Minutes-PC 1974/09/16~ F r 0 MICROFILMING SERVIC =, I wf,.
~ ~
City liall.
Anahei.m. CalitoYnia
Soptamber 16, 1974
RECULAR ME:ETINC OF THE MIAHEiM CITY PLANNiNC C~MMISSION
KEGULAFt - A regtilnr meeting of Che Anahaim City Planring Commisaion wa~ called tn
M~ETING order by Chairman Herbot ut 2:00 p.m. in ths Councll Chamber, a quorum
being preaenC.
PRESENP - ~'!tAIitMAN: Herbat
- CU1~411SSIONERS: Farano, Cauer~ Johneon, King, Morl.ey, Tolar
A$SENT - COF4IIS~IONLRS: None
ALSO PRESENT - lleputy City Attornay: Frank I.owry
Office Engineer: Jay Tltus
Planning Su~~ervisor: Chnrlee RobertH
~ommisaion Secrctary: Patrir_ia Scan7.an
PLEDf,G OF - Comr,iissioner Talar led i.n Che Pledge of AlleKianc~ t:o the Flag of the
ALLF.GIANCE United States of Americn.
APPROVAL OF - Commirsaioner Gauer ofEered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Morley and
THL MINUTF:S MOTION CARRIED, to approve the minutes of. rt;e raeetings of August 19 c~nd
Septem~er 4~ 1974, as submiCted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINU~D PUBL?C HEARING. ANAHEIM HIGH SCHOOL UISTRICT, 501 North
1ZLPORT N0. 133 CreacenC Way, Maheim. Ca. 9280J. (Owner); C. MICHAEL. INC., 8501
' r Bolsa Avenue, Midway l;i~y, Cs. 92655 (AgenC). ProPP~t~; deacribed
RECLASSIFICATION as: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land cuneiating of appraxi-
N0, 74-75-9 mately 20 acres located at the eoutheast ~=orner of Eaet 3treet
and Vermont Aven~~, having approximate frontages of 700 feet on
TENTATI~~F MAP OF the south side o£ Vermont Avenue and 1160 feet on the east side
TRACt N0. 875f1 of East Street. Property preaently classified R-A (AGRYCULTURAL)
ZONE.
REQUEaTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-4000 (MULTIPI,E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
TENTATIVE T:tA(;T REQUEST; ENGINEER: RAAIi b BOY~R ENGINEERT.NG COMPANY, 14482 Beach
Boulevard, WesCminster, Ca. 92683. Sub~e~t tract ia propoaed
for subdiv•lsion into 157 RM-4000 lots.
Sub~ect petitione were continued from the meeting of Sept~mber 4, 1974~ for fur[her study.
No one indicaked their presence in opposition to sub~ecr. petiti.ons.
Although the SCaff Report to the Plan~iing Commisslon dated SeptemUer ].6, 1974, was not
read at the public hearing, it is ref.erred to dnd made a part of the minutea.
Mr. Michael Doty, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before [hP Commisston
and d~scribed the location of the subject development and tiie var3oue types of units and
the opeu apace praposed, as de{~icted on nsaps dioplayed se the maeting. He ataCed l•hey wer~
proposing a 1S6-unit condominium project; that they were trying to create and add a quality
livi.r environment within thc~ city; that the concept was to have a peripheral drive to
encircle the archiCecCural layout and keep some of the ingress and egresa traffic mov~ment
off the two adjacent streeta, being East Str~et and Vermont Street; that they we*e propos-
ing short cul-de-sacs inta the variuua motor courts serviciug the units; that they aPre
proposing t~ create a aPries of active ann passive open epaces throughout the pro~ect,
i.ncludi;ig the ma~or recreakional area with two tennis courta toward East Street and there
would be open spACe that would serve as children's play areas, gathering apacea, etc., and
well developed with reapect to wark areas and seating arrangements, ae well as more
passively-developed areas wlth graes and creative play opportunities; that Chey were
74-'~ 34
~ ~
MINUT~S, CITY PLANN'CNG CUl~4VtISSION~ Saptembc~r .16, 1974 74-435
BNVIRONMENTAL IMPkCT RG~PORT N0. 133~ RBCI.A3SII~ICnitON NU. 74-75-9, AND TF.NTAT'fVF M.AP OF
TRACT N0. 8758 (Cop~inued ___ .,_.__ _ '-.--- --
anti.ci.pati~~g n large earttian berm on two a~idee of r.he pro~ect which would serve to inerense
ptivncy and help reduce. eome of the noise from road tratfic on Cwo eides of tha development;
that there would bo a mixture of two und threo-bedruom unlts, one and two s~ories, and in
Che price range of $350000 to S45,U00; tl-at there wauld ba a mixturA of wood~ dtucco,
ehi.ngle~ and clle elamente throu,~~~our, und in nddition there woul.d be fronC uncl rear patlo
~r~aA to promotH a f~~rther priva~:y feel.ing; that the walls £ucing the outaide of l-he
pro~ect would be coneCructecl with amul.ler ~aindowe, etc., with a concentcation of windowe
and open apnr.e toward the greeu areae on tlie inter.ior of the prc_~ect; that the apeaial
fent~•'ee included the 20-Eoot buffer strip udjacent to al] of the It-1 areas on the edges
of t~ie Fr~~~ect which wou.ld be heavily lan.dscap~d and hnvc a decorative 6•-foot high wall,
probubly ~~netruc ted o£ masonry blocka and capped/trimm~d wlth wood Co ci••+ite a tasCeful
eaparation betwaen Che exic~ting and tiie propoaed davelopments; that they wer.c propoeing to
buffer the churcti eite to the south wi.tti n 1-f.oaC wide~ heavily landecapPd strip w.tth a
wall.~ that Chare wae a reduc~ian of. two-stury dwelli.ng unite in tl~e 150-foot setbaclc
Aa~9CB11C to CIlE cxisting lt-] davelopment in the area; Chat the praposed derisity wae 9.8
unite per acre (neC) or 8,5 unlta per acre (grose). Regnrdii~g mitigation o£ noise die-
cusaed ~n the Staff Report~ he atuted the developer was propoaing setbaaka of 6U f~et on
Ver.mont Skr.eet And 70 feet on rxet Skreet, 3~ to 4-foot high earthen bermA. and heavy
lapdscaping~ whi:h ehould crsnte ~AUnd-attenuution meaeurea and, in addition~ certain
architectural el ements wer.e incr~Fiaed ~uch as the ehake shingl.ea, etc., ad~acent to those
two atreE~t•s. Regarding traffic problems diecusaed in the Staff Report, Mr. Doty atated
the proposed circu1.ation plan had been reviewed by th~ City and the primaXq entry wae
suggeated ir ~.~r t by the City Engineering Stt~ff and they were confid~nt that the secondary
entry on Vermont 5treet c~nd the primary entry on East Street would be quite aatisfsctory.
Regarding displacement of the strawb,~rry field, he stated muat of the dPVelopment of AnahPim
was a reault of displacement of some kind .f agriculture.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kir.g noted that, i~ hia opinion~ the petitioner had anewere:d the questiane
raised in paragraphs 5-a, b, and c on page 1-a of the Staff Report to his ~atiafactiun.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the proposal was one of the first projects to come in under
the new RM-4006 Ordinance and said propo sr~l had no variance requests, with the denei.ty
being well with in the requirement.
Commisaionex Gauer offered a motion~ seconded by Commisaioner Johnacm m~d MOTION CARRIGD,
that ~nviron*_.~ntal Impact Report No. 133, tiaving beer~ conaiderEd Chis date by the City
Planning Commiasion and evidenr.e both written and oral having been preaented to supplement
said draft EIR N o. 133, the Planning Commi.saion beliaves that said draf~ ~IR No. 133 d~es
conform tu the City and State Guidelines and the State of California EnvironmEntal Quality
Act and~ based upon auch informatton, doea bereby recommend :o the C~ty Council that they
certify Chat EIR No. 133 is in compliance with said EnvironmenCal Quality Act.
Commissionar Gaver offered Resolution No. PC74-190 and moved for its pr~asage and adoptton
to recommend to the City Counci.l approval of Reclasaification No. 74-75-9 suls~ject to
canditiona. (S ee Reaol.ution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the followin ~~l-e:
AYES: COI~tISSIONERS: 1'ARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, I:ING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
N~JES: COhII~iISSIONERS: "'~NE
ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: NONE
Commiss{oner Gauer offered a motion~ seconded by Commisaioner King and MOT'LON CARRIED, to
approve Pentative Map of Tract No. 8758, sub~ecG to r~e iollowing condttions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tra.:t No. 8758 is granted subject to the
approval of ;teclassiricatiun No. 74-75-9.
(2) Tha~ ahould this subdivisi.on be develuped as more than onc~ subdiviaion, each
aubdi.vision thereof shnll be subm'rr.ed in tentative form for approval.
(3) That all !.ots within thi~a rract shnll be aerved by under$round util.ittes.
0
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY P1.ANNINC COMMISSTON~ SepCembar 16, 1974
74-436
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REI'OR'~ N0. 133, RGCI.AS5IFICATION N0, 74-75-9~ ANll TFNTATIVTi MAl' aF
TRACT NO.._ 8758 LC,ontinuad _ ,_ ____ _,___._..~ ---
(fi) That n Einal Cre~~t map of eubject property ehnll bc~ eub-nitted to and approved by
thc+ City Council and r.l~an be recorded ln the otifice af the OranKe CounCy Recordar.
(5) ThaC the cov~nantr~, cunditione~ and r Rtrlction~ eha11 be oubmitted to and
approved b~ the City Attornoy's Office, prior to r:ity Council approval of khe
final truct map. nnd~ further, 4hat the approved cavc;nants~ c~nditione~ and
restric~ton~ shall be recordad concurrently vitli ~ha finul tract map.
(6) That prior to filing Che final. tract map, the applicant eha11 aubmit to th9 (:ity
ACtorney for approval or danial n comploCe Nynopeie of the proposed f.unctioning
of tlie operating corporntion. inc:udit~g bul' not limited to tl~o urticlea of
incorporation byl~twa, propoaed meChode of manegemQnt~ bonding to insure main-
tennnce oi' common property and buildinga, and euch ather information as the City
Attorney may deaire to protect the Clty, ita citizens, and the purchasera of the
pro~er.,t.
(7) That dxuinage of sub~ect propr.rty shal.l be disposed of in a inanner satiefacCory
ko the City Engineer.
(8) That the vehicular acceas righta, excepX at street and/or alley upenings, to
Vermont Av~:nue ~nd East Street Nhall be dedi.cated to the City of Anaheim~
(4~ 'i'h~t a modified cul-de-eac aha11 be provided at the t.erminus of Hukee Avenue
sub~ect to tlie approval of the City Gngineer.
(10) That all private atreets ahall be developed in accordance witt~ the City of
Anaheim's atandarda for pri.vate streets.
(11) That atreet names shall be approved by the ~ily of Anaheim prlor to approval of
a fi.nal tract map.
(12) That prior to the approval of khe finnl tra~c~ ;ar~p, the petitioner shall submit
finaL floor plans and elevationa to the P1Hnning Commisaion acid City Council for
approval.
VARIANCE NU. 2635 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. BRIGHAM YOYJNG UNZVERSI'TY, 50 East Temple,
" Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (Owner); MATREYEK HOMES, INC., P. 0. Box
711. Upland, Ca. 41786 (Agent); requesting WATVER OF (A) MAXIMUM
STRUCTURAL HEIGHT, (Ii) MA7LIMUM SIGN AREA~ AND (C) PROHIBITEA SIGNS, TQ CONSTRUCT A THEME
TOWER ArD TWO FREE-STANDING SIGNS on propert)` describeu ae: An irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of appruximutely 137 acrES located northwesterly of the interaection
of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 510 feet on the
wPSt side of Euclid Street and. 2000 feet on the north aide of La Palma Avenue, and being
iocated approximately 1660 feet north and west of khe centerlinpa of La Palma Avenue and
Euclid Street. Property p.resently cl.assified R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZOHE.
Sub~ecC petitian was continued fr.om ~he meeting of September 4, 197k, in order to receive
additional input from the dpvElopc~t concerning the prop~seJ thewe tower with tlle maeter
antenna system.
IC was ~~uCed that the petitioner was requesting an additional continuance to the mePting
of October 14, I974, since he had been unable to gather the requested information due to
the fact that he was called out of town on buaineas.
Mr. Ben Bay~ 2148 West GrAyson Avenue, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and inquired
concer.ning the drainage for the entire develo~ent uf the subject property, and Office
Gngineer Jay Ticus advisel that a drainage proposal had been eubmitted which was satis-
factory to the City. Mr. I3ay further inquired regarding the scheduling of the construction
of the lake which was to be a part of the overall development o£ the sub~ect property, and
state~ that at the original public heariug there was some concern expressed regardinb the
safety of said lake und the people hnd understood that the safety would be provided, more
o ~
MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNINC COI~IISSION~ September lh~ 1974 74-437
VARIANCL N0, 2635 (Contin~ed)
~r lade~ by the res.ldenrs whu would be living around it. He furCher atated t.hat tha
timtng Eor the construction of the lake would determine wl~ether or not Any protection wae
being gi.von. Cl~a:~rman HarbeC then noted [hat Mr~ Aay's quc-etione regarding the lake could
ho anewered by the devcloper at the meeting of October 14, 1974.
