Minutes-PC 1976/01/19C~
J
Clty li~ll
Anahr.im~ Cblffornlt~
Jr.nuery 19~ 1~37G
REGUTAR - A regular moctin~ of tl~e An~il~cim City i'lanning Commisslon ~es callcd
MGETING to or<lar hy Chairman Farano at I;;3~i ~:.m. i~ thr Coimcll Chnmber, a
q uarum being presPnt.
PRESEN7 - CFIAIRMAN: F~~rano
COMMISSIONE.RS: Darnes, FlerUst~ Juhn~~n, Klnq~ Morlr.y~ Tolar
REGULAR ~1[ETING QF TIIF. ANANCI~1 CITY Pt,A~dNING C~MMISSIQ~~
~
~
ABSENT - CQMMISSIOtIF:RS: None
AL~O PRESFNT -
Ron Thampson
Frank Lowry
Paul Slnc~er
,lay Tftus
Annika S.3ntalahtl
Allan Daum
Patricla Scanlan
Plannlncl Department Uirector
Deputy City Attorney
1'raffic Engineer
Off ice Enclineer
Zonin9 Supcrvisor
Assistant T.oning Supervisor
f'lanni;~g Comml:,~.fon Setretary
PLEDGF. OF - CommisslonEi' Tolar led In the Pled~ie af 1111egi 7nce tc the Flag of the
ALLCGIANCE - United ~tates of A~-~rica.
APPROVAL OF - Commissloner Tolar offered a nK~tion~ sec~nde~' by Comnlssionr.r Johnson~
THE MINUTES and MOTI0~1 CARR~rn~ tttat the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
held on December 12~ 19y5~ be and hereby a~•e appr~v~d~ as submitted.
CONTI NUf U
f,OND I TI ONAI. USE - PU8L1 C IIEARI Nt,. PAC I F I C WOR~.D CORF. / GOLDEN WEST EQUI TY PROPl:R'~ 1 ES ~
PEkMIT Nn. 1587 INC., 3'331 M.~cArthui Boulevard, Suite 10~+~ Newport Beach~ CF1 92660
` (~v,nar); GOLDE.N WES7 EQUI'TY PROPFRTIES~ INC.~ 3931 MacRrthur poule-
vard, S~Ite 104~ Newport Aeach~ CA 92660 (Agen~); requesting per-
m:ssion to BUII.D A RESTAURA~IT l1~JD PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ~OMPLEX on property described as
cwo rectang~iiariy-shaped p~~rcels of land conslsting of approximately 31.2 acres wlth
frontayes of appraximately 1~122 feet along the south side of Kat~lla Avenue and 676 feet
along the west si.le of State College k3oulevard~ having appr~ximate depths of >07 feet
frum Katella and }21a3 feet from State College Boulevard; the Katella Aven~e percei is
iocated approximately 650 fe~t west ef the centerline of Stat~e Callege Boulevard and
ttiP State College Boule ird parcel is located immediately south of the conterline uf the
prap~s~d Pacifico Avenue. Propert~ presentlv classiffed ML (IPIDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZO~~E.
The subject petition was co~~t(nued from the ~lannin~ Commissior meetinq of December 22~
1975, 1n ordar for the Plannir~q Department staff • ~repare an Area Develc~pment Plen
of the subject area,
No one indicated Cheir' presence in opposition [o subject petition.
Although the Staff Report to tne ~'lanning Commission d~ted January i9, 1976~ was not
read at the puhlic hearing~ sai! Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
THE PUEiLIC HEARING W115 DkCLARED CIOSEG in order for tne Plannir~g Commts5ion to ask
questians of the petit(oner,
In response to qucstioning b'. Cl,airman Farano, Mr. Richard Stenton. the petitioner's
representative, appeared before the Planning Cortxnission and stated thcy had met wlth
the Clty Traffic Engine~ r and ha<1 presented maps of the area for review. Chairm.~n
Farano indicated that the Planr.ing Commission w~s in receipt of the 1Ptters from
Crommelin-Pringle and AssociatesP Inc. relative to the traffic impact of the proFosa!
upon the surround(ng area, and that said letters contained maps. Mr. St~nxon furrher
stated he had discussed rhP matter of the traffic Impact with Mr. Singer and Mr. Pringle
and their opinions r~ere tliat the traffic circulaCion, as propased~ in the development
layout was adequate and that the interior straet should be a private street rather
than a public street.
76-16
~
~
~
~
MINUTC•;, CIT'~ PLIINNIN~ COMMISSI~N, J+anu~ry 19, 1976
COND1710NA1 USE PERMIT N0, 1587 (continued)
7(i-1 7
Commissloner Herbst dis~greed 'that the street sh~•uld Ue priv.~tc, not~n~l thet it shaul;l
be a publlc street since th~ subject properc.y was K>art of a very large unr.ievelupad
pArcel of land, Mr. Stenton expl~ilned that the prnpos~sd str:;at was to sarvicc approxl-
mately 20 ~cres o~~ly; that the remalning propcrty v+ould usc Paclfico ancl a ~ortion
of the private strec+t; anci th.~t slnce khe strser, w~ss not going nnywhere or would not
s~rvicn enything oth~r chan ~he subJect dev~lopman~. thelr fc:eling w~s thnt a private
street would better serve thely development.
Commissioncr Morley noted that ever If the strcet were to be A privatc street~ it sf~ould
be devcloped t~ public .trcet standards. Offisr Enginr.er• .lay Tltiis advised thAt
whetf~er thc street wAS private or pul,llc ic should be a tit~~ndard 64-Foot rlght-of-way
to serve as an (ndustrial street and he ~2 fcet curb-to-curh, Choirman faraiio coii-
curred that the size and width of the street was thF inain concern ~f :he Plannln,y
Cnmmisslon.
In rehuttal~ Mr, Stenton stated th<~t a 5z-foot street would constitute a 4^l~n~ thoruugh-
fare and they feit that 2 t.~nes were suffir.ient, eis recommended by the craffic enqineer;
and that the p~rcel facing Kate11A Aven~e was appr•oxirnately 1?. acres of land~ nnd ~he
private road would als~ service tl~e pron~:rty behind the 12 acres.
Chairman Farano noted that Che Pia~ninc! Commisslon was also concsrned about speciftc:
plans for developing thE pr~perty; that In the abs~ence of specific Nlans to clarif•~
tlie intent~ stand~rd street w(dths viere b~:ing request~~1 by tlie Ptannlny Comm(snio.^.;
[hat he would be somewhat chagr(ned ff a y0-foot street width v,~ere granted relying
upon the r. ~resentatlons of the develop~.r at this time and later on a mure intensifled
use wiCh more crafflc demands w.~s deve~oped; however, wi;h specific uses proposed for
the property, *.he Planning Commisslon may be able to impose conditions wh(ch a!ould
appropriately control the traffic situation.
Mr. Stent.on then stated they had indicated they v~o uld like to hdve the other undeveloped
property, huwever~ the letter dated January 14 from Mr. Pringle indir,ated the ~ther
property owned by Mr. P~~~ wou0d nol ~ftect tlie proposed circ~latlon plan.
Cammissioner Tolar ~iote.~ ~`~at an area deveiopr~~er• plan had been Ciscussed for the
subJect project an the basis :hat it would clarify the circulatian issue being raised;
that he was conccrned about the eventual dcvelopme nt of th~ entire undeveloped property
and~ by approvtncl the proposal9 the Commission might be cre..~tir4 problems for the rPSt
ef the prnperty with resp~ct to circulatton; and that it .~~a~ imNartant for the
Commisslon to have some idea what might be develnped on thc rPst of the property.
Cortrnissioner Johnson noted that it was di'~~cult for the Commission to accept the 40-
foot wide street which mir~ht not he adequate in th e future when the rest of the
undeveloped property was developed.
Mr. Stenton stated that the proposed private streei wo~ld handle the addltional 44
acres~ if saici acreage was developed ML~ in whlch ca:e there would be even less traffQ~
load; and that because of the zoning on the property r,h~re wer~ 6u':t°ir• s~~eguards fur
Its development~ even if the additional acrebqe was subdivided ~r,a scld uff,
Commissioner Herbst took exception to Mr. Stenton's statema^ts, notin4 .hr: thr. Planning
Commission did not know what uses would be proposed for the a~id:~.(onal un.te~w~~~F~_~! land~
and would not want to suppress a goo~ ~~eveloFment which m(ght be pro~~osed in t~~e f~atu~e;
that~ furthermore, the ~roposed private street was f.-om onz publ (c st~ e.:t t~~n~ther
pub 1( c s treet and woul d be open to the ~.~ubl i c, wh i ch d( d not makP sense; an _ chat *.1~e
subJect developer ~~as sa~;;,:y :ar~~7 for his own uurposes wh~ch should be useJ for s~treets.
In rCS~onse to ~.~uestior~~ng b~ Gammtssioner Tola~. it was clarifted that tl~e ~eveloper
was rroposiny 11$ of the de4~ee~~pnwret for c~mmerctal ar~d office uses.
Chairman ~arano noted t~~,at (f che d~veloper found uostrcar~i that a differer:t proJect
would be better for the .Seveloper~ the City could find itself wEth a more i~tensifted
use and, therefore, a serfous problem. The Planning Co,rmi~sion entered into diseusston
with the developers regarding the amourit of truc k trafftc which might be generated f~om
the proposal~ during which Traffic Englneer Paul 5inger advised that fer the subJe:t
type development norm~lly about fl.5$ of the total volume of traffic would be truCk
traffic; whereupon, Commission~r Herbst noted th at for a sim(lar projeGt proposed by
Dunn Properties~ with about all iridustrtal use3, the truck traffic was about 75e of the
total volume.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jrnuary 19~ 197~
COt~DITIO~IAI USE PF.RM!T N0, 15a7 (Conttnued)
'J6-1 a
Mr. Lloyd McDonnid~ rc~presentin~ Golden West Propertles~ appcarcd before th4 Planning
C~mmisslon ~n~1 statecl th~y had done n lat of daveloprnent in the Clty of A.neheim and othcr
parts of Qrnnqe County; thnt they were axperlenced w(th stroet widths; [hat the properLy
in qur.stlcn c~nsisted of 12 acres ~nd th4y would net out ahout 10 ~~cres for bullding
purpose~; that~ pressently~ che~ dl~f not dc~lre to have a four-lone s~rert thr~ugh the
nroperty; and thnt to accommodate a citian~e to (ncrease the wldth oF the Street, they would
have to revise thc total proJect.
Cha(rman Far~no noted th~t Althouqh hc fully undarst~x~d thp thrust hf Mr. McDunald's
stotements, without the benefiti of an area development plan to estnbllsh tl-~ ci~culatlon
crlterla for the un~ievr.loped land at the subJect location ancl t~ enable the Pl~nning
Comm(sslon to (mpo.c conditions which would assurc~ that the whole propcrty cou~d be
devel~pnd In ~n orderly mannr.r~ the Commission had to proceed wfth caukiun; and that 1t
was unfortunate if a burden wes beln~ placed on the subJect developer wfth respect to
circulatlon.
In resp~nse _o questloninn by Comrn(ssi~ner Tolar~ Mr, McDonald stated they wo~~id cul-de-
sac the proposed private streek, if necessary~ to solve the traffic problems and still
provlde (nc~ress and ec~ress to t1~e I1.-acre parcel. Chalrman F'arano noted that the offer o`
a cul-de-5ac may present further traffic engi~eering problems. Mr. McDanald further
staCnd that any property to ehe rear of the 12 acres should be taken care of by Paciflco
Avenue. Chalrman Farenu noteci that a cul-de-sac street~ as s~ag~ested~ might landloclc the
additlonal unrieveloped land to the s~uth; whereupon~ Mr. Linger advised that the
tern-ination of tl~e street or a cul-de-sac would be d~trimental since there was
con,iderable proNerty to the south whirh was undevelooed and wauld need adequate
ctrculation, Mr. SinQer Further advised that the traffic enc~ineering consultant for the
developer was recommend!^q that fo w•-lane capaclty be provided at the (ntersectlon of the
prtvate strcek at Kat~ll~ Avenue; whereupon~ Mr. Singer read from the letter °rom
Lrommelln-Prin~le and Ass~c(atrs, Inc.
In response to questlonfng by Chairman Farano, Mr. Stenton stateci the proposed ~~rivate
street~ -~ith righC turns only at Katella Avenue, said street term(nating at Paclfico
Avenue, was based on the conclusion that ihc antire undevelopeci properCy would be
developed exactly Iike the proposal for the subject property. Mr. Stenton further stated
that they hacl cor~tral over further development of the `,roperty In the middle (south of the
12-acre p~rcel) anc.i would be receptive to a restrlction of the uses for said southerly
land; whereupon~ Deputy City Attarney Frank Lowry advised that the additional land to the
south was not included in the descrlptton of property advertised for consider~tion at thls
puhllc hearing an~~ thereFore, restrictive conditions imposed for development of that land
e+lght not be enforceabte~ unless deed restrictions v~ere req~irecf, Mr, Stenkon stip~alated
that they would be wiliing to place deed restr•ictions on the property to the south.
Commissioner Morle;~ quest(oned the length of the four~lane portion of the private street
from che inCer~,ECtinn at Katella Avenue; whereupon, Mr. SEnger advisect that~ normal?y,
there was a 1~0-foot pocket with a G~-foot tr3nsitton, ~r a total of 160 fs~t, with 12-
fooC wide lanes.
Commissioner ilerbst noted that the subject property was part of a 1~0-acre parcel of
undeveloped land; that a compl~±e circulation system was important to r.onsider at this
tlme; that th~ entire ur~eveloped land ne~ded to be serviced and the subject developer
should help service Jt; and that he did not favor restricting tht -feveloprnent of the
r~mainder of the property in this manner.
The Plr,nning Commission entered into discussion with the developer and City Staff
r~c~arding slgnaltzation in connection with the proposed access to the subJect property;
whereupon~ Mr. Stenton stated a signal should be Installed at Paciflco Avenue and State
College Bc~,rlevard, and altliough they felt it would be bPtter not to have a signal at
Katella Avenue~ but on Lewis Streex~ they would be willing to install a signal at Kate'la
Av~nue~ Mr. Singer advised that he had not ~onsidered the suggestion to control traffic
at ~ewis Street~ rather than on Katella Avenue, and that he did not feel Lewis Street was
in any way related to the ~irculation of the subJect property.
The Commission discussed the possihillty of a median on Katelia Avenue to prevent left
tur~~ in and out of the aubJece property and it was yenerally agreed that a medlan would
also restrict the use of the pro~erty t~ the north of Kptella Avenue~ and that the
~
~
~
MI ~IU'fES , C I T'f PL1lNNl NG COMt11 SS I ON ~,lanuary 19 ~ 197(~
CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0, 15a7 (C~ntfnuedj
7G-19
intdrsectlon of the prc,poseJ private s*.rest anct Katella Avr.nue was too close t~ State
C~llage Uoulevard for a trr~Pflc slryn~l, Commis~i~ner Morley ~uggested that the im~rpss
anrl egress lo the privAt~ street from Katella Avenue be constr~ctEd in a manner to
rnstrict the left turn n~vemerC of tr~fPic; whereupon, Mr, Sinyer advised khr~t was hls
recommendallnn, tak.in~1 in[o consideratlon that the rema(nder of the undevelnp~d property
~NOUId ~e ~levcl~ped in ~ like ms+nne:r to that beiny proposeJ.
Thereupon~ th~ petltloner stipulntecl to ~.onstructing acceler~~tlon and Jeceleratlon lan~s~
cnnslst(nq of curbs~ t~ restrlct left turn vehicular movement in and out of the subjecr
property alone~ Kat~11a Avonue, and :o cubroit to the Traffic Uivision an acceptable
cn~incerlnn plan relativn to s.iid construction.
Commissioner Barnes q~iestlaned whether a mecllan would be constructe~i on State Lollec~e
Boulevard; wh~re~~pon, Hr„ Sln9er sCa!~,~{~ in his opinl~n~ th~~t a medlan shauld be
constructed on sald stre~:t soutt~ of Paclficn Avenue, sald meciian to be construcced
concurrently with the subJact pr~posal in order to mltigr~te any Puture prc;blems~ Mr.
Singar further advis^d th~it, in the case of the Anahelrn Shores proJect~ fhe cost of the
medlan was borna by the dEVeloper; that the med!an would be planted anc1~ ioll~wi ~ tts
acceptnnc~. the C(ty would maint~~in It; and th~it ;he median wouid stop shcrt of L'tie
Anahelm Stadium entrance. Mr, Stenl•on stlpulated to constructiny sald planted med!an on
State Coller~e Doulevara, as discussed,
Further discussion pursuecl reqardinq the manne. in which the t.rafffc would be controlled
at the Intersectlon of tlie proposeJ prlvate street and Kat~lla Avenue~ Juring whlch
Commissioner lierbst noted that a study would naecl to be conducted in order to determfne
whether a medlan in K~tella Avenue wo.~ld be appropriate in vlew of the existing access to
the prnperty to thr. north of Katella Avenue.
