Minutes-PC 1977/08/15City N~11
Anaheim, Californa
Auyus t I 5, ~ 977
REGULAR MEET ~ NG UF 1 N~ ANAHE I M ~ 1 TY PLANN I MG C011N I ~S I ON
REGULAR - The regular meeting c~f the Anttheim City Planninq Comrnission was called to
MEETING arder by Chairman TolAr at 1:32 p•m., on August 15. 1971~ in the Council
Chamber~ a qu~rum being prr.sent.
PRESENT - CIIAIRNl1N:Tolar
COMMISSIONERS: B~rnes. Davld~ Nerbst, Johnsnn, King, Linn
ALSO Frank Lc,wry
PRESENT - Annika Santalahti
Jack Judd
Pau) Singer
J, J. Tashiro
Edith Narris
Assistant Cfty Attorney
As~t. Planning Qirector~ Zoning
Civil Enyinecring Assistant
Traffic Enyineer
Assistant Planner
Planning Cammission Sec.retary
f'LCDGE OF - The Pledge of Alle9i~nc P tc~ thP I'la~ o~ ehe United States of America was
ALLEGIANCE led by Conxnissioner Johnson,
AP~ROVAL OF - C~mxnissionr.r DaviJ off ered a motion, Seconded by Commissioner King, and
MINl~ES MOTION CARRIED th~t th e minutes of ttie. August I, 1977 meeting be approved
as submitted.
ITEM N0. I CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. Owner; ~HASNIKANT M. b ~AKSi1A
EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION 5. PATCL, 227 Calle Oe Gar~xna, AvenuP, CA 92807. Agent:
RECLASSIFIC,ATION N0. 77-7~°8 RIC H ARD TIMBOC, 1018 N. Eastside, Sanla Ana~ CA 92701.
VARIA~';E N0. 2 1 Sub_ject property is a reccan~ularly-sh:-ped parcel of land
consis!ing of approximately 0.?. acre, having a frontage
of approximately 70 feet on tfir.. south Side of Broadway, and being located appr~ximately
170 feet east of the centerlinc of Claudina Street and further dc~scribed as 212 East 6roadway.
There was one person indic.•~t.ing his presence in opposition to the request and althaugh
lhe staff report ta the Planning Comrnission dat+ed August 15, 1q71, was not. read at the
pu blic hearing, it is referred to an d madP a part of the minutes.
Richard Timboe, 2727 N. E3ristof, Santa Ana~ contractor and agent, stated the only thing
he had t~ add to the staff report ~~~~ ~~~~cerning the arterial dedicatic,n required.
He reported a survey and feasibility study had been done and the only problem was
the future widening Broadway to 120 feet. He stated if [hc petitioner is required ;o
dedicate the 60 feet, the projecc will be dropp~d. He referred co the Bank of America
building~ the First Presbyterian Ch u rcl7, Bethet Bapkist Church, Post Office, Anaheim
Field Engineering Office, Fire Depa rtment, etc., pointing out these properties wauld be
affected by this widening also.
Wallace Hardy, 866 S. Mar,jan~ Anaheim, representing Melvin Hilgenfeid, owner and operator
of Hilgenfeld Mortuary, 120 E. 9roa dway, referred to the staff recommendation on page Ic,
item Nl~ requiring the ~wner to dee d to lhe City of Anaheim a strip af land 6Q feet in
width from the centerline of Broadwa y for street widening purposes. He pointed out the
centerline of Broadway does not run down the center af the street, that it is 20 feet
to the sauth and to require 40 feet to be taken off the south side ~f Broadway would
destroy the properties referred to p~eviously by Mr. Timboe. He suggested if the street
i s to be h i dened ~ that the property be take~ f rom the nortti s i dQ and recorr~nended the
Alpha Project Ordinance be am~nded to that effect.
8-15-77 77-501
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION. August 15~ 1977 71-502
EIR NEG. DEC „ RECLASSIFICATIOW N0. 77-78-8^ AND VARIANCE N0. 2961 (continued)
Cha(rman lolar asked Mr. H~~~y if he had ~ny ob_jectionti t~ this ~articular project, or Jusi
to the w(dening of Broadwav and Mr. Har~y repi ~~d he was only concerned with the widening
c~f Broadway.
Richard Jones, part-owner ~f Jones and Peterson, next door to ~ubJect property, stated
they were happy to see the praperty would bc: developed and the only concern he had was
rcg~rding thP parkin~ pr~hlem. He felt even though on-site parking would be provided,
that it is only accessible from the alleyway behind the property and that typically pe~ple
tend to park in front of their dwellings; that he felt on-street parking was needed for
his business and Gemway, next-door, He suggested restricted parkirg so there would be
no overnight parking, or some olher way of restricting the parking so that vehicles would
not ue left for unreasonable lengths of time. Ne pointed out there are only three
available spaces in front of his business, thr•ee in front of Gemway ar~d three in front
of subject property.
Chai rman Tolar pointed out to Mr. Janes thal ll~e ~,~t i t iancr h~s rot req~i~stP~f any waiver
fnr parking.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLQSED.
Commissioner lierbst asked the petitic~ner what tie considered a hardship in the request for
waiver of the minimum side setback. Mr. Nardy replied that under the RM 1200 require-
rnents, the living space is a minimum of 70~ sq. ft. and if the project had [o be reduced,
it ls doubtful that it would be devel~~ped,
Commissioner Herbst stated the project cuuld be buil[ wichout the waivers and he felt the
property was being overbuilt and he could not justify a hardship. Hc asked if the plans
cou ue revised to eliminate t.he waivers and Mr. Hardy replied that to eliminate the
waivers wc~uld require reducing the living space ar reducing the number of units.
Commissioner Herbst pointe out the developer would be entitted to a bachelor unit.
Chai~man Tolar repiied that he felt a bachelor unit would serve nu purpose and tha[ this
could possibly be a way of providing lower cost housiRg near the downtown area and that
he felt the request for waiver of the minimum side ~aetback of only 2 feet was insignificant.
Regarding the r•equired arterial dedicatior~ waiver request, Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney.
explained he had been informed by the Engineering Department that the take will not be
necessary from the south side of Broadway, but that staff wa~ reyuired co include this
requirement because it is still a part of the Master Plan and until it i~, amended afficially,
a waiver is needed. He stated the Planning Commission could recommend an amendment to the
General Plan Circulatian Element to show the take be from the nor[h side and not the
south side for the Alpha Pr~ject.
ACTIQN: Commissioner King offered a motian, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim Ciiy P{anning Comnission has reviewed the subject proposal to
reclassify the zoning from CL(Commer•cial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200(Residential,
Multiple-Family) Zone on property consisting of approximacely 0.2 acre, having a froncage
of approximately 72 feet on the sauth side of Broadway, and being located approximately
170 feet west of th~ centerline of Claudina Street, with waivers of required arterial
dedication, minimum side setback a~d minimum recreational leisure area; and does her•e5y
approve a Negative Declaratiun from the requirement to prepare an environmental irnpact
report on tl~e basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declar•ation since the Anaheim
General Plan designates the subject property for medium density residential land uses
commensurate with the proposal; that the proposed project is COmpatible with surro~inding
8-15-71 77-502
.._ . . . . . _. ... . .. ~ «.~.w,~u. ,~
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 15, ~971 77-503
EIR NEG. DEC.,__RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 77-78-8 and VARIANCE N0. 2961 (continucd)
land uses wh(ch include a~artments~ businesses and residentlal; that no sensitive environ-
mental impacts are involv~d in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the
petitioner indicates no signlf(cant Individual or cumulative adverse environmental imp~cts;
and that thp Negative Declaration substAntiating the foreqoin9 f(ndinqs is on file in the
office of the Planning Department.
ACTION: Commissioncr King offered Resolution No. PC 77-171 and rrx~ved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Conxr~ission does hcreby grant Peti[ion for
Reclassification No. 77-78-8, subject lo Interdepartmc~ntal Comrnittee Recommendations,
deleting Condition No. 1 requiringthat the owner deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land 60 feet in width from the centerline of che street along Broadway for street
wid~ning purposes.
On roll call, thc~ foreyoiny resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONFRS: Kiny, Harnes, David, Herbst, Johnson, Linn b Tolar
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSF.N7: COMMISSIONERS: None
ACTION: Commissionr_r King offered a r•esolution and nx~ved 1'or its passage and adoptian that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gr•ant Petition fr}r Variance No. 2961,
g~antiny waiver (a), sub.iect to an amendment to the Code relative to [he width an the
south side of Broadway; and granting waivers (b) and (c) on the basis that surrounding
properties have becn granted similar variances and due to the unusual [opography and
sire of the parcel~ and to provide loW-cost housing; subject to Incerdepartmental
Committee Recomnzendations.
A discussion was held regarding restricte~d parking on the street along Broadway and
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, pointed out that street parking is une of the most expensive
parking spaces chat can be purchased; th~~t streecs are to rn~ve traffic; and that in
order to remove parking in this block alc~ng the south side of Broadway, *_he consensus
of all ~roperty owners would be required in order to pust it for "no parking." He stated
some type of parking restric~~ons will be imposed ~long that portion of Broadway~
after the new Ci[y Hall bec~~~nes a reality.
Cammissioner Johr~son quescioned staff reqarding [he 17-foot side setback and asked if
the distance was measured from the struGture wall or the stairway. Annika Santalahti,
Asst. Planning Girector-Zoning, explained the stairways viill be within the 15-foot distance
proposed and the measurement is from the builc~ing walls.
Commissioner Johnson stated he would like [o see these properties combined in order not
to wind up with a lot of lit[le apartment buildings, but that this proposal would improve
the area.
Commissioner Herbst stated the proper[y owner has admi[ted tha hardship could be eliminated
by redesigning or modifying the buildings and the only hardship is overbui{ding the
property and he felt this would be a precedent-settiny situation and should not be granted.
Commissioner King felt the hardship is created by the need for apartments and the welfare
of the yeneral public.
Commissioner Linn agreed with Cortmissioner Herbst. He felt th~ apartments are minimun
size and that the 2-foot waiver should not be grantQd because no hardship has been
demonstrated.
a- ~ s-» ~z-so3
i...
1
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, Ausut 15, 1911
71-504
EIR NEGATIVE DEC., RECLASS. N0. 78-78-8 and VARIANCE NO. 2961 (ctoninued)
On roll cail~ the foregoiny resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: King, David b Tolar
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, Nerbst, Johnson b Linn
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nnnr
Chairrrwn Tolar asked Mr. Timboe if he would like to request a continuance on this matter in
order to present revised Rlans. Mr. Timboe replied that he would bring the plan into
conforrnante by reducing the number of units.
Commissioner• Herbst suggPSted that the variance be granted, in part, and that the revised
pla~s be reviewed by the Planning Cunn~ission.
ACTIQN: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolut~on No. PC77-172 and nx~ved for its passaye and
adoption that the Anaheim Cit~ Planning Corrnnis~ion does hereby grant Petition for Varianc~
No. z961, in part, approving waiver (aj sub' c,t lu e~~ ar~endment of the Circulatinn Flement
of the AnahFim General Plan relative to the ~ltimate half width on the south side of Broad-
way will be amended to indica[e the necessa,~ dedication in conne~~ian with Redevelopment
Pro,ject Alpha witl be from the north side of Broadway since only thP properties on the
north side are within said Redevelopment Project Area; c~enying waivers (b) and (c) on
the basis that no hardsl'p was demonstratecf and that the p~Qp~~sdl appears to be over-building
the subject property since a reduction in the number of units woulcl eliminate *.he need for
these waivers; and subject to the petitioner submittiny revised plans far Planning
Corxnission approval; and subject to In[erdepartmenia) C~mmittee Recommendations.
On roll call, cl-e foregoing resolulion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Barnes, David, Her st, Johnson, Kiny, Linn & Tolar
NOES: COMMISSIONFRS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ITEM N0. 2
ENUIRONMENTAI. IMPA.CT REPORT N0. 203
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7 -1
VARIANLE N0. 2950
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT M0. 8116 (REVISION N0. 3)
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 117 REVISION N0. 2
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9 02 REVISION N0. 1
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAf,T N0. 9 REVISION N0. 1~
REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL 7RAC? N0. 9
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF l.OT LtNE REQUIREMENTS OF
NILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE. __
(SC)(R~sidential, Agriculcural) Zone.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: TEXACO-
ANANEIM NILLS, INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road~
Anaheim, CA 92807. Engineer: LIND b
HILLERUD, INC., 2065 Nuntington Orive,San
Marino~ CA ~I10~. Subjecr. property is
an irregularly-shaped parce~ of land con-
sistin~ of approximately 80.2 acres fiaving
a frontage of ,~pproximately 3480 feet ~n
the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, and
being lacated approximately 13(~0 feet west
of the centerline of Royal Oak Road.
Property presently classified as RS-A-43,000
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIQN: RS-HS-10~000(SC)(P.ESIDENTIAL,SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOTS REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAY.
REQUESTED TRACTS: No. 8116 - 44 RS-HS-10,000(SC) Lots.
No. 8117 - 44 RS-HS-l0~a00(SC) Lots.
No. 9602 - 49 RS-HS-10~000(SC) Lots.
No. 9864 - 34 RS-HS-10,000(SC) Lots, plus 2 open-space lots.
~EQUF.STED TREE REMOVAL: 2 pepper trees in Tract 9864.
8-15-77 77-504
1,
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 15~ 1977 71-5~5
EIR N0. 203, RECI.ASS~ 7]-78-I`,VAR. 2950~ T~ 8116~ 8117, qfi0~ F 9864 (continued)
There was na ane 1~~Jlcating their prescncc (n oppusitlon to thts request and although
the staff report to the Pla~ning Commission dated August 15. 1977~ was not read at the
publlc hearing, (t is referred to and made a part c~f thc minutes.
Phillip Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Nills, Inc.., 380 Anaheim Hills Road. Anahelm~
introduced Senior Vice President. Horst Scliar, to review feat~~rrs of the topographic
rrx~dP 1 .
The Comrnission adJourned from the podium and qathcred a round the tup~graphic model in
the fr~nt portion of [he Council Chambcr.