Commiseioner King affered n motion, seconded by CommieRioner Johneon and MO'TION CARRIF.D,
to further continue the puU1:Lc hearing and coneideratiun ot VariancN No. 2635 to th~~
meeting uf October 14, ].974, ne r~queated by the ~7eCiti~ner.
ENVIRONM~.*ITAL IMPACi - CUNTINUCD PUBLIC F1F.ARINC. BttIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, 50 ~axt Temp.le,
RF•PON.T N0. 134 Salt Lnke Clty, Utal~ 84111 (Owner); MATREYEK HOMTS, INC., P. 0. Box
-' 7],1, Upland, Ca. 9178Fi (AgenC); pxopo:~l.ng thut eub~ect property,
T~NTATIVE MAP OE cont~isCing of 33 acrea tocated northweeter.ly of tt~e intersection
TRACT TJO. 8775 oF La Palma Avenue Find Euclid Street, hnvinR an ~ppraximate £rontage
of 978 feet ~n the north side of La Palma Avenue, liavinE a maximum
depth of approximately ~.356 faet and locaCed ap~roximately 1660 feet
weet of the centerline of Euclid Street, be suhdivided into 328 R-2 lotK.
Sub~ect tract was contlnued from r'e me~~ting af September 4, 1974, for furcher atudy.
It was noted that following eubsequent meetings with the applicanr., additional changes
were necesaitated which al~o had an effect upon the ~IR and the chan~es werE algnificant
enuugh to require that the EIR be amendec~ an' reviewed by aJ.l appropriate City deparzmenta
aiid outaide agenciea, resulting in Che need ~o further continue the eub~ect matter for an
ndditional four weeke~ t~ October 14, 1974.
Commisaioner l:ing offered a motion, seconded by Coam~iseioner Johnaon and MOTION CP.RRIED,
to further r_ontinue coiisideration ~f Tentati.ve Map of Trect No. 8775 to the meeting of
~ctober 14, 1974.
VAIiT.AN4 iVO. 2633 - CONTINU~D PUBLIC HEARING. SIDNFY P. SNYDER, 176~ South Heather I~ane,
~ Anaheim, Ca. 92a02 (Jwner); requeating WAIVER OF I4INIMlJhi RF'.AR YA1ZD TO
PERMIT AN EXISTING HOUSF. ADDITION on property descriUed as: A
rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of appzoxisetely 7725 square feet located
at the southweat corner of lio].gate llrive and Hasth~r Lane, having approximate frontagea
of 103 feet on the south sidQ of HolgaEe Driv~ and 7S feet an the we~+t aide of Heather
T~ane~ and further deacribed aa 176'3 South Heather I,ane. Property presently c].asaified
R-1 (ONE-FAMILY RFST.DENTIAL) ZONE.
Thia 1r:P,m was continued from the meeti-~q of September 4, 1974, in order that additional
information concerning the public ~itility eaoement located at the rear of subje:ct property
could be obtained.
No ~ne indicated their presence in oppoaition to aub~ect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Plann*ogand ma3ei8npa~teofstheeminrtl6, 1974 was not read
at the public hearing, it is referred ~
Mz. Sidney Snyder, the petitioner, appeared befcre the Commisaion and introduced his son,
Mr. Don Snyder~ who had begun the conatruction of the house addition in queation during
his absence.
Mr. Don 5nyder appeared before Che Commission and presented photographs °roximatel~cnine
in the 5-foot easement area in the neighborhood and atated there were app Y
walnut r.reea in ~aid encroactunent area; that there were other structures in the area that
were virtually on the property line and in the encroachment area; that the aubject addition
was hie own fault aince he decided to upgrade the exiating storage shect w;-11e his father
was out ~f town; that he had work~d on it for four days before tt-e City had stoppe3 him
and only the door and a few front panels were necessary to complete the project; and Chat he
had talked with a representative from the City Uti~fty DepartmenC who felt there wou13 be
no problem for the City to abandon at least 30 feet of the S-foot wide .~asemenC involved.
1'HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
. ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNtNG COMMISSION~ Soptember lb, 1974 74-438
VAIttANC6 N0. 26~3_ (Conttn~ed)
Chaitcman Herbet oxpleined that a uCility building in snme inatancea could be rl.ght on the
propurr.y li.ne. however. th~ aub~eat otructure ~aas ~nr.roAChing into e public utillty euse-
ment and hnd b~scom~ pact oE the dwell.ing. Ne ~ioced ttiat ~taff had .lndice~ted ther~~ wae a
f ield 1nHpoctiun mecl~ in the ncighborhood by rupr~-~entarivee of the F..l.ectricnl. UtiliCy
I)iviaian who indicated that a p~rti.on of a patio covcr encroact~ed ~nto the utt.lity eaAe-
ment on the lot at 1778 Norfolk Avenue and that no other encronchmente were ~,'4~~rved, He
further noted that the PJ.annic~g Commi.seion could m~~ consider the ttees ~... ~lic neighbori.i~R
prnryer.ti~e ae an encroachment.
Mr. Sidney Snyder :~~.. ~d thar. the nei.ghbor Cwo doore from the sub~ect pr~P~r Y hnd eaves
that encroached i.ni:o an ea~ement; that the pxoblem they were faced wicli concerned a ehed
Chut wae coneCructed wiCh the house and the ~hed wa~ ~ueC being connacted to the hause at
thie time; that ~he neiglibor adjacent to the structure in queoti.on fiad given hie written
consent far •lt t~ reuaain and none of the other nalghbor3 hAd ob~ected; thst he was admitting
that he tiad made a miatako by g~ing aheas with the building without the proper parmiCS,
however~ if they would have to allow 5 feet at the prope.rty line for a aetUack due to Che
egaement~ in addition L'o allowing An 8-foat diatance between Che shad and the house, Chay
wou].d have lese than what they hud atnrCed with. Mr. Snyder recog~iized that .if the utillty
building was not connected to the house, it could be at the property line.
Chairman Herbet then uoted that it would be di.fficul.t for someone to purchase the property
at a£uture dste if the house addiCion was permitted and the easement was not abandoned,
eince they would probably not be Rble to obtain a loan under th~ae circumatances and at
that time the people would come befare ehe Planning l:onaniasion to make the aituation
legal.
In reaponse to questioning by the petitioner, Chairman tlerbst noted that the City Council
would be the deter.mining body concerning the disposition of ti~e easement.
In response to questioning by Commiasioner Farano, the petitioner stipulated that the
heuse addition would be uaed for storage purposea only~ and Ch~t said addition would not
be ].ived in. The petitioner further stated that the exiating garage was ueed for parking
two cara; that the addition wou:ld be uaed for etorage of whaCever it was used for before
which included paint for thelr rental tinitay etc.; that they had ~uat tried to improve the
atorage area which would be Ulended in with Che front of the exi.eti.ng bouae; and ti~at
there would be no partitions inside Che houae addition and there would be a door on one
side toward the patio.
In responsa to questiuning by Com:aiasioner King, the petitioner recognized that if the
variance was approved, the structure would have to be brought up to thP minimum Building
Code requirements. The netitioner clarified that a bed frame was presently being con-
strucCed inside the storage area and that Chat coristr.uctian might have been ~'_ewed upon Aa
partiCions from Che street.
In reaponae to further questtoning by Commissioner Farano, Mr.. Don Snyder stated that he
wae capable ~f bringing the struczure up to the minimum Building Code req~tirements himaelf;
and that he was not planning to go ineo the real estate businesa.
Commiasioner Farano then noted that he wae aware thst sometimes people made mistakea and
€ound themaelves with prnblema. however, somewhere alang the line this Planning Commiasion
and the City Council would have to take a positton that people could not .legally build
oiito Cheir houses wit;-out the proper variances being applied for; that many hardship
waivc;fs had been granted where the pPOp~e did not know any better, however, the petitioner
was in Lhe real estate business and he would queation whether in all honesty he wae not
aware thaC .: building permit was necessary.
Thereupon~ Mr. Don :.ryder atated that lie believed he could actually state he did not know
that he needed a buildin~ ;ermit for the aub~ect strucCuze; thsst his parenta were away and
eince the shed was deteriorating, ~c ~•rAa rryina to un~rade the area, however, he was not
trying to get around the requirements; that although his father. was in the real estate
busineas~ he was not; and that he had pounded nai.ls, but had never participated in the
planaing atagea of the construction proceRS.
ChairmAn Herbst noCed chat the aub~ect structure was well along~ and rhat the only way he
would vote to allow it would be if rhe petitioner woul,' request thc: City Council to abandon
the easement and if sRid abandonment was granted~ at leaet thttt portion of the Easement
c~long the west property line in which the house addi.tion wae located, for the prc~tection of
any future owners of the sub,ject property.
~J
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Saptea~ber 16~ 1974
74--G39
VARYANCE N0. 2633 (Continued)
Coromieetoner Kic-g r~o~ed that to ask thu pQtitioner to teax down the ~rrructura woul.d bc~
creating n hardehip, ul[houpth c~aid h+~rddhlp would hav been of the peti.tioner'e uwn m+iking.
Cotmnisaioner Johnsun nuCed he concurrerl in ~hai~n Herbet's rem•~rka and that hQ was eure
that the peCitioner was nwar.e that the Commiseion was not. trying lu ~akn lt 1~ffi.cult £or
any one particul.ar peraon in aucti mattere; that t'he Code wnA for the ~anefit of evaryc-ne;
and thnt aince the peLitior.Qr was in the real estate bueineac+~ it ehould have baen knawn
that a building pex'mit wae required.
It wae noted ttiat the Director of Devplopment Servicee had determined thaC the propoeed
activity fell within the defi~lltion of Section 3.A1, C2.ass 5 of the C1Cy of M~heim
Guidalines tu the Requirements fot• an Environmentr~l Impnct Report and wae, therefore~
categorically exempt from rhe requir~~ment to file nn Ellt.
Commiseioner .lohnson offered Resolution No. PC74-191 and moved for ita paesago and adopti.on
to grunt petirion tor Variance No. 2G33 subject to the condition that the owner ehall re-
queet and receive City Council approval of an abandonment of at Y~ast that porClon of the
public ut~i.lity easement along tl-e weat property line in which the exieting house adJiti~n
•ls located, eince the Planning Comm~.eaion io not in favor of granCing the vAriance subject
L•o the granting of nn encruachment permit; and aub~ect tu the etipulations of the pekitioner,
and eubject to conditions, which ahall be complied with within 90 dayn of the date of
npprovel or ~a~ich further tia~e as ehe Planni.ng Gomanieaion may grant. (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca.ll~ the foregoing resolution was pasoed by tha following voxe:
AyGS; COMMISSIOA~ERS: GAUER, JOHHSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAIt, HERBST
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
ABSENT: COt~tISSIONERS: NONE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC./TEXACO VEN'PURES, INC.,
REPURT N0. 111 c/o Horst J. Schor, 380 Anaheim Hilla Road, Maheim, Ca. 92807
(Owner). Property deacribed ae: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
RECLASSIFICATIOiJ land coaeisting of approximately 22 acrea having approxtmate front~-
N0. 73-74-28 ages of 830 feeC on the east side of Hidden Canyun Road and 1880
`~ feet on the north aide of Avenida De Santiago, and being located
VARIt1NCE N0~ 256G approximately 500 feet southeasterly o£ [he intersection uf Serrano
Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. Property presently classified R-A
TENTATIVE MAP OF (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE AND COUNTY OF OItANGE A1 (G~NERAL A~RTCJLTURAL)
TRAf:T N~_ 852~ DISTRICT.
REQUESTED CLASST.FICATION: R-H-22,000 (ItESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE,
LOW-DENSI'P1', SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE
REQUESTED VAItIANCE: WAIVER OF REQUIREMEN'T THAT SINGLE-FAMILY RT;SIDENTIAL STRUCTUR~S
REAI: UN ARTEP.IAL t1IGHW~YS •
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: WILLDAN ASSU~_iATES, 125 South Claudina Street,
Ana;;~im. Ca. ~2805. SubjNct property is proposed for sub-
di.vision int, 1.7 R-H-22,004 lata.
Sub~ect petitione were contiaued from the meetinga of ~ecember 10, 1973, 3anuary 7, i'Ia~ch 18,
April 29 and June 24, 1974, at the requeat of the petitl.oner; and from Auguat 5, 1974, for
readvertiaement to include additional property.
It was noted that correapondence had been received from ~he City of Orange requesting that
the Planning Commisaian continue the sub~ect petitions to allow additional, time for them
to determine posaible implicationa upon their city; and that a letter had beeri re~eived
from Anaheim Hills, Inc., concurring with the request from Orange, ~aid continuance to be
to the September 30, 1974 Planning Com-cissi,on meeting.
Commiseioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED, to
further contin~le the public hearings and consideration of Environmental Impact Report No.