In t'esponse to yuestloning by Commissioner Tolar, Mr. Stenton 5tipulated to ellminate
several of the uses shown on the list af restrictive commerclal and offfce uses which
miqht be fiature tenants of the subJect development. the resultant ilst of uses to consist
only of mortgage ancl finance companies, investment security companies~ insurance companies
- hrancFi or liome offtces~ in~uranc~ agencles anci brokerage firms~ real e~tate firms -
investment~ commerc(al and industry only~ title and escrow companies, attorr,eys~ CPA's~
advert(sing~ engineerln~ firms - consulting, architects~ marketing research~ interior
decoratlon, management consultants, travel agencles~ and tra(ning sct~ools related to sales
promotion~ mana9ement sk.ills~ advancement~ etc.
Commissloner Nerbst noted that approval of the proJect Should definitely be with a
condition for a public~ rather than a pr(vate, street standard to give the ather
undevelo~+ed property an opportu~iity to dcvelop properly; whereupon~ Chairman Farano noted
that~ in !.is opinion, the Commission should either accept the offer of tne developer
concernfnn ctrculation~ or delay the decEsion for an area development plan so that all the
necessarY fnformatlon wauid be available for consideration. Commissioner Herbst further
noted that h~ agreed that :here was a need for an area development p!7n; however~ he was
convinced th~~t the study would lnd~cate that a standard width street would be recommended
and thr:~ by requlring such a street aC this time~ the dcvelo~er wuuld not be delayed; that
he c:. ~~ visuallze the traffic that would be generated when the tot~l 100 acres was
devc:l•~,..;d; and that~ from previous experlence, the Commiss!or~ had seen many beauttful
renditrons of hoa~ properties would be developed and later ~n the properties changed hands
and dlfferent plans were submitted for approval.
Cummissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded b~~ Commissiuner Johnson and MOTION CARRIEQ~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recorrmend to the City :oun;.•il ~f the
City of Anaheim that the suSJect pr~ject he exempt from the requirement to prepare an
e,vtronmental ir+pact report, pursuant to the provisions of the Callfornia Environmental
. :y Act.
,~~~,,~ssione- Nerbst offcred Resolution No. PC7G-7 and moved for its pASSage and adoption~
that Petitlon for Conditional GsC Permi2 No. 1587 be and hereby is granted to permit a
planned industrtal complex ~~~t*h commercial uses and r resta~~~a~~ in the ML Zone~ s;.~bject
to the stlpulatfons of thr~ ,ti~ner to orovide a means of restrictin~ left turn
vehicular in~ress an~l eqre~5 to the subJect property from Katella Avenue~ said means to be
subJect to the revlew and approval ~f the City Tra~f(c Englneer; that a planted median
shat) be conStructed on S*_ate College Boulevar<1, es '~tipulated to by the petltioner; that
~
~
MINU7CS~ CIT'r PLIINNING CQMMISSION~ Januery 19- 1976
CONDITIaNAI. I;SE PERM17 N0, 1587 (Continued)
_~~~~
76~ 1.0
the camm~iclal uso~ of the suhJact propc+rty shali be reatrlcte~l to the speciftc ~.ises
outlined !n the foragoln~t minutes~ subJect tc~ review and appruval of the Plannlnn
Depart~ent In order tliat a determinnt(on mAy be made as to whether the proposed use would
be ~ppropriat.e for tha slte ~n~l whetl~er sufflciont parking was provtelecl on the property to
accommoclat~ an addltlonal parking dnmand created by such a use; that r privr+te st-'est
constructod to puhlic s[rer,t st.~ncl~rds shall be provlded un the norLherly parce) of the
sub,Ject property; .~n~l subJ~ct to tl~e Inter•departrnenta) Commltte~ r~cammendatfons. (°~°.e
Resolutlon fiook)
Or~ r:,t' call ~ th~ fc~reqoin~ resolutlon was passe~l by ths f~llowinc~ vote:
Al'F.S : COM~1) SS I QtJ[RS : BAR~IES ~ HERBST ~ JOHIlS(~~J ~ K I NG, TOLAR
NOES: CQMMISSIO~IERS; NORLEY~ FARAt~Q
ABSE.N7: COMMISSIO~IERS: NONE
Cha(rman Farano and 1.~.~missioner M~rlcy indlcateJ they na~f veted "na" on the basls oF the
speclfics sel forth in Ltie foregulny resolution for the pri~date street to be c.mstructpd
to publtc street standards ar 52 feet from curb to curb; and that thr.ir preference would
have been to have an area development plan prior t~ takln~ the actton. Commiss(oner
Morley edded :hat the developers would only be restr~cring Chemselves with the ~iQ-foot
wide street, as proposed.
VARIA~JCE N0. 7_7G8 - COtITI~lUEf) PUBLIC HEARING. WII.LIAM D. EHRLE~ 2211 East Romneya Drlve~
--'~- Anaheim~ Ca. 928~6 (Owner); requestiiig WAlVER OF (A,) PERI~IITTED USES
AND (R) PERMITTED SIGNING TO ESTABLISN AN OF'FICE on property dcs-
cr(bed as a rectan~ularly-shapeci parcel of land consisting of approxlmately ~.15 acre
located at 'he soutl~e~st corner of Viking Avenue and State College Boulevard, haviny
approximate frontages of t~ feet on the east side af State College Doulevard and lOq
feet on the south sicie of V1~1ng Avenue~ and further descrlbed as ~33II South State
College ~oulevard. Property presentlY classifled as RS-72~~ (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-
FAMI LY) ZUPlF..
The subjec2 peC(tion was continued from the Planning Cammission meeting of December 22~
1975~ for a revlew ofi the 1967 "~esiden~(al Nomes Fruntinq on Arterlal Highways" study.
No one ind(cated their presence in opposition to subJect oetition.
Althouy;~ the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 19~ 1976~ was not read
at the publtc hearing~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the mtnutes.
Assistant Zoning Supervlsor Allan Oaum reviewed the c~iteria used in choosing eligible
res;dential sites for commercial office use: (~) the proximity of the site to an
intersection of two arterial higl~ways, (b} tt~e proximity of the site to exi~ttng
comenerclal concentrations~ (c) the commercial potentiai of the prope~ty as shown on the
Anaheim General Plan, and (d) the traff(c loacl on the adJacent arterial hi~hway. In term,
of mseting the foregoing criteria, Mr. Daum potnted out that the subject property was not
located et the intersection of two arterial highways~ but fronted on a primary arterfal
htghway (State College Boutevard) and sided o~ a local street (Viicing Avenue); that the
subJect property was not adjacent to commercial property~ but was located acroSS St~te
College Boulevard from commercial offices and small shops (the nearest commerclal ~ises on
th~ east side of State Cotlege Boulevard being located approximately 200 feet to t~ie narth
and the homes Immediately north~ south and east were zoned and used as single-faTtly
residences - RS-i200); and that the Anaheim General Plan designated subJect property for
low-density residentlal use.
Mr. Willlam D. Ehrle, the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission and took
exception to Staff's ~orclus~ons~ as noted by Mr. Daum~ stating that State Coll~ege
Boulevard was one of the busfest streets ir~ the City of Anaheim and~ for that reason* the
area was more subJect to translYlon; and that, i~~ his opinion, ali of the properties alang
State College Boulevard between Lincoln and Vermont should be considered for cornmercial
uses. M,. Ehrle continued by stating regarding proximity to commercia'I conccntratlo~is~
~
1~
~
MINU7FS~ CiTY PLAN~iING CUMMISSIOf~~ ~anuary ly~ 1~76
VAkIANCE N0. 2768 (Contlnued)
__..._._.___._..
](~21
Ch~C hc did noC feel his propcrty cauld be closer to c~mmercial than by beinq Juyt acro4s
the sirecf.; that he was approxirnetely 12i~ feet nwoy fr~m t:he Lucky's superinarket, whlch he
felt was I~e~vy ccxnmerclal; that he woulcl be using his residenc.e fc~r research ~~nd study ond
he h~d only one automobfle which he woul~ bu t~king in nn<I out of the property cm Stote
Coile~e Boulevard; that slnce l~)73, ~~PP~'~xlm~itnly 1~~ prope~tl~:s alo~~~ StatP College
BQUlevard~ south of Lincoln Avenue~ hnd ~e~elved ;ipproval for the s~'-mc type of classlffed
us~ of thelr propcrties that he was requcstin~,
TNE PUR1.If. }IFi~kING WAS Ci.OSED.
Commissioner Tolar inquired ,•~hy a v~riencc application was filed~ rather than a
conclitianal ~ise permit ~np~i~-~ti~~~, for thc propo3ed uae af the property; whereupon~ Mr.
Ehrle stated ftir was a~Jvised by C!Ll S!~ff tha*_ inntmuch as he planned to rent out a
portion of t}~e b~~ilciln~ f~r an~ther o,fice, a v~rlonce was required. Zoning 5upervisor
Annikn Santalahti ad~~ised that. the petiticx-r.r was proposing a use which was not permitted
in i re.sidential zone; th~t ~,c was canverr.ing the entire strucCure to commercial use; and~
r,i,..-e'~'ore, a varlc~nce ap~.earecl [c be appropri~t~ for the specif(c use.
In resnonge to further q~:stionlncl by Cammissioner Tolar, Deputy Ctty Attorney Frank Lowry
adviKed that a ttme limit: coulc! be Imposed upon the subJect v~rlance, If approved;
however~ rlme limit~ f..r canJitlonal use permits were less cilfficult to enforce.
Comr~issloner Marley noted tf~at hp haJ observed three mailboxes for the suhJect property;
whereupon~ Mr. Ehrlc st~ted one was for his mother~ one o~as for his public relations
buslness, ancf one was for his special mafi,
The Pl~nnin~ Commis~, i ex~~resseci conce~n that the property may not always be owned by Mr.
Efirle and thit problems mic~ht result from other uSes; ,md~ ac~-~~rionally~ that the
pekitioner ~das orop~sina more than one use. of the property. Ehrle interJected that
renting part ~,f the b.iildln~ fer anoChf~r office was only a;~sibiiity~ not an absolute.
Mr. Ehrle stated he was a member of Anaheln~ Beautiful and was trying to promote an
aesthetlcally bea~tifui ~se ~n the sub,ject oroperty. Commissioner Tolar cortmented that
th~ next door ne(c~hhor mi~ht want a commercial ~~se also but lt might not be as beautiful
as Mr. Ehrle's property.
Comml,sioner ti°rbst noted that the ~~~a,jor problem which would result from a
reclasa(ficar,Ion of the subJect ~rea to commertial was the drastic effec~s on tt~e other
residences and tt~e neiqh'~or!iood streets, i.e.~ Vermont Avenue, Vikin~ Avenue and Resada
Street~ unlr.SS an area development plan was undertaken to determ!ne whether access polnts
could be pru ide~l aihnu State College ~loulevard for groupings of the residential Froper-
ties ta be Converted,
Camnisslaner T~lar noted t~~at the use of the subject property would be restricted by the
type of use and parlc+n~ rPquirements therefe~.
Ch~^.irman Far~no n~tad that although the location of the subJect propertyo beii~g adJacent
to r.o;nmerclal~ had sorre merlt~ it appeared thAt the southerly one-half of the residences
bptween Viklnc~ anrl Ver•mnt Avenues along State C~lleye Boulevard r+ere not adJacent to
cnrnmercial develo~rncnL an~l, therefore~ an area developmen: pl~n w~uld be needed to defir.e
the cfrculatlon and usc of the properties and the surrounding area, He further noted that
accardtn~ to th~ -~ay tiie residential proper[ies were allowed to convert or be redeveloped
as com~~~ercial, some of the remaining adJacent residential properties may have to pay
dearly by h~ving their alley used for access, ett.~ for the coinmercial.
Commissioner 7ola~ noted that, if approved~ th~e subJect var(ance should be for a time
limit~tlon, durin~ whicl~ time an area developmant p~an should be prepared to give
airection t~ tiie Planninc7 Commission.
Chairman Farar~o questionecl whether the Planning Commission wauld be able to deny simllar
a{~pl'~:.tlons tn the subject area du~ i~g th~ :r^!°- llmitacict~~; ti~iereupon, Commissioner Tolar
natad that each appllcar.ion should be considered on its own merlt~ however~ any adaiti~~+~al
requests~ if approved~ should also be witl~ a time limitation to expire at the same time
the SubJett v.~rlance expired~ so that the area developm~nt plan could make the fina~
detmrmination,
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY pLANNING COMMISSION~ Janunry 19~ 1976
VARIANCE N0, x768 (ConClnued)
76-22
In r~asponsa to quest.loning by Commissioner Nerbst~ Office Englnr,er Jay Titus Advlscd that
tha allny ta tha east of :;ub)cct property was a standard 20-foot wtdr alley and would
handle tr.a-ti•+ay trafflc.
In ~esponse tu questlonlnn by Commisslone+r King~ Mr. Ehrlo statad hs woutd have no more
th~+~i two call~srs pnr d~y In c~nnectinn with the pr~poaed u~e; and ha stlpulated that tha
property sh~~i) ba for his personal oFffte use only and no po~•tlon of the property wuuld be
ronted for use by others.
Commissloner King auastloned thc nocd r~r thes 7-3yVt~IC`~~~t~~ aiyn; And Commissloner Mor',ey
noted that If tho use was Iimited to Mr. Ehrle's personal oFfice use ~nly~ no
advertlsement ko generatc walk-in customers would b~s permitted; thcrefore~ a 1-square-fooe
slgn would be r~dequ~te,
Commtssloner Tolar offered a rr~tlon~ ~econuaJ ty Commts~Ioner Kin~ and MOTION CARRIED.
that the Anahelin Clty Pl~nning C~mmisslon does hereby recommend to the City Counr.ti of the
Clty of Anahelm th~t the subJecx project be exampt from the rcqutrement to prepare an
envtronmental lmpact report~ pursuant to the provtslons of the Caltfornla Environmental
~,ua I I ty A~t .
Coinnissloner Tolar offerod Resolutlon Plo. PC76-8 and moved for tts passaqe nnd ocloption~
that Petltlon for Vartance No. 2765 br and hereby is granted for a timN limitation of two
years~ subJect to r~vtew and consideration for an oxtenslun of tlme~ ur~on wr(tten request
by the petitioner; subJect ta the stipulation of the petitioner that 'che p~operty shall be
for hls personal offlce use only and no portlon of the proparty shall be rented for use by
~thers; that the requested watver of the permitted stgntng i:~ hereby ~ienled on the basis
that a sign 'arger than 1 square foot is not necesRary since the pr~perty 4s for the
petltlonar's own use and no advertisement to ge~crate walk-in customers is permitted; that
tha Planning Commission does hereby dlracC that an Area Davelopment Plan for the subJecc
aroa be inittate~i in order that by the end of the tl~ra limitation granted fo~ this
varlanc~o the aE~proprtateness of the use as a permitteu use in the area may be
estabtlshed; and subJect to th~ Interdepartm~ntal Gortmittee reconxnendaLions. (See
Resolutlon Bflak}
On rol! call, the foregoing resolutior- a~as passed by the followin~ vetc:
A:'ES: COMMISSIOlJERS: BARNES~ HERBST~ JOHNSO~l, KING~ MORLEY. TOLAR~ FARANO
NOESa CQMMISSIOt~FRS: NONE
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS; NON~
RECESS - At 3:1~ p.m.~ Chairman Fara~o decla~ed a recess~
RECOP~VE~iE - At 3:3~ p.m., Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting w3th all
~~-~ Commissioners beinG present.
~ s
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 'y~ 197G 76-Z3
ENV I RONMC.~ITl1l I MPACT - PU[lL I C NEARI tlG, DORf17HY [I. TRAVI S~?.I 14G ksp^ranza Road,
92~~1 and VIRGINIA RICNARQS A~ID ELLF~
TTE
C
REPORT N0~1G7. '
a.
Anahelrn,
flBERG
912 Tuwer Street~ Sanfa Ana~ Ca. ~27Q3 (~ners);
Vl1RIAtlCF NQ. ~77~
""'-"""'-""^ CORP., 6~(~ Sourh HI11 5treet~ Los Arc~eles, Ca. )~~lh and
17f107 Sky PArk Uoulevard~ Irvine~
INC.
Il1TES
6 ASS~f
O
TFNTATIVE MI1PS OF ~
~
,
LI:
M~D
Ca, ~271~~ (Agents). Property dr.scribed ns an irre~ularly-
roxim~~tely 2G.4 acres
f a
i
i
TRACT Nf1S. ^If,~1, pp
ng o
st
shape•1 pircel of land cons
a frontage of approximataly 2~3~~ f~et nn the no~th sfcie
havin
917~~ q~~) q~~p
9172 (REVISI~~I q
of La Palma Av~nue~ havl~g a rt-a~cimum depth of approxlmately
roximately B~~ feet wesC of the
d a
l
N(1S. 1 ! pp
ocate
2~5 feet~ arid hefi~g
proposecl Welr Canyon Road. Property prc~ently classified as
'
LONE.
RS-A-li3~~~~(SC) (RESIDEtJTIl1L/AGRICULTURl11.-SCENIC CORRIDOR)
ST:
UF
VARIANCF RF'~ WAI Vf:R 0~ (l1) MI Ni t11!M DU1 LDI tdf; S ITE WI ~TN AND (H) REQUi REMENT THAT
'
,
. ~H4lAYS.
S ItIGLE-Fl1M1 LY STRUC'~URf:S REAR-OIJ ARTFRI AI. !i 1~
T'ITl1TIVE: TRIICT R[QUF.STS: TMCT N0. 91G9 - 3~ RS'S~~~~SC) lots - 7.5 ~cres
~3 RS-500~(SC} lc~ts - 6.3 acres
-?