Mr. Schor explained lhe topographic model had been prepared at thc reque~>[ of the Commission
to show what the developmcnt will look like when the grading has been dc~n~~ ~nd pointed
out some model hous~~s and swirtminy pools have been placed on the lots. Ne explained the
si~~~ of the houses will v~iry at about 2,8Q0 sq. ft.; t.hat thc devElc~per has attempted [o
r. tain the charac[erist ics of the site and has piaced the Jevr_luN~~~ent u~~ tl~~ ridgel ines
and ruadway; that the major impact on the 4.-oject was the aliqnment and size of Meats
Avenue which is proposed to be a four-lane, secondory arterial hi~hway connecting Nohl
Ranch Road and Santiago Boulevard, to be accomplished through a coopera~,ive effort betwePn
the City of Orangc, the City of Anaheim, th~ County of' Oranc~e and A~aheim Hills, Inc.;
that Noh) R~nch Road will be widened by the City to t'our lanes; that this project will
provide for an additiona) wideniny of Nohl Ranch Road to provide turn pockets, etc.,
and the devcloper will be grading the entire enbankment of Meats Avenue; and in addition,
wil) pr•avide right-of-way for a median which will range in width from 10 to 2S feet and
will be landscaped by Anaheim Hilis, Inc.; [hat additional riqht-of-way will be dedicated
for a parkway on both sides to allow for n~eanderiny si~fewalks, parkway crees and large
parkways along the sidewaiks; that a ridinq and hiking t~ail will be built in accordance with
the Master Plan of Tra~ls whieh will be the first time a new trail wil) be built
along an arterial hiyhway and the plan calls for berminy and landscapin~ to safely separate
the trail traffic from vehicle traffic an.i this plan has been recanmended by the Trail
Committee as a good standard setting for trails alang othcr arterial hiqhways.
He explained that the plan itself incorporates quite a number of split level lots along
Meats Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road to reduce the heiyht of slope banks between each tract
and to create some architec[ural diversifica[ion; that same homes will have a split level
design; that the ~~treet scene has been beautifiF:d with added medians and landscaped areas
at [he end of cul~de-sacs; and that parkiny bays have been adde~ at the end of somr_ cul-
de-sacs where parking was lacking which wil) be maintained bY the homeowners association.
THE PUBLIC HEf1RING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he saw the same things ~rhen he looked at the topographic model
as he had seen when he had looked at the plans; that he felt [he intent of the RS-HS-
10,000 xon~ has not been complied with; that the lots should be wider co provide wider
space between houses; and that he still felt this tract wil) look just like an RS-7,200
s~bdivision with row housing.
Mr. Schar explained the density of the RS-HS-10,000 zone has been complied with and
although there are lots with narrow widths, they are on single-loaded streets and each
tier will have a f~~ll and unobstructed view; that t:o increase the width would reduce
the dens~~y to approximately 1.5 units per acre, thus, getting into 1/Z acre zoning.
He pointed out the clensity of Westridge is 2.5 and tha[ developmene does not have the
RS•7,200 subdivisi~n appearance.
Cartmissioner Herbst pointed out several areas on the model where he felt the lots were
too narrow and explained the inte~~t of the ordinance was to allow the developPrs flexibility.
8-15-77 77-505
MINUtES. ANAHEIM G17Y PL~NMING COMMISSION~ August 15, ~977
77-506
EIR NO 203,L RECLASS 71-18'~. VAR. 29~ 50, TT 8116, 8117, 9~02 L 98G4 Scontinued)
He felt people buying the RS-NS-10,000 lot5 deserve the space the z~ne was intended ~u
provide. Ne statFd it is possible the exact lot width5 required will have to be specified
in the Ordinance.
Chalrman Tolar stated he felt this is a nice development and he was satisfied with it,
but understood Gommissioner Herbst's concern and suggest~~l a work ses5~un to clarify the
intent af ~he Ordinance. He explained lie felt the inTent of tha Ordinance has been
met in ~riis particular project and he felt the tr•ade-c~ff offered was adeyuate in relation-
ship to the property only beinq developed on one s(de of the street. He stated he did
not like to see ro~~ housing, but felt people buyinq thetic lots are lookin9 for the natural,
rur~l atmosphere and that this iti being offered in thi~. ~t~~velc~pment.
Conmissioner Herbst restated his view and stated he felt the dtvr.ic>per could of~e:r
the v,~riablc sit.e lots by reduciny thc number of lots.
Chairm~n Tolar and Cornmissioner NerbSt discussed the pad sizes, lot SIZP.S and density
of the {~ro.ject and the cleri5ity of the whole canyon ~7rea,
Conxnissioner Johnson aqreed with Cornmissioner Herbst and stated he appreciated what
Anaheim Nills has done with the trail5, parking bays~ l~nd5caping~ etc., b~t felt in
this particular praject the developer will be selliny RS-720Q iots and calling them
RS-HS-10,000 lots; that part of the protection of the RS-HS-10,~00 is to provide distance
between houses and that thsse lots ju~,t do not offer that prot.ection. He stated he realized
the market is up right now and the development presents a pret[y picture, but that 15
years from now the property owners of thes~ partels wili feel how close they are ta each
ather. He stated he realized to provide wider lots w~uld result in a lo,s of land, but
that the land had been purcha~~ed knowinq there was a chsnce of {osiny land to the hills,
and Itie would have to oppose the project because it is being called the wrong thing.
Chairman Tolar felt the devPloper has adherecf tc~ tl-e basic in[ent of the Co~e and that
the uriwritten code should be made a pari of the Ordinance.
Commissioner Herbst felt Anaheim Nills, Inc. wa~~ awarc of his feelinq that the RS-f~S-1J,000
=one is intended t~ provide wider lots and yet they have come back with exactly the same
plan. He stated he realized they do have new people, but that hc had made his viF•ws
known. He reca+TUnended a work session to clarify the intent of [he Ordinance.
Commissioner Barnes suggested the problem could be solved by creating more flag lots and
widening the lots and then thc~ devr.lopmcnt would ha~:c rhe appearance of a RS-HS-l0,Q00
development rathc•r than a RS-720Q d~velop;nen;.
Comrnissioner Nerbst stated this probably would not work in this case because of the
t~pography.
Commissioner David referred to the Canyon Area General Plan policy and map which was
furnished to the Conmission recently and read the following s[atement: "Innovative methods
of providing financial assistance tc~ low and moderate income households, and improved
housing financing in gereral, should be considered and implemented." He stated he
found these projects by Anaheim Wills, Inc. to be beautiful and wasn't concerned about
the lot sizes, but asked where they were exercising a social responsibillty towards
innovative methods of providing iower and m~derate income households with housing, and
of the 171 homes proposed~ how many could be consid~red in that category.
Mr. Bettencourt replied that with the improvement cost of the land alone~ this is not an
area where low cost housing would be economically feasible; that these homes would be
in the price market ati about ~125,000 or $150,000; and that less cr~mplicated land and
8-15-71 _ _. _77-506
a
~
MINl1TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUh, August 15~ 1977
71-507
EIR N0, 203~REClASS. 77-78-1, VAR. 2950, TT 8116, 8117, 9602 F 9864 (continucd)
higher den~~ties would bc required ln order to provide low-cost housiny.
Commissioner David asked wherr this IP.SS complic~t~d l~nd is l~cated. Mr. BettenGOUrt
stated that Anaheim liills, Inc. owns 132 of the land in the hili and canyon area and that
this land is in the hill area and i~ onP of the most expenslve areas to develop. He felt
there would be ecanomic problems and politica) soci.~l consequenceS t~ E~rovide low-cost
housing in this area.
Co~miissioner Daiici asked where this obje.ction will bE~ implemFnted ur ifi it is just a
policy that looks good on paper~ but never comes ~h~~~t.Mr. 9ettencourt replied that he
was not sure th~t the business people or the g~vernment are socially responsible tn
pravldc rnvnership housing for low and moderate incomc houschold, but are obligated t~
provide decent shelter. He stated he fclt if pucting this most opcimistir. and very
ambitious slatement in the Canyon Arca GPneral Plan raises expectations, tlien pe~haps
it should have been deleted.
CortKnis,ioner David asked Mr, Bettencourt if his views were known to the cun~n,it[ee and
Mr. Bettencourt replied that he was not the only one who had expressed a view on that
subject; that others had doubts also; that given the complex of the canyon ar~a and
the life styles and house styles the people there have known, this objective perhaps
should not be a part of this plan.
Chairman Tolar stated he ~nderstood what ~omrr~issio~ier David was asking, but agreed with
Mr. Bettencourt tli~t this was not the area to consider !ow-cost housing; thal low-c~st
iiousing in this area is nnt feasible in terms of cos[ of land and cost of construction
without making the density tremendnusly high and this would have a tremendous social
impact on the people in that neighbc~rhood. Ne felt tFie questian at hand was not
whether it is feasible tc~ consider low and rrx~dera[e income housing in the canyon area~buc
what we ar~~going to do with this particular project.
Commissioner David stated these points are relative to the yuestio. at hand as far ~s
he was concerned.
Conxnissioner Barnes pointed out that she had been a rnember of the Cortmlttee and they
did want low and moderate income h~using included. She point.ed aut also that loN and
moderate income housing in the flat land area had been provided 8 or 9 years ayo,
but now is sellin~ for a lot more.
Frank lowry, Asst. City At[orney, reported ihat four low-income~ feaerally-subsidized
tracts had been built, but that within two years they were selling at 3 times their
value and none of the original owners were left.
Cortmiissioner David stated he felt we must con[inue to pursue ways tv provide that huusing
and not to say that it is too costly; that we are somehow creating an Plite-type of
neighborhood in this area.
Commissioner Barnes asked Mr. Bettencourt about the average pad sizes and to point ~ut
how many of them were less than 6,OQJ sq. ft.
Mr. Bettencourt stated that in Tract No. 8116 there are no pads as small as 6,000 sq. ft.;
in Tract No. $117 there are no pads smaller than 6~900 sq. ft.; in Tract 9602 there are
th~ee pads of 6~400 sq. ft. and no~ie smaller; and in Tract 9864 the srnallest pad is
6~300 sq. ft.; that the averall averagc building site is 8~299 sq. ft. and the average
lot frontage is 80 feet.
8-15-77 77-507
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15~ ~977
77-509
EIR N0._20s3, RECLASS. 77-78-I, VAR. 2950, TT 8116, 8117~ 9~02 ~ 9864 (continued)
Commissinner King noted tha[ t~he Hill and Cany~n Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC)
had u~~ mously approved this project. Commissioner Herbst noted that HACMAC had been
concerned about the narrow lots but had approved it. because it did meet all the RS-HS-
10,U00 requiremenls.
Commissloner Barnes askcd Mr. Bett~ncourt the averaye wiclth~, of the lots in a eract
which had been recently approved. Mr. Bettencourt replied they were approxirnately 8U
feet wide and there were same lots as sm.~ll .~s 50 or 65 feet in width.
Mr. Betten~ourt stated that ic was hard ta understand Conx,~ission intent; that Commissioner
Herbst is the only member of the Commission left who was on the Cor-niission when the
Ordinahce was adc~pted. He poinced out also that the City Council had approved 265 lots
for these tracts, bu[ the final [ract map was never recurded. He stated he had reviewed
the City files and could not find anythinq in [he minutr..s th~~t Ic,t frnnta~Ns was an issue
and fcit if t.his was the Cammission's intent that an prdinanc:e should be adopted by the
City Council, after puhlic h~~rin~, Ne stated there are lots in these trarts with narrow
frontages, but chey are on single-loaded str~ets with landscaped tiers next to them
and only ten houses on the street and wouid not havc an appearance of row housing.
ACTION: Commissioner King offcred a m~~tion, seconded by f,onanissioner Barnes~ and MOTION
CARRI~D,that che Anahnim City Planning C~rmiission finds that EIR No. 203 for prap~sed
development c~f Tentat.ive 7ract Nos. fill6, 8117, 96oz and 9864, consisting of a tota) of
171 residential lots zoned RS-HS-10,0~0(SC) and two open space I~ts, having been considered
this date by the Anaheim City Planning Comrnission and evidence, bo[h written and c~ral,
having been presented to supple«~nf said EIR Na. 2~3, finds that potential project
generated individual and curnulative adverse impacts have been reduced to an acceptable
level by conformance with City plans, policies and ordinances; and draft EIR No. 203
conforms to the California Environmental Quality Act and Stat.e and City CIR Guidelines
and therefore, based upon such informatiun, che Anaheim City Planning Commissinn does
certify EIR No. 203.
ACTION: Cummissfoner King offered Res~iution No. PC77-173 and n-oved for its passagc and adoption
that the Anaheim City Planning Conrnission does hereby ~rar~t Pe[ition for Reciassification
No. 77-78-1, subject to Interdepartmental Cornmittae R ommendations:
On rol{ call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Barnes, David, Herbst, Johnson, Linn t; Tolar
NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ACTION: Conr~iissioner King offered Resolution No. Pf.77-174 and moved for its passage and adoption
that the Anaheim City Flanning Commission does herety grant Petition for Variance No, 2950,
due to the h~11Y terrain and irreyular ~hape of proposed l.ot No. 1, Tract 8116, resulting
in a h~ildablP paci which is located a minimum of 40 feet from the adjacent arterial highway,
said grade difference and distance protPCting the future residential use of the praperty,
and subject to InterdeparTmental Cornmittee Reco~rxnendations:
On roll call, [h~ for~go~ng resotiution was passed by the following vore:
AYES: COMMISSIU~dERS: King, Barnes, David, Herbst, Johnson, Linn 6 Tolar
NQES: COMMISSlONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8-15-77 77-508
MINUTES~ CI'fY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15~ 1y7J ~~'S~9
EIR N0. 203~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7~'~~ VARIANCE N0. 29;0~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
NOS. ~116 (REV. N0+ 3)~ 81 17 (REV. N0. 2) .~ 9G02 ~REV. N0. 1) , AIJD 9~64 (REV. N0. 1) (Cont. )
Commtss(aner Kiny offered a motton, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED
(Comnissloners Ilerbst~ Johnson and Llnn voting na)~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivislon~ toqether with Its deslgn and
Improvemcnt~ is consistent with the City of Anatieim's General Plan~ pursuart to Government
Code Sectlon G6473.y; and Joes~ ther~forc, approve Tentative Ma~ of Tract No. 8116
(Revlsl~n No. 3) for a 44-Ipt. RS-~IS•10,Q00(SC) (Residential~ Single-Family Hlllside-
Scenic Corridor Ove~lay) Z~ne subdivision~ and subject to the following condittons:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of TrACt No. 811G (Revislon No. 3) ~s ~ranted
subJect to the approval ~f Reclo~sification No. J1-18-1 anci Voriancc P~o. 29~~.