111, ReclaseificaCion No. 73~i4-28, VariAnce No. 2566 and Tentati•~e Map o£ Tract No. 8520
eo the meeting of September 30, 1974, as requested.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CI'TX PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ Septemher 16~ 1974 74•-44U
~+NViRONt~tGNTAI. IMl'ACT - PU$I.IC HEARING. HENItX F. AND ETHEt C. DEL GIORCIO, c/o The McCarthy
928Q1 (Ownara);
C
ItF.PORT r0. 120
~ a.
Com~pany, 2535 Weet La pA~li4& Avenue, Anaheim~
2535 Weot La Palma Avenuu,
G. R. FULLFRy c/o The McCnrthy Comnany.
92801 (Agent). Property deecribed ae: An irregularly-
C
CUNAITIONAL USE
1
490
PREtMI'f N0 ~~,
Anaheim,
ahAped parcel of land ccn~+ieting of approxi.mxr.ely 63 acree located
.
.
~~~ Houtherly of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and baing located approximately
VARIANCn N0. 2630 ~K00 fest Qase of tha cent~rline ot Imperial Nighway. Property
'
I.ONG'.
preser+tly claHetf ied R-A (AGRICUi,TU1ZAL)
TEN'IATIVi: MAP OF
A56U
TEtACT N0
R~QUFST[:U CONUI'fIONAL USE: Fti'fABLISIi !~ FIVE-UN[T MODBL HOME CUMPL[:X
"
. ~ICNS.
W1TH WAIVER OF MAXTMUM NIJ~iBER OF
(REVISJ.ON 2~
RLQIJF.STED VARIANC~: WAIV~R OF MINIMIJM LOT ,~iIZE.
TENTATIVL' TRACr K~Qt;rs~c: ENGINEER: WILLDAN A5SOCIATES~ 125 Sauth Claudina StreeC,
b-
f
or e~-
Anaheim, CA. 92805. Sub~ect ~roperty i~ proposed
diviei.on into 85 R-H-22,000 zoned lots.
Approkimataly yix persone tndicar.ed their presence in oppoaition ko the aub~ect peti~ione.
Zoning Supervisor Ch+srlea Roberta read tlie Staff Report to the Planning Cc~mmiesion dated
September 16~ 1974, and eaid Staff Report is referred to aa :if set fort}i in full. in the
minutes.
Mr. RoberCs noted thaC eince ~ detexmination concerning the precise alignment of Fairmont
Baulevard wa~ sonn to be mnde, it wou.ld appear that action on tha proposal would be pre-
mature at thia particular time, an3 thaC the subject petitions should be held over until
the matCpr of the precise alignment was resolved.
Chalrman Herbst noted that there were quite a few persona in attendance regar.ding rhe
aubject petitians; that the City had been aware of thP Fairmont Boulevard alignment ai.tus-
tian £or a pc.riod of Cime vnd the Commission had previously requeated Staff to prucced
with the alignment eo that the aubj~ct properr_y could be developed; however, if the public
hearing was allowed to proceed, th~ developer should be o~i noki.ce that any action would be
sub~ect t~ said alignment of Fairmont B~ulevard since there was a possibility that said
alignment would be different from that shown on the aubject proposal.
Mr. Tom Baldikoaki, I101 Dove Str.eet, Newport Beach, General Counael for The McCarthy
Company~ appeared be£ore the Commission and i.ndicated he would address the change6 tattde to
the pro~ect since it was last viewed by thP Pla:.ni-~g Commiaeion under anather applir.ation,
as well as to comment ~n t~c Seneral phi~osopl~y of the development. He etated that The
McCarthy Cempany had been in the process of developing the subject properl'y for appraxi-
mat~ly nine months xnd had Y-ad numerouH mo~ti«~s with the Santa A.na Canyon PropezCy Ownere
Association; that there wPr^ ~~iil a series of ob~ectiona to the proposal from the home-
owners; thaf t~:cy were proposing a solid lAnd pian and had made cartain concessions re~ard-
i~-g it; that the basic change was related to the reduction in the number of lots from 99
Co 85; that they were proposing to aCay within ttie resolution of intent of several years
ago for R-H-22,000 and in oYder to do so and at the same time not have a typical hillside
pro~ect, it was necessary tu request a vatiance of the groas acreage of 31 of the lots,
or net acreage of ~n1;~ 10 of the lor.s; that they were requesting to be anr.axed to the
"Mohler Drive Study Area" r.o pro~~ide ior the proposed sCreer width and cons[rucrion with-
out standard curba, guttera, etc., to maintain a rural atmoephere; that the•amount of
common area had been rsduced; that CY~e dam an the property wuu2d be eliminated and br~ught
up to the natural grade; and that certain gmenities would be provided to aervice the sma11
tract wj.th recreational faciliCiea which it was hoped would take on a si~nificance to the
residentU so Chat the maintenance thereof. would not become a problem.
Mr. Dan Rowland, the ar liitect ~or the developer, appeared before the Co~nissi~n and
atated the Commiseton l~ad been adequately expoaed to the groFoqtd pro~ect concept excepC
for Commissioner Tolar, and he would 1:Lke t~ outlix~e the deaign procedure; that an serial
topography was made £or plotting pur.poses with an effort to preserv~ the hiatorl.cal
concept of growing things that existed in the area; Chat the property ~loged 300 feet from
Chf south toward tl~e Santa Ana River; that thei.r elope an~sl.ysia det~*mined that out of the
65 acres there was a limited amount of land which could be built up wi.thout grading the
entire site; thar the proposal was to group the houses and the circulation elements baeed
upon the topography and the existing natural trails; that they had consideted the water
couraes and the drainage and analyzed each site on its use potential and privacy from one
lot to ar.otlier; that Within their framework of design the City Staff had no tonls with
•
LJ
MINU'iES, CITY PLAIJNING C~~MMISSION~ Sepeemhar. 16, 1Q14
74~ 441
ENVIRONMrNTAL IMYACT R~POit'l' ~lU. 120~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'1' N0, 1490~ VARIANCE NU. 2630, e~ND
TENTATIVE MAP OE TRACT NQ. 85b0 RGVIS.ION 2 Cantinued)
which Co work in thair analysls because of the naturnl amenlties eince the etandnrde were
set up f.or mnes building concopts; that tha propased hoiisea which would nat ~11Hturb the
terrain wdr~ uniqua~ being of vnrying aiz~a~ o£ wood conetruction, £rom '1000 to 270~
squara fer~t~ +ind designnd to +~~~commudale front-Co-beck~ back-to-front. lef.t-to-rigtit~ and
rigtik-to~-loEt, ox combinutions tliQreof, for alupe~ end, Cherefare~ wood fl.oore were being
used which would be suepcsnd~•~l c.n plle~ where possible with modified E~~otinge; nnd that
eacli eite had n plun thut had bNen cited.
Mr. Rowland aioplayed tt~e sitc~ plans and ov~~rlays for the viewing of ttie Cummi.saion and
atAt.ed L-hat their cor~cern wl.t.li the site plan wna thAC they werc~ dedicating 252~OOA oquare
feet to uccomn~odate the proposed Falrmont Boulev~-rd; kh~-t nC one point in ti.me it was
their undors~anding that the horizontal. nlignment of. Fairmont Buulevard was pretty we11
deCermined and that ttie only problem that would rrally face. Che City Engineering SCnff
wae l•lie vertical alignment; that the aigniii.cant .:tinuge in the suU~~~~t eite plan, other
than the redu~~~•lon of lots, was thc location of khe acceae point from the eite where the
pro~ect had to go eoutherly n diatunce to provide a..ransition tliat was more on-grade to
the alignmen~ being stuJied by the Engineering Department; that he reco~nized the problems
facing Che Plenning Commisa~.on witt~ the nebulous state of affsir.~ in co~nection with the
ali.gnment of Fuirmont Boulevard, buC that he could only polnt out thaC in Msy, 1973, there
was a two-week continuunce for a development proposal on tl~e subject tract for finaliza-
tion of the alignment of Fairmunt Baulevard.
Mr. Baldikoski referred to page 6-a, paragraph (5-b) of the Staff Report and atated that
equestrian trails were being provided wY~i.ch busically conformed to the perimeter~+ of "Lot
A" or the common urea~ howevez, ln the event there would be a preference to locate that
tr.sil in anottier l.ocaCion, he wus aure that could be accommodated; thak unfurtunately they
were unable to hoolc up wll•h any extating trails in the area becrluse to their knowledge
they were non-exiatent, or that they were unable to find out definitive informaCion regard-
ing their locatlon. Ln refer.ence to png~ 6-a, parAgraph (5-c) concerning acouetics, lie
atated th~t the uatural terrat.n would minimize sound; and Chat at the time the buildings
were constructed~ the acaustical engineers wuuld be h~sndlin$ that problem. Referring to
page 6-d, paragraph (17), he atatec~ he had a question regarding the understanding that [he
developer had with the Santa Ana Caiiyon Pruperty Ownera Aeaociation regarding maintaining
tl~e rural churacter of the area, and ttie City Staff was proposing ttiat there be a~~ im-
proved road with sidewalks. etc., on Uel Giorgio Road from Mohler Drive to "F" Street,
which conceivably wouLd be the second access point to the pro,ject; that they di.d not care
if they had this second connection or not but~ in any evenC, they would object to tti~e
normal city atreeta being coiistructed, i.e., curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc., at that
location; that their company did propose that there be aidewalk improvements out Del
Giorgio Road to the point where that street becsme a Chrough hillside street, and on the
side immediately adiacent L•o the junior high school; that the importance, in his opinion,
was Co maintain the rural chnracter in tha area and get awa.y from the normal cross-aection
city streets as much as possible. Referr.ing to page 6-d, paragraph (18). he stHted that
only nine lota required a variance for the purposes of the 19,ODU net. square foot requlre•-
ment. Referring to page 6-e, parugraph (19), he 3tated the equestrian trails would be
rough terrain, although it would be graded and kept as natur~l as possible. Referring to
page 6-e, paragraph (20) and puge 6-f, paragraphs (33) and (34), he stated there ~•!as
difficulty ir trying to live with a pier_e of pr~perty frum a design point of view that
might be af~e.cted by the locatlon of a road wi.th no one knowing what the exact location
would be; that eheir company had not tried to prec;se align FairmonC Bo~l~vard, but inetead
had applied various criteria of the City a*-d placed it in a logical location ~nd given
adequate add•ltional area on khe southeast corner of the propexty where ~'airmont Boulevard
was moat likely to crQSS. Referring eo pa~e 6-e, paragraph (24), he stated that :ie belie°ied
that restTiction applied Cu man-made alopes since there wer.e no property lines basically
in the subdivision [hat were other than n~tsral terraia. Referring to page 6-e. par.agraph
(28), he indicated they were propasing for Che two sepRrated l~ts, whfch would be i.ncluded
in the CC&R's snd ~ubject to the approva.l of the City Attorney or by d~eed reatriction or
both, that there be a rigid limitation on the usage of the across-the-road smsll portion
of r,he lots in question; tha~ basic:ally the sma11 portions of the ~~0 lnts could be either
laridscaped or Ferhapa used for some type of stable or corral ar.e:a .tnd thar would he the
or.ly use that it could be put to. Referring to page 6-f, paragrnph (29)+ regarding ttie
panhandle lots, he stated the developer would be willing to meet the requirements cr th~
deslrea of the City. Referring to page 6-f, paragraph (31)~ regr~rding restrictiona in the
~
a
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CODtMISSIQN, September 16~ 1474
J4-44'l
ENVIRONMENTAL IM~'ACT RCPORT NQ. 12Q, CONDITIONAL USi; PBItMI'P N0. 1490, VARIANCE N0. 2630, AND
TENTATIVB MAP Or T1tAC'T N0. 8560,_,~KE~~ISION 2 (Continue~_, ~_,_._ -
Scenic Corridor, Cliey w~re propoeing to take care of that by CG&R'8. R~fPrring Ca p$ge 6-!.
paragraph (13), they wa~ld pre£er to t~ave the iaeue as to the genaral 1ac.ation~ ae dietl~~cC
from Che NreciHe locaei.on of Fairmont Ifoulavatd~ determined in accordunce wiCh C.lieir wap.
und there was u 7-ucre plus Aection which wae in slope and which waA uveilnble fot• Che
1oc~ti.on.
Mr. Don Mc~eukawn, of Willdnn Ar+eociutae, the engineer tor the pr.upoaed devel~pment~ appeared
before the Cammiesion and ~tated regarding the elopes, that taere was prabably a mieunder-
standing eince in the development cu~icepC thare would be u rninimum amounl• of grading and
would not create :iny slopse other th~n the ones a~.ong the boiindary of the exioting pond;
l•hat the other grading would be [or str.eete with eome minor grading for building pude;
and that they would be creating a road thaC was wider tlian that exieting and the fi11
would be onto thr~ area of khe pond.