'
.
)17n
TitAC i PJO.
TRA~T N0. 9171 - 2~l RS-500~(SC) lots -~~.5 acres
TRACT N0. 9172 - 25 RS->~ M(SC) lots - 6,1 acres
The subject ite~s were continued from the Pl~nn(ng Commisslon mcetln~ of Decemoer 22,
197~~ for revlew of the EIR document, ~~nd from January 5~ 1~76, for the submlttal af
revlsed plans, to elimin.~te one of th~ walvers, and site plans showinc~ houses plotted on
tlie lots.
No one indicatecl their presence in opposition to Che suhJect items.
Althougl~ the StafF Report to the Planning Co„missi~n dated January 19~ 197~, was not read
at thP publlc hearing~ sald Staff Report is referred to and macie a pa~t of the minutes.
Mr. Milt Madole~ the aclen~ for the petitioner, appeared be`ore the Planning Commisyion and
explained the revlse~l plans, stating that the lots on the cul-de-sacs hacl been adJusted to
eliminate thc~ need for the waiver of the minimum building site width; that they were now
proposinc; to h~vp 113 1ots, rather than 11G lots; that S~~val~ofsthe,finallltract ~psted
on the lots wo~ald be s~ibmitted for approval prior t~ app
7NE PUBLiC FIFARING WAS CLOSED.
1'I~e maJority of the ~lanning Commissioners expressed concern that more than five lots were
proposed on the cul-de-sacs and were (n confllct with the policy of the Plannfn~
Commission in that regard. !t was noted that ~~n-street park(n~ probiems f~~tathatrthe~ted
from too many lots on a cul-de-sac ard the Planning Commission generally
nurnber should be limlteci to Pive. Cummissi~iner Herbst noted that in Ji~w of the fact that
the proposed houses wauld have to set back 100 feet from the adjacent rdilroad tracks, and
25-foot front setbacks were proposed, making the lots exceptionally deep~ and with four t4
five on-site parkin~ spaces~ there appeared to be sufficient justification for the
devlatlon from policy.
Commissioner Morley offerecf a motion~ seconded by Commissioner K(ng and MOTlfttl CARRIED~
tliat Envtronme~~tal Impact Report No. 162~ having been consl~ereci this date by the Anaheim
City Plannincl Commiss(on and evidence, both written and oral~ having been presented to
supplement sai~l draft EIR ~lo, 1G2~ the Planning Commission helieves th~t salci draft EIR
No. 162 aoe, conform to the City and State Guldelines and the State of California
Environmental Quality Act an~~~ based upon such information~ does hereby recommend to the
City Council of the C~ty of Anaheim ti~at they certify said ~IR Nu. lh2 is in campllance
wlth said Environmental Quality Act.
Cortx,~tssloner Plorley offered Resotution Nn. PCJ6-9 and moved far its p~ssage and adoption,
that Petition for Varlance No. 2770 be and hereby is granted, in part, on the basis that
the r°questecl waiver of the minimum builciing site width was withdrawn by the petittoner by
virtue of the revised plans which inclicate compiiance with said Code requ(rement; granting
hiehwaqseon thcabasls~ofttherunusu2l~topographynofethemlandsandctfurtherarthatatherial
~1 Y
~
~
MI~~UTES~ CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ JAnuary 19~ 1976
7G-24
ENV I RONMENTAL I MPACt RCPART N0, i 62 ~ VAR; ~, ..E N0. 2'1 %0 ~ AND T[t~TAT I VE MAPS ~F 7Rl1CT NOS.
91G~, 9170~ 917i AND 9_i2 (Ravislon Nos, 1- (~ontinued) __
Flflnnin~ Commission has c~ranted simil~~r waivurs In thc past; subJect to thc
IntcrdeparCment~) Committe~ recommendatlo~s. (5ee Reso~ution Book)
On roll call, the forcnoln~ resol~~ti~n was pnsse~~ by iho following vate:
AYfS; C~MMISSI~Nf.RS: R~RNES, HERRST~ JQN~~~Otl, KINC~ MORLEY~ TOLl11t~ F~RI1N~
Nc1f.S; C~Mt~11SSInNF.RS: N~NE
AQSCNT; COMMIS5fONERS; NO~~E
The Plannlnn Commission nenerally concurred to impose a con~iit(~n on e~ch uf the subJect
tracts to requlre thar, ttie petitianer submlt ftnal speciFic flo~r pl.ans~ elevations and
ploi plans to thc. City ~nunc(1 for approval prlor to the appro~al of the flnal tract m~,ps.
r~~micytnnPr MorleY offered ~ rrx~tlon~ seconded hy f,ommissioner King ~nd Mf1TInN CARRIE~~
that che An~heim Clty Plannin~ Commission uoe~ i~e~el,y approve Tenr.~rive Map of Tract No.
9169~ cons(st1n~ of 3? lots, on the bas(s that the proposed su6divlslon togethei• with It5
deslc~n and ImprovemAnt Is consistent with the City's General Plan, ~ursuant ta Governmen~
Code Sectlon GG~+73•5, and subJect tn the followtnh cc~nditions:
1. That the approval of 7entative Map of Tract No. 9169 is c~ranted subJect to the
approval of Varlance No, 27'10.
2, That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivisfon~ each
subdlvision thereof shall be submitted in tentatlve form for approval.
3, That~ In ~iccordance with City Counctl Policy~ a 6-foot m~sonry walt shall be
c:onstructed on the so~~th property line separating Lot Nos. 2~~ through 32 and La Palma
Avenue. Reasonable lanclscapin~~ including irrlgati~n facilities, shall be ins:alled fn
the unc~mentec~ portion of tl~c~ arterlal hic~hway parkway the full distance of said wall,
plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subJact to the ~pproval of the
Supe~intencient oF Parkway Maintenance; and following Installation ancf acceptance, the City
of Anahelm sh~all assume the responsibiliCy for maintenance of sald landscaplnq.
4. 1'hat all luts within this tract shall be served by underground utllitles.
5, That ~ final tr~ct map of subJect property shall be submittPd to and approved by
the City Council ancl then be recorded (n the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
6, That ihe cavenants~ conditions~ and restricttons shall be s~abmitted to and
approved by tl~e City Attorney's Office prtor co Cit;~ C~uncil approval of tlie f;nal tract
map anc~~ further, that the approved covenants, conditions~ ancl restrictiors shall be
recordPrl c.~ncurrently with the fin~) tract map.
7, That prior to fiiing the final tract map~ the applicant shall submit to the Cie~
Attorney for appro"al or denial a complete s~nopsis of the proposed functioning of tlie
operating corporation, including but not limited to the articles of incorporation bylaws~
proposed methods of management~ boncling to insure malntenance of common property and
bulldings~ ancl such other informati~n as the City Attorney may desfre to protect the Ctty~
its citizens, and the p~irchasers of the project,
8. That street names shall be approved by the Glty of Anaheim prior to approval of a
final tract map.
9. That the owner(s) of subJe~t property shall pay to the C(ty af Anaheim the
approprla±e park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City
Council, said fees to be paid at the t(me the building permit is issued.
10. That draina~7~ of said property shall be disposeci of in ~ manner satisfactory to
the City Engtneer. If~ in the preparatton of the site~ sufficient grading is requfred to
necessitate a grading permit~ no work o~ gradin~ wfll be permitte<1 between October 15th
and April 15th uniess all required off-site drainage facilities I~~ve been installed and
are operative. Positive :~ssurance ~hall be provided the City that such drainage
facllities will be completecl pric~r to October 15th. Pfecessary rlght-of-way for aff-s(te
drainaye fac:illties shall he de~iicated to the City~ or the Clty Council ,all have
initiated condemn~tion praceeciings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by thp
developer), prior to the commencement of gradii;g oaerations. The requlrecl dralnage
factlit(e5 shall be of a size and type sufflcient to carry runoff waters originating from
hlgher properties through sald property to ultim,~te disp~sal. as approved by the City
Engiii~er. Satd drainac~e facilltles ~hall be the flrst item of constructlon and sha',1 be
compieted and ue `unct!onal throuc~hnut the tract ancl from the downstr~am boundary of the
property to the ulttmatc polnt of dlsposal~ prlor to the issuance of any final bu({ding
inspecttons or occupancy permits. Drainage dtstrict reimburs~ment agreements may be
avrtlable to the devel.~Ners of said property upon their request.
~
~
~
MINU1'ES~ CITY PLANrlING COMMISSION~ January ~9~ 1g7G ~~"Z~
E~~VIROt~MENTA.L IMPNGT REPqRT N0, iG2~ VARIANCE N0. 2770, ANQ TENTATIVE Ml1P5 OF TR.ACT NOS.
c~~~,y, 9~~~_~~~~ ANO g172 ~Revislon Nos. 1) (Continued)-
11, That ~r~~din~, exciv~tlon, and ~11 ochrr construcllon actlvit~es shall be
con~lucteci ~r siach o manner so as to minimlze the po~siblllty af any silt orl~~inating Prom
thls proJect beinc~ c~ri led int~~ th~ 5ant~~ A~tia River by storm wnter arl~inaClnct fron~ ~r
flowlnn through this project.
12, That che clevPloper shall obt~~ln from the OrHnge County Flood Gontrol D(strlct~ a
t~avar~able flood hazard let.ter~ ~cceptablo ~o the Clty of Anaheim,
13, If pcrmanant strec:t name~ si9ns h~ave: not becn tnstalled~ temporary 5treet name
signs sh~il he insti11e~1 prlor to Any occupancy,
1~~, ThAt Oran4e County Flooci C~ntrc?1 QlsCricl facility E06~S01 sholl be constructe~ to
the standards of~ ancl as o~prov~~d by~ ehe Orange County Flood Cont ml Dlstrict.
15• That no storm runoff w~t~~ shal) b~ permttteci to flow from sub)ect tract onto the
surface ~f thc trave'ed wAy of La Pa-ma Aven~;e.
16. 'I'h~t prlor to the approval of the ftnal tract m~~p, the pet(t(oner shall submit
flnal speclfic ~loor pl~ns~ elevations~ and plot plans eo the Cfty Counc(1 for appr~val.
Commisstoner Morley ~ffered a m~tion~ seconded by ~omml~sioner M.ing and M4T101~ CARRIED,
that the Anaheim f.ity Planning Conunis~lor daes hcrchy appro~rP TPnt,ative Map of Tract No.
9~7~, c~nsist(~~g of 2$ lots~ on the hasis that the proposed subdivision t~gether wi*.h its
deslqn anrl improvement is cans~stent witli the C(ty's Gener~l Plan, pursuant to Government
Cod~e Secttcsn (~h473.5~ an~1 subJect to the following conditlons~
1, That the approval of Tentatlve Map of Tr3ct No. 917~ is c~r~nted subject to the
approval of V~~rlancF No. 2770.
2, That sf~oulci rhis subdivl~icn be developed ~.s m~re than one subdivisirn, each
subdtvisio~~ thcre~f sh~ll be submitted (n tentar,lve forrt~ for approval.
3. That~ in accordance with City Council Policy, a 6••foot masonry wall shail be
constructed on thu south property line sep~~ratinq !ot Nos, 1 through G and La i'alma
Avenue. Reasonable landscaping~ inclu~iing irrlgation facilitle~, shall be installed in
the uncemented port(on of the artei•ial h(ghway parkway the full discance of sald wall~
pl~ns for said lan~iscaping to be sub~~;ttted to and subJect to the approval of the
Superlntendent of Parkway Maintenance; ana fnllowir~g fnstatlation and acceptance~ the C(ty
of Ar~heim tihall assume the responsibili*_y for mai~~tenance of said tandscaping.
~,. Tl~at al! loxs within this tract shall be served by und~rgrouncl utilities.
5. That a final tract map of subJect proaerty shall be ~ubmitted to and apFrr~ved by
the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of tlie Orange County Recorder.
6. That the covenants, conditions~ and restriction~ shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Off1cP prior to City Council approval of the final tract
map and~ f~arther, that the approved covenant~~ conclitions, ard restrictinns shall be
recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
7. 7hat pri~r to filing the final tract map~ th~ appltca^*. sha11 submit to the Cltv
Attorney for approva! or denial a complete synopsis of the propased functioning of the
opei~ating corporation, including but not limited to the articles of incorporatian bylaws~
proposed rnethods of roananement, bonding tn insure malnten~nce ot common property and
bu(ldin~s~ ancl such other information as the City Attorney may desire to pratect the City~
its citlzens~ a~c1 the purcliasers of the pro~ect.
a. That street n~rnes shall be appr~ved by the City of Aneheim prior to approval of a
fl~~al tract map.
9. Th~t the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to Che City of Anah~~m the
apwropriate park ancf recraation in-lie~ fees as determined to be appropr•tate by tha City
Council~ said fees to be paid at the ttme tf~e buildinq permit is '~ssued,
1~. That dr~inage of sa1J property shall be disposei of in a manner sattsfactory to
the Clty Englneer, If, in the preparation ~f the site, sufficient grading is required to
necessitate a grsdin~ perm(t, no work on gr~ding wtll be permitted betwee~ October iSth
and April 15tt~ unless all required off-site ~irainaye facilities h~ve be~n installed and
are operative. P~sitive assurance shall be pro~~ided the City that such dra~na5e
facllities witl be completed prtor to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site
dralnage facilities shall he de~icated to the City, or the Clty f.o~ncil shall t~ave
initlated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
~~.,~~~~e.1~ ~rinr r;, ~;~~ ~ommencement of gradinn operations. The required drainage
far.llttles shall bc of a size anci type sufficient to carry runoff waters ortginating from
hlgher properries throuyh said proper:y to uitimate dispasal~ as approved by the City
Enqlneer•. Said drainage faC(lities s!~all be the first item of constructioe~ and shall be
completed an<1 be functi~nal throughout the tract and from thie ~1o~vnstreart: boundary of the
property to the ultimate potnt of ciisposal~ prtor to the issuance of any final building
inspections or occupancy permits. Drainagc ~f.~,trict reimbursement agreements may be
available to the devtlopers of said prop~rty ..,pon thetr requcst.
~ ~
MI NUTF.S , C I TY F'LANN 1 NG COMMI SS I ON ~ Janua ry 19. 1976 7F,- 2G
ENVI ~ONMENTAL I MPl1CT aEPORT NU. 162 ~ VARI ANCE DIO. 2770 ~ AND '1'EN7AT1 VE MAPS OF TRACT PIOS,
g1G9~ 917~~ 9171 A~N~ 9172 (Revislon Nos. 1) (Continued) -- ---~_.,,,,_..,~,,,. - _.._
11, That nracling, exc~~v~tion~ and .ill other constrnctlon activltiss sh~ll be from
conducCecl (n sucl~ a manner s~ ~is t~ minimize the possib111ty nr any sllt orlginating
this proJect beinc~ carrl~cl into the Santa Ana Rivcr by sCorm water orlc~fnattnn from or
flowing tFirouc~h thi, p~o)cct.
12, That the ~levPlopsr sh~ll obt~tn from the Orange County Floocl Control Qistrlct~ a
fAVarable flex~d h~~xar~l letter~ acce~table to the City of MAheim.
13, If perman~nt strcet name signs have not been Installe<i, temporary straet name
cfgns sh~~ll be inst~lled pri~r to any occupa~cy.
11~, 'fliat Orancle County Floocl Control D1 ,trict facll tty EOG an<1 EOGS01 ~h~l l be
constructed to the stancl~rrls oF, and as appraved by~ the Oran~e County Flaod Control
Oistric.t.
15. That no storm runoff watr.r ~hall be oermittecl Co flow from ~ubJect tract onto r,he
surface of the iraveled way of La Palma Avc;nue.
1G. That prior to the approval of th~ fln~il tract map, thc petittoner shall submit
fln~l speciflr. floar pl~ns, elevations~ and plot plans to r.he Clty Councll f~r ~pproval.
Commissl~ner Morley offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIOF! CARRIED~
that tha Anahcim City Pianning Commis~ion does hercby approve 7entative Map of Tract No.
9171~ cunslstlnn of 2'i lots, on the basls tliat the proposecl subdivision together with Its
design an:i impro~ement is consistent with the Clty's General Plan, pursuant io Government
Code Sectl~n ~~~~~~73.5, and subJect to the followlny conditions:
1. 1'nat the approval of Tent~tive Map of Tracc No, 917~ is ~rar'te~i subJect to the
approval of Vari~nce iJn. 277~-
2, That should this subdivlsion be developed as more than one subdivlsion~ each
subdivlsion thereof sliall be submitted in tentative form For approval,
3, That~ in accordance with C?ty f,ouncil Pollcy, a G-foot masonry wall shall be
constructed on the south property Ilne separating Lot Nos. 23 through 'l8 and La P~lma
Avenue. Re~sonahle landscaping, includin~ irrigation factlities~ shall be installed In
tha uncemented portion of the artertal highway parkway tlie full dlstance of said wa11~
plans for said lanriscaping to be submltted to and sub,ject to the approval of the
SuperintendenC of Parkway Maintenance; and following fnstall~tion and acceptance~ the City
of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for matntenance of sald landscaping,
q, 7hat all lots within this tract shall be served by unclerground utilities.