2. 7hat should tlils subdivision he developed as more than one subdivision~ each
subdlvisian thereof shall be submittecl in tentatlve form f~r apprnvPl,
3. That in accordance with City Councll policy~ a G-faot high~ open, decoraClve wall
shal) be construct~d at the top of sl~pe on the nor~l~w~s[ property li~e separdting Lot
Nos. 1~ 3~ S and 40 through 44 fram Nohl Ranch Rosd. Reasanab',e landscapiny~ including
irrigatton Facil~ttes~ shall be ins[alled In the uncemented porcion of the arterlal
highway parkway che full distance of sald wall; plans for said landsc~~ping to be submltted
to and sub)ect to the appravai of the Superintendent of Parkway Mai~tenance; and following
(nstallati~n and acceptance~ tl~e City of Anahelm shall assume the responsib+lity for
malntenance of said landscapiny.
4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That a final tract map of subJect property shall be s~ibmitt~d to and approved by
the City Counctl anJ then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
6. fhat the covenan*_s~ conditions~ and restrictions shall be submttted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office and Ctty Engi~eer prior to City Counctl approval of
the final tract map~ that all "native" slope desi9nations shall be approved by the
Planning Department and Flre Chief prior to City Counc(1 approval of the f(nal tract map
and~ further~ that the approved covenants~ condltions, and restrictions shall be reco~ded
concurrently w(th the final tract map.
7. Thac prior to flling the final tract map. the applicant shall submit to the City
Attarney for~ approval or denia) a complete synopsis of the proposed F~nctiontng of the
operating corporation including~ but not limited tu~ the art(cles o1 inco~poration,
bylavs~ prnposed methods of management, bondtny to (nsure malntenance of cormh~n property
and buildings~ and such othe~ information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the
City, its citizens, and the purchasers f the proJect.
8. That street names shall be ar,~roved by the Ctty Flanni~y Department prior to
approvai of a finat tract map.
9. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lea~e or ftnancing~ a parcel map~ to record the approved ~ivision of subJect property~
shall be submttted to and appraved ay the City of Anaheim and then be recorded (n the
Office of the Orange County Recorder.
10. Yhat the owner(s) af subject property shall pay to the C~ty of Anaheim th~
appropriate park and recreation in•lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City
Council~ said fees to be pald at the tim~ the bui~ding permit is issued.
11. That drainage of seid property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
the City Er.gineer. if~ tn the preparation of the site~ sufficient grad(ng ~s required to
necessitate ~ grading prrmit~ no work on grad(ng will be permitted between October 15th
and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage faGilities h~ve beer, instelled and
are operative. Positive assurance shall be pravided the City thac such drainage
facilities wi11 be completed prlor to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site
8/15/17
71-510
MINUTES~ CITY PLMlNING COMMISSION, August 15~ 1371
CIR N0. 20J~ RECLASSIFICATIOt~ N0. 77'7~'1, VARIANCE N0. 2950~ ANU TENTATIVE MAF' OF TRACT
NOS. 811E~ (REV. N0. bll' REV. N0. 2) GQ2 REV. NU. 1 AND 986~i REV. N0. 1 Cont.
drainage faciltttes shall bc deJlcatcd to th~ Ci[y~ ar the Cfty Council shAll have
(nltieteJ condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shal) be borne by the
devoloper) prlor to the r.ommencement of gradin9 oper~tions. 7he requircd drainage
facllltles sF~all be of a size and type sufflclent to carry runoff waters orlglneting from
higher properties throuc~h said property to ultimate di,posal as approved by the Clty
Enginear. Said dralnaye facilitles shall be the first item of canst~uctlon and shal) be
completed and be functi~nal throughout tfic~ tract and from the downstream boundery of the
property tv the ultimate p~lnt of disposal prior to the (ssuance of any flna) butlding
tnspecklons or occupancy permlts. Oralnage district reimbursement agreements may be made
avellable to the developers of said p~opcrty upon their request.
12. That yradin9~ excavation~ and all other construction activities shal) be
tonducted in such a manner s~ as to minimize the possibillty of any silt ori~inat(ng from
this proJect be(ng carrled Into the Santa Ana River by storm water o~iginating fram or
flowing through this project,
13. If permanent screet name slgns ~avc not been installed~ temporAry street name
slgns sF~all be tnstalled prior to any occupancy.
14. That Street "H" and Street "1" shall bc a minimum widtF~ of 54 feet.
15. That the developer of subJect tract shall enter into a Spectal Faciltties
Agreement with the City for water facilities in the High Flcvation System~ as required by
Rule 156 of thc Water Utiltty Rates~ Rules and Regulatio~s.
16. That flre breaks shail be provided as requircd by the Fire Chief.
17. That any "flag-ahaped" lots shall have a minimum dimensfon of 20 feet.
la. That in accordance Nith the requirements of Section 13.02.~~i7 pertafninc to thp
initlal sale ~f res{dential homrs in the City of Anaheim Planning Arca "B", the sellet
shall provtde each buyer with written information conce~ning the Anaheim General Plan and
the extsting zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract.
19. That any s~ecimen tree renpvai shall be subject tc~ khe re,yulatians pcrtalni~g ta
tree preservntion in the Scenic Corrida~ Cve-lay Zone.
20. That fire hydrants shall be ins[alled and charyed as requlred and dete~min~ed to
be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depart~nent ;+rior io commencement of structural
framing.
Commissfoner King offe:red a motion, seconded by Commissioner David and NOTION GARRIED
(Commissioners Herbst~ Johnson and Linn voting no). thai the Anaheim City Planning
Commisslon docs here~y find that the proposed subdivision~ together with Its deslgn and
improvement, is conslst~nt with the Ctty of Anaheim's General Plan, pursuan[ to 6overnment
Code Section 66!~73,5; and does~ therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8117
(Reviston No. 2) for a 4---lot~ RS-HS-IO~OO~J(SC) (Residentiat, Stngle-Family Nfliside-
Scenlc Corridor Overlay) zone subdivision~ and subject to the following condltions:
1. that thc ~pproval of Tentativc Map ~f Tract No. 8117 (Reviston No. 2) is granted
sub)ect to thE appr~val of Reclassification No. 77-78-1 and Yariance No. 2950.
2. Tha~ shc~uld this Subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision~ each
subdivision thereof shall be 5ubmitted in tentative form for approval.
3. 7hat in accordance with City Councll policy, a 6-foot high, open, decorativt wa~~
shall be constructed at the top of slope on the norkhwest property line separatiny Lot
Nos. 17 through 2fi from ~lohl Ranch Road ac~d on the east and southeast property lines
separat(ng Lot Nos. 1, 14 through 16 and 37 througl~ 44 from Meats Avenue. Reasonable
Zandscapiny, including irrigation facilities~ sha~l be installed in the uncemented portion
af the arterial highway parkway the full distance af said wall; plans for said landscaping
8I15/77
77-511
MIUUTE:;~ CITY PLANIJING COMNISSION~ A~~gust ly, ~~7'1
E 1 R t~Q. 203 ~ REGLASS I F I CAT I ON N0. '11-I Z~• ~~ V11R I ANCI: N0. 29~~ ~ ~~~U TCNTIIT I VE MAP OF TRACT
NOS. ~311G (REV._ N0. 3) . 8117 (RCV. N0._ 2)~ ~Go2 Sacv. t~0. 1) ~ AND g8f~t~ (REV. ~~0. 1) (Cont. )
to bc submitted to and subJect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway
Malnt~nanr,e; end following instellation and acceptance~ the City of Anahelm shall ~ssume
the responslbillty for malntcnance of said landscepinq.
4. That ~11 lots within this trect shell be scrved by underground utIlltles.
5. That a final tract map of sub)ect ~roper[y shall be s~~bmlttnri to and approved by
the City Council and then Ge racorded In the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
6. That the covenants~ conditians~ end restrtctions shall be submltted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office end City Enyinecr prlor to City Council approval of
the ftnal tract map~ that all "natlve" slopc desiynatin~s shall be approved by the
Planning Department anJ Fire Chief prlar t~ Ctky Council a~proval of the fi~al tract map
and~ further~ that the approved covenanta. conJiti~ns~ and restrictlons shall be recorded
concurrently with the final tract ~p•
7. That prior to flling thc final tract map~ the applicant shall submit to the Clty
Attorney for approval or denial a compiGte synopsis of the prop~scd function(ng of the
operattng corporation including~ but not 11mlted to~ the arttcles of incorparatlon~
by 1 aws ~ proposed metf~ods of rnan.,~em~nt ~ bondi ng to 1 nsure ma i nl•enance of common property
and buildings~ and suci~ other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the
City, Its cittzens, and the purchasers of the proJect.
8. That street names shall ba approved by the City Planning Oepartment priar to
approval of a ftnal tract map.
9. In the event that s;~bJect property is to be dividcd for [he purpose. of sale~
lease or financing~ a parcel map, to record the approved division of subJect property~
shall be submitted to and appr~ved by the C(cy of Anaheim and the~ be recorded in the
Off(ce of the Orange County Recorder,
10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay co the City of An~nheim the
appropr(ate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the Clty
Council~ said fees to be pa1J .~ tl~e time the building permit is issued.
11. That dratnagc of said property shall be dtsposed of In a manne~ satisfactory to
the City Engineer. If~ in che preparation of the site, sufficient grading is requlre~ to
necessitate a gradi~g perrnit~ no work on yrading wlll b~ permitted between October 15th
and April 15th unless all required ofF-site drainage faclllties hav¢ been instalied and
are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage
facilities wtll be compi~eted prlor to October 1~th. Necessary riyht-of-way for off-site
drainage facilitles shall be dedicat~d to the City, or the City Council shall hav~
initiated conuemnatlon proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
developer) prior to the cornmencement of grading operations. ~'he required drainoge
facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient tc carry runoff waters originattng from
htgher prooertles through said prop~erty tu ultimate disposal as approved by the City
Enyineer. 5aid drainage facilitles shall be the first item of construction and shall be
completed and be functional throughout tha tract and from the downstream boundary of the
property to the ult(mate point of dispos~l Frior to thc tssuance of any final building
inspecttons or occupancy permtts. Orainage district reimburse~nent agreements may be made
available to the developers of Said property upon their request.
12. That gradiny~ excavation, an~f ali other constructi~n actlvities shall be
conducted ire such a manner so as to minimize the: possibility of any silc originating from
this proJect being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm wnter originating from or
flowing through this project.
13. If permanent street name signs have not been installcd~ temporary street neme
signs shall be tnstalled priar to any occupancy.
14. That Street "i" shalt be a minimum width of Sk feet.
8/15/77
h1~lUTES, CITY PLANIIIIJf. COMMI`SIi~N~ Auyust 1~~ 1~177 7~~5~2
EIR N0. 2~3, RECLASSIFICATION N0. //-/u-1~ V~~kIANt.E N0. Z~>~~~ nira TENTATIUE ~~{Ai' OP 'fRACT
NO~~ t~l1G RkV. N0. 3). H11J (REV. W0, 2)~ ~Gp2 (REV. N0. 1)~ ANO 9R(~4 ~EV._ NO. 1) (Cont.)
1!;. That the developer uf subJoct tract shell enter Into e Special Facl 1 i tles
Agraement with the City for water faclfittes tn the Iligh Elevation System, as requlred by
Rule 15B of the Water Utility Rat.es~ Rule~ and Regulat(o~s.
IG. 7het f(ro br~aks sl~al) be provided as requl~od by the Flre CF~lef,
17. Tha~t any "flag-shrpecl" lots shalt ';ave a minimum dimenslon of ?.0 feet.
18. That in eccordance wlth the requirements of Section 1~.02.4u 7 purtai ing to the
Inltlal sele of residentlal homes in thc City of Aneheim Planning Areai "U"~ the seller
shal) pravlde each buyer with written infornwtion concern(ny the Anah~im Generel Plan and
the exi~ ~~ ny znniry wi tliln 300 feet of the boundaries of sub)ect tra~ct,
19. That any specinKn tree removal shal 1 ~e sub}ect to the regui atlons pertalning to
tree presorvetlon In thc Scenic Corridor Ove~lay 2onc.
:U. That flre hydrant:a shall be installed and choryed as required t~ncl determined tu
h~ necessary by the Chief of the Fire Departmenc prior to commencement of structural
framing.
21. That the petitioner sl~all pravlde aclequate vislbi lity for vehicles eYiting "~"
Street onto Meats Avenue for a minimum distance ~f 300 feet of the appruoch length.
Commissioner f:ing offe~ed a rr~ution~ seconded by Commissloner Oavid and MO~ION CARRIED
(Commissloners Herbst~ Johnson and Linn votiny no) ~ that the Anahmim City Planning
Commission do~s hcreby find that the proposed subdivision~ together with Its aes(gn a
tmprovement, is consistcr,t wi ch ttie CI ~y of Anahelm's Genrr~l Plan~ pursuant to Guvsrnment
Cade Secti~n 6G~13•~; And dues, theref~re~ approve Tentative Nap of Tract N~. 9602
(Ravlsion No. 1) for a 43-lot~ RS-tiS-l0~OC0(SC) (Residential~ Single-Famlly iiillsldc-
Sc~nic Co~rl~iur Overlay) l.onr subdiv(sion~ and subject to the fol low i ne~ conc!1 tions:
1. Thit the approval of T~n[ative Map of Tract No. ~60: (RevisiunlJo. 1) is gr~nted
s~bJect to the approva) of Reclassiflcation No. .7~76-1 and Variance No. 2Q5n.
2, That should this subdlvisiun be developcd as more th~n o~e subdivision~ ea~h
subdlvision the~eof shall be submitted in tentative forrn for approva 1,
3. That in accordance with Ci ty Counci I pol icy~ :- G-foot high, opan~ decoratlve wall
shall be constructed at the top of s,lopc on the nortt~west property 1 ~ne separating Lot
Nos. 1 throuyh 12 fror; Nnhl Ranch Road, Reasonablc landscapiny~ includinq E r~lgatlon
facilitles, shall be installed in the unc~mented partion of the a~te rial hie~hway parkway
tne ful~ distance of sai~i wall; p'.ans for said landscapinu to he subrnitted to and subJ-ct
~ the apNroval of ttie Superintendent of ParScway Maintenance; and fc~llowing installatlun
and acceptance~ the C i ty uf Anahe im shal 1 assurne the respons ib i 11 ty for ma 1 n tenance of
said landsca~ing.