Mr. Pl~illip Jou~on-Roche, a meanber of th~ noard of Airectors o.°. 'the Santa Ana Canyo~
Homeuwners Aaeociatiun~ appeured be.f.ure thn Commi.asion and etated that a lettec }~ad been
senC to Che Planni.ng Commiasion setting forth Che poeition of Che Aaso;.lation regarding
the propoeal; that the Asaociation wae definitely in favor of tha prc~posed roadways that
would be in uccordance with the "Mohl.er Arive Study Area" atreet standards, as well aR the
gravel pathways and no street ligh~s or curba; that the aquestrian trai.l would be of greuC
value to tl~e Association, and although it would not be hooked up with any existing trails
at the pXesent time, the property owners werc~ 'n the proceas of talkinR with Anaheim H~lle
nnd ot:~ers to eatabli.eh a trall system through the area; that presently the proposed trail
would connect with areas of the community~ speci:`ically the Mohler Place area to Del
Giorgio Road so that they could cut acrusa the pond area inatead of having tG go all the
way around the sub~ect property to see the neighbore; und ttiat the proposed trail would
give equeatrian acce~s th~t Che property ownera did not r~'esently have. Regarding the
propoaed lot si~ea, he sl•ated the As9ociation had ~;ed an instrwnent to measure the lots
ahown on the tract map and it was discovered that only 40 lota or 47X complied with the
Code requirement; that 41 of the proposed lots were too small in the net sense, opposed Co
only 10 which The McCarthy Company sCated were amaller than the net sq~.-~re footage require-
mer.t; that there appear.ed to be soa.ething irreg~ilar about the neasurement procedure used
by The McCar.thy Company sinc~ 21 of the LoCa were overatated as to their size; that a
gruup uf 14 lote were on the border o€ tt~e propoaed Fairmont Boulevard alignment and ChaC
was aignificant since the Associjtion had met with membera of the Uevelopment Servlcea
Department Staff apecifically i:o talk about the Fairmont Boulevard ~~lignment and there waa
some question as to whetY-er the easement w~uld be private property or City-owned property;
thxt, in th~ event there were severe reatrictions as to what that portion of the property
could be uaed for, it would h1ve to be landacaped in a very particular manner so that one
cou'ld not mount a swimming pool or keep horaes in a pasCure on the slope and ttaere could
be no foot traffir_ or animal traffic, or any other uaes allowed, and with that in mind,
he questioned wt~ether it would be fair to count that part of the lot as usable area in
context with t~~ R-H-22,000 Zone where a aubst8nt{R1 part of the lot wss, in fact, used
£or gardening o for Che keeping of horses or ~ther ~ural-type activities which were such
a aignificane ~~t of the lifestyle af the MohleY~ Drive-Del. Giorgio area; that he w~u1d
submit that or y 40 nf the propoaecl 85 lots were, in fact, fully complia,.~t to the R-H-
22,000 Zone provisions which called out 19,000 square feet net and 22~000 square feeC
greas, and it was his oplnion Chat more Staff re~earch and moxe measure.ment of the lota
aas in order prior to auy approval being given.
Mr. Joujon-Roc;he continued by atat!ng that a p•roperty survey had been made of the existing
lots in the aub,ject area ar-d that the average lot size of a11 of the parcels both developed
and undeveloped was 1.03 acres, excluding all parcela greater than 5 acres; that the
average size of all developed lota, excluding all. p~.rcels greater than 5 acres, was .91
acres, pointing out that a large number of land ownexs in the area 'ad lots greater than
the minimum half-acre, and also in Cheir survey they had excluded the development to the
east and to the weat of the sub3ect property; that the recent Criterion Tract, with no
waivers of the requirementn, had proven that development within the requirements was
feasible in the area; C1~at all that Che property owners desired was to bave cnnstrucCion
within the R-H-22,000 xoning standarde, and the proposal had more exceptiona than com-
pliances and was in no way compatible with the exist~.ng zoning. He rai.aed questians
regarding Che tree rewoval in the area because of the real.ignment of the lot lines, etc,
and the proposed increase in the ~~umber of trees that would have to be removed, and stated
that due ko Che reduction in the nuwber of lots, the increased tree removal wae not under-
standable; thak regarding the road width, if the Planning Cotamission and City Council
~ ~
t4INUTFS, CLT'Y PLANNING COMMI5STON. 5aptemlier 16, 1974 74•-443
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RLPORT N0. 120, CUNDITIONAL USE FG1tAli1' N0. 1490, VARIANCE N0. 2630.
ANQ TBN'fATIV~ MAP Ur TRACT NO,;,.85 0 S1tI:VISION 2~ _(Cont i u d _ ~_____~._
ehould recomm~nd that the roade be widened to Anat~eim standards~ then the aquate footage
of muny ,~i tt-o lote bo~.~dflring on Del Giorgio Road would be furChex reduced, and all of the
r,omputat.ione by t.ho Aeaocintion and th~ davelopesr were baeed on a narrow roadwny. He
concluded by stating rhut it wae pretty ubviaus t.hat approvsl of the propuRU1 ehould not
take place until Che allgnmont of Fairmont Boulavard hnd been resolved ctnd he ~~ffer.ed~
ln beh~lf of tha A880C~AC~pll~ to work witti the developer to comd up wiCh an honest-lo-
goodneAa R-H-2'1~000 development~ since npproval of the propaenl would Aet a dangeroua
ptecedent for other dev~l.opmenC in r.hc~ ures. Ln the neetr future.
Mr. Ronald BevinA~ attorna~y~ ~00 SuuCh Narbor Boulevarci, Anaiieim, represEnting Pieri~e
Nict-olas who owned 17.3 ~cres .Lying to the south and wa~l of tns aubject property, appegred
befoi•e the C,ormniseion anci reite.reted hie client's poeition with respect Co the Fairciont
Boulevard alignment, noting ttiat the propoaeJ ettest would r.un directly through ehe center.
of his c1ler~t's property. He Atated ~liat the City had npplied for County £unds for ttie
proposed street~ whi.cli would be a. secandary highway approximately 80 feet in wldth and, in
his opinion~ Chis sl~ould be the major planning conaider.ation for the areri; Ch~t hc would
agreP that he wuuld not like to aee the property owner held ~ip wich the cievelopmeiit, and
his alient was not onpo~ing the propased develapment from the standpoint of. what :.hey
wanled Co place on the praperty, w~th Che exception of how F~Lrmont Boulevard was being
directly placpd on hia client'H pr.operty. He poinked out that t:o hnd been at the Planciing
Commiesion meetings in Murch And in .June of this year in oppoei[ion to the pr.oposed pl.ace-
ment of Pairmunt Poulevard, at which time he had urged for an icmne~iat:e precise alignm~nt.
There~pon, Mr. Bavine urged that the precise alignment of FairmonL Boulevard be reaolved
pri.or to epproval of the aubje~:t pr~ sal, and rei.teratei: for the henefit of the new
Commisaioners t:hat the propoaed alignment was not in the straightest line between the two
pointa that could be made engineeriag-wise, and if a straight lir.e was drawn between t;-e
two pointa previuusly eatabliahed for the sli~niaent, t11e atreet would nol be on hie
client's property at all. He stated that hi.a engineera had looked at the property and met
with the City and it had l-.een agreed that it wae feusible to take his suggested course and
not even touch his client's pr~perty; and that it was alsa feasible to take a courAe that
would come cloae to the boundary of his client's ~roperty without eeparating it into two
parcels; that it was hie understan~ing chat Ctie ~ngineering Diviaton was considering
aever~l.. alCernativea and that additional alternatives would probably be brought out if
public hearinga were t~ be held on the maCter of the alignment. He further reiterated hia
puint of view that the prec;se alignment of FairmonC Boulsvard was the ma~or planning
consideration fc~r the area prior to approval of the subject development.
Mrs. SuzPnne Cal]aghan, 21008 SanCa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commisaion and
aCated that ~he straight alignment suggeated by Mr. Bevins would appear to be. more feasible
from the atandpoint of grading and losa of homesiCes.
The Planning Commission read letters of opposition receive~ from Mr. P.rt Reynolds and
Mr. W111iaai H. Townley and said letters were mhde a part of the minutes. The Planning
Commiasion presented letters received f.rom the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Aesocia-
tion and from Mra. MiCzi Ozaki, all in opposition, and said letter.s s~ere made a part of
the record. A copy of the letter received from the Sat~ta Ana Canyon Property Owners
A3sociation was presented to the developer for his review and rebuttal.
THE vUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSL'D.
Commissionez Johneon r-oted ct~aC it might ~e noteworthy te diac~?~ ~ the 41sGrepancies of the
lot aizes as brot~ght out by Mr. Jou~an-Roche, since the Staff ::port had indicsted there
were 10 luta under the 19,000 square feet net requiremeut.
The Planning Commission entered into discussion with C~~e archil•ect fox the developer,
during which Mr. Rowland stated Che proposal was for 1-1/3 dwelling units per net acre,
and Commisaioner Gauer not•ed that the anlysis indicated that 54 of rhe proposed lota were
22,000 gross square feet or over, 14 were between 21,OOQ and 2'1,000 squa~e feet, 13 were
between 18,000 and 21,000 aquare feet, and 4 were between 13,G90 anci 18,000 square feet,
and that in his opinion the developer had done a good job to be able to hold t~ the natural
terrain and not do a lot of grading.
Mr. Roberta clarified for the Commission that the R-H-22,000 Zone ttad two lot area require-
ments; that there was a gro»s area requirement which recognized thc~t a~orzi.on of any
abut~ting publ±c or private street should be i.ncluded in that gross area, and there was
also a net area requirement that did not include any of the abutting atreetR, and that
particular requirement was 19~OG0 aquare £eet; that based upon informa.tion given to Staff
- - - -- J'
~
~
•
M~NU'PGS, C1TY I'L^~NNINC COMMT.SSYUN~ Septcsmber 1.6, 1974 74-44~+
~:NVIItq'dMFNTAI. LMl'AC;T REPORT NU. 120, CUNUII'IUNAL US~ PFItMIT N0. 1490, VAR'IP.NCE N0. 2630~
AND '~~NTATIVE. MAP OF T~ACT NOl8560 ~kI:VISLON 2~ `(Continue~~_ ___ _.._. _
by the peCitionor Cherc wara 30 loLa i.n tt~o propoH~d tract ~~ith ~Fea than '12,Q0~ Ayuare
feet of graaA lot ar.ea end. baeed uPon that oame f.nformritic+~~ :I~~re wero 10 lote with lese
Chan 19~000 square fai+t of rc+quired net tot nrea.
Chsirtnan Herbat l.nyuir~~u how mucli of Cho dn~. nreu would be ueab.le t~~r recraational r:4N
ond fac.ilitieA AfceT• lt wae filled. nnd if thc+ aqueekrian tr.ail lending into the ar~~~
wouid also lcnd ou~ of it~ wt~ereupon, Mr. ltawland etated that the plun wae •~ery ac'~ematic
at ttiiA pr,int in timo einc.e n lAndscape arct~itect had not been retc~inad to finnliz~ thc~
c'antgn of: thu~ arcr~; tliut thaC area wnuld Ue <ieveloped as a paPei.ve recreational :irea~
ratt~er ~han remoining n rc~t~orvuir; and Chut a[tar i.t wue gr~ded down~ tharA wuuld be
d~taJ.~ed de~~rminat.ione fur tt-at 7.2-acre portion of tt~e development. Mr. Rowlnnd Eurther
atntr.d that th~a trail in que~ti.on would co~e out of the recreati.nnal areu onto atree~s.
Mr. Rowland further stuCed thal in the deeign concept they had n~t coadidered that a
ma~c.imum or ~inlmua: l~~t size wae rar~lly importnnt 1n what tha,y were tryin~ to uo and for
tliat reason tlu~re wns A minl.oum area thAC t:ad lesA than lOX elape; that Ln order f.or the
developer to iitilize tha naluxul. buil~i' ~g spnce withoiit grading~ they hud hnd to cluster
the dwellinga, rhe utiliti;~~, etc. , in,.~~ the three nat.ural h~~i lding areuo; Ctiat in ordQr.
to hav~ nnv l:ind of a yield from the property, it meant compncting the nrea and leavinY
rnor.e ln open apace; th~t ori~inally they liad proposad that alt of thc ~rindbreak areas
woul.d be pul.led out of the lots themaelves und lhe pro~ecr desigr-ed arouc~d the windbreake
so thxt the windbreuks were in e~.sements that were in r.o~non uwnecehip of the humeownera
aseoclatioiY for the p*'otection of thoae homeowners ~ho w~uld want to muintain the c~ural
atmoapher.e of L'lie areu~ however, by noC having a zoning procedura that al.lowed for tlie
conslderation of khosP mattPrR, excepC within the context of ':lleide developmr.nt, the
devetoper had ta rev+.se ti. ~ plans and pu~ ti~~ tre~s b~ck i~to the sitea i.n orde.r t~~ have u
lsrger number of lots tttat comT~lied with the 1°,000 and ?:'~000 square £eet requirement;
chat ss a land plnnner~ hp war; ~~t really conce:ned about the politicml bounduried of the
site but was more concerr,ed about f;~:tt'ng thase siCes to be as perfPct ae posaible in an
imperfect world, even with what they had to ~'.eal with; that they would be getting a certain
amount of recognition for what they ~~ere trying to do, however, thely densltles were
extremely low and denaity was critical in the auhiect area; and that Che rer'.erenced
Criteri.on development :in the area had approxim iy twice th` deT-Rity of the propoaed
devclopment, liowevar, that development was neat and eASy to handle £rom a gener.tl pl~nning
standpoint.