5, That a final tract map of subJect property shall be submitted to and approveci by
the Ctty Courcll and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
6, 7hat the covenants, conditions~ ard restrictions shall be subrnitted to and
approve~ by the City Attorney's Office pri.,r to City Council appravai of rhe fina) tract
map and~ further~ that the approved covenants~ ~ond(Cions~ anc restrictions ~hall be
recorded concurrently with the flnal tract map.
7. That pr(or to filing the finat tract map~ the applicant st~all submit to the City
Attorney for approval or denia) ~ complete synapsis uf the proposed f~,nctioning of the
operating corporation, in~luding but not limited to the articles of incorporatlon bylaws~
proposed methods of management~ bonding to ins~~e malntenance of common property and
bulldings, and such other informatinn as the City Attorney may desire to protect th~ City,
its cltizens~ and the purchasers of the proJect.
c~. That street names shall be appraved by the Clty of Anaheim prlor to approval of a
ftnal tract map.
9, 'fhat the owner(s) of subject property shal) pay to the Clty of Anaheim the
appropriate park anci recreation in-lteu fees as determ(ned to be appropri~te by the City
Council, sai~ fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
1Q. That drainage of sald property shall be disposed of in a manncr satlsfactory to
the City Engineer, If~ in the preparation of the site~ sufflcient gradi~g ~~ required t~
necessitate a gradlny permit, no work on grading will be p~rmitted between October 15th
and April i5fh unless atl required off-si~e drainage facilities have been installed and
are operat(ve. Posttive assurance shall ba provided the City that such drainage
facilitles wtll be completed prlor to October 15th, Necessary right-of-way for off-site
drainage facilities shal' be dedicated to the C(ty~ or the City Councll shall have
tnltlatecl condemnati~m proceedings therefur (the costs of which sf~all be borne by the
developer)~ prior to the co~xnenceme:nt of grading operations. The requireJ dralnage
factlities shall he of a size ancl type sufficlen~ to carry runoff waters originating from
„iglier properties through satcl property to ultimate dlsposal~ as approved by the City
Englneer. Salc! drain~gz f~clllties shall ba the flrst item of construction and shof,the
completed ancl be fu~ctional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary
prnperty to the ultimate point of disp~sal~ prior to t~e issuance of any final bullding
~ •
MINUT~S~ CIT'Y' PLANNING COMMISSI~~N, January 19~ 1976 ?5-^1
ENVIRONMCNTAI. IMPIICT aEPOR7 N0. 11,2~ VARIANCE N0. 277U~ ANU 7ENTATIV[ MAPS OF 1'IthCT NOS,
~,~~9,~,~,!,j~,9171~ ~7z (Revl~lnn Mos. 1~„ ContlnuRd _ ,..Y.~
Inspactlons or occupancy permits. Dralnag~ dlstrlct reimburseme~~t aclr•eernantz maY h~
avallnble to the ridvelopers ~f sald proparty u~:on thefr request.
11. T;int grading, excav~tion~ ~~rd all othor corstructlon act(vitlus shill be
conducted in such a manncr so as t~ minlmlze the posslh(lity of r,r.y s'1: origlnntinc~ from
thls pro)oc.t heln~ carrled into the Santa Ana River by storm water ~riginatin~ from or
flowing throu~th this pr~.~ect.
12, That the ~feveloper shall obtaln frpm tho Orange County Floarl Contro! Distrfct~ ~
favorabin flo~d h~r..~rd letter, ncceptible to the Clty of Anahelni,
1~. If perm~~nr.nt streek n,ime sic~ns have n~t been installed~ C~~mporary stre~t name
signs sh~ll be Installed prlor t~ any occupancy.
lh. That no storm runoff water sht~ll be permittad to f~c~w from subJec:~ tract on;o the
surfaca of the tr~vele~i way of La Palma Avenue.
15. That Street "D" shall be a full sCan~lard 6~+-Poot wide street,
16, That ,:rlor to the approval of the flnal tract m~p, th~e ~~etitloner shall subrnit
finil speclflc floor pl:~ns, elevatlons~ and plot plans to the City Counc(1 far approval.
Commisslonar Morley offered a m~tion, Seconded hy Commisslaner King and MOTION Cl1RRIED~
Ch~t the Anaheim City Planninc~ Commission cloes hereby approve Tentative Map of Tract No.
9172~ consisttnn of ?5 iots~ on the basis that the proposecl subdivislon togecher• with its
dPSi~n ~~ncf lmprovement is consistent with the City's General Pl~n~ pursuant to Gavernment
Code Section 6(~-i73.5, ancl suhJect to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract N~. 917? is nrantz~l subj~ct to the
approval of Varl~ince No, 277Q.
2, That shoul~i this subdivisi~n be developed as more than one subdivtsion~ each
subdlvlsion thereof shall be submitted in ten[,~tive form for approval.
3. That~ in accordance with City Coun~ll Pollcy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
eo~structecl ~m the south property line sep~~rar.ing Lot Nos. 2n through 25 and 4 and La
Pala~a Avenue. Reasonahle lanciscaping, including irr(gation facilities, shall be inslalled
in thcs uncemented portion af the ~rterlal h~ghway Parkway the full dlst~nce of said wall.
plans for salci lanclscaping to be submitted to ar~~' subJect to the approval of t~~e
5uperlnxen~lent of Parka~ay Maintenance; ar.d folloa~ing Installation and acceptance~ the C(ty
of Anahelm shall assume the responsibilit~~ for malntenance of sai~l i:~n~lscaping.
4, That all lots wlthin this tract sliall be served by underc~round utiiitles.
5. That a ffnal tract map %f suhJect property shall be submitted to and approvad by
the CiCy Council and then he recorcfed in the Office of the Orange County Recorcler.
6. That the covenants, conditions, ana restrlctlons shall be s~bmitted t~ ana
approved by the (~ty ACtorney's Office prlor to City Council apFroval of tf~e final tract
map ~nd, further, that the approved covenants~ conditions~ and reslrlctlons shall be
r~corded cancurrently with the final cract map.
7, Thet ~rior to filing the final tract map~ the applicant shall submlt to the Clty
l~ttorney for approval or der~ial a complete synopsis of tFie pruposed functioning ~f the
operatlnn corporati~~n, i~~c',~~din~ b~_~t not limiteci Co the articles of incorporation bylaws.
proposed methods of managemenC, bondinq ta insure maintenance of common pro~erty and
bulldings, and such other infermat~on ~s the City Attorney may deaire to protect the City~
its citlzens, ancl the purchasers of the proJect.
a. That street names sl~all be approved by th~ City of Araheim prior ta appr~val of a
final tract rnap.
g, TF~at tlie owner(s) of subject property shall paY to the City of Anahetm the
appropriata p~rk ~nd recreation i~-lieu fees as determined to be appropriaCe by thc City
Council~ said fe,~: to be paid at the time the buflding permit is issued.
1Q. 7hat draina~e of sat~ property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
the Clty Englneer. If~ in the Fre~~ration of the site, sufficient ~rading is required to
necessttate a c~radinc~ permit~ no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th
and Aprll 15th unless all req~ire<i uff~site drainage facilities have been installed and
are operetive. Positive assurance shall be provided the f.ity that such dra!nage
facilitfes wiil be completed prlor to October 15th. Necessary rlght-of-way for ~ff-site
;±rainage facilltics shaii be dedicated t~ the Clty, or the City Council shal) have
initlated condemnation proceedinas therefor (the costs ~r which shall be barne by the
developer)~ prlor ±o the commencement of grading operaCions. The required drainage
facllittes sF~~ll be uf a size and type sufficlent xo carry r~noff waters or(ginating from
higher propertles thr~u~h said property to uleimaCe disposal, as appro~~ed by the City
Engineer, Said dralnage f~cilities ~hall be the first item uf constructinn and shall be
co:~pleted and be functional thrc,,:gheut the tract and fror~ the dawnstream boundary of the
property tn the ultimate polnt of disposal~ prior to the issuance of any final building
~
~^n
~
MI NU'I'f.S, C I TY PLANNI N(', COMM~ SS ION ~ Janu~~ry 19. 1976 %G-26
ENVIRONMENI'Al IMPIICT RFPORT N0. 162~ VARIANC[ t~0. 2770, AND T~.NTATIVk MAPS QF TRACT ~JOS.
91G9~ 917n~ 9171 AND ~172 (Itavisicn tJos_._ 1;~_ C,~ntlnueJ) -_- _,_
insn~ctl~ns or occu~+ancy permits. DrninanE~ dis[rict raimburser~ent a~reem~nts mey be
AVi{IIAhIB tn thc ~Iev^lopars of sald propercy upon thelr requesx.
I1. Thet grnciing~ exc~vatlon, and all other constructlon nctivities s~~~ll be
conducteri in such ~ manner s~ as to miniml~e the posslhillt;- ~f a~iy silt originating from
this proJect beln~ cArrled into the SantA Ana River hy starm water orlginitlnc~ from c~r
fio:iing throuqh this pr~Ject.
17., Tl~nt the ~levc~loper sh~~ll ~htaln from the Orange Coun~y Flood Concrol Dlstrict~ a
fnvorablo flcxid haxnrc! letter~ acceptable tc~ the City of An~3helm.
13, If ~,crrnnnen.°. street namc sic~ns hiave not been Installed, temporary 5treet namc
siqns sh~ll he (nst~~lled prlor to any c~ccupancy.
1~~. That a street an~i a piiblic utility easemenC sliall be ob:alned across Lots 6~~ and
65 of Tra:t Plo. 7~~17~ ~s require~l for the ext^nslon of Allwc,od Circle; Aliwood Clrcle
shall be rnconstr~icted as requlred by the f,lty En~~ineer; ancl an abanclonment request sh~~ll
be prc,cess~d for iban~lonment of the excess rfyht-oi'-way fc~r the existinc) cul-de-sic on
Allwood Circle.
1S, That no storm runefF water shall b~e permltted t~~ flow From subJecC tract onto the
surface of the tr~velerl way ~~f l.a Palm~ Pvenue.
lfi. That Street "A" shall be a full stanclard 6~~-Foot wide street,
17, That pri~r to the aprroval of the final tract map~ the petitfoner shall submit
final spectflc floor plans~ elevations, and plot plans to the City Councll for approval.
RECLASSIFICATI~t~ ~ RFl10VI~RTiSED PU[-LiC NEARING. RORER'f E. A~~~ RIGIARD S. D[IJ7L~Y.
~~~, ~ti-5~~~' 433 West l.incoln Avenu~, Anahcim~ Ca, ~24~5 (Owners; ; D0~~I1LO
KROTEF.~ 35h`~ W~~clldnd P1ace~ ~anta l1na~ Ca. 927~7 lAgent);
re.questing A!~1ENDMENT QF CONDITIONS OF AF~ROVAL on property
described as a rectanUUlarly-shapeci parcel of land consls*.Ing of approxlmately 0.7
acre locatecf on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between La Pl~za and ~emeter•y
Roacl~ havin~ .~p~rox~mate frontanes of 140 feet on the north side of Lincaln Avenue~
215 f~et on the ea~ side of La Plaza. and 200 feet on the west si~'~ ~f Cemetery
Road. Pr~perty pres~ntly clsssified CL (COFIMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZOt~E.
Six pers~ns lndfcated their presence in opposition *.o subJect petition; and it was noted
that one letter had been received in opposition,
Assistant Zoninn Supervl5~~ All~n Daurn read the Staff Report to the Planninn Commission
dated January '4~ 1976~ and said Staff Report (s referred to as if set forth In full in
the minutes.
Mr. Donalcl Krotee, the agent for the. petitioners~ appeared before the Flanning Commission
anci reviewed the issues ~~ncf reasons (nvolved In the proposal to delete Yhe conditlon.; of
approval of Reclassiffcation No. 5~f-55- »- "That there be no entr~nces on Cemetery R~ad"
and "Th~~ that por[ic,n of Lot ~~ usecl for p~rkt~•ig purpose~ shai ! be fencecl atong Cemetery
Road with a three-foot ornamental fence to enclosa the parking area", stating that they
wlshtd to h~ve in~ress ~nc' egress from Cemetery Road (an alley); that there was a question
as to whu owned G_ ,ete~y Road and had jurisdiction over its usaye; that~ in checking the
records~ he had founcl that the alley was privately owned and was part and parcel of the
cemetery located to the north; :hat presently it was difficult to manipulate vehicles in
and out of the subject property on La Plaza~ and Cemexery P,oad would provide 3~~ easier
access; that the trash collection trucks had to back up nn less than six tir~s fn nrder to
access the property an~t if the pr~perty had access from Cemetery ftaad~ the trash trucks
would have no Jlfficulties acces~ing tne property; that the petitioner lia~ questioned the
~+atrons ~f tlie restaurant at the subject location, and had a petition signed by
~pproxfmately ~~00 patrons Indicating they felt that access from Cemetery Road would help
the access ta the p~rklny lot; that the number of vehicles using Cemetery Road for access
t~ the subJect property would be so few that tt~ere would be little or no nolse gerierated;
that thare was a tendency to commerciai zoning along Lincoln Avenu~~ wlth some re3idences
presently having commercial uses in them; and that~ regarding safety for the school
children in the area~ the petittoner had contacted the princ.ipal of the elementary school
in the area who expressed th~~t there would be no particular hazard created from an action
gi vine~ access to thc subJect property from Cemetery Road.
M~s. Flora E. Stanton~ 1498 Eas*_ B(rch Street~ Anaheim~ apDearad bafore the Planning
Conmission and stated her proper~y was directly adJacent ta the parkinu 1ot on the subJect
propcrty; thai, regardless of how many people patronized a businesti~ those persons did not
live ln the ~~ea and, thetefore, would not have to contend with the problems of the
nelghbornoad; that she had been ln personal contact with the president of the PTA at the
....
~
~
~
MI rlllT[S, C ITY PI.ANNI11('. C~MM1 SS I ON ~,lenuery 19 ~ 1976
RECLASSI FICATI~N N0, 54-5;-11. (Contlnued)
76-29
elementary tichonl In thc area who lnformr_d her that the PTA d(d not appr~ve of the
pr~~posnl ancl n letter w~~s belnn sent tn the C) ty so ~nclical)nry; thrt approval of the use
of Cernotery Ru,~d coulcl not ->r, oht:~ined offlclally from th~ cemetery hut from the Orange
County ffoarci of Suparvls~rs~ t~ her knowlecige. Mrs. Stnnton rcacl from a patftlon slc~ned
by flpproximatalv ~0 pcrsons In opposlclon to the subJect request far uso of CPmotery RoAd
and from a lettor from hersclf. Sha furthcr lndicated she ha~l opp~se~l the proposal for
the meth~idone cllnlc at the suh ect locatlon and th~~t the petitloners were not pleascd
wfth thc ~ppositlon, Mi'n, St~+nl~n presentcd the refercnced petitlon and letter for the
C I ty' s recor~is ,
In rebuttal~ Mr. Krotee sk~ted thc Sanlt~tion Div(slon could subst~intlate that Lhe use of
Carrx~t~ry Road wouicl nllevia;e tl~e trash collection problems; tliat the pol lc~ protr.ctlon of
the alley woul~i he much great~~r If thers N!is a second entry whlch they were Propoaing;
tl~tit the noise would n~t be a bic~ issue because of the low volume of trnffir. In the ~lley
(Cemetery Rr.ad); ancl tha~ the Alley was private property and not cw+ned in any {~art by the
C 1 ty c~r County ,
THF. PUBLIC HEARI~Ir W~S CI.nSFn.
In response ta Mr, Krotee's coniments~ Chal rman F~rano n~ked that the C(*.y cietermined the
inc~r~~s or e~lress, wl~eCher (t was prlv~7te or puhlfc ~r~~~erl•y. Mr. Krotec stateci if they
coui~~ ubtaln approval to delet~ the ~~foremen-t~n~ri ~nn~litinns of ehe raclassification on
the s ubJect property, then they would l~kc to enter int~ negotlatlons w(th the approprlate
part i es for use of CpTetery Road; that the owner of recard uf Ceme:ery Road has been
deceased since 19~~Q, and tlie property was in prohate; anci that, to his knowledge~ there
was canly one taxpayc:r.
Chai ~man Farano noted that it ~ppeared from tl~e exhibits presPntecl Lhat ttie subJect
park{ng lo; was falrly well designed with ingress and egress that seemed to be quite
adcquate, or as good as any he h.-+cl observed elsewhere; that by lookin~ at the exhtbits he
could rot see any beneftt to be gaineci by the petftioner ln creattn~ another entrance Into
propertY whfch did nut appear adequate *.o handle tr~fftc aoinn In two directions; that the
traffic wo~.ld not be headed at the rlght anglc to turn into the proper lane of the alloy;
however. a redesign c>° the parking lot t.o reverse the situation might solve that problem,
but wou~d not Justif~ the posstble and potential hazards ancl increased trafflc over the
alley,
Mr. Kratee responded that many p~trons cntered the alley ard then found they could not get
to tF~e restaurant from t.I1FrC~ to which Cha(rman Farana respondPd tlzat Cemptery Road might
not be clearly marked, Chatrman Farano further noted th~t he felt all the patrons parking
o~ tFie south side of the parlcing lot would probably use the alley if permitted to do so.