4. That al I lots wi tiiin this tract shal l bc served by underyround uti 1 i ties.
~. That a final tract map of subject property st~all be submitted to and appraved by
tt~e C i ty Counci 1 and then be recor~leJ in th~ Of f i ce ~f the Orange County Reeorder.
6. That ttie covenants~ condi tions~ and restrictians shal l be s ubmitted to and
approved by the L i ty At tarney' s Of f i ce and C I ty Eng i r~eer pr i o~ to C i ty Counc i 1 appraval of
the final tract map~ that al! "native" slope designatior.s shall be approved by the
Planning Depertment and Fire Chief prior to City Council approvat of the final :ract map
and, further~ that the aparaved cover~ ,~ts~ condition~~ and restrictions shal l be recarded
concurrently with the final tract ~~wp.
7. That prior to fi I ing the final trac~ map, th~ appl ica~t shall submi t to the City
Attorne; for aapr~val ur denial a wmplete synopsis of the propo~e~ fu~~tio~ing af the
operating corporation includiny~ but not limlted to, the articles of lnco~poration~
bylaws~ propusec' methods of management~ bonding to insure maintenanee of eomrnon property
8/ I 5/77
77°513
MII~UTE5. GITY PL/1NIJIIJC, COMI11a51Q1~~ Aui,~ust 1~~ 1!1)J
E I R N0. 203, RECLA551 F I CI1T1 ON ~~0. ~i 7~7~' ~~ VI1R I ANCC NQ. ?.~l>~ ~ AND TCNT nl 1 VE MAP Uf T RACT
NOS. ftit l( ~RCV. N0. 3) ~ 3117 (REV, N0. Z) ~ 9Gn2 (RCV. N~. 1; , n~~o ~~sG~+ (REV, NQ, 1) (~ont. )
and bul ldtngs~ and such other Informatlon as thQ City Attorney may des ire to protect the
City~ its citlzens, and the purchasers of the project.
8. Thet street names shall be approved by the Clty Planning Depa~tment prlor to
epprovel of a final tract map.
9, In che event that subJett pr~perty is to be div(ded f~r the purpose af sele~
lease or f(nancing, a parcel mnp~ to rr_cord the eppraved dtvis~on of subJect propRrty~
sha,l be submitted tu and approved by the City of Anahelm And then be recarded In the
Of f 1 c~ of the Orange County Recorder.
10. Thet the vwner(s) ~` subJect property shall pay to the Ctty of Anahcim the:
appropriate park and recreatton in-ileu fees as determined c~ be apprt~prlAte by khe City
Councll ~ safd fees to b~ pold at the time the b~l lding permtt Is (ssu~d.
il. That draineye: uf Said prcpcrty sh~i) bc d~spose~l of in a Rwnn~r ~~1tI51AGtOfy to
the City Engineef. If, (n the prepa~ation ~f ti~e site~ ~;ufflcient yrading is requlrtd to
necess ( tate a~+rad i ng permi t~ no wo~k on gradlny ~i 11 t•: pc:rr~i tted be tween Octobe~ 1Sth
and April 15thrunless all requlred off-site drainag~ fe ilities have bcen Installed and
are operative. Positivc assurnnce shal) bc provide~i ch~e ~'ty that sueh dralnage
faci litles wi ll be cnmplPtecl prlor ~o October 15tt~. NecPssary riyi~t-of-way for off-site
drai nage faci 1 t t Ees shai 1 be d~dlca ced to the CI ty ~ or t-~e CI ty Counc i I shal 1 hav~
i n( t i ated condemna t 1 on proce~d 1^-!~ the rn For ( the cos ts of wh i ch sha 1 1 be borne by [he
developer) prior to the commencr.me~C of gra~ling operatians. The requirPd dralnage
facilttles shall b~ af a size and type sufficient tu ca~ry runoff waters originatiny from
higher properties through sald propcrty to ultimate disposai as apE~roved by the City
Engin:er. Said dralnage facil(tles shall be the first item of cansc~uctlon and shall bc
comN'eted and bE functional throughout the tract a~~d fram the downstream boundary o~ the
property to thc u) tirtwte point of d(sposal prfor to the issuance of any final bu( lding
inspectlons or occupancy permits. Drainaye distrtct ~elmburse-^nt ~gr~ements may be made
availabl~ to the developers of said proper[y upon it~eir reques..
12. That gr~ding~ excavatic>n~ and all other constructi:m activitic shall be
eonducteJ in such a manner so as to minimize the possiblllty of ~ny s ilt ariginating from
thls proJect beiny carried into the Santa Ana Rlver by storm wrt~r o~iglnating f om or
flowing through this project.
13. If permanent street namc signs have not bcen instailed, temporary strect name
slgns shoi 1 be instal led prior t~~ any occupancy.
14. That the ~ieveloper of subject tract shall enter into a Special FacilltiPs
Agreement w(th the City for water facili[tes in the High Elevation System~ as requlred by
aule 15D of the 1~later Utility Retes~ Rules anJ Regulations.
15. That fire breaks shali be ~rovidpd as requirr.d by t~e Fire Chief,
16. That any "f'la~-shaped" lots shall have a minimum dimension of 20 feet.
]7. That in accardance wi~h the requirements of Seckion 18,02.047 pertalning to the
initlal sale of resldentlal homes in the City of Anaheim Planning Ar~a "B"~ the seller
shal) provlde each buyer with written ~nformation concerning the Anat~eim General Plan an.i
the exlsting z~ning wtth(n :00 feet of the b~?undaries of sub~ect traet.
18. 1"hat any specimen tree rerraval shall be subJect t~ the reg~ilatlons pertaining t~
tree preservatio~ in tiie Scenic Co~ridor Overlay ~one.
19. That f i re hydrants shal I be instal led and charged as r- aui red ar,., d~ :ermined to
be necessary oy the Chi ef of the Fi re De:~artment prior to cortrmencement ~~f structura 1
f rami ng.
Commissioner Kiny offered a r^ot!on~ secor~ded by Commissior,er David and MOZION CARRIED
(Commissioner~ Herbst~ Johnson t~nc1 Linn vo;iny no). that the A~aheim Gity Planni~g
$/15/77
~~
~
MiNUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMi5S10N~ Auqust 15, 1977 7J•~514
E I R N0. 203 ~ RECLASS I F I Cl1T I nN IfO. //- /~..- I~ VAK i l~11GE N0. 29yr3 , ANb TC~~TAT 1 VC ~1AP OF' TRACT
NO~. (311fi (REV. N0, 1). II117 (REV. N0, z~602 REV. N0, 1) , AIJD '3864 (RCV. N0. 1) (Con[ .
Commtssio~ does hereby find that the proposed subd(vision, together wl th ~~ des~gn and
improvement, is conslstent wlth tlie City of Anahetm's General Plan, pursuant to Governmcnt
Code Section 6fi47 j,! ; and does, th~refore, appr~ve Tentotive Map of Tract No. 9~64
(kevision No. 1) fvr a 34•lot~ RS-115•10,000(SC) (Kesidential ~ Single-Family Illllside-
Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zane sukidivislon, and subject to the follc~win,y condltlo~s:
1. That the appraval of Tentat(ve Map of Tract Nn, 98G1~ (Revision N~. 1) Is grantnd
subJect to the a~-proval of Reclass(ficatlon No. 77~78-1 and Variance No. 2950.
2. That should this subdivls(on be deve~oped as more than anc subdivislon~ each
subdivtslon ther~of shall be submitted in tencatfve for~n for approvai.
3. That In accordancs wlth City Counci I pol icy~ a 6-foot h(yl~, opcn~ dNcoratlve wal l
shall be construeted at the top ~~f gln~~ on the northw~:st property llne separating Lot
Nos .~3 tl~ ~ouyh 1~7 f ram Nnh 1 Rancl~ Road and on the wes t ancl nor thwes t pro~c:~ t.y I 1 nes
separating Lot Nos. 1 tlirouyli 8, 29, and 33 through 3~ from Meats Avnnue. Reasonable
landscapTng~ inciuJiny irrigation facllities, shall be inst~lled in the uncdoented portion
of tl~e artcrial h(ghway parkway thc ful) dl star.ce of said wal l; plans far SJ~v landscapinq
to be submi t tpd to and sub ject to thr. approv~l of the Super i ntendent of Parkway
Malntenance; and f~l i~wi ng Installati~n anJ acceptancc~ the Ci ty of Anahelm she) 1 assume
the responsibi 1 i ty for maintenance of sald landscApiny,
4, That al 1 lots ~i*_hin this tr,~ct shal l be served I~y underqround utilltfes,
5. That a f l~ial tract map of subJect property shall be submi tted t~ and approved by
the City Counci l and then be r~corded in the Office of che ~ranye County Recordet-.
6, That the covenants~ condittons, and restr(ctlons shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office and City Engineer prior to Clty Counc(1 approval of
the final tra:L. map~ that all "native" slope ~iesignations ~t~r~l l be approvcd by the
Planniny Uepartment and Fi re Chief prior to CI ty Council approval of the final tract map
and~ further, that the a~pro~ied u~venants~ conditions~ arJ restrictlons shall be recorded
concurrently wi th the final tract map,
7. Tha~ prlor to filing the final tract map~ the •~pp) icant sh~ll submit to the City
A~torney for approval ~,r denia) a complele synopsis of tlie proposed functioning of the
operatin~ coraor-3tion (ncludiny, but not limited to, the articles uf incorporation,
Frylaws. proposed methods of man.~yen~en[, bonding to (nsure mainten~~nce of canmon property
and bulld(nqs~ anJ sucf~ other informat(on as the City Attorney may desire to prncect the
Ci ty~ ( ts cl t~ zens. and the purchasers of che project.
8. That s t reet names shal 1 be approved bv tltie C i ty F i ann i ng Depar tment pr tor to
approva' of a f i nal tract map.
9. In the event that subject property is to be divlded fur the purposc of sale.
lease or financing. a pat-cG~ map, to record the approved division of sub,jett property~
shal l be subml t ted to and approved by the C1 ty of Anaheim and then br. recorded i n the
Jffice of the 0 range County Recorder.
10. That the owner(s) of sub}ect property shall pay to the City af Anahetm the
apyropriate parEc anJ recreation in-lleu fees as determined tc+ be approprlate. by the City
founci 1~ said fees to be pa(d at the t(me the bul Iding permi t is issued.
11. That d~ainage uf sald property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
the City Engineer. If. in the preparatlon ~~ the site, sufficlent grading is rPquired to
necess I tate a grad iny permi t~ no work on yrad i ng wi 11 be permi tts~i between October i5th
and Apri t 15tih unless all requ{rrd off-site d~ainage facil ities havc~ been installed and
are operative. Posltlve assur.~r,ce shal) be r~~vided theC~ty that such drainage
faci 1 ities wi I 1 be completa3 prlor tu Octot~er 15th. Necessa~y r(ght-of-way for off-si te
dratnage faci 1 i ties sh3il be dedicated to the City, ~r the City Council shall have
8/1S/77
MINUTES ~ G ITY PLAI~~II~~G COMMISS ION, Auyust 1>~ l~177
77-515
E I R N0. 20S ~ kE~LAyS 1 F 1 LAT I Oir N0. 77-7u-1 ~ VAR IAt~CC ~~0. 2?5~ ~/+."!D TEIITAT 1 VF MAP f1F TRACT
NOS. $1 1G (RCV. N0. 3~ .~1 1 J~REV. N0. 2) , 96Q2~REV. N0. i), AND 98G~+ (REV. N~~. 1) (Cont .)
i~iltiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of whlch shall be borne by thr
devel ope ~) prl or to the commencernent of yrad ( ng operot ions . `he r~qu 1 red dra t nar~e
f~cilicles shall be of a size and type sufficlent to cerry runoff waters originating from
higher properties tl,rough sald property to ultimate dispasal as epproved by the City
Englnear. Seid drainage facll itles shall be the flrst item of construction ~nd shal) be
completed and be functlonAl th~oughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the
property to the ult(rnate palnt af disposal prlor to the issuance of any final bullding
!nspections or occupancy permits. Drelnege distrtct relmbursement ayreements may be maJe
available to the developers af said property upan thcir r~quest,
12. That grading, excav~tion~ and All other construction ~ctivltles shail be
co~ducted in such a manner so as to minimtze th@ possibi ltty U~ a~y si lt originatlny from
thls pro}ect bcing carried intn thP Sant~ Ana River by sto~m water arigin,ti:~g from or
flowi~g through this project.
13. If permancnt str~et name signs have not hr;~n instAlled, temporary strect name
signs s~al) bc Installed prior to any occupancy.
14. Thc~t the develo~,er nf subJ~ct iract shal 1 enter (nto a Spectal Feci l i tles
Agrcement witl~ the City for water facilitles In the Nigh Elevation Sy~tem~ as required by
Rule 156 of the Water Utility Rbtes, Rulcs ar~d Reyulat(or.
15. ThAt flre breaks shall be provided as re~uired by the Fi re Chief.
16. That any "f 1 ay-shaped" 1 ~r.s sha 1 I have a mi n(mum d irr~ns i on of 20 fee1.
17. That in acc~~rdance wlth tl,e requl.'C~fllflLS of Sectian 1~.02.01+7 pertalning to the
initial sale ~f residenttal homes in th~: City of Anafielm Planning Ar~a ''B"~ c seller
shall provide each buyer with written Inforrnation concerning the Anaheim Genera) Plan and
the existing zoning withln 30f) fe~t of the boundaries of subject tract.
18. That any specimen tree removal shall he subJect to the ~egulatlons pt.rtaining to
tree preservation in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zon~.
19. That fire hydrar~ts s~~all be installed and charyed as required and determined to
be neces~ary by tl~e Chlef ~f the Fire Departmen[ prior to cortme~eement af structural
f rami ng.
Cortmissioner herbst indicated his negative vote reflected his feeling that Anaheim Nllls,
Inc. is aware of ttie RS-HS-1~.000 intent to have larger variable s~z~ lots, and they have
not ~.wnpl ied with that intent in this case.
Canmissioner Johnson indicate~ hSs negatlve vote reflected his feellnG that (',nahe(m Hills,
I~~. should recognize the intent of ~he RS-HS-10.000 xaning to ailow develope-~s
f lexib i 1 1 ty.