Commiasior~er Far~no noted that some ~aconcil.ement of figures might be in order stnce,
fol~.owing tHe ~rkera on the ff,sp of the devcloper ~nd the calored ma;: p~sted for the
Comwise'_an b~ Mr. Joujon-•Roche, approximatel~ :ne-Lhird or 6S°G of 3ome of the prc.oosed
lots w~.~e future easements £or road and elope purposes, and he queaticned whether ~hat
land sh:~i.td be utiliced in determining the average F_zes c~f the lo~s. Ther~ :pon, :•ir.
Rowland ~~~ted Lhat open space was an amenity thar was valuable to the site itaelf, and
there would ytill be adequate building ar~a for the program th~:. was proposPd. Co.mn3asior.~r
Parana then inquired if the futute easement for road purpoges woiild 5e the proper.ty of tl~e
Citj or the land owners.
Mr. Robert~ noted in response to Commisaioner Far,~no'a questions that when 5taff inet with
Mr. Joujon-Roche and the property ownera associ~tian, this ~artic+~lax poin: ~.s discuased
and likeneJ to ~hs pru~ec:t cn the north side of ,:he Santa Ana River and the .,est r.ecollec-
tion of Seaff was that the area that was deviceed to slopes was actu~ll.y a part of the
right-~f-way and was r~ot in slope ~asementa; howevc~r, thoae slope arer~e actually were t~~
tlie rigt~t-of-way l.ine beyond ci~e toe of the alope (LdenticAl to the lot~; :.~ the center of
the propased pro~ect); that the area bet«een the toe of the Elope and the roadway would
ba fill slopea so~ in this propusal t;he slope areas would be included in tha groso lot
arerz; however, malntenance of the slape landscaping needed to be recogni.zed sit-ce sai~
slopes migh: support an arterial highway, and there was a fear that if. sa±d mai.ntenance
w$s left to the indivi.du~l propex'ty owriers, Chrough overwatering, etc., the arterial
highway could be undeimined a~id damaged und in thia proposal it might be necessary fur. the
City, in addition ~o taking an easer~ent Eor s'_ope purposes, to ulsu tuke a landsca~e
raaintenar.ce easement.
Commiasioner FarFn~ noted thaC the unit of ineaeurement f~r determininb the oize of Che
lots should be understood between the develcpcr and t;~E exiating nroperty ow~ers ~n the
area. He questioned th~ amount of gra~ling that would be done for the developm~ht of the
aub~ect properCy and if 25,000 cubic yarde of c~~rt would be a pile 9J feet by 9G fe~c by
90 fe~t, hypotheCically epegking. H~ further. noted that if the r~ub~ect propnaal =pva1.
approved~ he would like to see the amount of grading made a condition t~ auch app
~
~
•
MINliTE5~ CIiY 'LANN'LNC CqMMtSSf.ON~ Septemboc 16, 1974
74-445
FNVIRONMr,NTAL II~ACT REPOR'1' NQ. 1'LQ~ CONDITC6NAL USE, PERMIT N0. 1490~ VAR'f.ANCB N0. 2630,
AND TL+NTATI~IF MAP OF TftACT N0. H56~~ REVI~ION 2~Continued W_ ~~ ~..
In rasponse t~ Cummiaeion~r Faranc>'o qu~~tionLng~ Mr. Mt~eukawa stat?d thaC ~hF mc~~ortty of
Ct:~• ;c,.ding would be for rund purpoaes~ with u emall amount be:ing for thc buildinR pade so
tha~ thora w^ul.d be good faundxtic~ne £or thc+ t~ouees; that th4y would not be flatt~~nir-g out
~f thg J.nnd eimilar to the Anuhnim Hilla d~~velopmen~, that th~ere wnuld be some q~ ~~ng to
cut Cha drivawnya in; en.~ that 25.000 cubic yards oF dirt ~aou'ld be a fair qtiantl ~ foY• Cht~
pro~ect and fairly rcauonablc nnd the amount of. gr•~dinR would nut exceed that by u very
l.arge margi.n.
Upon furtti~er quegLtoning by Conmiis~ion.~r Ferano, Mr. Msaukuwa stated that ho could not
stipu~at.e to having only 25,000 cubl~: yarda of grading f~r ttie pro~ect. eince th~ amo~~ne
was ee~timatc:d bared on tentnti.ve cn~pR and they were not aure whaC kind of r+ituati.oa ~hey
would find when the projecC wa~+ actually under conakc•uctlon; nnd that he couYd only ACate
there wuuld be extr.n grading on t!~e pade but as to how much h~ could not ataCe and could
not be haJ.d to the ?.5,000 cubic ynr~l~.
Following his revi~w of th~ letter received. fr.om the SanCa Acia Cany~n Prop~r.ty Own~rs
Aae~c.intion in oppoei~ion. Mr, IIxldiko~ki questioned what the City, Che devslopere, and
the res:fdenCs renlly wanted to see develuped on the sub~ect praperty. He stated thut the
developer tliought the people wanted nomett~ing unique and dlfferent from the typicul
maequerading of the hil].side which wab, ir. his opinion~ a thi.ng af the p:-st which the
people di.d not want; tliat by ~1•ying to 11ve within the confinea nf the R~FI-22,000 zoninR
and eti.ll have a na[ur.al ctiite, there had to be ~ome varlauces in order tu deal wi~h the
sltuaGl~:~; that endleas discueoi~ns cc.u'~d nol continue for development of the suu,ject
property; tiiat che developer was dealing in good faith ~uat ae rlr, Joi~~on-Roche had in
coming up wir'~ tiia good suggestiona; thut the developer and th~ present land owners had
gi.ven ai~out ~ 11 they r,ould and Atill be ab.lr tu ha~~e an economica7.ly viable pra~ect; tn~t
another c:u~ia.l point wae the r.oad locatiun, and everyone knew that the precise alignment
of F'airmont ~ou]evard had been under dtecusaloTi for some t.'.me, nnd he was suggeating that
Ct~e tentative r:ap be upproved knowing that there was no preciae alignment; and that~ ir~
hi.s opini~n, ':tie Cngineering Staff c~u1d admit t ~aC the qen~ ral location, ae 9I10WTi on the
proposed map, was probably a livable one froui the City's viewpoint.
Commiesioner Farano commended Mr. ,Jou~on-Roche for his ~•~~natr~~ctive criticlsma, s~iggestic,ns,
and contributions to the Flanning Commiasion, City StaEf, und develapers for developmenta
in the Hi].1 and Canyon Area, and noted that for the firat time the C~mmisaior. and the area
:esidentx were loolcing at a set of plana thNt were not contemplating rearranging the
hills; that if the proposal was approved, there would be a con~ition whirh would bring the
~leveloper back befora the Planning Commisaiun if the g:ading ehould exceed the 25,000
cubic yards of dtrt iecussed; that the uveralt density would be substantial].y leAS than
that which was p°esently allowed; that by using the unit of ineasurement f.~r compllance
with the ~;roas lct area discu ~ed, there wo-tld be epproximately 37.4y withi.n the gross lut
area requi.r~ment and approximately 11.7~ within the net lot area requi.remen~; that lie was
].ed Co helieve that che information co~ ained in the Staff Report was corr-,:t as diacus~ed,
and it w~~ld not appear that the pr.oposal wou'ld be a violation to the aCmo~phere and rhe
li.ving .-nvironment thst the residents of the area had ~ought so lon~; r~nd hard for.
Comvissioner Farano ther. queationed why Mr. .Jou~on-Roche wan wi111r~Q t~ sacrifice the
proposed devel.opment for. 22,00~ aquarc foot lots that would be Rrad~•d in a gri.d fashion
fo~: something that came ~loser to what the Cnmmission had contemplated than anytha.ng thQy
L S considered for the sub,ject er~a..
In reply, Mr. Joujon-F~che stated L•hat there were marv cumpls~c isauea c~ncerning t.hc
residents; that one of ~he problems had been the pio,,ection cf Fairmont t3oulevard; that
thetr main concern was the utilization ef th~ land and the lifesCyle that said utllizntion
reflected in the area ae they presently en~oyed i;:; ~h^t they were cunr.erned about the
prer_edent that w^~~ld be set for other de^e tup~r~ for r.he ~ to 15-acre parcels whi.ch tlie
;~roperty ownera would be takfng an iuteresi. ir. devel.op~ng in tt~e next few yeara; that the
lot size was the on~y criCeri<~ for whlch an ord~nance exts:ed and for which the people
were trying Lo ~~fend~ aince th~ cuutd not legislate Che arctiit~cturai etyle or the tile
roofs~ only to the ex..ent uf the ~cen~c Corridor Ordinance, etc.; th:i~ the people were
relur.tant to give up the Code prot^ctlun aince or...e it was bxidgeu then other develapers
arould come in and uak for more and mar.e; that the ~rea in whtch he lived a~rzoun~ed the
sub~ect ~roperty on three sidea and the people w.~re r.akir~ isbu~ with r.he dev~loper's
statement that ~he pro~ect wae compatibte with th. au-rounding developtaent.
~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI35ION, Septemher lb, 197h ~4~G~'h
CNViRnNt~a~NTnt. IMPACI' itf:PURT N0. 120~ CONUITIONni, iJSr. PEKMI~ N0. 1490~ VARIANCF. No. 2630,
ANA TENTAT'iVl~; MAP 0~ TltACT N0. 8560,~RFV~3ION 2L_LContinued) _,,,_,~,.^ _..,.-~-
In furCher reeponae ro qvestiuning by Commieeloner I~arano, Mr. Jau~on-Roche quoked a
ecncAment, Thnt you ~ust could not get tho denaity low Pnaugh for us"~ nnd he etated
although that etutoment. wae oriBinally made in ~e~t, it wae a truo fect.
Conuniesioner Furnno inquired tf Mr. .Tou~on-RQChr falt Che pr.opoeal to improve the environ-
mant in thca e~rea wne II~00(I l•rade-oEf for tt~e re~•iestQd varisnce~ and Mr. Jou~on-Roche
stAted thAt he had not seen a damonetratec~ herd~stllp on the part oY. the daveloper, other
that~ financi.al..
Cummiesi.unex' Cauer noted tlic-t the P~ ~n1ng Commisaion had alwaye wanted a development that
would noC ca'cv~: up the hi~l urea : ~hP pruposed devclopmant' certainly meC Ct~at sit~ati~n
and *_he amenitles ot hillside davelopment, in sPita of thc facl• that all af. thc~ lote w~r.e
not in compliance with the minimum lot area ruyuir~~mente.
Commiasi~ner King queationed whather i.t wou7.d be proper t~~ meve ahead on the auh3ect
per i tlons until the mntter of F9i.rmont Boul.evard had been resolved.
Cummiesioner Morlay noted ~hat hcs favorpd the propoeal becauae i.t wae a good hillaide
dev lopment; and that th~ 1'lnnntng Commiseion had worked with developers to diecourape
grading and tr,e ~ropoeal wAS f~~r a minimum uf grading.
Ch~irtnan Herbat noted that in the past he had not fav~red the proposals for development of
the sulaject property becauae he did not. feel they were complete at t)~al• time; however~
the proposal appeered to be compl~Ce ~aieh the a~Qnities that he fe1C were a goo3 trade-
off , being open ep~ce in exchange for a few amaller lots; and thaC 1:: the developer could
bc~ given the initlattve to con•e up with something better than what was preaently allawed
by C;cde, and clian~es were neceaeary to tt~e Code, those measures ahould be taken.
t~Ir. Joujon-Roche stated if in the event the propoeal wae approv~:d, and Fairmont Boulevard
was realigned with ChE ~omprowiae alignmenC, then eix more lc~ts would border on Fairmont
dcu7.evard, and in that event ttie c'.eveloper would slil'1 conatruct on 85 luts.
Chairman Herh~r reiterated his remarks that he ~ould be in favor of moving forwar.d with
tt~~~ proposal if ehe ~th:~r membera of the Commission were in agreement, ao that the devel•-
oper would not be hel~ up any further. in Che conaideration of ths propasal. He f~~rther
noted that if the alignment of Fairmcnt Boulevard ehould cause changes to the tract, then
the matter would hr~ve to come back bef.ore the Planning Commiasion and City Council for
review.
Coannisaioner Cauer noted that by th~~ r.ime Che propo3al reached the City Council in ~~pproxi-
ma~tely thr.ee weaks, tne alignment of Fai.rmont Boulevard might oe resolved.
Mr . Joujun-Roche queationed tl~e impact of the grading if the City Council should adopt
54-foot wid~ streete, and Chairoaan Herbst noted thKt the Planning Commission could only
act upon wt~at. was bein~ proposed at thia meeting at thie time.
Commiasioner Johnson noted that although he was eympathetic with r,he propo~aalf a prevtous
FraFocal had been denied by the City Council or~ the sub~ecr property, and he did nol• feel
Lhat the lo~ reduction Uy 14X was what the City Courcil objected to, therefoxe~ he could
n~t sunport approval of the aubject Froposal.