Di scuss ton pursuecl re~ardinc~ th~ fence requ~ rement, during whlch i t was p~inteci out that
the City Counclll~ad considered saici requirement sinc~ the initial public hearircl imposing
~:he eonditlon and that it ap~:eared the Qrnamentation of the fence was not st(11 a require-
ment ;~dhereupan, the Planrting Commtssion generally agreed that the three-foot h(gh fence
olas ner,essary and appropriate to adequately conLrol the tra°Cic generated front the use of
the subJect property, although said fence need not be ornamentai~ and that the cable
pres~ntly b~ing used to close the antrance unto Cemetery Road should be repla~ec~ immed!ately
by t hc wa 1 1.
It was noted tha[ the Dlrector of the Planning Uepartment had dete~mined that the proposed
acti vity fell wlthln the deflnitto~ of Sectior. 3.01~ Class 1~ oT the Clty of i.~ahelm
Gut del i nes to the Requi remtnts ~or a~ Envt ronmenial Impact Repart and ~as ~ therefore~
categoricaily exempt from the requiremesnt to file 2n EIR.
Commissioner Tolar ~Ffered Resolution No. PG76-10 and moved for its passage and adoption~
tha t the Anahe im C I ty P 1 ann i nq Commi ss lon does he reby recommer,d to the C 1 t~~ C~sunc i! of
the Cfty of Anaheim thaL :he request for deletion of conditior,s pert~ining to Cemetery
Road~ in connectlon wlth Reclasslfication No. 54-55-12, be disapprove~ un the basis that
app roval for ingress and egress to the sub~ect propPrty over Cemetery Road wo~fd G''C1L9
a hardship for the adJacent resldential properties and ts nnt necessar) for the ad~bntageo~s
use of the subJect property; that Cemetery Road is not a feaslble e~trance to the subJrct
property; that the Nroposei ts not nr:cessary and/nr desirabl~: for tht ordcrly and pr~per
dev~lopment of thc community; that the prnposal does not properly relate tu the zones and
thei r permitted uses locally astabltshed in close proximity to sub,ject property and to +the
zones and their permiYtad uses gennrally established throughout the cortmunity; and~
~
~
~
MiNUTF.S~ CITY PL~NNINf, COMM~SSION~ January 19~ 137E~
;6-30
RECL~ ASS I r I CA71 QN N0, 5~~' SK" ~ z ( Cor~t i nucu j
furthrr. chac the Planr.(ng Comnisslon da~s hereby recommend that b three~foot hlgh masonry
wall~ in 1(eu of an ornamental fenca~ be constructed to enctose thn porking 1ot area of
the suL,~ect property adaacent t~~ ~ometery~ Road to eliminatc any access to Cemntery iioad frc,m
th~ su~Ject property. (Sce Re~olutlon Book)
On roll call, the forenoln.~ resolut(~n wns p~~SSC~~ by the following vote:
AY[S : C~)M111 SS I ~~iFR5 : B/1R~IF.S ~ HCRBST ~ J~NNSON ~ KI tIG ~ MQRI.EY ~ TOLAa ~ Fl1RI1~10
NOES: C~MMISSI~~IFRS: !!~?!!E
ABSfFJT: Cl1MMISSIQIIERS: NQNf.
CIIAIRMAtJ FARA~~(1 AND CQMMISSI~tIFR TOLAR LEFT THE COUIJCII. CHA~~E3E~t~ TCMP(1(iARII.Y~ AT 4:2U P,M.
ENVIRQ~IMF.NTAL IMPACT - Rf.l1DVCRTISED PUBLIC IIEARI~~G. DUNN FROi'ERTIES CORPORATION
RFPORT NQ. 123 c/o Ray Cfiermak~ 28 Brookhollow ~rive~ Santa Ana~ Ca. 92i~~
(Owner) r~questing C0~lSIDERATIOt! OF REVISED PLANS TO CONSTRUC7
REGLASSIFIf,ATIOW A COMMERf.IAL CENTER on property described as an (rregularly-
N0. 7~-7~~°s5 shaped pa-•cel of land c~nsisting of approximaCely 13.6 acres
'"°""° locatecl at the northwest ~^rncr of La Palma Avanue and
COM~ITIOWA;_ USk Ftacnol i~ Street and havinq appr~ximate frontayes of 127c) rest
PERMIT N(1. 11~h2 on the north xide of L~ Palma Avenue and 825 feet ~n the west
side of Magnolia Street. i'roF~erty q!'C5L'fl'liy cla~slfte~
ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITfn) ZONE.
Commissioner K(nc1 note~- that he ha~1 a contii~~ eF interest~ as deflnecl by the Anaheim
Muni~ipal Code Sectirn 1.1,~~~~ and Government Code Sectiun 3~~7.5~ et seq,~ in that he owned
stock (n Pacific Litinq Corporation and Dunn Properties Carporati~r (the applicant) was
afflliated with Paciflc Liting Corporatton; that pursuant to the provislons of the above
Codes~ he was declarinc~ to the Chairman ti~at he was withdrawin~ from the heariR~ in
connectlon wOth t~ie sub.ject items and would not take part in either the discussion or the
voting thereon; :~nc1 thnt he hacl not discu5sed the subject matter w(th any member of the
Planning Commissi~n. THERFU?~~1~ COMMISSIOFIEk KING LF,FT THE COUNCIL CHAMBEft, TEMPORARILY~
AT ~~:22 P.M.
CHAIRMA~! FARAN~ RETURt~ED TO THE COUNCIL CHPMRFR AT 4:'l~ P,M.
No one Indicatecl their presence in oppasltion to subJ~ct (~ems
Although the Staff n~port to thP Planning Commission dat:ed January 19, 197h~ was not read
st the aublic. hearinc~, said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Ted LaN ~'^presentinct Coldwe'1 Banker~ the agent for the petlttoner~ appeared
before thp Pla~. ~ng Commission and stated that~ following approval of their origlnal
development ~lans for the subject pr~oerty, they had experienced dlfficulttes in o5tafning
the desired tenants and were faced with lack of fin~ncirq ~or the proJect; that they had
initlally had tentat(ve interests but no contractual obll~ations ror occupancy of the
proposed structures; that they were deleting tf~e 1200-se~~t thc:atre; that they ti~d have a
Keno'a restaurant with St~F9 scauare feet and a Don Jose restaur~nt with 606f~ square feet~
and two office buildinc~s consistinn of 2~~1a6 square feet; that any aaditional development
plans would be su~Ject Co the cendiCions and restrictlons of che Planninq Commission and
City Council; ai~d that they were wi'.hdrawing their request for the varlance (PJo. 2598) in
connection with the 7;-foot high banners oriyinally proposed,
Mr. Ray Chermak~ Vice President of Dunn Properties Corporatlon, aFpeared before thP
Planning Commissfon and co~firmecl that they had twa signed leases for th~ proposed
restaurants ; that the two of f t ce bui 1 di ngs referred to i n tf~e Sta•Ff Rep~r: ::~re actual ly
one bulldtn~ wlth two winqs connected by a bridc,e and ~oof structure; that upon recelvl~g
appr~val of the current proposal, they intended to Nroceed immediately with construction
of the two resta~.irants and ths office huilding, and wouid also proceeci xc develap the
oerimeter landscaping~ particulariy on la Palma dnd Magnolia, as indicated on the plans~
to properly set off the proiect; that easements would be provided along the easterly and
snuth~rly boundarles of r.hc ~riangular portlon of the property ta make an interconnection
between the two maln driveways so that there would h~ appropriate vehicular atcess to all
of the pi•~perties withtn the triangularly-shaped onrtion; that there were eigtit parcels
which would remain to be developed and which wer~ presently subject to specuiati~~e
nagotlatlons; however, there was an actlve interest In the property with four other very
u
~
~
MIt~UTLS~ CITY PLAIINI~G COMMISSION~ Je~nu~ry ~9. I)76
7G-31
EfIVIRONMF.NTl1L IMPACT REPQR'I' N0. 123, RECLASSIF ICATION N0, I;i-i~~-5~, ANb CONOITIO~JIIL IISE'
PCRHIT N0, 14h~_ (f,_ont inued) ,._,. _
serlo~~s ~fforY whic'i ware not sufficiently confirmod to be mAde a pnrt of the present
suhml ttel ; and t ~int the Staff Report outl inod the Intcr,t of the ~evelopsr.
TIIF. Pl1BLIC IIE11R! Nf WAS CLQSFp,
In responsr. t~ ~lucsttc~nin~ hy Comi~~issloner Herhst~ Mr. ~hermal: St~ited p~rcr,) m~ips ~i~id been
fI icd with th~ G ity nf 11n~~hcirn for thc subject pr~perty.
In res~onse tn Further questloninc~ by Gommissi oner Ilarbst, Mr. Chermak stlpulated th~t th~
n~~mbcr of drive ar,r.r.; ~cs „lonq La P~lma and Ma~nol i a Avenucs wauld rein~ln the same as
oricllnally ,~ppr~c~vad~ or a t~tal of eight, and th~:~t speciflc dslineation of said drive
acc~sses woul~~ tie submltted t~ the TraFflc En~~in~er for approvnl; that o~-si te vehlcular
access to thc sep~rat~ p~~rccls would be ovcr essement, inside the perimetcr of the
prope~ty; ancl tF~at ff ~al specif(c plans would t>e submitte~l for each of t-~~~ remalniny elyhC
pa~cels of the suhdivis~~n for Plannin~ Commission and City Council ap,,roval prlor to the
i~~;,roductlon of an orcilnance reznnin~ s~~l:l p~ rcels; an~1 that Varlance No. 759~ would be
offic~ ~l ly termintecl.
Conm I s s i onei •}~`~n4on noted tha t ce rta i n trnde-of fs had ber.n made 1 n the or i q i na 1 approva 1
of the sub,Jact :ee~~551FIr.Ttlon permitting camnerc;al uses In an are~i desigriatecl fur
ind•:strlal uses hy [~~_~ Maheim General f'lan; ±I~at there was a tenc~ency for petitioners to
•-.,r,:.r.~~ such t ra cie-~f f, i~ :nP pr~cess I ng of revi sed devel opmen! pi ~ns for P 1 ann I ng
Commtssini nr~ City Councit ,~proval; ~md that A further modiflcation of scal ing-down of
the sub.ject com~nerci•+~ ;~~^:~~' iiiyht nut l,e ~~vorat~ly considered. The Plar~nin!7 f,nmmission
general ly concu ~recl,
It was noted that Cnvironmental Impact Report ilo. 123, pertaini~ct to devel<~pment of t!~e
subJect property, w~s cerCi fied by tl~e Ciiy Council on June ?.5, 1975~ ancl no further
docuM°_ntation or ~ction thereon was deemed to he re:auirecl~ based upon the proposal being
submf tted.
Comm) s~s loner Nc rhst offered Resol ution No. PC7~-~ 1:~n~ mc+ved for 1 ts passa~c and adopt (on,
thrt the Analiei mCity Plannin9 Cnmmission does hereby recommend to the C(ty CounGil of tl'i:
C 1 ty of An<~he i m that Recl ass i f i cat l on No, 73- 7~~-SS (,readvert i sed) be approved, sub jec't to
the foreqolna ~Indinns and stipulations of the petitioner, and subject to the conditions
of ~he ori~lnai approval of said Reclassification No4 73-7~~-~5, as well as those
condttions result!nc7 frnm this puhlic hearing, (See Resolution 3ac~k)
Cha! rman Faranc-~ note~l that he ha<I beer absen t a few mi nutes at the be~inn i n~ of the
Subject puhl ic h~~r1 r~n and ~sked for legal counsel as to whether he should vote on the
matters, Depu2y City Attc,rney Frank lowry acivisecl that, in his opinlcn, Chairman Farano
had been presenl for tl~e majorfty of the publ(c hearing and had heard all of the
present<~tlon ae~d discussion anci was qualified to vote if there were no ohjections from the
petitioner, M~, Chermal: indicated no object iuns.
On rol l call ~ the foreqol~~ resolution was passed by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: COMMI SSI~HFRS: R~RNES~ HER~ST, J~HFlSf1P1, Mf1RLFY~ FARA~10
NOES: COMM1 SSIt1-1FR5: N~IIE
AP~SE~i7; COt1N1 551~~lEPS; KltlG~ T~Ll1R
~pM~11SS~b~IER TqLAR RE-EPITERFD THE C(1UNCIL CH,IMRER AT 1+:3~ P•M•
Cammisslor r Herbst offereci Resolution ~lo. PC7~-12 and movecl f~r its passage anci adoption,
that Petitlon for Conditional Use Perm(c ~lo. 1~~h2 (reaclvertised) be and hereby is yranted,
to establlsh two restaurants with c.n-sale 1 iquor on two parcels of an 11-lot comnercial
yubdivislon, ~ub.lect t~ the forenoin~ flndinqs and stipulat?ons ~f the petitloner ancl
suuject tn the conditlons of the original aQproval of said Conciitional Use P~rmit Plo.
1~-h2~ as well is those conclitions resulting from this Fublic hearing. (See Resolution
goc~k)
On roll :al l, the fc~reqoinq resolution wis passe~l by the fol lowin~ vote:
CJ
~
~
MIf~UtES~ CIT/ PLANNI4G CQMMISSION, January 19~ 197~
7G-32
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NQ. 123~ RfC'ASSIFICATION N0. 73'74`SS~ AND COND17tONAL USL
Pf•.RMIT N0, 1~i52 (Contlnued) - - -----
~_
AYE.S: C~HMISSIOIIF.RS: BIIRNES, IiERBSl', JUhINSO~~~ MORLcY~ Fl,RANO
NO~S; CQMMISS~f)'lFRS: NO~JE
ABSF.NT: CQMt11SSI~1IF.RS; KI~JG~ TOLAR
COMNISS~~NER KING RF^ENTF.(lED 711E CQUtJCIL CHAM[~ER AT ~i:3~~ P.M.
EtJVIk~NP1CfJTAL (MP/1CT - PUt3LIG HEARING. MARK U. LEFF~ Nor'East Pl~za i.td, ~ 120 ~1
RFP(1RT N~. 1G3 C:~mi no~ Sul te 1 10 ~ Beverly FII I 1 s~ Ca. 90212 ((hvner) ; WARMINGTON
CQMF'I1~IY ~ 17830 Sky Park Ci rcle~ Sul te 2~3~ Newport Beach, Ca.
RECLASSIFICATI~N 9~6(~~ (Agent). Property described as an irregularly-shaped
N0. 75-76-1f, parccl of land conslsting of epproximat~ly 22 ~cres located
- nortl~westerly of the corner of OrAngethorpe Avenue and Kraemer
VARIAPJCE ~JO. 27%1 Boulevard~ havin~ approx(mate front~c~es ~f £~~i0 feet on thc
north sicie of Orangethorpe Avenue and 1173 feet on the west
TENTATIVF MAP OF slcle of Kraemer Boulevard, Property presently classified
7itACT NA. ~ll~~~) CL (CQMMFRC,Il1L~ LIMITEO) AND CH (CQMMERCIAL~ NEAVY) ZONES,
REO.UFSTED CLAS5IFICAI'I~tl; RS-50!10 (RESIUEtlTIhL. SINGL,G-Fi~t•11LY) ZOME {PORTION B)
REQl1ESTF.D VAR1~IN~:E: WAIVER OF RE~~UIRF.t1Et~T THAT SIIJ(;LE-FAMILY STRUCTL'R('S RE.AR 0~~
ARTERI~L HIGNWAYS~ TO EST~BLISH A 117-LOT~ RS-5~~~ SUBDIVI51(1N
(H~RTIOIJ B)
TENTATIVF TftACT RE~UE57: E'JGi~lE[R: ENGINEERIPJG SERVICf.S CbMPAP1Y~ 3001 Redhlll Avenue~
Bull~linc~ 2~ Suite 1n6~ Casta Mesa~ Ca. 9267.G. SubJect tract
is proposed for subdivision into a 117-1ot~ commercial and
resiclential subdivision (PORTI~PIS A AND B)
Na one indicated their pres~rice in opposition to subJect petit'ons
Although the ~taff Report tc~ t,l-e Planning Commission dated January 1~3, 197~~ was not read
at the public hearln~, saicl Staff Rep~rt is referred to and made a part of the minu tes.
Mr. James Christcnsen~ representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared tefore the
Pl~nning Commission and stated tnat~ although the subject property had been zoned
~~~m~r~~a~ for some; time, lt was being proposed for an RS-5000 subdivision simflar to Yhe
RS-5~1~~ devalopme~t across Kraemer nuulevard to th° °35C; th~t r.he proposal would generate
less traffic than a commercial developmen~; that all of tiie Znning Code reyuirements would
be complied with, with the excc~ption that Lot No. 3`- would side-on~ rather than rear-on~
Oranqethorpe Avenue; that the homes would have three-car garages with 25-foot front
setbacks; that Lot Plo. 39 would be larger than usual; that~ regarding the noise from the
adJacent railroad trar,ks, they were proRosing ta meet the requirements of the Clty far
sound-attenuatlon; that a conditional use permit may hecome necessary for the portion of
the property which would remain for commercial development~ however~ they were meeting the
intent of the C(ty Gouncil Policy No, 5~+2 regarding sound-attenuation to protect ti~e
residentfal portion from the conxnercial p~rtlon, to the best of thelr abiltty; and thr~t he
would prefer that the interpretation of C(ty Coun~il Policy ~lo. S~-2 be deferred to the
:Ity Councll.