Chairman Tolar indicated he had suppvrted the ~otEon in light af the fact that the lots
wtcn 6o-foot frontages will only be developed on one slde of the street; thai this (s a
diffcrent type of terrain a~d the development wi 11 provide a dt fferent type of atmosphere;
and that he does ~ot 1 i ke to see row hous i,iy and doc~ not th i nk that th i s w i 1 1 appear that
way.
Commissioner Barnes stated she agreed with CommissionPrs Herbst and Johnson r:garding the
~ntent of the Ord(nance, but this projec[~ with the de~elopment on one side of the street~
would not appear to be row -~~using; and ;hat she liked the developme~t of Meats Avenue,
the meandering sidew~lks enu parkway trees.
ai ~ 5i~~
.
MINUTES ~ C ITY PLANN i I~G COMMI ~S IQN~ August 1;, 1977
77-516
EIR N0. 203~ RECLASSIfICATIQN N0. 7J-7II-1~ VARIANCE N0. 2~3y~i~ ANU TENIATIVE MAP OF TRAGT
NO~. 8116 (RCV. N0. 3)~ I~117~(REV_. NA. 2). 96~7 (REV. N0. 1). Ar~u 9864 (aEV. NO 1~) (Cont.)
AC_TION: Commissloner King offerc~d a mottan~ seconded by Commission~r ~avld a~d MOTION
CARRIED~ thet the Anahelm City Plenning Commission doas he~~:~by approve ren~v~l uf
two specimen peppar trees (Schlnus Spp.) tn Tentatlv~ Tract No. 98fi~~.
AC_ TION: Canmissloner Ktng offered a motlon~ seconded by Commisstan~r Davld a~d MOTION
CARRIED~ t~~at the Analieim City Planning Comrnlsslon does hereby grant approval of
the request for walver of lot line requlramencs of paragr~~ph J.06.290 oP the
Hl llside Grading Ordtnance.
Commiss(oner :~.:~~bst offered a rnc..ton~ seconded by Commissianer Barnes ~,n~l MOTtON CARRIED,
that a work srsslon be held to cla~Ify the RS-`IS-10~000 Zoniny Ordinance~ a~d thet the
Htll ~nd Car~yan Municic.al ~rlvisory ~ommitt~e snd any develope~s (nterasted In developtng
(n that area shall be Invited tu participate in this work session.
Annika Santalahtl~ Asst. Planniny Director-1o~ing, stated st~ff would rr,c.cxrmund ,~ date for
tho wark session at the next mcetiny.
I T~M NG. 3 PUBL I C HEAR I NG . Owner : COASTAL DEVELOFERS , 2b01 E.
EI' ~~ EGATIUE DECLARAT~~N Chapn~6,~, h109, Fullerton, CA 91G31. Engineer: JOHN
RE~LASSIFICATlON N0. 77-78-4 B. ABELL, 5658 E. Bever!y alvd., Lo5 Angeles, CA 90022.
TENT~TIVE MAP OF TRACT No. 9zb2 Suhject propertY i~ an i~•regularly-shaped parcel of
l. 1 r.cros i,t ing nf apprrximately S.0 acres located at
the northeast corner of Mar[ella Larc and Martin Road, having a.proximate frantages of 507
feet on thc n~rth side of Martella Lanc and 376 feet on the ea~t sidc of Martin Road, and
being located approximately 190 feec southea5t of the center•line of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Prop~rty presently is classifieci a` ~ounty 100-E4-20,OU0.
kEQUESTcO ~LASSIFICATION: RS-HS-22,000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL, SINGIf-FAMILY IiILLSIDE) ~ONE.
TENTATIVE TRAC1 REQUE57: 9-lal, RS-HS-22,000(SC} subdivision.
There was noone indicatinq their presence in opG>osition to the re,,est and ~lthouqh [he staff
report to [he Planning ~ummission dated August 15. 197', was nat read at the public hearing,
it'S referrcd te and made a part of the minutes.
Larry Williams, representing Coastal DevPlopers, 2601 E. Chapman, Fullerlo~, presented a
rendering of the [ypical homes Guilt by Cuastal Developers, ~ointing ~ut tney specialize
in developiny ~ jZ-acre eq~estrian homes, ~sua) ly 5 to 10 at a time whi~h are appraximately
2,800 ta 3„00 sq. ft. in size. He referred to the condition on page 3-b, IteR~ ~5~
and a;ked if rhe Planning Commissiun now has final approval of tract ma` .
Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney, er.plained that the City Council has itie final auihority
fo:- approval of final tract maps.
Nr. Williams refe~red to page ~,, Item a5, concerning the CC6Rs and asked if approval by
the City Attorney s office is stan~ard City policy and Mr. Lowr~; explained this is requirFd
by Ordinance.
Mr. Williams then referred to page 3d, Itein kll, reyarding the Fcyment of appropriate drainage
assessment fees prior to approval of a final tract map and asked if this could be ch~~ged
to prior to issuance of building permits.
8-15-71 17-516
MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNING COMMISSIAN, August 15, 1971
77-517
~IR NEG. DEC., RtCIASSIFILATI~N N0. 77-7g__=,_4L AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9262 (contfnued)
Jack Judd~ Civil Engincering Assistant. explained that uaymPnt of drainage fees prior to
the app roval uf fin~l tract map is a Coun~il policy and would have to be resolv~d at that
level.
THE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
C<~~anission~~r Johnson askcd Mr. Williams about vehicular access and che roadw~y proposed.
Mr. Willi~m r~plied thaf this part+cular parcel was irregularly shapecl ~nd se~•ral different
;1ans had been tried, but it was decided th^ proposed plan would be the best solution.
Chairrnan Tolar stated he was going t~ support thi5 project~ but. t1~at a numher of ineetings
had b_en held with the people in that area reyardiny .3 Circulat+on Elc~ment to the GenQral
F'lan and the most apparent thing was that the peo~le wanted to ke~p the rural atmosphere.
Commissioner• Linn asked if [he Fire Department would be able to service tl~e area and
Paui Sinyer, Traffic Enqineer~ repl's~~d that th~ FirF D~(~artment w~s concerned about
ac~essibility, but could service llie area.
Chairman Tolar stated the developer should be vc•ry carefu~ and sa[isfy the Fire Department's
requirements and that a full disclo5ure should bc made to every buyer regarding the
lack of circulation in that ar..:a.
Conunissioner Kin~ referred to page 3b, Icern u13, c~~n~:erning the Traffic Engineer's
recorm~endation that the existing left-turn uock~~t and r~~~dian openinq in Santa Ana Canyon
Road be closed to pravide right turns only. Mr. Willia~~, replied that hc had talked
with Mr. Singer and there is no prublem.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Singer if he was in full agreement and Mr. ~inger replied
that this woule+ mean one less conflict point on Santa Ana Canyon Road and one les5 place
where the City would have to signalize.
ACTION: Corrmiss~oner David ~~ffered a n~otion, seconded byCommissioner Ki~,yand MOTIUN CARRIED
UNANIMQUSLY that the Anahei~~ City Planniny Commission has reviewed thn subject proposal
to reclasr,ifyth~ property from County i00-E4 20,000 District to RS-HS-2.~,000(SC)
(Residen:lal, S~ingle-Family Hillside-Scenic l.orrid~r) Lone on approximately 5.0 acres
located at the nartheast cei~ner oti Martella Lar~c and MarCin Road, having a{~proximate
frontages or 507 feet on the north ~~~de of Martella Lane and 376 foet on the east side
of Martin Rciad an~i bei~~~ located approximately 190 feet soulheast of the centerline of
Santa An; Canyon Road, and does approve a Negative Declaration from the reyuirement
to prepare an enviranmental impact report for the subject property on the basis that
there wo~~ld be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental imp~ct
due to the approval of this Nega-ive Dec.laration since thE Anaheim General Plan (Planning
Area B) designates the subjPCt property for estate-density residential land uses commen-
su~ate with the pr~posal; that no sensitive e~vironmental elert~ents are involved in the
proposal; that the Initia) Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and thar. the Negative Declaration
substa~tiating the foregoing findings is on file in t~ie office of the Planning Department.
Commissione~~ David offered Resolution No. PC77-i75 and rnoved for its passage and adoption
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Reclass~fication
No, 77-78-4, subject to Interdepartmental Conmittee Itecommendations:
On roll call, the furegoing resalution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: David, Barnes, Herbst, Johnson, King, Linn b Tolar
NOES: COMMISSIANERS: None
AOSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8-15~-77 71-517
,
MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING GOMMISSION~ August 15~ 1977
77-518
EIR NEG. OEC.. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-]8-4, ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. q262 (Cantinued)
Commisslonar Uavld uffared o~~~~tlun~ se~.onded by Coaxnis~ion~r Herb~,t and MOTION Cl1aRIE0~
that the Anaheim Ctty Plannln~ C~.~inmission cloes h~ reby flnd that tt~e propc~sed subdivtslon.
together with lt' deslyn and improveme~t~ is consistant with the Ctty of Anehelm's General
Plan~ pursuent to Government C~de Section G6473.y; and does~ therefare~ approve Tentativa
Map of Tract No. 97.62 for nine (9) RS•NS-22~U~)0(SG) ~4esidential~ Sin~,le-F~mlly 11111side-
Scentc Corrldo~ Overlay) Zone lots, s~~UJect to the follc,.~ing condltlons:
1. That the approvAl of Tentativc Map of TrACt No. `~2G2 Is granted sut~ject to the
approva) of Reclessificati~~n No. 7I-7b-4.
2. ThAt should tnis sul~~+ivis(on be developed os more thar, one subdivislon~ each
subdivision the~eof shall ~. ~ubmitced in tencative form for app roval.
3. That all lots within this tract sliall be served by unJerground utilitics.
4. That a final tract map of subjecr property shall he submitted to :~i approved by
thp Ci ty C~unci l and ttien be ~ec~r~lecl in the Off ice of thc Orange County P ~rder.
5. That th~ covenants~ conditions~ and restrictfans shAll be submit~~.~ lu and
approve.d by thc City Att~~rney's Office pr(or to City Council approval of the final tract
map and, further~ Chat the approved covr.nants~ canditions, anc: restrictions shall be
recorded concurren~ly with tl~e final tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the Ctty Planning Ueper[ment prlor to
e~pproval of a fi~~l tract map.
7. That draln~~ye ~f said property sl~all be disposed of in a mAnner satisfactory to
the City Engineer, if, in the preparation nf chc s1te, suffic(ent yrading is required ta
nece;~sitate a gradiny permit~ no work on yradiny will be permitted betweei~ October 15ch
and Apri) i~th unless all required ~ff-site Jrainage facllities have been ~nstalled and
are uperative. Positive assurance shali be provide~i the City that such dralnage
facllitles wfll be completed prior to Occober 15ch. Necessary r(ght-of-way for off-slte
dra(nage facilities shall be dedicated to the City~ or the City Coun~il shall have
initiated condemnation proce~dinys therefor (the cost~ of which s1~a11 be b4rne by the
developer) prlor to the comrtienc~mant of grading operations. The required dralnage
facilities sl~all be ~f a size ancl type ~ufficient to c~rry runoff waters oriyinoting from
higher properti~s throuyh said pr~.,~erty to ultimate disposal as approved by the City
Enginser. Said drainage facilitics shall be the first icem of construr.tion and shall be
ccxnpletec! and be functional tlirou~~hout the tract a~d from the downstream boundary of the
property to the ultimate point of ~iisposal pri~r tc the issuance of any final building
inspec[ions or ocGUpancy permits. Urainaye districr. ~eirt~ ursement agreements may br_ made
avallab{e to the developers of _~id property upon their request.
8. 7hat gradiny~ excava[ion~ and ail oth~r constructir,n actlvities ahal~ be
conducted in such a manner so as to minlrnlze the poss(bility of any silt oriylnating fro~r
this proje~t being carrleJ into the Santa Ana atver by sto~m water originating from or
flowing throuyh this project.
). That the owner(s) ~f subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determ'ned to be appropriate by the City
Council~ said faes to be paid ~t the tim..~ the buildlny permit is issued.
10. If perm.~nent street namP siyns have not been instollecf~ t~mporary street ~ame
signs shall be (nstalled rior to any occupancy.
11. That the owner(s~ of subJect property shall pay appropriate drainage assessment
fees to the City of 4naheim as determined by the City Enn(neer prior to approval of a
fi~al tract map.
9!15/77
"d..
+IIl~TES~ GITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ August 15~ 1971
11-5~9
EIR NFG. DEC., RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77•~ W,-, AND TENTATIVE 1AP OF TRACT NOi, 926? (Gontinued)
12, That approprlate watar assessmcnt fees~ as dccer~^incd by the Ulrector of Publlc
Util~ties~ shall be ,~aid to the City uf Anoheim prlor to the Issuencf•~.` a bulldlny
permit.
13. Tl~at in acco•Jance wi th tlie requlrements ~f ~ectlon 1ti.02.0~~7 ~ertelnlny to the
initial sale of resid~ntlal ho~nc~ in thc Clty of Anaheim P1Anniny Area "B"~ thA seller
shall providc each buyer with written inforrnr~tion concernin~ the Anaheim Gene~al Plan and
the existiny ~onl~i9 within 3~~ feet or the boundarics of su~~)e4t tract,
14. That any speclinen tree removt~l shall be subject to che requlatlons pertalning ko
tre~ preservatlon in ttie Scenic C~rridor Overlay Zone.
ITEM N0. 4 PUBLIC NEAftING. Owner: JAMES D. l1ND IONEAI A. HORTON,
EIR NEGA'fIVE DECLARATION $37 E. Aln~nd, Orange, CA 92667. Aq~nt: N~GH F. VANASEK,
RECLASSI~ICATIO'rJ N~78-13 1621 E. 17th Strret, Santa Ana, CA 927~~• Subject
property is an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land con-
sisting of aparoximately 0.5 acre located at the so~theas[ corner c~f McKinnon Drive ar,:'
Lakeview Avc;~uc, having a fronta~e ~~f ~pproximately 147 feet on the ~.outh ~;.~E~ of McKinnon
Qrive and a maximum dep~h nf approxim~tely 148 feet for Portian "/1". Portion "B" is an
irreyularl•~-sheped parcel of land consis;ing of approximately Q.7 acre havii~g a frantage
of approx'imately 210 feet on the south side ~~f McKinnon Drive, having a maximum depth
of approximately 148 feet, an~i hriny loc~~ted approximately 219 feet r.ast of the centerline
af Lakeview Avenue. Request i~ for reclassification of Portion "A" from RS-•A-43,000(SC)
(Residential/Agr~cultural) Zone to CL~`~~) (Commercial, Limited-Scenic Cnrrid~r Overla~~)
zone; Portion "B" fram RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-720~'SC) (Residential, Single-Family-Scenic
Corridor Overlay) zone.