Co~mioaior_e: Cauex offered a m~tion~ ae~onded by Commisaioner Morle~ and MOTION CARRIED,
that a Sunplement to Er.vir~nmental Impact Report No. 120, nuving baen corsidered this date
by rne City Planning Com~niss~~n and evidence both written and oral having been preaented,
tt~e F:snning Commiasion belisves [iiat satd Supplement to EIR No. 120 dated Augset 19~
1914, and providing inforQation relating to R-avieion No. 2 of Tentative Tract Na. 8560
doea conform to the ~ity and State Cuideline.: and the State of California Environmental
Q~iality Act and~ based upon such infortnation, does hereby recommiend to the City Council
t_.~1t they certify said Suppl.emeut i.s in compl~ance with r~aid L~nvironmental Quality Act and
st~all be incorporated i.nto EIR No. 120.
C< ~1,nissioner Gnuer offered Rc3olution No. PC74-193 and moved for ita passage and ado;~ti.on
tc~ grant: petition fos Variance No. 2630 on th~ baeis that the propasal substantiRlly con-
f orme to tie requir :.mente of the R-H-22.OQ0 Zcne and the ~~:enic Ccrridor (SC~ flverlay Zone
which encoursge deve].opment in keeping ~ith the natural sa~enities of the areae and by
preserving their uniqiie scenlc resour.epe as a comn~~nity asaet, ~nd aince the ma~oriCy or
~
~
•
MINUTES~ CT7'Y PLANNINC COI~1ISSION, September 16, 197k
74-447
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 11~, CONAITTONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 1490~ VAAIANCP. N0. 2630~
ANU TENTATIVI; MAP OF 'PqAC'T N0. 8560 ,~,RP.VISIUN 2~~Continued) ___.__ ____
54 of thc+ propuaed lota arc~ 22~U00 equare te.~t (groes) or ov~r~ 14 nre between 21.000 and
22,000 equare fee~~ 13 are butwaon 18~OOU end 21,000 equara fest, u~d 4 are betwoen 13.490
and lA~0U0 dquare fc~t~ subject ~o l•ha conditi~n thaC thi.s variancc+ ie grented eubj e ct to
the complatiun of Kecl.u:+eificntion No. 72-73-51 nnd Tentntive Map of 'tract No. 856~; and
et~b~ect r.u the conditt~~ thnt eub1ect property at~all be devo]o?ed subetentially in accord-
a~.~e r~{ r.h plann nnd Es~~~~• lEicatior~e an ~11e wi ~ h the City < E Mnheim marked Exhibit No~. 1
thr~ugh 4 and 1n acc~~~Jance wilh ~hu r~~ndltione see fo~eh by ths Pl.anning Commieaion tor
Tantativa Tract No. 8560 (Ravielon 2). (S9e Resol»tion Book)
On t~oll call, the fo~~egoing reeolution wae paaeed by the following vote:
AYGS: COMMiS5I0NERS: FARANO, CA(lER, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ HERBST
N06S: Cck1MISSIONERS: JOHNSON
ABSGNT: CUI~44ISSIONERS: NONE
The Planning Commle~ion entered into diecuseion wirh Staff xegarding the location of the
proposed s~.,;ne at C1~e wodel }ior~s complex. fnllawin~ which Commnieeianer Cauer offereci
ReeoluGion No. I'C74•-192 and mo~~ed for its paesage and adoptioa to grant petition fo r
Conditionul Uae Permit No. 1490 on tha baeis that the typo, nnCure~ and locrition of eaid
temporory Aigns would not be detrimPntal to the general area; sub~ect to conditiun s. (See
Resol.ution Book)
On roll r,~11, the ~regoing resolution was paesed by the Eollnwing vote:
AYES: ('Ol~4~iISSIONGRS: FARANO~ GAUER, JaYN.`',ON, KINC, MORLEY, TOLAR, HF.RHST
NOF.:i: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSF.NT: C01~4~1ISSIUNERa: NOICF
Commisai.oner Faraiio requeated that the following condition be .ncluded in the approval of
Tentative Map nf Tract No. 856Q (Revision 2): "That a maximum of 25~Q00 cubic yarcie of
eaxth ohall t~ sraded~ which shall be for the coastruction a~ the building p~dc~ ~nd the
roads, and that in thc event oaid grnding exceeds 25,QU0 cubic yarda~ the owuer ahal.~ give
notice and submit a written requeat to ~xceed said ar+ount of arading for the cone idr Lon
of the Planning Coimniasion and City Council." Thereupon, the petitioner stipulated .~
~8i.a conditi~n.
Chaixmar, 'Herbst requeated that the developer re•~lae tt~E tentacive Cract map to realign the
private road whicl~ sepurates the lote numbered 32 and 33 into twa portions ~ach, said
alignmenr. to create larger l.ote, or eliminate those porti~na uf the lots lying reor th of
the pr~vate road, ~nd thereupon the developer stipu2at~d that effort would be mad e to
exchang~ property witt~ the appropriate property owners to the northwesfi of Che sub~ect
tract or otherwise realign the road. Tbe architect for the developer indicarad thsC
Chairmcn Herbst's suggestiot~ wae a good one and was clefinitely within the par~me*_ere of
the traa[ devalopment.
In respon~e to questionir.g by Office Engineer 3ay Titus, Chairman Herbst noted that ti~e
Planning Commission wa~ deairous of making a recommendation to the City C~uncil th at
Tentative Tract No. 8~60 l,Revi.aion 2) 'oe i.nciuded in the "Muhler Drtve Study Area" for
thE purpose of determining appli:aole street improv~-enr requirements conaistent wit~~
City Council Policy No. 207-A. Mr. Ti ws then etated that Condition No. 11, aa s et fortli
in the Staff Rep~rt, ahould be amended to rend: "That Mohler Drive from Santa Ana Canyon
Road to Del G•Lorgio Road and Del Giorgio Road frotn Mnhler Drive to 860 feet south of
t4~hler Arive sha71 b~ conetructed in ac~ordance with the City of Anaheim atandard a for a
hilleide collector"; and that Conditian No. 12 ae set forth in the 5ta~f Report a hu~il.d be
deleted; and, thereu~oa, the petitioaer stipulated that aidewalka, curbe, gutter s, etc.
~tiall be ins~,alled on Del Giorgio Road ad~acent to the schuol aite located northweater~y
of subject tract.
Commissi.oner Gxuer offered a mati~n~ seconded by (:ommissior.r Farnno and MOTIdN f:AR1tIED
(Commiseioner .iohnson voting "no")~ that TentAtive Mup of -act :~o. 8560 (Revi.aion 2) ba
and herEby ix approved ~n the basie tihrst tt~e prop~sa?. sub~tantiall} conforms to t he re-
quiremente of the R-H-22~000 Zone and the ~~enic Corridox ~.SC) Ovexlay 2one which encourage
developmenx in keeping with the naturui nmenities c~f t:~esc areas .=nd by presarvir_g their
unique ecen~'_c rosources as a comnunity asser, and since tihe ma~oriCy or Sk of the propose~
].ote are ~2~000 aquare feet (g~~s~) or over, 14 are betwecn 21~000 ana 22,OOQ r~qeiare feet,
13 are betwaen 1$.000 and ?.1,OU0 e,~~are _'eet, and 4 are between ~3,490 and 18,000 square
feet, sub~ect to the foltowing conditione:
~
~
~
:tINUTES, CI1'Y f'LAtTNINC CODR4ISSinN, September 16~ 1974
74-448
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT kEPOR'P N0. 1.20~ CONDITIONAL USE PBRMIT. N0. 149Q, VARIANCF. N0. 263U,
AND TENTATIVi: MAP OF CT N0, 856~ R I I01~„ 2) (C3onti.nued) ~.._,._..
(1) '~~iat the -ipproval of Tentativo Mep of Tract No. A560, Revteion 2~ is grantad
eub,~ect to the approval of Reclnseificntion No. 72-73-51 and Variance No. 2630.
(2) That should thie subdivieiun ba devaloped as morQ than ocia dubdivision, each
subdivision l•hereof ehx21 be eut~roittcsd :n Centative form fur approval.
(3) That all lotP wJ.tM.n Chis tract ah~tl be eerved by undorground utilitlea.
(4) 'That a final tract :~iap of aub~ect pr~pQrty ehalt be submir~ ' ta lind H~~rovc~d l~y
the City Council and then ba recorded in the offi.ce of thF~ nngo Cr~unty Recorder,
(5) That any propu4~+d covenante~ conditiona rnd reatricti.ne ehall. be aubmilt~d tu
and approved by l'he City ncto:^p~'s Of£ice prior r.o City Council approv~l uf the
final Cract map; and, Purthcr, that lhe app:~~rNd covenanta, ,unditione nnd
restric.tion~ ehnll be recorded cuncurrently with the fi~,a? tract cuap.
(6) Thut prior t~ filing L-he final tract mr~y, the applicant ehal] submit Co ti~~ City
Attorney for upproval ~r denial. a com~,lete eynupsla of the proposed func~~ioning
of the op~rnting corpuraCi~~n, including, but not lim.tted to~ th~ arkic] ~~~. ~>f.
incorporation. byLnwa, propoe_d methode of mar.agement~ 11on~tng to ireut main~~-
nance ~f conanon property and buildinga~ and auch other information as the City
Actorney may ~ir4ir~ r.o protec:t the City~ ite citizens and the puzchase~rs of the
project.
(7) That Ktreet names ehm11 be appro~ad by t1~ :Lty of Anaheim pxior l•o approval of
a fiual trACt maP.
(8) That drainage of. eRid pro~,~rty shall be diaposed of in a manner sslisfactory to
the City Gngineer. If, in th~: preparation of tiie si a eufticient grading la
requ~.red tu nzcessitate a grading p~~it, no work un grading will be perwl~~~1
between October 15th and April 15Ch unl.esy al.l required off-site drainage
facilities have been inotalled and are operative. Pogi.tive aesurance ahall be
provided the City thaC euch drainage facilit:lea wil~ be campleted prior to
Octcber 15th. Necessary zight-of-way for off-site drainage facilikiea shall b~
dedi.cated to the City, or ttie City Council ahall have initi;~Ced condemnation
proceedinga Cherefor (the costs of which aha~.l be borne by the developer) prior
to the c.~mmencement of gr.ading operations. The requir.ed drainage facilitiss
ahall be of a aize and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originatin~ from
higher pr.operties througti said pro?erty to ultiuwt~ dispor~al as approved by the
City Engiaeer. Said drainage facilities shal.l be the first i.*_em of consCruction
anc; ~hall be completed and be functional througtiout the trac and fram L•he
downstream boundarq of the property to the ultimate point ~f dispoeal ~,rior to
the issuance of any £inal building inspections ar ~:cupancy permits~ Drainage
district reimbursament a~reements ^_+a~ be made avai:.able to the developers of
said property upon their request.
(9) That grading. excavation and all o;:her construction activities shall be con-
ducted in auch a manner ~o as to minimize the posaibility of any silt origitiat-
ing fr.~m this project being carried into tht Santa Ana Ri.ver by ato~-m water
ariginating from or flowing through thi.e pro~ect.
(10) That the owner~s) of sub~ect property ahall pay to tt~e City of Anaheim the
appropriate park snd recreation in-1iQU fees as ~erermined to be app opriate by
the City Council, asid fees to be paid at zt-e time r~ie building permlt is isaued.
(11) That Mohler Drive ~am Santa Ana i,anyon Road to lle1 Giorgio Road xn~l Del Giorgio
Road from Mohle: Dri.ve to 860 feet south of Mohler Dtive shall be conatructed tn
accordance with the City of Anaheim etandards for a Hillaide Collector.
(12) That the c~~aner(s) of subject property sha11 deed to the City of Maheim t'he
neceasary easementa for the f:-ture conetruction of Fairmont Sr-eet along an
alignmenr as approved by lhe City Engineer.
(13) That fir~ breAke at~~ll be provided as requirec; and approved by the Fire Chief.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CT'fY PI.ANNING COMMI3SION~ Saptember I6~ 1974
74-449
ENVIRO:IMENTAL IMYACT P.lrPORT N0, 120~ CONDI'iIONAL US~ PBRMIT N0. 1490~ VARIANCE N0. 26:10~
ANA TE~,'~,v~.~i~' TN~~.T NU. 6~60 (ft~VI3~Q~L2.Z_~Cont{~~L~_,_ --~---
(1G) That plot planea Ku'^mittad fux building permite be drt~wn at a sufficie~tit ecalu
with cun~our inCervala oE not marc+ tt~~n 2 feat to ehow al.l on-eite improvamente,
including r~rnlninq wella~ etaitwaye. walkd and drivaways.
(15) That al? roof water be col7.ucted in guttexe and conducted t~ non-aroHive draln-
agP devic~e unless ~~therwlae racommended by a eoile engineor.
(16) That all building eites be inepected and anproved by A 809L8 angineer for
ramoval of tree roote and other dalaterioue subetance pY+~r to foundation
inspQCCion.