THE PU-ILIC H~ARING WAS CLnSED.
Conxnissloner Herbst inclicated some c.~ncern that the portion of the praperty which wauld
remai~ commercially znned might be develo~ed with a service sta[ion and that his perserial
prAferen~e would be to rezone all af the property to residenttal. Whereupon~ Deputy City
Attorney Frank Lowry ~dv(sed that if the total property. inc:luding Po~tion A~ were ta be
considered as part of the appltcation for rezonin~, the reclassificatl~n petltion would
have to be readvertlsed to so include it.
Comrnissioner Herbst furtf~er indi:ated cuncern regardina the type of wall which wou~d be
constructed on t~p of ti~e brrm adj~cent to the railruad tracks ta mltigate sounc~~ and
whether the wa~l would he a normal fi-foot wall or a structural wal) as defined by the
Uniform Building Code. Mr, Christensen inclicated that the type of wall shoulcl be
~ ~
MINl1TFS~ CiTY PIANNIPJG CUMMISSIC~~ JanU~ry ly~ 1976 ,'6~33
ENV1kONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~~0. 1(~3- P.ECLASSIf"ICAT'ION N0, 75'lb'~6~ VARIANCE N0. 2771~ AND
T~NYATIVE MAP OF TMCT N0. 91k9 (Cnnttnued)`~____,_~
determinod by the City Council; Ix~we~~er~ If the wall w~s more than 6 fect hlgh it wc~uld
hAVe to bP a structural wall or a decorstlve wall, ~nd ~ decoratlve wall higher than ~~
feet may not be safe, due to the v(brations gen~~i~ated by tr~~lns, Commissioner Her~bsC
pursucd the questton ree~arding tl~e fence~ wherpupon~ Mr, Christensen sttpulateci to Include
a struct~~ral w~ll~ as definecl in the Uniform p~lldincl Code~ on top of the proposed berm
alon~ the property line r~cllacent to the railroAd tracks ancl t~ comply w(th ~II sound-
attenuatirn~ requtrcmerts, as {!re~~rihecl in Clty Cuuncil Pollcy No. 5~-2.
In response to q~+esti~ninc~ by Chair•man Farano~ Mr. Chrlst~nsen clarifieci that the revised
plan~ si;oweci Street "A" as ~~ full stand~rd 6~--foat wlde street, inctuding a stand~rd
knuckle~ and that salJ pl~~ns were submltted after the Sxaff Report was prepared,
Con~mis~toner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Ktny ~~nd MOTION CARRIED~
that Er~vlronmental Impact Report No, 163, havincl been considere~l this date by the An~heim
City Plannin~ Commission and evi~lence~ both wrltten ancl o~al~ having b~en presented to
suppleme:nt sald dra`C FIR ~Jo. 1(~3~ the Plannfn~ Commisslon believes th~t said draft EIR
No. Ih3 does conf~rm to t;ie Clt~/ a~~d State Guldellries and the State of Callfornla
Envlrnnmental Quality Act anci, based u~~on such lnfnrmation~ doe~ hereby recommend to thc
City Council Lhat th~y certify salcl EIR Nn. 163 is In compliance wfth said Environmental
Quality Act.
Commiss(oncr Barnes offered Resolutlon No. °C76-13 and rtx~veQ for its passage an~ adoption~
tlt~L the Anahztm City Planning Commission does herehy recamGei~~ be approved Csub~ect~r~the
City ~f An~hcim thit Petition f~r Raclasslftcatton No. 75-7 ~ ~
the stipul2tions of the petitloner, and subject Zu rhe Intcrdepartment~~l Commlttee
recommenciatfons. (See Resolution Book)
On rol) call~ the foregoln9 resotution was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: COPIMISSIQNERS: BARNES~ HER3S7~ JOtiNSON~ KING~ Mf1RLEY~ T~LAR, FARP.PIO
NOES : GOMM) SS I ~~IERS : NOIJE
ABSENT: COMI~ISSI~NERS: NONE
Commtssioner Barnes offerec.l Resolution No. PC76-14 and moved for tts passage anc+ adoptian~
that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grant ?etition for Vartance No.
2771, waiving the requirement that single-family structures rear°on arterial highways on
the basis that a hardship would be created if said watver were not granted, due to the
shape of the land; subject to the stipulation of the petitioner to include a structural
Wa11~ as defined in the Uniform Buildfng Code, on top of the proposeJ berm along the
northerly property line adJacent to ~rowther Aver~u:: and :he ra~lroad tracks, as a sound-
attenuatlon rreasure complyiny with City Councll Policy No. 5~~2, and to further recommencl
to the City Council that City Council Poltcy Plo, 53~ requiring a 40-foot minimum sethack
adjacent to arterial higl~ways be waivecl to permit a setback of 26 feet on the one lot (No.
39) which abuts Orangeihorpe Avenue~ on the basis that prEVious sirc~ilar requests have bcen
granted anc1~ furthermore~ a berm anc! wall are proposed to be constructeci along t!~e
property 1l~~e of salci lot adj~cent to Orangethorpe Avenue; and subject to the
Interdepartmental CommittQe recommendations. (See Resolution Baok)
On roll call, the fore~~oing resolution was passed by tf~e followin9 vote:
AYFS : COMMI SS f nrlERS : BARNES ~ HER~SST ~,loFiNSO~~ ~ KI NG, MORLEY ~ 1'OLAR, FAR~N(1
NOES: C4MMISSIOrJERS: NoNE
AE3SFNT: COMMISSIn~IERS: NONE
Cornmissioner Barnps offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTI0~1 CARRIED,
that the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon does hereby approve Tentative Map of Tract No.
9149~ conslstinc~ of 117 lots, on the: basls that rhe proposeci subdivision together with_its
design a~d improvement is consistent with the City's General Plan, pursua~~t to .,...~~~~~~ti~~~
Code Section 66~-73.5. and subJect i:o the follc,iaina condit~~ns:
~
~
~
MI ~I UTES ~ C I TY PLANN I NG COM~11 S~ I OPi ~ Jan ua ry 19 ~ 1976
76-g4
CNVIRONMCNTAI. IMPACT REPORT t~0. 163~ RECLASSIFIf,ATION N0, 75-76-IG~ VA{t1ANCE N0. 2771~ AND
TE~~TATIVE MAP OF TMCT N0. ~149 (Conl•Inued)
1, That the an~~ro~.,i nf Tentative Map of Track No, 91h~ Is ~r~ntc~l subJec~. to th~
approval of Reclassiflcatlon Na, 75-7~~-1~•
2, Thae sho~.ild this subdlvlsion he developed As mc~re than one subclivi5lon~ each
suLd(vlsion therac:f sliall bc submlttcd In tentativr. f~rm for approv~l,
3. Thal• In accord~ncc wfth Clty Council policy. a G-foot nasonry w~ll shall be
constructed on tl~e north~ e~~st ancf south property l ines sea~ratinc~ lut Nos. 1 through 9
and Crcw~thcr Avenue; lot N~s. 9 throu~h 27 and Kraem~:r Uoulevard; an~1 lat Nos. 2~1 thraugh
39 and Oranc~ethorpe Avanue, except that for corner lat Nc. 39 sald wall shall he stapned
down to a hsic~~it ~f th(rty (3~) lnches in th~ r~quired front yard setback.
4. 7hat all lots with(n thls tract shall bc served by unJergrounJ utllltlps.
,, That a ffnal tract m.~p ef subJect prnperty sl~~all be submitted to and approved Uy
the Clty C~uncil an~l then be recorcled in the office of the Or~~nge County Re~,order.
6. That any proposed coven~nts~ conditions~ and restrictlons shall bc submitted to
and appr~~vecl hy the Clty Attorney's Office prior to City Council apprav~l oF the fina)
tract map and~ fur•ther~ tliat the approved covenantsti condltions, and restrictlons ghall be
rec~rded concurrently with the ftnal tract map.
7. ThaC prlor to flling the fi~al tract map~ the appllcant shali submlt to the CiCy
Attarney for approval or denial a c~mplete synopsis of the proposeci functioning of the
operatincl corporatlon including, but not ilmited to~ the articles of tncorporation bylaws~
proposed methods of m~na~ement~ bonding to (nsure ma(ntenance ~f common property and
buildings, and such other information as the City Attorney may deslre to protact the C(ty,
tts cltizens~ and the purchasers nf the proJect.
p. That srre~t names shal) be apprc•~ecl by the City ~f Anahs(m prior to approval of a
fin~l tract map•
9, That llie ~wner(~} of subJect property shall pay to thr City of Anahcim the
ap~ropriate ~ark and recreation in-lieu fees as deter„~ined to be approprlate by the City
~ouncil~ said fees t:a be pald a~ the time the buildtn~ permit is Issued.
1~, That dralna~e of subJect property shall be dispc~secl of ln a manner that is
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
11. If permanent streer, na~re signs have not bee:n Installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prlor to any occupancy.
1~. That a strucr.ur~l wall~ as defined by t~ie Unlform B;.~lding Code~ shall be
constructec; on top of the proposed berm along the property line adJacsnt to Crowther
Averue and the railroad tracks~ as a sound-attenuation measure complying with Council
Policy No. 541.- as stipulated to be the petitioner.
13. That the sound-~t*P~~~~tion reQUirements for praper•ties located acSJacenC t~
railroad tracks~ arterlal highways, etc.~ shall be complied with as prescribed in Counci)
Policy No. 5~~2~ as stipulated to by the petitio~~er.
il~. 7hat Lot: No. 39~ as shown on Exhibit 1, shall have a minimum building setback af
Tor•ty ft+~) `e~t adJ~cent to Ora~gpCharpe Avenue, per City Council Policy No. 5'i8~ unless
the City Council grants reltef from said policy and permits a 2b-`oat sptback for sald
lot,
~ ~
MI~JUTES, CITY PI.ANPIING COMMISSIOPJ~ Ja~udry 1~~ 197~~ ~6-~'
RECL{1SSIFICIITI~N - PUBI.IC 1iF.ARINf. Ml1RIE A. AtJUROUS~ 1Q23 Falrviay Urive~ Orange~ Ca.
N0. 75-7~~-1f~ 926GG (Ownc;•); JACK S, DAVIS~ 1345 North Gr~nd Avenae, Santa l1na~
"' Ca, g2iQi (Agent); request~ng t~~at pmpcrty dc~scribed as an
Irre<~ularly-Si,H~a~i nAr~~~ of land consisttn~i oP approxlmr~tely ~me
Acr~e, havln!~ ~ fronta~c of ap~~r~uximatcly 26$ feet un the so~ith si:le af l,lncnln Avenue~
hAVing ~i maxlmum depth c~f approxima:sly IGO feet~ being lo~ated approxlmAtely 73~ feet
west c~f the centerlln~ nf bale Street~ ~~nJ further descrlhe~l ,;s 2~.riG bfest Llncoln
AvenuP ~ ba recl ass i f I eci f ~~m the CL ( COMM~ P.C 1 AL, L I MI T~ Q) ZONE) to the RM•~ 1200
(hESIDf.NTIAL~ MULTIP~.t'~FAFIILY) ZQPlE.
No one Incilcited thelr presonce to reFresent Lhe pctftic>ner nr ln ~pposltlon to the
sub,{ect petttlon,
I t was noted that the pct 1 t i one r was rc~que~ t I ~g a tti•lo-:•:eek c~n ~ i nu,nce to ~he P 1 ann i ng
Commission meetinn of February 2, 1~76, so that revtsecl ~1~~+n5 migtit he submttted and a
petition for a varisnce flle~l for the ~:onstruc;fon of the lfi apartment unlts.
Cammissioner King offered a mntlon, seconded hy Co+~missloner M~~rley and MOTION CARRIED,
that the public hearin~ and c.onstderation of Petitia~~ far Reclassification No. 7;-7b'18 be
~nd hereby is contl~ued to the Planninc~ Commission mee~ing of Febru~~ry 7.~ 1:17h, as
requested by thc petltloner.
(NOTF: The foregolnc~ item was considered at the beginning ~F the meetin~.)
Cb~In1710N11L USE - PUBLIC HEAP,ING. COMfT~ INC. ~ P. 0. Rox G36G, Bur~`anl~, Ca. 91510
PERMIT YC. 1596 (~lwnerl; MR. WALLACF.~ 729 North Topeka, Anaheim~ C:~. 928R5 (Agen~);
reques t? ng permi ss i~n to ESTAE3Li SII AUTOMQB I LE Tfu+NSt•;: S; I OtJ P,EPA I R
on ~roperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcei of land
conslst(ng of ~pp mxin~,~tely ~.f~ acre located at the northwest corner of Or~~ngeth~rpe
Avenue and Orai~gethorpe Park~ having approximate fro~tage~ of 16?_ feet on th,~ north
side of Orange'th~rpe Av~nue and 215 feet ~n the west s(dc of Orangethorpe Par!•. and
further described as 837 East Jrangethor~e Avenue. Property presently classifir.d
ML (I~lDUSTRIl1L, LIMI7[D) ZOPJE.
No one indicated their presence in o;;i~osition to subject petition.
Although the Staff Report t~ the Planning Commission dated January 1~1, 1976, was not read
at the public hearin~~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Rod Wallace~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Plannin~ Commission and
stated the ~roposed operation would be primarily a arholes~le business~ thus ~enerating
little or no customer t~affic to the site; that there would be no str~_ictural alterattons
to the buildlnq; anct t`at `e wou~~i SLlpuiaCc ti-~at ail vf ~~:L ~:r^^^sPr~ repalr work would be
conducted i ns i de the bu i 1~i ~ nc1,
THE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CI.USFD.
It was note~l that the Director of the Planning Dep~rtn~nt tiad determined tfiat the prapo~ed
actlvity fell within the ciefinttic,n of Section 3.~1~ Class l, of the City of Anahelm
Guldelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report ar.d was~ therefore,
categor(cally exempt from tlie requirement to file an EIR.
Comm~ssioner tlerbst offered Resolut?on No. PC76-1; and mc~ved for its passage and ~doption~
that the Anahetm City Plai~ning Commission does hereby yrar~t Petition for Conditlonal Use
Permit No. 159C, to permit aut~motive tran5missian repairs in the ML Zone on the basis
that the proposed use is similar in nature to prevlously approved vehicle repatr uses in
the area, said uses having not been detrimental t~ ths area~ subJect to thc foregoing
findings and stipulattons uf the petitioner; and subject to the Interdepartmental
Committee recommendattons. (See ftesolution Book)
On roll c~ll~ the foregoing resolut(on was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~~MMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FiERBST, JCHNSON, KIPJG, MOaLEY~ T~LAR~ FARA~~O
NOES: CQMMISSIO~IERS: NONE
ABSENT: CdMMISSIOf~ERS: MONE
• ~
M;NUTES~ CITY PLAh~11NG CUMMISSION~ January 19, 191~ 7G-~6
VARIIIMCF. NQ. 277?. - PUULIC NEl1RINf,. VIHCCWT C. r,R!-r;T~ 10~79 Junelle Path W~, Lakeville~
Minnes~ta 55~~~~~ (OwnRr); KEN VITl1T~~ 1~1~ Mar~an Strect, Anahelm,
Ca, 92~14( (Agent); renu~ssting WAIVCR OF PF~ . P'fED USES TO PERMIT AN
U~JLl1WFUl.LY ESTARI.ISfIFD APARTME~~T ADDITI~~I on property described as a rect~ngulnrly~
shaped p~~rce;l of l~nrl cons(stin~ oi' aprro~cirr~itely ~,2 ~cre located at the n~rtl~~wesx
carner of Uaxter Strect and Ramneya Drtve~ liaving a~~~oxim~[e frc~ntagrs cf 1Q~i fee.t on
the west slde of Baxtr.r Street and fi5 fcet nn tha north sidc of Romnnya Drlve~ ~nd
further ~iescribed as l~~35 East Romneya Drive, property presently cl~;ssi~lecl R~-72nn
(RrS!^C!!?~,^,1.~ SI!lGLC-FAI1ILY) ZOtJE.
One ~erson indicated their presence fn opposft(on to subJect petitfon.
Assistant Zon(na Sup~rvisor Allan Dau~n read the Staff Report la khe Planninq Corcanlssfon
dated January 13, 1h76, ancf sa1~1 Staff Rep~rt Is rc~forrecl t~ as If s,~+ fort!~ In full 1n
the minutes.
Mr. M.en :~~ ::,i.o~ the agent. for the peti tloner, t~ppeared befor~~ the Plann(nc7 Commiss ion and
sr,;c.~,i the tern~lnoloc~y referring to the subJect ap~irtment ~~s "unlawful" sounded rather
bad; that the apartment or additio~ to the restdentlal structure was conskructed In 195a~
at whiCh tlme a bulldinc~ permit was issued for a bedroam with a ba[h and laundry
Fac111ties; thaC approx(matcly two ysars latar, the property was sold as two resiclential
un(ts wlth no access between the units and~ subsequentty~ the pet(tloner, Mr. V(ncent
Grant, purchased the property and ~r»ved into the primary res(dence, renting out the
apartment as a bechelor unit; ~ind that the properCy was located or~ a corner lat with
street frontage of 65 S'eet Facing ten triplexes across Romneya Drive. M~•. Vit~to revlewe~
other multiple-family uses in the subJect nelghhorhood~ stat(nq tf~at he hacl managed ~he
~~ubiect property for the owner f~r the past three years and had not all~wecl more than four
person~ to occupy the total premises; thai some of lfie hones !n thc nci~;hbor;~ood had a~
many as six residents with no additional parking spaces being provicled; that he did n~L
believe that there were any adverse effecrs on the neignhorhooci durin~ the 15 years that
the house addition had been in existence; that, for many y~~r~, hP di~l rnr !;n,-,;J r7~
apartment existed, „n~1 until notices were sent concernj>>1 the subject publlc hearing~ many
of the neighbors dicl not I:n~w (t existed.