There were three p~ople indicating their presence in opposition tu the reyuest ~nd although
the staff report t~~ the Planninq Commission dated August 15, 1917, was not read a[ the
pu5lic hearing, it is ret^i~ed to and made .~ part of the minutes. '
It was noted that with the unanimous consent of tfie el~ven (Il) men,bers present at the
Hill and Canyon Municipal Advis,>ry Committee(HACMAC) meeting of August 2, 1977,they vuted to
recorrxnend denia) of the prapose~ co~~~nercial zoning (Poriion A) anci voted to rec.ortmend
approval ~f the praposed residertial zo^ing (Portion E).
Huqh Vana;c•k, th~ agent, was pre ent and referred to a letter to the Nlanning Cormiission
`rom H. F. Vanasek Enterarises, I~c. dated August 3. ~.77, which had been included in
the Commitisian ~aqenda. He pointed ~.~* the site is shown as qPneral commercial on the
General Plan, but that the petitianer is requesting commer~ial zoning for the corner
only (Porti~.•~ A), and is es:ablishing three resideniial lots on Par•tion B. He stated
chat all Code requ'rements for the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone have been m~ He also
~tated there had bee.i some ~oncr;rn that this might he cansi~fered spuL zoning, but pc.int
out tliere is p~oposed commercial zoning an the other corne.r.
DavF Brawn, 4731 McK,innon Drive, ~sked where th~: other commercial zoning is located in
thac area; ~hat he didn't know ~f any commercial Ioning within a mile of the site; that
this ~r~per[y is ~oned residential-agricultural and thot hc felt to u~~t in a small com!ner-
cial development would invite more commerciai develoF~nent into the area; that the resi-
dents didn't want to s~e a 7-11 ~tore with 2.4-hour ~peration on tt~e site; that they
didn't feel this is the right place; that there are small childre- in the neighborhood
who wculd he attra~ted to this type st~re and would create a litter praElern; that the stare
is not architecturally feasible for the residential area; and that it should be located
in another co-nrnercial area.
8-15-77 77-519
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, Auqust 15.1977 77-520
EI.. NEGATIVE DECLAftATION AND RECIASSIFICATION NQ, 77-78-~3 ~tontinued)
Annika Santalahtl~ Asst. Planning Director-l.oning~ stated the n~,rtheast cornr.r of McKinnon
and .a{:cvicw h~s a rescluti~n nf intent to commerciAl zoning and there (s a shapp(ng
center prop~sed at that particular corner.
FrAnk lowry, Asst. Lity Attorney. ~tatPd, in addition, the Canyon C,eneral Hospital. is
in CL (Commercial~ l.imitP~3) tone.
Conxr~lssioner 9arnes ;~~' d where the praposed fire statian wauld be located ~nd Ms.
Santalahti and Mr. l~ ~ry ~oth rr,plied they were nut aware of ,~ propased fire statinn.
Janice Hall, 54y '~mbleweed Rc~ad, Anaheim, stated the Hill and Canyc~n M~inicipal Advisory
Commiftee and ot' ~r qroups in the area hav.~ all indicated they ~lo not want a 7-~1 S[are
on this site; ' at with childien cr~ssinq Lak.eview going to schools, et.c., thesE markets
are an attr~c• ve nuisancc; th~it chc ~~rea already has a terrible traffic problem and
that NACMAC ~~~s ve~ry adamant in their feeliny that this i5 not a suitable u5e for
the propert~, that they do not ayree with the 24-h~ ' opcrat~on; that even th~ugh the
sign wouicl nut be ~n after midnic;~~*, th~~ parkin~~ lot I~qhtS woulci be left on,
Mr. Vanasek Stated he fe 1 t t hf re~ i s a nE~ed for a c~nven i ence ~»~~rk~t ~t r h i s I ocat i on ;
that there are nc> other convenience markets in the area and the residents h~vc~ to travel
about 4 miles fur any shopping dt all; that residential development on that carner i~
nut feasible and that the parcel lends ~tself more tc~ a conx~~ercial d~velopment of this
type; thal a market of this eype would not add any crafFit tn the ar~~.~ [o speak of~
maybe 3 or 4 cars at one tin~e; and pointed ~~ut coirxnercial dcv~•lopn~nt is proposed foi
ail these corners in the General Plan.
THE PUBLIC NEAa1NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissianer l.inn stated he felt these type mar~ets are an aitractive nuisance; that
smal) children will be at.racted tr, t!~e store anu that traSh will be~ome a problem;
and in addition, traffic on Lakeview is already bad.
Commissioner King felt the people in the area would wa~t a convenience market; and that
he fell. the market v~ould be an enerqy-saving situation with what he felt w^uld be a
decrease in traffic.
Commiss~~~ner Barnes stated people living in that area are accustomed to driviny to shop
and as a result they shop diffPrently. She pointed out the exi5ting and prop~sed
shuppi~g center~ at Imperia) and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Chairman Tolar st~~[ed he would like to believe that a cor,venienc~ ma-'ket does provide
convenience~ but that most people will not walk a blor.k to get anything. He st.~ted
he wasn't sure just ~.~hat should be developed on this particular corner.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out this corner is adjacent tc a freeway off-ramp; that ehere
is 147 ~eet of frontage on t.he cunvenience market site; that th~~e could be an adequate
buffer between there and the freeway ~uch as a 50' landscaping setback~ the lots divided
to possibiy put ane or two rnore houses alon~ the street and sti'~ supply a buffer zone
v~hich he felt would be far better than a conveniFnce market; ttiat `h~.re would probably
be a market across the street and he w~~ not in favor of putting a I-1) on that corner
abutting residential development a> -~~~ felt it wou',d be an attractive nuisance.
Commissioner Johnson stated he was fairly familiar with this corner +nd felt tN~e noise
and traffic 4~Pre generated fi.,m Lakeview and not the freewz~y and t1~t he didn't feel
this site • ~+ bP suitablc for residential development and if develaped residential.
w~uld be .ginal parcel. Hc asked Mr. Vanasek if he had been informed of the Cc,mmission's
policy to auire a 20-foot landscaped buffer where commcrcial development abuts residential.
8-15-77 77-520
MINUTES~ NNAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSIpN, AuquSt 15, I`977 77-5~1
E I R NkGAT I VE DECLARAT I ON AND RECLA551 F I CA7 I'1N N0. _77-7~, 3__ ~cc~nt 1 n~ ~d)
Mr. Vai7ati~•ic crxplained that the plans lor thi; project hav~ h~~n rPrlr.~w~ s~~vrr~l times
because of the stri~t requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlav Zone. Ne felt this
ls a very conservative development with thE~ thr~e resldential l~,ti; that the mr~rket
would be constr~cted and anyc,ne purchasing thF residential ~~roperly wouid know there
is a market there; that this is not !he s~me as putt.inq the rnarket next to existing
residentia) r~evelopn~nt. Mr, Van~~sek 5tated he didn't knc~w what clse cauld bc~ dev~lopecl
on this p~~rticular parcel.
Commir~sioncr H~rbst r,tateci ii thc prc~po~,al i~, apprc~vc~~, hr would suqyest c.undi•ions rc-
yuiriny the 20-fooL lands,r.~~~ed buffc~r anei limited hr~urs c>f ~~peration and that ~~e wa~.
not siire he would he in (avor of the p°ojcr_t evrn then, H~ statc•d he rralize~i this is
a hard5hip parcel, but felt Lo allow this devclopn,ent would create an~~tl~~~r hardship
as this is a bad cr~r~er and fhat rrhen the nr~~~~erty :+crn5; the slre: [ is devel~~pcd,
thcre wil) prabably be a market thcre.
ACTIUM: Commissfoner Johnson offer~d a nx~tiu~~, ,~e~~~i~~le~1 t,y C.~+nr~is~~ic}r;c•r Ki~ .~nd ~10TION
y CARRIED ~C~mmisSionFrs Barnes and Linn vr~ting no) that thc Anaht City Pl~nniny Cornmissicn
has reviewed thc s~~bject propo,al t~~ reclasr,ify the zoning from K'~-n-43,ODU(:C)(Residen!ial/
Agricultural) ~~ne to CL~SC)(Cc~m~TK~rcial, limiled-Scenic Corridnr) r.one on Porti~n "A",
ond RS-~-43,OOU(S,,) (Residential/ltyricultur~l(5C)) zc~ne tc~ RS-1200(SC) (Residential,
Single-Family-Scenic Corridor Overlay) z~ne nn ap~~rnximately Q.5 acre Ic~c.ated at the
southeast corner ~f McKinnon ~rive and Lak~view Avenue, haviny a frc~ntaqc c.~f appr~~x~~~~alely
14] fcet on the south side c.~f McKinnori Drivc and a rn3ximum depth of apprc~ximatcrly
148 fe~t (Portidn A) and approxirnately 0.7 acre havinc~ a frontaye c~f approxirnately 210
feet on the south sidc c~f McKinnon Orivc, h,tivinc~ ~ meximum depth of a~~pr~~ximately 148
fert, and bciny located ap~r~~xin,atcly 213 feet easf of thT centcrlinc of lakeview
Avenuc (Pr,rt ion B) ;~~nd d~;e5 her~~by ~i~~~~rr~vi~ ,~ Ne ~l~~i i ve
Declarati~n fror~ [he rryuirement to preparc an c~nvironrnental impact report
on [he basi~ that therc~ would be no s~gnificant individual rr CUf/1U~clLIVP. adver~e ~nviron-
mental impac! du~~ to lhe appr~~val of this Ne~aative peclara[ on since the F,naheim General
Plen design:~tes the sub_ject property fcr caenera) comrnercial land us~e at the corner of
Lak.eview Avenue and McKinnon Drive and low-der.si.y residenti.~l uses adjacent !o the east
conme~nsuratc with the proposal, that no ~~ensitive envirorimental elements are inv..lved
in the proposal; that the Initia~l ~tudy ~.chmi!~~d by the petitioncr indicates no signi-
fican[ individual or c.umulative adverse envit'~inmental im~~acts; and that the Negative
Declar~tion substan[iatin~ the 1'~rr_c~oin~~ findinqs is on file in che off'ice of thc~ Planning
De.partment.
Commissioner Johnson uffered a resolution and mc~ved for its pa5~,age ~nd adopt'on that ,he
Andheim City Planning Commission d~es hereby grant Pecition for Rc~.l~assification No.
77-78-13, subjec~ to petitior~er's stiQulat'ons ta provide a 20-foot la-idscaped buffer
adjacenC to the r~sidential property; and tha[ the lnading area ..ill be rrx~ved to the
opposite side ta lessen t.hf~ irnpact of cumn~ercial us ~~ the immediate adjacent homes;
and that the hours of oper<~cion will be restricted t 7:00 a.m, to 12:00 midn~ght.
The forPgoing rr~,olution DID NQT PASS by the followiny vote:
AYES: COMMISSION~RS: Johnson, King b David
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Sarnes, Ner~s!, Linn F, Tnlar
ABSENT: COMPIISSIONERS: None
it was pointed out by ~rank Lowry, Assi. City At~~rney~ that to deny Portion A a~d
approve Portion B would create an itleqal lct ~~d Annika Santa~ahti, Asst. Planning
Di~-~•ctor, Zoning, suggested the entire parcel be zoned RS-7200.
8-t5-77 77-521
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING Cr,~MISSION~ Augusc 15, ~977 11-c22
EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASS!FIC~TION N0. 77~16-13 (continued)
Coit~ni5sioner Linn offrrcd Rc~~olutlan N0. PC7'-17F~ ina ir~oved for its passaqe and adoption
that the Anahcim City t'lanniny Cor.ni~~ion ~foes hereby grant Petition f~~r Reciassification
No. 77-78-13, in part~ app~~~ving Portiuns A b B for RS-7200(SC) (Residential, Sinyle-
Family, Sccnic C•~rridor Qverlay) Zone.
The foregoinq resoluCion was passe~i by the fc~llowiny vntc:
AYES: COMMICSIONERS: Linn, Barnes, Ncrbst, lCiny l, T~lar
NOES: LOMMISSIONERS: David ancl Johnson
ABSENT: COMM{SSIONERS: None
Frank Lowry, A~st. Cicy Attorney, presented Mr. Vanasek with the v~ritten right to ~~ppeal
the Planning Conxnission decisir~n within 22 de',r5 since thc action a;proved only a portion
of the request.
RCf.ESS: A 10-rninu-~ recE~ss was cal ieJ ~~t ~:4~.
RECONVENE : thc~ mect i ng was reconvenr~ '. at j: SS W i t h a 1 1 Ccm~mi ti~ i ui~c r~, F~re~sent .
ITEM N0. 5 PUBLIC NkAP,ING: Owner~ CANYON PL~ZA SHQF?ING CENTEft, P. 0.
EIR NEGATIVE DECLRRl~TION E3ox 7750, Newport Beach, CA 92663, A,rr,t: BOB HA, A.~RD,
VAFI4NCE N0. 29~r 2z~ ;. Ualnut, Ste, 238, Pasadpna, CA 911Q1. Subject pronerty
is an irregularly-shaped parcel o land consisting of app roxima « ly 4.2 acres lncated at
the northeast corner of Santa Ana Ca~~~on Rc~ac.t and Irnperial Hiyhway, having apnroxiiT;ate
frontages of 320 f~rt on the north Side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 280 feet an the
east side of Irnperial Hiyhvay. Requcsted w~ivers c~f req~~ired landsc.aped hcrr~ .,nd i,~axirnum
structural height.
Chairman Tolar noted he had a confli~t c~f interest as defin~d by Ana'~eim Cit~~ Planning
Cnmrnis~ion Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflic[ of ~nterest Code for tha Planning
Conmiission r d Governrnent Code Section 3625, et s~•q., ~n th;~t he hos Ie~Sed space in t.he
developer's adjoining center; that, pursuant t~ t~~e pr~vision5 c~f the ahove codes,
he was declariny that he was withdrawing f.~~m thP f-~ari,~S in connection with
(tem No. 5 of the Planning Commissinn aqer,da and w~uld not take p~rt in e~ther the dis-
cussio~ or the voting [here i; and tha~t he had not discussed this matter with any merr~ber
of the "la~ning Commission.