(17) That appropriate publlc uCi].ity easeeients shall be d~dic ~ed to the City for
exteneion of L•utur~ water linas.
(lA) That a maximum of 25,000 cubic yarda of earth shall be gr~dad, wt~ich ahe~ll bA
for the conetructaon of tha buildi.ng pada a~sd the roade, and th~t in the event
said grading exceads 2S.OU0 cu~ic yarde~ thp ownrr(s) eha11 give notice and
~ubmit a wrlttpn reque~~~ to exceed eaid amount of gr~ding for the consideration
of the Planning Comwie~lon and Ci.ey Counc.il. as atipulated to by the petirioner.
(19) That tt~e owner(a) of rlb~ect prnp~..rty ehall make evs~ry effort Cu realign the
private road which divides both Lok Nos. 32 and 33 intu lwo pcrtiona ~ach; the
purp~se of said rellignment eha1,1 be to ei2her reduce in sfze or eliminar thuse
portiona of the lots lying north of the private road, ae etipulaCed to by Che
pet:tioner.
(20) That the equestrlan trail in the yub~ect tract shall be accessible nt the
e~eterly and westerly boundariee to cannect with any establieh equeetrian
trail in the surrounding aYea~ a~ eCipul.ated to by the peti.tior.er.
(21) That t}-e Planning Commiasion recommende to tha City Council f:har Tentative Trnct
No. 8.,60 tRevision t) be i.ncluded in the "Mohler Drive Study Area" for purposea
of determining aQplicable etreet impxovement reQuiremente coneistent with City
Council Yolicy No. 207-A !~or all atreete except those covered in Conditi.on tau.
11 above.
RECESS - Chair;lan Herbet declared a recess at 4:30 p.m.
RECONVEN~ - Ar 4:37 p.m., Chairman Herbat reconv~ned ~n~ meeting with Commissioners
- Furanc and Gauer bei.ng absent.
~
~
~
MI1v~TES~ CI'i'Y PI,ANNING ^.OMMISSIflN, Septembor 16~ 1974
74-/i50
CONATTIUNAL USC - PUBLIC Nl'sAR1Ni;. I.A PALMA STORAGF. PARTNL+R5~ L'1,~. 2223 Avenida Da
PEEtMIT N0. 1493 Ln l'laya, I.a .lolla, Ca. 92037 (Owner) ; PUBLIC STORAGi:~ INC. . 3415
~ F1eCchar Av~nue, Suite 2. E1 Ftonte~ Ca. 91731 (Agant); Y~qucating
pezmi.~qion to ESTABLISN OUTI)UOR RL~CRLATiONAL VEHICLE STORAGE WITH
WAIVL~R OF (A) REQUIEtED EN~:LO5URE OF OU'CSID~ U3E3 AND (II) MINTMIJM OI~F-STR~GT PARKINC on
prupcsrty deACrihod os; A~i i.rrogularly-•ahaped pacr,el of lnnd caneleti.n~t or ~PAr''~~~tely
3.2 acres located at Che eoutherly C~.~rtainus of Armando SCruet, having a ft'onta~r of
apprc~ximatel,y 85 feet on r.he eouth r+icln of Ar-anndo 3Crect~ having n maximum de~.~l~ uf
appxoximar.el,y S1.3 feet~ Uai.ng located ApproximaCely 580 feat eouth of tho center: ~~~• of
I.a Palma Avenue. and furr.her deecribed scv lOSO Armnndo Strset. Propert;~ pr~~~ntly
claseified M-]. (LIGtfiT INDUSTRI.AL) 20NL'.
(hie peraon indicated his presence ir. uppo~ition Co eu~~act petition.
Zonin~ Supervisor ~harlQe Roberts read the 9taff Re~ot ~o the Planning Commiasion duCed
3eptember ~G. 3.97 ~, und eaid Staff Rep~rt ie raferred ~~~.~- if aet forth in full in tl~e
mtnutes.
Mr. h~herta not~d that the submittc~d plane indlcated Chat c~ 6-foot high chainlink fonce
wae prop~.qed to the rear of. ehe '10-•f.oot lundsc~iped area ad~acent to La MCAR Strccl; Chat
ein~e Meea StreQC was ~ freewuy fr.untuge ro~d, euch a f.ence wae required to be located a
minimwat of 25 reet bet~ind the La Me~a Strcet rigtit-of-way line; that wniver oi the re-
quired 'l5-io.~t setback requir~~menC had not been advertiaed and if the petitioner wi~hed to
h~ve the felce at the proFose~i location~ tha item wocld huve to be continuad for readv~r-•
tisement of the Addition~l wuiver; and that placement of the fence at the propoaed locxtion
would not '~e consiatent with past City policy.
Deputy ~ity Attorney Fra~ .owry adviaed that ir. would not be posai.ble for tlie Planning
Commi~eion to hold a publ hearing on the aub~,-ct petition, if ~he waivcr ~n question wae
desiced Uy the petiticner.
Mr. Dwight Harper~ 3415 rletcher Avenu~ Suite 2, E1 Monte, Cali.forc~ia, representing the
agent for the petitioner, appeared befo,:e the Commirsi.on and at~ated he was fiiez made
aware of the need ~or r.he additional ~aaiver on SeptPmber 13, 1974, by City Staff, however,
since the sub~e.ct perition was already advertised, Staff had auggested that he appear; and
thnt it wa~ his it~Cent to reques~: thP aclditianal wr'vei•.
~hatr.man Herbat inquired if it would be proper to hear Che oppoaition, and Mr. Lowry
advised Chat thpre miEhC be ob~ect:ton ~rom L-he oppon~nt to the additional •~aiver which had
not yet been advertiaed and the ~ntir public hearing should be continued until the re-
advertisement had ta'~cen place.
Mr. Arthur Haskell, Pres~.dent of 5tate Induetri.ea lo.,ated Co the east of eub~ect property,
appeared before the Commission and inquired concerning the poeting/mailing of le$al noeice~
for the subjzct petition, znd Staff advised that notices had been posted on tt:e property
at-d were also mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of tlie aubject prcperty.
Commisaioner To1ar ~ffered << motion, aeconded Uy Commissioner Morley and t~I0TI0N CARhIED
(Couuniasionera I':~rano and Gauer being abaent), to continue the j~~iblic hearing and c~n-
aideration of petitinn for Conditiun~l Use Permit No. 1493 to the weecing of September 30,
1974, in ordec that the additional waiver could be advertised.
VARIANCE N0. 2632 - PUBLIC HEARING. AItClil.~ PREISSMANti 9465 Wiiehire Boulev;~cd, Beverly
Hi.ils, Ca. 9021'l (Owner); BARCLAYS 13ANK OF C~-?.IFORNTA, '.11 Pine Screet.
San Francisr.o, Cs, 9i411 ~iND I~'RANK BRTDGES~ c/o Federal Sign & Signal
Corporatton~ 3036 South Oak Street, Sants Ana, wa. 92?07 (Agents); requesting WAIVER OF
(A) :lINIMUM ~ISTANCE BETGIEEi: SIGNS AND (B) Mr~~1rIUM NUt''[BER OF FREE-S.^• ANDZNG SIGNS, TO
ESTAIILISH TWO FREE-STI~NDING SIGI~S on property deecri.bed as: An irrEgulat.ly-Rheped parcel
of land conaistinq of approximaCely 2.2 acres located at Cbe n~~rthweat corner .~f Orr~ngc~-
thurpe Avenue and Raymond Avenue, havinp. approximate frontages of 419 feet an tlie nurth
aide of Orangethorpe Avenue and 150 ~eet on th~ weat side of Raymond Avenue, hn~-ing ~t
maximum depth of Fpproximately 312 feet, and further deaccibed as 1025 ~ast Orangetho~,~e
Avenue. Property presently claseified M~J. (LIGHT INDiJSTRIAL) 'LONF.
No one indicated their preaence in oppnsition Co sub~~ect petir.ion.
Although the Staff Repark to thF Planning Cotnmiesion dated Septeml•~ 16, 1974, we;t net
reud at the public hearing, it ie referred to and made a part ~f minute~.
~J
~
~
MINII'CL'5 ~ CITY P; ANNING CUI~II~II3SI~N, September lh, 1974
V,AltIA,~,C~, NQ~ 2G~2 tConCinuodl
74-45~
M~ Frank Bridges~ representing F~dere-1 Sign b Signal. Corporation~ the agent for the
peCitioner~ nppeArod b~£ord th~ Commiseion end etaCed the purpo9e oc the prnposol w4s t~
provide idRntifi.caCion on tt~e corner of Raymond AvenuR and Orangethorpe Avenue; tliat th~
eub~ect corner was prev~.ously devaloped witti a servica skHtion which hQ under.~tood hed
eigne which were spproved by vnrisnce; an~ that they wero raquc~sting a 40-foot laniency uC
the 300-taot requir~d dietttnc~ between signa.
Tt1E pURLIC H'EAfcING WAS CLUS~U.
CpMMIS~_'1K~'R I'ARANO PE-GNTL~REll THF. MEETINC AT 4:50 Y.M.
Commisr,ioner Tolar noted tl~..,_~ in hie opinlon~ a dangeroua ptecedent would b~~ eet if the
propoaal was 3~)(~YnVP(i and hr, could not see whetre a hardehip exiaCed sl.nce the Darclays
Bank already had u large eign.
Chairman Herbet noted thur if ~he exJ.eting sign~ which wus presently noncontormi•ng~ were
move~l or otherwise diaturbed it would probnbly heve to oe tr~ught up Co the rc~quire~nonl•s
of rhe Code; anu Mr. Roberts n~Ced that present Cod~ requirements a1lowHd 100 square feet
per fac~ and the exieting eign wae approximAtely 200 equare feet per fac.e, however, the
exieCing aign would prub^hly be allowed back from Che 50-foot atructural seCbacic 31nce
it would then fnll under tha commereial aign regul+~tione.
The Planniiig Commi.eei.on entered into diacuASi.on regar.ding the signa and it was noted thar
the sub~ect uae would be pena tted to have directional signs for the purking lot.
Commiaoioner Morley n~ted Chat~ in hie opinion. the`e wae nu hardshlp demonekrated~
alCttough Chere apparen*_ly was a problem with ideixtificati.on for. tlie new parking lot. He
further noted that ths average perso~ would prnbably icnow Ghet the parking lat belon~ed tc
the hank.
Mr. Don Buwalda, ManagPr ~f the Bsrclays Bank, appeared before the Commission and atated
hP doubted if it would be feaaible to conaicler moving the e~cisting sign: that 4hey weru
interested in havinA the proposed sign on Raymond Avenue to identify the new parking l.oC;
tt~ar, the service station that previously e~;ieted at the sub3ecr. l~~cation had Ueen torn
down and the bank had recently cons*ructed the npw parking lot and gone to considerable
expense putting in nice landscaping; and Chat they had constructed an entrance on Raymond
Avenue to allow for ~~od traffic flow and they would like to have extensi.ve use of the
parking lot.
Chairroan Herbat noted that the petitioner had removed ar. old building and upgraded the
srea .-ikh beautiful landscaping; and ~hat, in hia opinion~ the 40--foot deficiency for
compliance with the re~uirement was probably minimal for a corner location and he was noC
sure that a precedent ±n thaC regard had not already been set which was farther from
meeting the requiremer.ts than Che proposal.
Commissioner King nored that, in tiis opinion, the propcaed aign ~vould probably relieve the
traffic congesCion by leading Che customers into the parking lot and getting them off the
street more recdlly.
Coum~iasionsr Johnson noted that, in his opinion, the additional s-gning, as prop~sed, was
fairly cloae to meeting requiremetita.
It was not~~d that the Director of Development Services had cietermined that the grApoaed
activiCy fe:ll wi[hin Che definition oi Se~rl~ri 3.01, Class 11 ot the City of Anahelm
Guidelinea to the RequirE ts for an Fnv~ronmental Impact Report and was, thersfore,
ca!eguri.cally exempt from the requir~ +nt to file an EIR.
Comwiaeioner MorlPV of.fered a reaoluCion to dery petition for 'Tariance No. 2632 aince e.he
petitioi~er did not demonstrat.: that a haxdship would be created if said vari~.nce wae t~ot
gran;>d.
1n rvll cal.l, Lt~e for~goiag resolution failed by the f.ollowing ~.~te:
AYES: C01~49T"SIOZ~EF.S: MORLEY, 'PGT.AR
2i0L~S : COT4fi~SION~RS : JOHNSON ~ ICLNG, HERBST
ABSElITt COMMISS70NFRS: ~AUER
AIiSTAIN: CO'r41ISSI0NERS: rARAIvO
...~.