Ms. Ida Knapp~ 2~1~ ;:ast Verc~~ ~,venue~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Plannin~ Commisslon in
oppositlon~ and st~te~l sh~ avned adJo~ning property and al~o propsrty ar. 1717 Dr(arvale;
that sh~ w~s oppo~ed s:;, the establishment of tf~e apartment because of the precedents that
would be set~ lowPrinq Che property value In the neighborhood; that she understood the
problems In~~~lved and, although the apartment had not caus~~l ,ny particuiar problPms in
the ~~!~*; no one knew a~hat the future held and wha m(ght occupy the property~ making it
detrimental to the area.
Mr. Vitato rebutted that, In h(s opinion~ if ;he area was reclassifir.d to multl~le-family
~oning, the property valu~~ :•:^uld rr+nre than likely ~ncrease; that, in the three years he
had managed the subject property, they had limitea the total residency oT ~he prope+'ty t~~
four persons; that he was aware that lie could be terminated as the manaaer of the property
and It was ~onceivable that ten people mlght occupy the premises (n the future, w1~h six
or more aut~mobiles, etc.; however~ unti~ the prop~rty was declared a publ(c nu(s~nce~
such an activlty could be c~~rried on. Mr. Vitato stated that during the past three years
a widow had occupied *_hs apartment and that ~-'c~sently a young couple with a small child
occupied the prlnclpal residencc.
7HE PUBL! C NEARI tIG IJAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he disagreed that property values woul~.~ increase if the area
were reclassifled to the multiple-family zone~ since he did not feel th~~ a developer
would pay as much as $40.000 for a lot to construct multiple-family units; an~J that it was
difficult to Justify du~~l zoning on the subject property.
• ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLAPJNING COMMIS510N~ JanuAry 19~ 197b 7~'37
VARI ANi.E NQ . 2772 (Lont 1 nued)
Mr. Vlt~tn pursued the zonin~ questlon, stating thak the owner did Intenci ln tr~nsfer back
to the .irea. Ho relt.crnted th~t thc prescnt: status of the ~~rop~rty had provPn over a 15-
ynar perlad Co hava no ~~Ivr,rse ePfects on the communlty; anc1~ ~i;i~liti~nallv~ rhat ther~
were many multlple-f~~mlly uni[s In tl~c Immeciiate are~~.
Commissloner Morley n~t~d that he could not condone a multlple~^fomlly use oF the sub,ject
property ~ S ~ r1CC ~ L WAS p.~rt Of c~ 5 111~] ~C~ ~elnl ~ y lf&~.L aiilit LiiF: i~i riiii { R~ G'vtiiTi~ 5S i~~i~ NOu~ C~.
probably naC ~ppro~~e such a use For any ol•hsr prnpe~rties in said tract.
Commissloner Ilerbst noted that c~enerally ho~as~ addltlans ln s(nc~1c-famlly tra~ts were made
to take care ~f family needs; tliat the fact that the ap~rtment wa~ separate~l into an
apartment untt pr~or to tlie property being sold d~d not nw~ke It lec~;il; th~t the subJect
property was P~~rt of an RS-72Q~ t~act 7nd was not appropriatr. fr~r multiple-f~,mily un(ts;
th~~t the ap.~rtmant was subst~ndard in that thC floc~r Arou was approximately 300 square
feet~ whi le the Zoniny Code requir~:d a minirr~um flaor are~~ c-f 70Q s~uare feet for one-
bedro~m units and~ ad~fltionally~ it hacl been Planning Commissl~n pnllcy to permit min' um
Floor areas of ~i7.5 squ~~re feet for bachelor-type (efficlency~) units; and that the house
additlon was not for f~mily use by the princioal resident of the subJect property~ but was
a sepprate rental unit.
Commissioner Kinci noted th~~t, in his opin(c~n~ the ~roperty shc~uici b~e a sinc~le-family
residence as csriqinally znned,
Comm(ssloner Johnson noted th~at, althou~h 'r~e sympathlz~d with the petitloner~ the fact had
been unearthed that the liouse ad~!itiun was presently illegal a~ a sep~~rate rental unit and
the Planninc~ Commissioi, wc~~:i nat be d~ing its jc' by approvln~ ti~~ request.
Ch~i~~~~an rarano nuted that thz Pl~nning Commission h~d approved many unlaw`u1 iiouse
additions in the past, however, the additions were cener~lly for family use; that thp
petitioner was requesting to have a multiple-family structure in a sinctle-fam~ly zon~; an~l
that if the v~'+ri~ince was approved~ it was conceivable that thc petitioner mi9ht then want
to cilv(de tf~e property further into an ~n,irtment complex,
It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department harl determined thar. the proposed
activlty feli within the definition of Section 3.~1~ Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim
Guidellnes to the Requirements for an environmental impact repart and was, therefore~
cate~orically exec~pt from tf~e requirement to file ~+n F.IR.
Commissioner Morley offere~l Resolution No, PC76-16 and r--o~epP~i~i4nSforSVari~~nce No~P2772~
;hat the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does herPby deny
on the basis of the foregc~(ng findings. (See Resolution Book)
0~ rol! cal1, the forenoing resol~tion was passed by the following vot~:
AYFS: COMMISSIOtIEItS: BARNFS~ HERBST~ JOHNSON. Kf~dG, MORLEY, TOLAR~ F~RAI~O
NOES; C011MISSIOPIERS: N(?IJE
ABSEP~T: COMMlSSIO~IERS: N~P~[
TEPITATIVE MAP OF - DEVC•L~PER: pACESETTFR HOMES~ 45~-0 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, Ca.
TRACT N0. ~201 92GFn. ENGINEER: TAIT AND ASSUCIATES, INC.~ 900 Oranc~efa~~ Lane,
" ~ P, 0. Box ~i~+25~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92$~3• SubJect property~ consisting
~f an irregularly-shaped parcel of land of approximately 17.5 acres
located at tha southeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street~ having approximate
fro~tages of 1~5'~ feet on the south side of Broadway ancl 619 feet on the east side of
Loara~ is proposed for subdivision into an 88-lot~ RS-5~on subdivision.
Mr. Bill Asawa, a real estate broker representing Pace~etter Fiomes~ appeared before the
Planntng Commission and stated the subject Qr~perty was previously approved for
development with 39~ apartment units; that tt~e proposPC1 devclopment was a 77}$ reductlan
in denstty over the previously appr•oved proJect; tliat due to the changing c:onsumer market
there were many tracts which were lessening their eftects on the sch~ls since there were
fewer children~ however~ thrce and four bedrooms were desirable fur the additional room;
that by reducing tfie density on the subJect property, they were actually reducfng the
•
C~
MINUTES~ CIfY PLANNING CQMMISSION. Janu~ry 19~ 197h
TENTATIVE MAP OF TaACT N0. ~201 (Continued)
__..___, -..-
76-38
potentlal traffic on both drondway and Laara Street; that~ In the~r discusslons with City
St~ff, It was felt th~~l the turninq p~cket alung Loara Strcet~ whlch was (ncludAd in tho
orlg(nt-) ADP No. 11(~~ cuuld be reduced from tne plan; th~+C the prnpesal -~ould have lass
land coverage than the prevlously arprovad apartmen[ proJect end, for that reason~ there
would be less water run-off; tliat~ regerdlnct City Council Po11cy No. 5~+2 pertaining to
nolse~ althoucPu bhe eaaterly boundary of the suf~ject property was Immedlateiy adJacent to
a rallroad, the r~ilroad traffic consisted of one r•ound-trip traln e.~ch dey pnd there
would be relatlve+'y no Impnct; that, regardlnc± the impacc on the par~ system in tha area~
there were four parks (Chaperr~l nark~ Willow Park~ Palm Lane Park and Mod)eska Park) to
service the subJecr. prnparty; that schuols In the area were presently undr.r t;hair
e~rollment capacity; that the EIR Negative Declaratlon had been rc:quested on the basis
that the propnsed development would lessen tha impact. upon thc area over thnt v~hich would
occur If the orlginAlly approved development were to be bulit.
Discussion pursued concerning the sound-attenuatlon requirements tor the homes that would
be consiructesd adJacent to the rP(lroad tracks~ and the distance between sflid homes and
tho tracks, takinq into cons~c+nration that the rallroad traffle m~ght Ir~crcase
considerably over the years ta come. Mr. Vincent TocN, representtn9 the engineers far the
sub}eCt tract~ appeareci ancf stipulated to constructing ar~ earthen bern topped by a 6-foot
hlgh structural wall as defined by the Unifnrm Buildfng Code, satd berm and wall t~ be
constructecl along th~ easterly property houndary ad}acent tu the roitroad trocks; and
further stfpulated that meas~ir~s wo~~ld be taken to insure that the nolse leve) genarated
by the rallraod traffic would not exceed 65 dbA in the re~r yards of the homPS adjacc.~t to
thE rallroad and ~f5 dbA inside sald homes with the windows and doors closeci, and that only
single-story homes would be canst~•ucted adJacent to the railroad tracks.
In rasponse to questloning by Commission~r Barnes~ Mr. Tock stipulated tliat the proposed
proJect would meet the snund-attenuatton requirements as tho~~gh there wer~:, tratns on the
adJacent tracks at ali times~ however~ he was surprised at the concerns being expressed by
the planning Commission over the nolse whlch mtght be generated elther presently o~ In the
future.
In resFanse to que~tioning by Cumrois;tonar King, Mr. Toc~ SCAtpC~ that the revised plans
indlcated they were ccmplying with the suggestion of the City Trafftc Engineer and Street
"D" was extend~d to the south to provide a nora effective c(rculation system in the area.
Discussion pursued concerning the number of bedrooms which would be constructed on the
lots. during which Mr. Tock sttpulated that the development would comply with 'the lot sizP
requlrements relat~d to number of btdr~oms. Chairman Farann noted that the Planning
Commission would like to review the precise plans (to include buildtng slevations~ flo~r
plans~ and plo4 plans) for the proposed dev~iopment prior to ~pproval of the final tract
map; whereupon, Mr. Tock so stipulated.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by CAmn~issioner Morle~~ and MOTlON CARRIED,
that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby recomn~end to the Cit~~ Counctl that
the subJect proJ~ct be exempt from the requirement to prepare an envlronment~l imp~ct
report~ pursuant to the provisions of the California Fnvtronmental Quality Act.
C~mmissioner Herbst offerrd a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTIQN CARRIED,
that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentattve Map of Tract No.
9201 for an 8R-lot, RS-5Q00 subdivtsion~ on the t,asis that said proposed subdivision~
together with its destgn and improvement~ is consistent with the City's ~General Plan,
subJect to the fol!owin~ conditions:
1. fhat the ap~roval of Tentative Map of Tract No~ 9201 is granted subJect to the
completion ef Reclassifi~ation Na. 71-72-18 tc~ the R5~5000 tone,
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than onP subdivision, each
subdivlsion thereof shall be submitted in tentative form `or approval.
3. That in accordance with City Council policy~ a six•font masonry wa11 shall be
cons4ructed on the north and west property lines separating Lot Nos. 1-4 and 76-88 from
BroaJway and Lot Nes. 65, 71~ and 75 from Loara Street. Reasonable ~andscaping~ i~cluding
irrigation facillt~es~ sh~11 be ins:alled in the uncemented portion of the arterial
highway parkway the fu~l distance of said wall, plans for said landscaptng to be ~ubmitted
to and subJect to the approval of the Superlntendent of Parko~ay Maintenance; and following
~
w
~
MINU7ES~ CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Janur~ry ly., 197f,
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9201 l~ontinued)
~6..39
lnstallatlon and acceptai~ce, the City of Anehelm shall ~ssume the resp~nsibllity for
melntnnance of ~eld landscaptng.
4, 7h~t all lots wlthin this tract shall be served by und~rgraund u,ilil•les.
~, ThaC a finnl traet mflp oP subJect property shall L~ submittecf to and npproved by
the City Councll and then be recorded in the office of the Grangr. Councy Recordnr.
6. That any proposed c~ver~nts~ condltlons anci r'e~ttrlction3 shall be submltted to and
•~(~provcsd by the Clty Attorney's Office ryrior to City Counc(. appraval of the final tract
(~Wp~ g~(~~ further~ Chdt LriC itP{~tc~~t:, CiiVCii~7~~L5~ C0~1~it!^-!5 hf1~1 raerrlcClons S~`d~~ be
recordc:~' concurrently a~ith the finA) tracl map.
7. That prlor to flling the final tract map~ tl~e ~ippllcant shall submlt to the City
Attorney for approval or denla) a ce~mplete synopsis ~f the proposed Functloning of the
operating corporation, bylaws, ~~roposed methods +~f n~ana~ement. bondtng to lnsurc
maintenance of commcm property And bu(lciings and such a'ther• information as the City
Attornay may desire, ta protect the City, lts citiz~ns~ and the purchasers of the proJact.
8. 7hat strcet n~~,nes ~shal l be approved by che Ci ty of „naha~m prinr to ap;++'nval of a
final tr~~ct map.
g, If permanent street name signs have nok heen installed, temporary street name
Qlgns shall be installed prtor to any ~ccupancy.
10. That the cwrne~•(s) of subJect property shall pay to the „ity of Hnaheim the
aa;,ropriate p~ark and recreatfon in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropr!ste by the C,ir.y
Councl'~ sald fces to be paid at the tlir,e the building permit !s Issued,
11, That drainac~e of subJ~cr property shall be disposed of in a m~nner tf~at (s
satisfactory to the Clty Engtneer.
I'L, 'I"hat an earthen berm~ toppe~l by a six-foot high structural wall (as deftned by
the Uniform aulldtng Cade)~ shall be constructerl along the rear of the lots abutting the
adJacenC ratlroad~ plus whatever additional sound-attenuation measures are necessary to
achieve a nolse le•~el not to exceed 65 dbA in ttie rear yards of sa(d lots and ~f5 dbA
inside said hom~s M~~th windc~ws and doors closed~ as stipulated to by the oetitloner; an~
that plans for sald sound-attenuation shall be submitted for City Council review and
approval prior to apprnvai of the flnal Cract map.
13. That single-story homes shall be constructed on Lot Nos. 39 through 45~ said lots
being adJ~cent to the railroad, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
14, That. pre~lse plans~ to include building elevattons~ fioor plans and plot plans~
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission ana City Counc~l for review and approval
prior to approva) of the final tr~ct map~ as st(pulated to by thc petitloner.
FNVIRONMENT~L iMPACT - Grading Plan for Unit IXA, Anaheim Hills.
REPQR~ N0. 164
Mr. Richard Schmid~ representing Envista~ appeared before the Planning Commission to
answer questions concerning the ~ubjec*_ Ei~t document~ nci.i~ig t~~t the ,~ropOSe~ hr~,jpct
conslsted of mass grading of an area designate~+ as Unit IXA of Anaheim 4111s and was
closely assoclated with the grading requ(red for the extension of Fairmont Boulevard and
the gradtng rsquired for Tract 85:.0 and the Eastridge Reservoir; an~~ that it was proQosed
to place (as fill) approximately 4--0,000 to 45~.~~0 cubic yards of earth In Unit iXA which
would be generated~ as excess yardage, ln the grading of Tract 857_0 ancl the Eastrlclge
Reservoir~ ar~d that approxim2tely 200~b00 cublc yards of earth materials from U~lt IXA
would be used in thP construction o` Fairmont Boulevard.
Chairman Farano noted that, ba~ed upon the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No.
164~ the appiicant would seek a grading permlt; whereupon~ Mr. Schmid stated gradiny plans
had ali~eady 5eer submitted to the Clty for app~•oval.
In respanse tu guestlo~ing by Commissioner Barnes~ Mr. Schmld clarified that th~ language
contalned on page 29 of the EIR ~ocument that "(2) The seedtng or rep~~nLing of graded
slapes should be conducted..." was c~~rrected by the 14;~guage contatned on page Z~ of sald
docun~ent that "5•••Upon termination of t`~e grading activlties~ hillslde slo~es will be
replanted for suil stability purposes..."; and that the intent was "will be" in both
refer~nces noted,
Commtsstoner King ~ffered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner hbrley and MdTION CARRlED
(Curtxnissioner Johnson abstalning)~ that Envtronmental Impact Report No. 16-~, h~ving been
considered this date by the Cf:y Planning Lommission and evidence~ both wrltten and oral~
having been presented to supplement satd draft EIR No. 164~ tii~ Anahcirn City Planning
C~mmlasion believes that sald draft EIR No. 164 does conform to the Clty and State
Guidelines and the State of Callfornia Environmental Quality Act and~ based upon suth
infQrmatlon~ dons hereby rec~rtsm~nd to the Clty Councll that they ccsrtlfy sald EIR No. 164
is in compllance wlth said En~~ironmental Quallty Act.