CHAIRMAN TOLAR LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBE:R DURINr, THE DiSCUSSION AND VOTING OF THIS ITEhI.
Chairman Fro TemNure HPrbst assun~ed tlie chair fer consideration of this request.
Frank Lowry, Assistant City Attorney, explained this i: a recent conflict of interest;
that CF,airman 7olar d~d n~t lea;e Space fram the devel.,per when this item had been
considered previously.
Ru~ert Haugaard, 221 E. Wa1r~,t, Pasadena, a~chitett for the ex~sting development and the
proposed development, explained the requPSt of waiver regarding the omission of ~ ~ berm
along .he stre~t front.+ge was becau,~ on this ~+articular parcel che parking !ot w~11 be
from 3 to E! feet below adj3cent street level and it was felt thc~ berm would not be necessary;
that a b~tter job of landscaping could be a..complished with omission of the berm. He
pointed out the previous section of tf~e :~happing center had been developed in this fashion
and it had worked out very well wit`~ ~andscaptng and sprinklers to the stree[ and that
the same thing is planned for this dev:.lopmen[.
Regarding the rFquest for waiver of maximum struct~~ral height, Mr. Haugaard explained the
height of the pr;.posed Nell tower is 50 feet and the Code allows a height of 35 feet,
8-15-77 77-522
, ~.
~,.
M 1 NUTE~ ~ ANI1~~E I M C I TY PLAtIN I NG COMW I SS I pN ~ llugus t 15 ~ 1917 77'S23
EIR Nl:GATIVE DECLARATION ANO RECL/15SIFI~ATION N0. 7?-78-13 (contlnued)
but ir mitigatlon of thet thc Jevelopm?nt Is about u or ~ feet t~cla•r gracle et ti~e
Inter~ection of the street ar~d that the height ot the trnver (s necessary for
aesthe[ic purposes and cuttiny it down to 3~ feet would lase the effect. Fle
ex~l~lne+ci tliore Is no lee+sable space in the t~~v+or~ that it Is betng offercd at clie
owner's expensc and the yeneral consensus of the reuple who have see~ It is that It
(s an attractive imprnvemc~nt to the center and will b~ a credlt to tl~e nelghborhoad.
Tl~e uwners liave agre~d to put either chimes or ~ clocl; un the tower.
Mr. Ilaugaard r~fcrreJ to the Traffic En~ine~r'~, r-~ ~~~ •snciation to eliminate parkinq
from Jrivc.wuay soutli of 111bertsons (2nd bay' ~lained the basic problem here is
tl~at leasable area in the shopping c~ncer i~ ne~i by the number of cars, and tf
?n spaces wcre el(minated, it woul~i reduce [hc .~~~~ou,~t of hutldAbie are.a and the ~wner
might not yo ahead with the bell cowcr. Ne stet~~d that ideally you wc~uld ~ever back
up lnt~ a traffic lane b~~t th~t his company is a speclalist in shopping cc,ters and
thi• ic thP situoti~m in ~lniust every shopplnc~ center. He felt the amount ~f trdffic
generateJ on this half of thc ~:enter would br ~~nderate to very liqht~ exccpt at the
dlnner I~our wt~~en Gris-~~ol~s wl I I be t~e~vi ly used.
THE PUDLIG NEAP,ING IJA5 CLUSEU.
Commissioner Linn referred to a recent church request for a.~aiver of structural
helght for a steeple anJ tl~cy had becn a~ked to cut down thk~ height of thc steeple.
Ne was concern~d also about the ~arkiny and fcit the recommendetian by the Traff(c
Engineer was a safety factor.
Chairman Pro Tcmpore Nerbst ft~lt tliis problem had bcen created previous-y ~+hcn the
access and flow of traffic h~, been fuught by Mr. kinker and now that Mr, Rlnker ts
taking control of this parcel t~ develcip ir. into one centcr~ the access and traffic
flaw is a probleni far -iim, t1e felt the trafflc circulat(on as shown on the plans is
bad and totally unacceptable; anJ the wl~olc slte s~iould bc reviewed regarding the
access s(tuati~ri anJ circulation.
Cliairman Pro Ternporc tlerbst referred to what appeared to be an access polnt onto
Imperia) 9nd stated there could n~t be any access onto Imperial and explatned
previaus actians concerniny ttiat si[uation.
Mr. Hauga;rd explained that no access had 5een pla~ned at the point referred to anr!
that no access was being request~~i onto Imperial.
Mr. haugaard stated lic did nat kna,• when ti~e p~operty in the rear would be devcloped,
and felt it would be a very great h.~rdship to force the devt~iopment of this ~arcel to
stop until the other property is devcloped. fle also explai~ed that orfginally t!~,cre
was adequate clearance at tf~e back of Griswolds for two-way access, but that he had
been asked to insert a iQ-foot plant~ ~ strip aci}acent to the drainage ditc~ until the
~ezoning of the property to tl~e rear.
Chairman Pro Tempore Ilerbst discu~sed ttie width of che easement that was supposed tu
go through the r~ar to service this parcel, with the devcloper palnting out it was 30
feet and was imposed on the original property and the easement allows access all the
way aroun~i~ and that two-way traffic can be acc~mmodated with the elimination of the
proposed planter strip.
8-15-77 77-523
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, Augus~ 15, '977 77-524
EIR NEGATIVE nECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICAI'ION N0. 77_-78-13 ~~ontinued)
Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst felt that regardless of what goes in the rear parcel~ there
has to be access. ~r. Haugaard pointed out the access ,~ 63 feet wiJe an~ there should
be eno~agh width for two-way traffic. He also pointed out traf'fic going to Griswolds would
probably be coming frorn Imperial and sug~ested normal front entry, with angle parking.
He pointed out the angle parking had becn a request of Griswolds and that the parking
s~alls on the ba{ar~ce of the center wcre 90~,.
Chair•man Pro Temp~re Iler•bst stated he had no obj~ctiuns to angle parkirg, as long as there
is a good traffic flow. He agreed with Mr. S'nger that with cars parking therE with o~e
way in and one way out, it is a problem. He fel[ if the petitioner desired this much
deveiopment on the site. then he wa.iid have to give the parcel circulation in order for
it to survive; that when this p~~rcel had been left~ it was considered a limited-a~cess
parcel and i[ was the understanding that it would be developed with min,rium development;
and thal the owner is now asking for a lar;~e center with limited access.
Mr. Nauaaard sta[ed the fact t.hat the i~arcel is landlocked does present unique problems,
but that he did not feel th~ property is being over°develu4>eJ; that the buildiny area
tu land ratio is less than it is on the major center.
Chairman Pra Tempore Herbst felt it is 1'ar more intense than was inten~~ed when fhe
shopping center was allowed to go in. He felt the huild~ng area was reasonable, but
the access through the s~te could br drastically improved.
Commissioner °~rnes and Mr. Nauyaard discussed cirr.,ulation at Keystone Savings with
Mr. Naugaard pointir.y uul ~.'affic could go both w3ys at thz~t l~r.~tian.
Chairman Pro 7empore Herbst stated the circulatiu~~ plan reminded 'nim of ~ qame of getting
through a maze and he felt unless the circul.~tion is impraved to servicc the site, the
projec~ is not going to be approved and felt thac whatever was allowed tu go in would
fail.
Mr. Haugaard stated that the Rinker Company and Griswolds are fairly expc~rienced with
this sort of thing and certainly wouid not bui~d any[hing th2y thouqht would fail.
He stated if the circulation is a problc~~ ~rith the whole Commission, he would suggest
the request be approved, subjec[ to a condition th~t tlie c.irculation ~lan be revi5ed.
Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst sf.ated he wanted to see the planti and Commissioner Johnson
stated he did not want to see the easement filled with parking.
Chiairman Pra Tempore Herbst was concerned that the property could be sold at a later
date and Mr. Haugaard stated he felt an agre.emPnt rould be obtained from the awners
agreeing t.o tie the par•cels together.
Commissio,ier Johnson stated he felt it was [he responsibility of the Commission to see
there i~ adequate in:er~or circulation on the project.
Mr. haugaard asked the Commissio~ to review the waiver. requested and yive him an
indication of their feelings sv he ~•u~uld have that information for the owner.
Commissioner Linn r~i~rred to th~ Traffic Entine~r's recommendation that parking be
eliminated from the driveway south of Alberts~ns, and stated he hoped the petitioner
realizes the Commission intends to follow the Traffic Engineer's recommendation.
Chairman Pro Tempore HLrbst stated he ha~ no problem a+ith the waiver requested f7~ the
8-15-77 77-524
~
~
MINUI'ES, ANAHEIM CITY P!.,^NNING COMMISSION, August ly, 1977 77-525
EIR NF.G~TIVt DECLARATION AND RECI.ASSIFICATION N(~. 77-78-13 (r.ontinued)
reyuire~l le~~:lSCaNeJ berrn because it is Ueluw grade an~l ll-e 14°foot landscaped area
h.~s been allowed on the porcel ~dJacent to this one.
Re:~ardin~ the maximum he(ght waiver request, Commissioner Jc,hnson felt t~~ make th~ tower
20-feet shorter arould change the whole arch(tectur~ of the building and tF~at he wouldn't
be afraid to vote in favor of the tower.
Cu~rnnissioner Barnes felt since we d~ have the Scenic Corridor Ordin~nce, it should be
fc~'lowed an~f she could se~ no reason to vary from it now.
Mr. Haugaard st~~tr~J that s~me uf the members of the Hill and C~nyan Municipal Advisary
Committee had f~~lt the same way, but after reviewing the plan, had fFl: since the developer
wauld not profir t'rom thc tower since there is n~ rentablc: 5pace in it, that it would
be an amenity to che neighborhoud. He statQd the petitioner would b~.~ild the buildiny
without the tc~wer if that is what the Commission desired. but would not b~iild the tawer
wit;iout the hciyht.
Chairrnan Pro Ternpore Herbst stated he could see some community tenefit if' a c~ock was
mounted on the tower~ bu[ felt approval would set a prececient.
Co~nmissi~ner Davi~ felt the Cammission should follow HACMAC's recornmendations that [he
waiver be _y~~nted.
Chairman f~~o Tempore Herbst stated he c~uld not justify a h~~~dSF,ip for this request; that
it is str ctly an aesthetic archit2ct.ural design and could be changad to meet Code
requiremc~ts; that it is desired to stand out as a view f~r the shoppin~ cent~r and in
a way is !idvertisinq. He stated the only way to handle this reyuest woulci be to rhange
tl~e Ordinance.
Mr. Hau~aard stat~d he would agree the Ordinan~e should be changed; tF~at if the
Commissioner takes the hardshi~ point of view, they eliminaie ~he chance for a
developer who is willing to spend S25.000 or $35,G00 extra to mak~ something a lot nicer.
Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attcrney, stated there is certainly the po~sibility of amending
the Ordinance to include bell tawers, church steeples and thinq: of that nature and
that the subject should be oiscussed at a work se~sion.
Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst s[ated it is quite possible tha[ in the hiil and canyon area
when these types oi things are aesthetically acceptablP [o the area and not objECtionable
to the people in the area, he could se~ :,omething like this bell iower heing allowed.
Con~r~issioner Barnes sta[ed she was not in favor ~f changing the Jrdinance in anyway;
that. as soan as you change the Ordinance, thP Commission will be getting requests for
all kinds of t~wers, advertising signs, etc.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out the berrn was allowed [o ,horten up the landscaping
strip, but here the petitioner was eliminating the berm and shortenin9 the landscsping
strip. He sta;e~ !:~ would support the request because it had b~een done on the parcel
adjacent t~ this one. He stated he would atso support the requesc on the bell tower
as far ~; the law would allow.
Frank Lowry~ Asst. CiCy AttcrnPy~ recommended the passibility of treating these requpsts
as conditional use permits which would giva ;he Commission control and giv;~ the
opportunity for a public hearing and this should be approached in a wor~ session.
8-15-77 17-525
ty
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~ING COMMISSION, August 15. ~971
IER NEGATIVE ~~CLARATION AND RECLAS5IFICATION N0, 77-78-13 ~continued)
17-526
Af.TIQN; (:c~mml~~ inn~r J~hnS~n ~ffpred ~ mnti~n, seconde~i hy Cnmrniaainnpr King and MnT10N CARRIED
UNNNIMOUSI.Y, that thc Analieim C'ty Flann(nq Commiss(or has reviewed the subjtct proposal
to construct a commercie) building, with w~ivers ~f reyuired l~~ndsc~ped berm and maximum
structural he-(ght, on ap~ro~<imat:ely 4.2 acrc~, loc.~ced ,~t the norih.ast corner of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Irn~c~rial Nighway, having apnrc~ximate frunt~~ye5 ~~f 3?.0 fect on the
north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road ana 28b fcet on the e~st side of Imperia) Hiyhway;
and cloe5 her~by approve a Negat ive Decls~r~t ion frc~m the reyui rement to prepare an
enviro~mental impact report for the subject property on th~e basi~ that there would be no
signlf ieant individual or cumulative adver,e environmental irnpar.t due t~ the approval
of thls Nega[ive Oeclaration since thc Anaheim General Plan desiyn~~tes the subject.
`roperty for qeneral connnercial uses commensurate with the prc~posal; that no sensitive
Pnv(ronme.nlal impacts .are invo~ved in the propcisal; that the Initial Study submitted
by thr. petitioner indicat~~ti n~ Siqnific:~nt individu~l ~~r r.umu~~tiv~ adverSP environmental
impac[s; ~~rJ that thc Kegative Dc~clar'ation s~.~bsta,~tiatinq thc foregoinq findings is cm
file i~ the City of llnahc~irn Planning Departm~nt.
Canxnissioner Johnson oftered Resalution No. PC77-17~ ~nd rnoved fur its pa~~sage and adnption,
that [he Mahcim City Planniny COnvniS510f1 d~cs herchy qrant Petition f'or Variance No.