~
.~
•
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhII~tISSION~ September l6~ 1974
V.AR:(ANCi,ElNU~ 26,~.2 (Continued)
74-G52
Commiseinn~~r Johneon uffared Reeolution No. YL'7~-194 and m~~ved for Ite pnes~ge and s-dr~p •
tion to ~:int pc~tition for Vurianco No, 2632 on the baeis l.hut the proper4~y upan which the
naw eign ~:.ie proposed ta be locat.~d wae prevloualy de~r.l.oped with ~ ser~ice ~tation heving
two e.tgna +~~~{~4••~v~~d under u variance; tl~at the pr~perCy hae bQen cleared and Lmprovari for
addition~l parking for the bnnk; th;iC the prarosed dietanco betwQen elgne is eubel•Hn~ ~11v
cloee to th~~ didr~ince ne outlir.cd jn the Sign Ordinnncs; und khbt there are other eiu~llxr
slgne in th~~ are, aubject to condtti.one. (Seu Resututiun Hook)
Un roll cnll~ tlie foregoing raeolut~on was paeeed by tho follo~iing vote:
AYBS: COMMISSTONERS: JOHNSON~ KINC~ NRRDS'P
NOES: COl~1~S3I0NERS: MOKLEY~ TOLAR
AbSBNT: COMMISSIONEKS: GAUER
A$STAIN: COhQ~1ISSI.UNERS: FARANO
CommisRioner carano noted f.or the recor.d that he wae aUaent Ir~m a substanti~l p~rtion of
the public heaxing und, theref.ore, wae abstaining from va~ing on tbe sub3ect matter.
VARIANCE N0. 263b - YUIiL,IC HEART.NG. LONG BEACH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ].Q9G5 South Str~et,
C~erriCor~, Cn. 90701 (Owner); requesCing WAIVGR 0~ 1'ROHII3ITFD SIGN3 TO
PERMIT 35 ADVBRTISING AANNERS on pruperty described aa: An irreEularly-
ahaped parc~l of land conaisting of approximately 13 acres located cn both si~'es of Val.ley
Forge Driver eautheasrerLy of Riverdale Avenue and Tuatin Avenue, having approximate
frontngeo of 517 feet on the ~outh eide of Riverdale Avenue and 412 feet on the eaeC side
af. 7'ustin Avenue, and furthcr ~'e~cribed as 4055 ~7alley Forge D.rive. Px~operty prea~ntly
c.lassifiecl R--2 (MULTIPLE-FAM~,,. RESIDGNTT.AL) 70NE.
No une i.ndicated their presence in oppoaiticn to subject petition.
Although Che StaFf Report to the Plam.ing Comn~issian dated September 16, ].974, was not
read at thc public hearing, ~t ia referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. A. F. QuaglLatta, repxeseating the property owner, appeAred before the Conunisaion and
atated they were ~+questing the subject 'oanners in order Co generate ~n atmosphere of
a.~.tivity within the condomini;~m pr~~ect at the Gnbject location; that atout ~hree months
ago Che Zoning Enforcement Officez had forced theu~ to remove tite banr.ers which reduced the
normal traffic flow to approximately eight or Cen cusc~mers during th2 weekend; tha[ there
~vere approximately 19 unita whi.ch were remaining to be ~vi~l in rhe pro~ecl• and since ttie
project was h:Lghly la;.dbcaped and each unit was fully draped, ei~e units appeared to be
"sold out." He fur.ther stated +tia~ a neighboring pro~ect in the C~ty of Orange apparently
did not hau~ auch seringent city regulations regarding flags and banners and, therefoXe,
there was unfair compeCition in the immediate ar~.s; that, in addition, the neighboring
nro~ect had been c~~nstructed in segments which added to the atmoap~tiere that it was an
active pro~ect for sAies pc~rposes; that the residenta of the condomininm project at the
aub~ect location were entirely in favor of having the banners~ and unaponsored by himself
the reoidenta had Caken a petition which was uddresaed to the Ylanning Commiesion contain-
ing eignatures of ~SA of the oU residents in said pro~ect. Thereupon, Mr. fluaglietta
presented the referenced petikion to the Planning Commiseion F~r the record.
TH~ PUBI,IC HFARING WAS :.LOSED.
Ch~,irman Herbat noted thr~t if the neighborhing pro~act in the City of Orenge was providing
unf~ir competition to the petitioner, then perhaps a hardahip exiated; ana ne inquired if
a hardship should be found existent by the Planuing Comm,.asion, how long would the peti-
tloner need to use the Sanners.
In reply~ Mr. Quaglietta staLed t}~at i.f they wera permitted to place tbe banners out
intmadiatel„ i~e felt certai~; the units would be sold by Janu^ry 1, 1975; that prior to
having to remove tr.. ~anners, they had £lown them general].y on wePkends and hol3days and
that woul be hia reyueat s?n~e durin~ weekdays they were of little value~ in addition tc,
the fact Lhat during the week the bannars were usually stol.en.
The P2anning CommiRSian entered int~ discuseior- regard~ng t'~e reference to fJags and
banners~ during which Zoning Supervisor Cha:~les Roberts r.larified that that wan the word-
ing use~ in t1 Code and that in thte parti.cular case, thE petitior.er wae not P~~POeing t~
have f~nga, b,~ only bannera. Following further di.scussion~ Mr. Roberts r~dv.ised that the
~
~
~
MI~iUTF5, CtTY PLANN7NG CQt~tI.5SI0;~, Septemt~cr 16. 1.974
74-45~
VARIANCE N0~ 2636 (ConCinued)
ba~inere would be flown a].ong the e,sKt si.de of Valley Forqe wi.r.hin the parkway aten uf tn~-
d~~-Ae,t thnt the ctevelnper wae requlrc•d Co canotruct ~e pnrr nf thr. Aub~eat pro~cscc.
Ccmunisaionex F+~rano notad rhat bannc~r~ would be along tha traneition *oad between the
sub~ect pro~act und the Rivereid~ Frcaway and h~c would not vote in Eavor of the propoeal
eince he was oppuaed to advarC.le~nA on the Erc~eway; n~~d thet if Cha pro~ect wgs not "sold
~ut" by .lanuary 1~ 1975, r.t~e r~~:titioneY might then want a elgn on the freaway.
' wne noted thnt lhc ~l.rector af Develorment Service~ h-J determinad that the propoeed
.._tivity fell wiChin I~e definition of Sectinn 3.01. ~lase 11 of tha City of Anahslm
Guidelines to tho Raquiremonte for an Environmental Impac:t Report and was, therefore,
cateQorically ea:empt fram C1ie requirement to file an EIR.
CommieAi~,.~r Tolar offered Resolutlon No. PC74-1S:i and moved for itg paesage and ndoption
to grant peti`ion for Varianc~ No. 2636 on the baeis that the petitionar stipulated that
the propused banners ~rould bQ flown on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays only for a period
of time expirfng January 1, 1975, in view of the fact t.hat the pati.tioner lndicated i£ Che
bannera could he fLown imme, ,.ately, the condomini,:m ~,)TO,',e~t waul~~l probably be "sol~i oUt"
by January 1, 1975; sub~ec. to condltione. (See ReaoluCion ~oo!c)
On roll call, the forego:~ig resol~~tion was paeaed by the E~llowing vote:
AYES: COl~4fISSTnNERE: •TOHNSON, t:ING, MORL~Y, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: CONP:ISS10-vt:ItS: FARANO
l+bS~,NT: C014[ISSTONERS: GAUER
~UEST FOR EIR_N' "T'IVE DECLARATl'ON FOR DEVF.LOPMENT OF RIVERDAL~ PARK
It wa8 noted tha~ the Gity of Anaheim Parke, Recreation and Arts ~ep~rtment was propoeing
to deve'op a City pnrk on a 4-acre site located on the north alde of Riverdale Avenu~s,
aoproxiriately 460 f.eet west of ~.akeview Avenue; that the eite was bounded on the ~iorth by
the Santa Ana River, on the eaRt by Canyon General HoepitAl, on the west by a residential
area, and on tha eouCh acroea Riverdale avenue by an e].ementary echool; and that ir, Wnuld
appesx that the developmen~ of this aite aa a City park would be compatitle with surr~und-
i.ng land uaes and would have no adve*_-ae ~nvironmental imp~ct.
Cammisai.~ner Farano offered a motion, seconde:d by Commiaeioner King and MOTION CARRIED
{Commiesioner Gauer being abaent), thar. the Planning Cmnflaission recommends to the City
Council that th~ attb~ect pro;Jeck be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
menta''. Impact Report pureuant to r.he proviaiona of the C;alifornia Environmental ~uality
Act.
R~QUEST FJR EIR NCGATIV~ DECLARATZON FOR DEVELOPMENT OF JUAREZ PARK
It was noted th?t ~he City of Anaheim Parka, Recreation and Arts Department was proposing
to davelop a City park on a 9.5-acre site locate~ the wear, side of Sunkist St~'eet,
approximately midway between South Street and W: .~c Aventie; that the siCe was bou•nded on
the north by an elementary school and all othez urrounding property w+~o reGide,:tial
except for a church a:ross Sunkist Street an the e~st; a,~d that it would appear that the
uevelopment cf thia sit~ aa a City park wou].d be compat~~? e k•itl~ at+~rounding land usEe and
w~uld have TMo adverae environmental im;N^t.
Commiasioner Farano offered a motion, seconded b~ Coffiniasioner King and MOTION CA,'iRIED
(Commisaioner Gauer being a~~sent), that ~he Planning Conmuiseion recommenda to zhe ci.cy
Ccuncil that the aubjece pcu~ect be exempt from the requirewent to preyare an Fnviron-
caental 7mpact R.eport purs,.ant to the provisions of the Callforuic~ Environmsntal Quality
Act.
• ~
MI.NU'rL~S, CITY Pi.ANNINC COI~IISSIUN~ Saptemb~_r 16~ .1914 7G~GSu
REQUEST FOR EIR NEGAxIVE DECLA.EtATION FOR GRADING PERMIT FOR RESIDLNTIAL SI'T.E ON C~RRO
VISTA ARIVE ,_ - ° ---""
I.t waa notud thaC the applJ.cant had eppli.ad for a gradi.ng permit !'.~r £our reeidentiel l.ots
locaeed north of Cer.ro Vista Drive epproximately Sq0 feot eaet of Vidta Driva in PerRlta
Nills; that Che ciite wae loc~tad in tne Sc~~ni.c Corxidor and coc~vequentl.y nn environmantal
r~sseesm~nt wae required; a~-d that ehe Eng'~nearing Uivieion t~ad determined c:her. gradiny~ of
the eite would have no eignificant. environmental impact.
Commiseioner Farano offered a mc~tion. Rycondad by Commieeion~~: King and MO'l.'iON CP.•RRIED
(Commiseioner GauQr being ahaenC)~ that the Planning Cammiiusion rocc.c~nends t~ the City
Council that ttie sub~ecX pro~ecC be axempt from the r~~quirement to prepare ar. t;nviron-
mental Impact Raport purauant to the provisiane of the Californi~ ~nvironmar.~A1 Quality
Ac l• .
REPORTS AND - ITEM N~. 1
RF.COt~tENDATIONS R~QUE5T FOR TWO DIRECTIONAL CI~I~RCH 9IGNS - Pronerty l.ocxted
at 918 North Citron Street.
The Staff Raport to the Planning Cortmi+ssion dated September ].6, 19;4~ rrnA presented and
said Staff Repc~rt is referred Co and Wade s part of the minutea.
It was nc:ed that the applicant was requesting pdrmieaion to inetall two diractiona2
church signs '_n tlie public ri.gt~t-of--way nt the northeaet corner of Lin~•~~l.n A~~enue and
Citron Street, and pasCerly of the northeaet ccrner of La Palma Avenue and Citron StreeX,
the purpoae being to adverCise the churcl.'s location at 918 North Citron Street; that the
petitioner hacl ind.Lcated that two pre~'ioua r~q~ieata f.or aimilnr aigna ha4 been made and
both had been deni.ed by the City Counc~l~ one denial baing made in Mar~h, .~973 on the
baeis that approval waul.d establieh a prece~!ei~:; tha.t a sign request with appropY•iate
repox'te from tt~e Development Servicea Dept~rtuent, th: Traffic E-~ginee~r anu the Ctty
Attorney's Of.iic~ were ~ul•~altted tu City Co~incil on ~.uguet 6, 1974, bnd et-bsequently
re£erred to the Plannin;, Coaomisaion for a recuffinendation c~~cerning t~he subject request.
The Planning Commiasion entered {nto di.,cubaion regaYd'~g the subject requeat a•,d noted
thaC ae mxny as 300 additiunal signa could similarly be req~lea*_ed ~or churches and other
civic organizakians at a capital cost of $10,500 with a 53.650 total yearly maintenance
fee and increased adminis~:ativa costs, End that it was an uudesirable precedent.
Ccmmissionez Far•~t;: offered a moCion, aecancj~~-1 by ~~mmiGSioner Tolar and MQTIaN CARRIED
(CommissionPr Gauer being absent), that th _anning Com~-iasion recommec-ds co the City
^vuncil that a zoni~ig application be reqt~ for cong~dex'ation of any of£-site dixecLional
signs.
ADJOUItNML~NT -'There being no further bueineas to di~:cues, Commisaioner Jc'~nson offered
~ a mation, seconded by Commissioner Tola.r and MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeioner
Gauer being abeent), ~o ad~ourn the meer.ing.
The meeting ad~ourned at 5:20 ?.m.
Respactfully submftted,
(./ ~{~~~„~(~'~s'y~
~
Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Cor~mi.sai~n
PsS:hm