~
~
~
Ft~NUTES, CITY PLANNiNr, COMMISSIOt~~ JanuAry 19. 1976 76-40
ENVI RQNME~lT.1L I MPAC7 - For of f-s i te qraci I ng f n connec* lon wi Ch 7racr No. 853:~.
REPORT N0, 165
The Steff Report lo the Planning Comm(ss(on d~ted Jar~uary 19. ~97~~~ was pregented and made
a part of tha minutes.
!t wae notecl that the applicont haci appl(ed for a gradtng permit tu excavate approximately
2~(~,0~~ cubic yards af eartl~ for use ln the constructton of Tract No, R533~ located south
of Nahi Ranch Roa.~1, west of thn extensl~n of imperial Highway; that the borrc~w sites were
south ~nd so~.itheasc ~~f T~ac~ l~o. °;;;; thar n rPmporary access roaJ extendin~
approxtmately 1Si10 feet wouid be cr~nstructed to reach the borr•ow site ~outhe~tist of Tract
No. ~533; anci that a r~vlew of ~hn subJect environnkntal fmpact report by the EIR Review
Commlttee indicatad that sald report conformed to the Callfornia Enytronmental Quality Act
and the City of Anah~~im Gu!delines to ~he Requ(remr.nts fc~r an EIR~ however, the Comm(ttee
rec~mmendad that the applicant be requlred t~ contour and reseed or replant khe graded
areas a~ter completlon of the grading operations.
Chalrman Farano noted that he was not tn tavor of creating borrc~w pits in Anahelm Hllis;
that borrow plts v+ere distracting; that he would recommend that the Plannin,y Camml~ston
constcieratlon of the subJect EIR t~ p~~stpcned untl) the Cammission had an oppo~tunlty tci
revlew the Cammiss(on minutes and records perCatning to Trac:t No. 8533; and that he was
concerned abuut th~ level ~f dlsconfort that -r~y be brought to the residents ln the nree.
Chalrman Farana conttnuad hy noting that he did not feel that the EIR document adaquata~~~
portrayed the envlrenmental effects and he wisheci t~ review the promises and trade-uFr"s
which were made on the tract; and that the Comm(ssion may wisl~ to make some
recommendations to the City Counci) other than tn pass on the EIR. Commisst~r~er Johnsnn
notGd that I~e shared the Chai ~m~n's concerns, and that was why he haci votecl "no" an the
recommendation pertalning to EIR No. 164 cnnsidered earlier (n this meeting.
In response to questloning by Chairman Farano, Office Engineer Jay Tlxus advised that the
p-•oposed gradin~ would not creatn a pit, as such, but would be the lawering of a rldge.
Chairm.,n Farano offered a mc~tion, seconded by Commissianer John~on, that the Planning
Commission does hereby postpone consideration of Environment~l Impact Report No. 165 to
the meeting of February 2~ 1976, to allow time for the Planning ~ommission and Staff to
review the previous minutes and othcr Ctty records pertaining to Tract No. 8533•
Commissioner Johnso~ noted that his basic position tn the matter was against vast
excavation in the hills; that he had seen mine slag heaps which looked better than wF~at
was happening in the Hlll and Canyon area; and that he would like to see same resistanc:e
to thm grading ~r excavation being carried out ln the City.
6iscussion pursued concerning the provisions ot the Hillside Grading Ordinance~ during
which beputy City Attorney F'rank Lowry advised that !aithout approval o` the EIR in
connection wlth grading, a grading permit wauld not be issued; '~owever, tn takiny actlor~
e~ an EIR document, thz Planning Commission cauld make a finding "that, altiiough the
documer.t conformed to the requiremenes of the Environmental Quallty Act and the Anahelm
Guidelines, It was determined that the proJect would have a harmful ~ffe~t on the
communtty and, ther~fore, recommend disapproval of the project itself."
Chairman Farano amended his motion to re!~uire that the applicant provide a topographic map
of the ~roposed grading s!te for rev(ew by the Planning Commission at the meeting of
F~bruary 2~ 197G, The foregotng rr:~tion~ as aR~endec:, CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE
(Commissioner Herbst being absent).
----T--~--
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ .;anuary 19~ 197G ')6~~-1
REPQal'S A~ID - 1 TCM N0. 1
RECQMMEHQATI~~lS lE ~6R ~IR NEGIITIVE DECI_ARA71~-I - For n parcel map ac
121 ~ 131 and 1~-1 Cerru Vlsc.a Wey.
It was noted th.at an Ap~llcatlon For a parce! mr+p had been fil~d tu divtde a parce)
loent~d west of th~ intersectlon af Cerro Vlska Qrlvs anci Cerro Vlsta Way into three
parcel~ of one-acre minimum size; tlial an evrlua•.lon of ¢he envlronm~ntal impact of parcel
maps was rr.quire~f under lhc provislons of the Caltfornia Enviranmental Quality Act and the
State EIR Guidalines; and that a study by the Flanniny Cnp~rtment and Engine~ring Qivislon
Of *.he proposA) lndicates that r.here WV~.lld b8 Il0 S~ylli~~i.Ftiit ciiV~iOi~~~IP.i~i~1 II~INUC:C IOf' ~I'1~
fallowing reasons: tl;e proposed parcel map is compatibla w(th the zonin~ or R"-HS-~~3.OCQ~
and all parcels arr, accessible fr~m an ex~yking roAd.
In re~ponse to quesLioning by the Planning Commission~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry
advised that no ~roding was proposeci in connection with the subJect parcel map.
CommisSioner Tolar affered a crption, seconded by Commissioner K~ng and MCTI011 CA^R1ED
(Commitisioner Herhst bPfng absent)~ that the Anahelm City Plenning Commisston does hereby
recommend to the City Coun.il oP th~ City of Anaheim that the sutJect proJect be exempt
from the requtrement to prepare an environmental impact re~iort, pursuant to the prAVlsions
of the Callfornla Envtranmental Quality Act.
ITEM N0. 2
ENTAT VC MAp OF TRACT N0. £~082 - Request f~r apprav3l of
final elevation an~1 floor pla~s.
It was noted that the subJect prope.~ty was blsected b~• the future allgnment of Falrmont
Boulevard; that tht subJect tract developer woul~.l be providing 5~~ of the embankment for
sald boulevard; that FAlrmont wuuld eventually extend over the adJacent Riverside Freeway;
and that the suLJect tract was a continuatian of T~act Hos. 8080 and Ec'ini with the sn~ne
houses and sound-atten~~~~tion measures to be constructed as a~proved by tha City C~uncil,
Cornmissioner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and M0710N f.ARR~FD
(Commissloner lierbst beinc~ absent)~ that the Planning Commission does hereby approve the
flna! elevat~on and flnor plans for Tract No. 8082~ as submitted~ on the basis that said
plans and the sound-attenuation measures (which are identical to those approved for Tract
Nos. 80£~0 and 3081) satisfy Conditian Nos. 11 and 12 of the original approval of the
subject Cract tao. 80~2,
ITEM N0. 3
MON~CLTA AQOBE HIS70RICAL SITE - Request fo~ ~lete:rmination
of compliance with the City of Anahe3m Genera) Plan.
It was noted that the Orange ~ounty Harbors~ Baaches and Parks District was proposing to
purchase the Ram~n Peralta Adobe fhr preservation as an Nlstorical Site~ said Adube being
located In the 5anta Ana Can/on area ~ear Fairmont Joulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road~ in
the City of Anaheim,
Commissioner K(ng offPrad Resolution ~l~. PC76-17 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determt~e that the proposed
purchase af the Ramon peralta Adobe as an Historical Stte, by the Harbors, Beaches and
Parks District, is (n accordance with the obJectives nf the Conservatio~ and Open Space
Element of the Clty of A~aheim's adopt~d Generat ~lan which encourages the preservation of
open space and recreation areas re?ated to cultural and t~lstarical attractions and is~
therefore, determined t.o be in conformance with th~ City of Anaheirr's adopted General
Plan. (Sce Resolution 3ook)
On ro11 call, the f~regoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BAR"E5, JONN50N~ KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMiSSI~NERS: NONE
ABSE~lT: CQMMISSI~PIERS; hER6ST
•
~
~~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIf~P,, Ja~•uary lq~ 1976
!'fEM N0. b
~~ICL~I.AN AMfNDMENT N0. ! 34
i d/
~
76~42
Associnte Plenner BI11 C~nninghnM noted for the Pl~+nni ng Commisslon thot the subJcct
Genoral Plan Amonciment would Inv~ive sover~l ~reas of the CI[y, Includfn~ Pntt Street,
drnvntown, Glibert Street/Llncoln Avenue, La Polmn Ave~~ue/Espernnr.a~ ~tc.; ~11AL b~cause of
the volunie of thc amen~fmanf, it was ~xpectcci thnt a larc~er i.nAn usuAl number of Intorested
~-ti~~na would hr prasant nnd~ theref~~ro~ Staff~~rns r~ commend)rg to the Planning
Comm( ss ion thi t ~n even ~~~r; ~+r~r t n~ ~t~~rc be sct r"or cne puh i I c hear I n9 ~n thr. amendment ~~n~~
thc two alternatlvas vi~re:
1) February l~~ 1976 In the Chartres Recrcntion Center; ~~n~l
2) Februnr~~ 24~ 197( ~n the Fre~1N,nt Junlor Hlgh Schoc~l Audi tor(um,
Cammisslonar Farano offer~ed a rr~tlon~ secc+nded by Comrnlss toner K1nq and MOTI~tI CARR~EU
(Coi~rnissloner Herhst being absent)~ ti~~~~ t"~ .1a~hefm ~"It.y Pl~nninq Ccnmissi~m doos hereby
aet the pub 1 Ic heir i nq ciatc for Gener~i 1 P1 an Amcrdmen t No. 1 39 to be at 7: 3~ P,m, on
Fehruary 2~~, i~;)~~, in t-~e Fremont Junio~• Ntgh School Auditortum.
I TEM N0. 5
LAKEVIEW AV[NUF EXTE~~SION - Caii~ : Arca General Planning
Task Force recommendatlon.
It was notecl that at their rcqular mec[(ng on Janusry 6, 197G, the Canyon Arr,a General
Pl~nnlnq Task Force reviewad the exten~(on of Lakeview Avenue from the e;cisting
intercFiange on the Riverside Freeway to Nohl Ranch Road'.and took an officlal actlon
recommendlnc~ to the Planninct Commission ~nd City Coun cll +h~t said extenslon be omitted
from the Anal~e!m General Plan; thdt the Task Force had Indicated that the resulting
General Plan study should consl~ier aitr~•nattve r•outes ; that Staff a;~ticlpatecl resources
would be avallable to conduct the study corr~iencfng d~sring late summer ~f 1976, safd
commencernen 'ate be 1 rg s i gn 1 f I cant f~r tw~ add I 21~na 1 r~eason~ : 1) that the County of
Orange was currently proposinct ko un~lertake a traTffe and circulatlon study of the entfre
area with anttc!pated conclusion in autumn of 1976~ and 2) tha[ the Canyon Area General
Plan~ currently uncierway~ was scheduled to be compl~eted by late summer; and hoth of tl~e
referonced studies would pr~vlde essential inputs into the proposed l.akevicw Stu~ly.
Commissloner Morley offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MQTION LARRIED
(Comml,sloner Ilerbst betng ahsent) ~ that the Anahe(m City Planning Cortmission does hereby
instruct City Staff to undertake a General Plan Amendment sru~ly to consider the omission
of the I.akevl ew Extens ior~ from the General Pi an and to con~ i der al ternat i ve routes .
ITEM N0. 6
~r~Cl USE PERM17 NOS. 1063 AND 1072 - Request for
extenslon of time.
I t was notad that Cond 1 t lona 1 Use P~rmi t No. 1063, ta es tab I i sh a hal 1 far varlety shar~s~
lectures, ~,;~etings, dances~ etc.~ wlth an on-sale liquor esiabllshme^t in an exlsting
gtructure at 1721 South Manr_haster Avenue~ was appr~ved i~y the f'lanning Commisslon an
October 7, 196t3; :hat Cond(tional Use Permit No. 107?., to establish a h.:.s depot in an
existing structure with wa;vsr af the maximum permit ted proJPCtion of a wall sign at 1711
5ou;h Manchester Avnnue~ was approved by the Piannin g Gommissior, on ~iovember 4, 1968; that
the applicant (C. M. McNees) was raquestiny cxtension of time~ pursuant to a condition of
the Pl~nning Commission'S approv~l~ "That the petiti on is granted for a period of one
year~ after which tlme It shall be reviewed by the P lanning Department staff to determine
what effect the use~ ~f the pr~perty have had on the area, whether parlcing ha~ been
adequate, whe[her ded l tat to~, for Naster St reet i s ne ede~d , and whether furthEr pub l i c
hear(ngs should be scheduled to determine whether the use should be continued. I f no
public hearlhg is held~ and the petitfonei' desires to contfnue the ~~se of the property for
ttie pu rpose reques ted ~ he miy reques t an add i t i ona 1 one year ~~or the use f rum the P 1 ann I ng
Commfss(on"; that seven prevlnu~ extensions of time had bean granted~ th~ last ones
exptrtng on January 7 and Fnbruary 4, 1y76~ respecti ~~ely; that recent Investigatian hy
stafr indicated that the ~u.ject uses have had no ap p~irent deleterlous effects on the arfa
and that parkln~ appears to be adequate; and that~ in c~nnection with the finalization of
C-R zoning on the property. the ownar ls making part(r~l dedication aiong Haster Street.
Commissior.er K.inq offered a mntion, seco.^.dEd by Commissioner Morley and M0710P! Cl1RRIED
(Commissioner Herbst betng absent)~ that the Anahei m Clty Planning tommisslon does hereby
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONM15514 N, Jsnuary ly, 1976
76-', 3
ITEM N0, b (Contfnucd)
......_.~-
grant ar,te~nslons af timr. for Cor.dltlonnl Use. Permit Nos. 1~?G3 end 1Q7~, as rAqueste~l by
tha applicant, sal~l tir,te extens i ons to axplre c.n October 7. ~976 ~nd November 4~ 19'1G~
respectively.
iT[M N0. 7
~'~~7~t~E~~MENDNF.NT TO TITIE 1~1 - 7.ONING~ OF TNE
AN~HhIH Htiiii: IPAL GODC
The S~aff Re~~rt to the Planning Commisgion datecJ Jnr~uary 1'l~ 1976~ was presPntr.d and made
a part of the minutes.
Deputy City Attorney Fr~nk Lowry noted t~~at khc Intcnt of the Zoning Code was to limit
hom~ occupations In ways wlilch would assure that such actlvitie~ remaineJ incldent~) and
subc~rdinate to the princlpa) re sidenti~~l use of the dwelling; that, (n practice~ une of
the )imiting ~avlcas - cmploym~ ~t - was not Inclusive enough to meet the intent of the
Code; that the pi~oposed Zoning Code arnandments Included additional conslderatlont to
gener~te a more co~cise and sim ~lifled defln(tion of "h~me ~ccupatlon," to correct the
Cocle Sectlon numberinq sequenc e,'nci ta lnclude minor reword(nq to improve readability.
Commissioner Tolar offared a motlon~ secondad by Commissioner Johnson ancl N0710N CARRIED
(Commissioner Herbst being abs~nt)~ that tho Anahcim City Planning Commtssinn dc,es hereby
recommcsnd to the C(ty Councll of the City of Annhelm that Anaheim Municipal Code Section
1~l.Ol.p9~ ("H" Words, Terms and Phrases) ancl Sections 1~i.02.052.0~+0 through 18.07..052.047
(Homa Occupatlons) be repealad ~ anci that new Sectlons 1f~.01 .090 ancl 18.020.052.O~i0 through
ifl.020.052.~~~~9 be added, pursu~ntc t.u the Staff recommend~t(ons contalned in the
aforementlone~~ Sta`f Report.
ITEM N0. 8
OIN . COUWCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION -
To dlscuss activities and expen<iituras tn con:~ection
with Second Year Community Development Dlock Grant
Appl Icatiun s.
lnterdepartmental Mer~orandum ~ated January 15, 1976~ from the Community Uevelopment
Department was presented to th e Planning Commission~ said communication bringSng to the
Planning Commission's attenti on that at the regular meeting of the City ~ouncil held on
January 13, 1`~7~~ the City Co unctl decided to meet on Jnnuary Z1, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. In the
Disaster Services/Management Controt C~nter for a Joint City Council/Planning Commisslon
Wor+: ~ess ion to discuss the subJect appl icat ion.
AOJOURNMEPIT - The re be i ng no ~urther bus i nas s to d i scuss , Cc+mmi ss i one r Mor 1 ey ~f fered a
~" motion~ seconcle d by Commissloner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner
Herbst being ab ~ent)~ t~ adjourn the meeting to January 21~ 19~6~ at 7:3~
p.m. in the Dis aster Services/Management Controt Canter for a Joint City
Counclt/P1ann1~ q Commission Work Session to discuss the Second Year
Community Developmenk Block Grant Applicatio~.
The meeting ~dj ourned at 6:1U p.m,
Res ectfully submitted,
~ ~ /"'• ~° ~I~~f1X~~1't/
~~
Patricia B. S.:anlan, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
P95:hm
0 R ~ 0 MICROFIt.MING SER~';E. IkC