand~d by Cammi~siorier King, that tlie matt~r be referred to the Development Ser~~ices Depa.rtment for a decision which woulcl come as close as possible to the i.~~nt of the Planning Commission's original approval. Upnn inquiry ~f Commissioner Morley, Ms. Haagen stated in order to place the equipment beneath the roof structurP, they would have to rebuild the bui.lding. Commissioner Herbst notec' that at th.is point in time the Development Scrvices Departmsnt was in a better po:~ition than +~he Planning Commission ta evaluate the tapography and make a decision regard~.ng the screening, Commissioner King nnted that the screening tn long strips would prabably be a problemaric solutiun clu~ to the wind si.tuation in the area. Chief Building `nspector nan vGn Dor.pe advibed that all of tlie roof screening models~ as pY~?St~~~ac1, would s,ceL the Cod~ requirementg frn~n a str~:ctur-~1 view~oint. Thereupono th~. Plannii~~,7 Commission ent.ered in~o a detailed discu~sion of the vari.ous mod~ls, as preserited, during which the Commission asked Mr. Thompaon for rscommendation and a re~ommendatiun was offered. Commis3io^er Herbst withdrew r-is motion to re£er the m~tter to Staff and Cammissioner King withdrew his second. Thereupon, Commissioner King offered a new mation, seconded by Commissior~:-~r Mcrley and MOTION CARKIED (~ommissioner Herbst voting "no" and Con~missioizera I'arano and Johns~n reing absent), to approve the model from those p~esented that would best serve in the area, bei_ng a one-sided slant~d screen. ~ MINUTES, CI'l'Y PLANNTNG COMMI~SIONFtt, March 18, 1974 74••183 ITEId NO. 5 ~ACI M~N`I~ PERMIT NO. 73~4E ~ Appr~val o£ parking/ ].and~caping plans - Pro~e,rty bein~ +~n irrec~u].arly- ahaped par~al of land of appraximatel~r 3 acrea hnving frontages o~ dpproximatc~ly 700 feet. on the eaet side of West Street and 800 fest Along thA et~uthwos~ side of the Sante .An~ r'reaway, being loaate~i approx:~mately 3Q0 feet ~outh of the centerl:lne of South Street, and prQSently being doveloped with a fr~ctoi~,~ Par the ssles, rental and Aervi.ce of rocreational veliicl.es. It was not~d that Enarc,achment Permit No. 73-4E was appraved by the C1~:1 Council on Sept~mber 11, 1973, to al.low an ~ncroachment in~o a portion of an qxiAting sarvice road located east of Wsst s*.reet, north of Ball Road for parking/landscaping and display purpos~~; and that appraval of aaid peimit was concli*foned upon subsequent approval of pr~rking/landscaping plans b: th~ City n3.anning Cummissi~n and City Council. IL• was fuxth~r nutel that ~ubmitted I~:.s-~s showed a t~tal of 85 ~arking space~ .~f which appxoximately 26 were within or affect2d by the a.rea of encror~chment; and that a 10-Foo1: wid~~ land~capPd 3tr~.p would be provided adjacent to ~kt~e fi nta Ana Freew~y within thc encroachment area. Commissionor King offered a m~tion, secondi:d by G~mmissionar Morley snd MOTZON CAfiRIEL (Comcni.ssioner~ Farano and Jolin~on beinq ak~sent) , t.o approve the lanascaping ~:nd parking plans submitt.~d p~r Encr~achment Permit No. 73-4E, as submittea. ~TF:M N0. 6 C3NDITIONAL USE '?ERMIT N0. 1341 -~ Request for clarification of use - Property ].ocai:ed on the ~:ast side of 5tate Callege Boulevaxci approxi- mately S].0 fe~'- soui:h of Sycamore Street, at 400 North Str College Boulevard. As~•istant 7~ning Supervisor Phill.~ Schwartze noted for +_he Commis-~ion that Conditior-al Use Permit No. 1341 established a carwaar, on th~: eubje~t property. HP further stated that several of£ices were _:cntaine~3 within the carwash structure ana that one of the offi.ces was ~•r~_sently being used illegally f.or automobile leasing, although no autamobiles w~re storEd. on-~ite; that a deter- mination was re~uested as t~ whether the a..tomobile leasing was within the intent of approval o£ the conditional use permit and, furrher, whether the other vacant ~ffices could be sub-leased for other usea. Commi~sioner t~~rbst noted that ha had been in the carwash and woulfl have no object ~n to the additional use, however, the use was evid~ntly questionable; that tr.e Commission had tzever considereci carwashes and o£fices together; and tha* the original application was for a car.wash only. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised that the aar.wash was appzoved with no n~ther use included; however, the site pl~ns indicated more than one officE in tizc~ building and that Deputy Cit~ Attorney Franlc I~~wry w~uld probably ad- vise tliat the use, as reqtiested, couZd be approved if the Commissioa so desired without additiona]. publsc hearing. Chairman Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED ~Conunissioners Farano and Johnsnn b~ing absent) , to con;:iiiue c~~n- ~ideration of the subject reque~t to the meeting of April 1, 1974. AAJ~URNMLNT -'rhere being no further business to discuss, Commiss!c,ner King offered a motian, ~econded by Commicr~ioner Campton and MOTION CARRIED, ~o adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned afi 7:40 p.m. spectfully s~.~bmi~~ed, ~t~t:t~c..~_~./ ~~. t-/t' GZ.•.-Q "~„~,• P~tricia B. Scanlan, Secret~ry Anaheim City Planning Commission PBS:hm