2948, i n par[ , grant inq wai vcr (a) on the bas i s that the pet i t ior~cr denx~nst ratr_d a
hard5li ip exi ;ts in that Santa llna Canyon Ro;,d is ~~t a hiyher qrade level than the suhjec.t
property and a 3-(oot high bcrm would bc inef(ectivc as vicwed `rom said streets, and that
a Similar variance has been yranted on the adjoininq property; and subject to [he petitioner's
stipulation to heavily landscape the 14-foot widc l~ndscapPd setback and the parkway
adjatent t~~ Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Hiqhway; .ind that there wi 11 be no vehicular
acccss to Imperial Highway from sub.ject pre~perty; and further, ;ubject to Planning
Conmission review ind approv~) c~f revi;ed plans indic~tinyo un-sitc vehic.ular ~.ir~,~lation
alan providing adeq~~ate two-w~y dCCE55 between the three parcc~ls located south of the
Riverside Freeway, west af Via Cortez, north of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of
Imperi al Nighway, and the two appr~ved S.inta Ana Canyon Road access points; and denyiny
waiver (b) on ttie basis th~t subject propert.y is located in the Scenic Corricfor Zone
Overlay; that no hdrd~hip relative [o structural hright has bcen demonstra[ed; and that
an undesirable precedent would be established for i'uture similar request.s if said
waiver were granted; and subject tc~ Interdepartmental Con~ni ttee Recornmendat ions.
On rol 1 call , the fc,regoing resolut ion was p~5sed by the fol lowing vnte:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Ba~••~~s~ David, He:rbst, King b Linn
I~OES; COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONfRS; Tolar
Mr. Naugaard a~ked to be notified of the upr_oming w~rk session.
CHAIRMAN TOLAR RESUMED TNE CHA~R.
ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: FRED W. b PATRICIA B. N~~RGENTHALLER,
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 501 Nermosa Oriv~, Ful lfrton, CA 92635• Agent: ANANEfM
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7%_7$-9 SKATE CENTER, 1215 W. Katella, Orange, CA 92667. Subject
CONDIT IONAL USE PERMIT N0.1733 property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land con-
sist~nu of 1.9 acres located at the southeast corner of
Lincol n Avenue and Orange Freeway off-ramp, having approximate frontages of 144 feet on
the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 487 rpet on [ne s~utheasterly side af the Oran~e
Freeway off-ramp. Property is presentiy cl~ssified RS-A-43,000(ResidEntial/Agricultural).
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: CL(COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) Zone.
8-~5-1i 77-526
MIN~7ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auyuit 15, 1977 77-5~7
EIR NCG. DEC., RECLASS. N0. 77-78-9 b CONOITIUNAL USE_PERMIT N0. 1733 ~continued)
C~NDiTIOhAL USF PERMiI REO.UEST - TO PERMIT A~OLLFR SKATING KINK W1711 WAIUERS UF MINIMUM
NUMBER OF PARKINf, SPACcS ANO REQt11RED BLOCK WALL.
There were app roxirnately three people indi~atinq their presence in ~pposition to the
request and althouyh the staff rr~~>ort t<.~ the Planninc~ Commission dated 11uqu5t 15, 1977,
was not read at the public hcaring, it is referr-ed to and made a part of the ~s~inu'es.
Fred Morqenthal ler, pet i l ioner, w~~ti prescnt to answc~r any c~ura5t i;,n.
Dale Eckert, 4183 LafayE~tte, Rivcrside, CA, agrnt, stated the {>~titi<~ner proposes to
erect a family skatP cent.^r on the {~r~perty; th~t th~ -~ro~erty ha5 an unusua) c.onfiquration
and they have worked diligently with staff to meet all the requirernFntS and aqrec with
S~dff recomrncnd.l~lOf15~ Wttfl 8 fCW min~~r c~f'VIll1C>flti: 8~ inqrc~~5 and E'(~1'E'SS ~U ChC ~'lf~JACC'~L
property ; b) ~~nticipated opE~i~itiny hours changed sli~htly. will be 10:00 .~.m. tu
12:0~ midnight on Saturd~~y and I:00 p.m. to 12;00 midniyht c~n Sunday5, with normal
Ilexibility wlthin the~ uperati~rti, il i, ~i ; ciay a wccl~'. ope-ation; i! i~ a frl~~ily ~rn~rr
and most ~f [he peoplc ~~ttendinq ~re children between the ayes c~( 7 to lt or 14 who do
not drive~ the center is opcratref c~n a scssion batiis, sknters are in5i~le the fa~.ility,
there will be no tcm qestion and, hopefully, noi~e wil) be containcrd within the ccnter.
Ed Carson, 2J25 Puritan Place. adjacenc pro~~erty owner, stated he wa~, opposed to the
requested waivcrs and felt therc were sever~il items in the ~taff repc~rt wl-ich did not
adeyuately .~ddress the horneowner's prc~tection. (1) cre 6-ro~~c hiqh wall h•~"ind the hause
is not 6-fcet, but 5-feet at the exi5tinq level. Hc 5tatcd [hat somconr ~. already dumping
fill dirt on the site and lie could not see from lookinq at th~ plans what the proposcd
elevdtion is for thc parki,iy loc .~nd wondcred if it is qoiny tn be less than 5 feet.
(2) the 10-foot landscaped setback, he did not feei would be adequat.e tu kec~ peaple
from throwing things over the fen~;:e if {~arkiny would be allowed ~djacent to the backyards.
(3) he did not feel thP reyursted nu~nber of parking spaces was adequate. (4) he was
concerr7ed about the parking l~t I+yhtinq , whr~ther or not it wc~uld be shielded, would
it dirtcted toward the residences or toward tf~e freeway. (S) he didn'[ want the garbage
bins next to his fence. (6) he fel[ 12:00 midnight was tao lat~ for 7-year c,ld children.
(7) he was c~ncerned at,~utthe private parties and specia~ le.,~ons referred tn after hours
or off-hoi~rs and wondered if that meant [hey would start a[ midniqht and last until 4:00
a.m. (~, he was concerned about being ablr to hear musir_ fr~m th~ skate center; and
(9) he was concerned about water draining from the higher parkini~ lot into his backyard.
Eleanor Bay~ 2148 W. Gray~on, member of Coalition of Anaheim Leaders (COAL) stated she
was no[ a re~ident of the area, but felt. slie had !o speak out against this becauSe it is
an encroachment on th~ residential homes; that. roller rink.s are well-l:nown for creating
noi~~e and creating hanqouts and will af~ect the peaple who live [o the south; that she
sees attempts of such encroachments every week and felt it is time to stop the abuse of
the residential neighborhoods; tiiat these people already have to live with the noise from
the freeway and more pr~blems should not be added to the on~s they alrPady have. She
read a state~r~nt for goals and policies for corr~mercial areas from the General Plan estab-
lished for Planning Area B as follows: "Es[ablish site design conceFt necessary to insure
that commercial centers form a compa[ible and integral part of residertial neiqhborhocds
with~n which [hey are locate~."
In re~ponse to the opposition, Mr. Eckert referred to earlier comments reyarding the i
drainage and stated the petitioner was not dumpiny fill dirt on the property; chat
he was told the fencA at the south end of the property was 6 feet hiyh and if the grade
is increased in that area, a 6-foot fence and landscaped area will be provided; that the
trash bins vrill be moved to the center portion of the property; that recommendations
from other cities have been provide~ regarding the parking situation indicating that
this is a situation where most o^F the children are dropped off, they go inside the
Y
structu~ and skate for a sess+an, there is no smoking inside the facilit and there
8-15-77 77-527.-
___.. _ ~ , ..,..:,.. ~.e..
MINUTES, ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, llugust 15, 1977 17-528
EIR NEG. UEC., RECLA55. N0. 77-78-9 F~ ~QNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NA.1733 ~c~ntinued)
is a dress code eliminating a lot of thc problems ~:l:~te centers secrncd to havr. had in thc
past; that the parking lot 1 ights a~' ~ i u~. directr.d down and away from residential
areas; that. special lessons and atter hnur5 sPSSions are for teachers ~o give lessons
to those des i ring ta improve thei r skat inn ab i I i ty; that thc drainaye problem wi I I have
to be rPSOlved to the sat isfact i~n of City stand~7rds; and that thi s is a masc~nry bui lding
and. hopefully, noise wl) l be no problem,
THE PUBI ~ C HEAR I NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioncr Herbst asked Mr. Eckert ahout fhe landsc~piny pr~~~,.~sed. Mr. Eckr_rt repl ied
that due tc~ the type ~nd size of the facility, they had worked to cornc• up with the 10-fo<~t
l~ndscaped area and to mcet the 100-car parking reyuirementy. Ne stated the petitioner
i5 willirq to heavily landscape the 10-foot area sirnilar to what w~uld be required adjacent
to the freeway. He statcd the pet i t i~ner is also wi I 1 ing to put up another block wal 1.
C~nrni55iuncr Hcrbst did not feel a fi-fovt wal i wnuld at[enuatc~ the sound; that with
cars parkinq th~re, a 10-foot buffcr and 6-loot wall ~~ould not be adequate; that
either a 20-foot hu(f~r or a hiqher wal l would be neces~ary to pro[ect the hc~meawners.
Mr. Eckert replied that a 20-foot buffer could not be ~;rovided due to the confiquration
o~f [he prc~per~y.
Commissoner Herbst felt the homc~owners should be consulied as to whether or nc.~ they
would prefer a higher wall or a 20-foot landscaped b~affer zone.
Cun~~ni5~iuner Kiny pointe~! uut that ctrrtain sound Icvel requiremcnts would have to be
met and Mr. Eckert rep ~ ied that sound Icvr.ls have been met in other fac i 1 i t ies; that
there are wood, concrete and aspha) t f loors for skate center5 ~ but because of [he noi se
a laminated floor will be used which wi 11 be quicter. He stated there wi l l be music xe
skate by, but felt the noise would be co~•,tained wi thin the fac i 1 i[y.
Commissioner Jahnson asked i f the pet i t ioner had provided .~ .y f igures concerniny the
parkinq and Mr. Eckert repl ied [hat inforn,ation had been furni shed to the staff. He
stated that FouRtain Vallcy required 83 parking stalls for a sirnilar facility and
Ventura reouired 92 par•kinq stalls; that rnnst cities in the yreater Southern California
area are finding out th~~t the children who come to the skatina centers are dropped off;
that even though the center looks empty because there are no ~ars in the parking lots,
they are fil led with skater` between the ages of 6 or 7 to 13 or 14.
Cha i rman To I ar d i scussed the concerns expressed: 1) the t rash i s go i ny tc~ be moved
to the center of the property, as st i pulated; Z) the drainage wi 11 be provided to the
satisfaction of the L'ity Engineer•; 3) the ligh[in9 will be diretted away from the
residentia! areas and reyarding the buffer tone, Chairman Tolar stated ~ie would like to
see a combi nat : on of 1 andscap i ng and a block wa 1 1, that he d i dn' [ th i nk two fences as
proposed by the petitioner would serve any purpose; ihac he wculd like to see an 8-foot
wall or combination thereof with heavi ly landscaped bufter on the residence side, rather
than putting up another fence.
Chairman Tolar as{;er~ for input from the neighbors who had expressed their conc.erns.
Mr. Carson asked if [he existiny fence was raised to 8 feet, who wouid maintain it
if a section came down.
Commissioner Herbst explai~ed that the exls[ ing fence ti~ould have to be removed and new
foot~ngs providEd; that a fence over 6 feet high would have to be bui 1 t structural ly.
8-15-11 17-5~
MINUTCS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS ION, Aug~st 15~ 1977 ~~_52c~
F.IR NEG. OEC. , RECLASS. N0. 77-1A-9 F CONUITIONAL USE _PERMIT N0. 1733 (cont inucd)
Mr, Eckcrr stated he feit it wauld be difflcult ta sat.isfy all the property owners
conci~rniny the fence and w~~uld prefer prnviding a structu~ally ~~ound wall adjacent
to the existing fence.
Chalrman T~lar stated before hc would votc fHVC~rably on the project~ the concerns of
the hnm~nwners would have bc ,~nswered; that he dld nc~t think the ~~ropcrty owncrs would
wank to see another wal 1 on the othcr s idc of t hci r wal I,
CUrmiissioner Johnson expressed concern re9ar~~ing the ~irainage in theevent the propPrty
is filfed and Mr. Eckert replied that the drain age coi~cept and gradin~ h~d not bern
dealt with but that some preliminary work indieated thr prot,lem could hc handled.
Commissioner Barnes tried tc~ allevia'e some ~~f the Fears expressed ~hout the wall falling
down by point inyo uut a structura) wal) would bc~ much nK,r~ cn~ind th~~~z thc ~vcraqe wal ls;
that it would hc designed and would be strengthened to st.~y up and ~~robably last a lot
lonqf•r.
Mr. Carsun ,tated a higher wal I wauld be preferaGle to a wider bu(fe:- zonc wi th landscaping,
bu[ he didn't know how rnuch hiyher it would need to be to attenuatc the sc~ui~d.
Chairrnan Tolar pointed out the developer i5 wi 1 ling to huilA another `ence. 8 feee on
his side of [he property, but he fclt F~e shc~uld replac:e thc existing Fence.
Frank Lawry, Asst. City Attorney, voiced his concc~rn as to whefhf~r ~,r not the Commission
could require the developer to [ake act ion un scnnr.body else's property which would be
creating a liauility for him.
Commissianer Linn stated hr. v,as conc.erroed about tht~ noise with the rnasc~nry building and
people ariving in to pick up thcir ch? i dren, honkiny their horns, etc. and the noise
bouncing right off the wa) ls of the bu i Iding. He fel i the entrance to tfie bui Idiny
should be relocated to the north end of the bu i Iding.
Mr. Eckert explained the functional areas of the skate center and Chairrnan T~lar suggested
tlie ent rance and area where skaters wou ld go to put on the i r skaces be rr. versed; that
one of the design functions has ~reatrd t.he problem and that the dPVeloF~er may be tryiny
to do too rnany things in the building.
Mr. Eckert repl ied that he could make a study of that si tuat. ian which wouid put
all usable parking on the front.
Commissioner Barnes suggested the bui ld in9 be rrx~ved to the south and the parking being
put on the other s ide. She felt the res ider,ts would rather have the bui Iding ?5 or 30
feec away with no parking on the back.
Mr. Eckert requested a two week con[ inuance to ~ubmi t revised plans.
ACTION: Conunissioner Herbst offered a mot ion, seeonded by C~rnmissioner l.inr. and MOTION
CARR I ED UNAN I MOUSLY, that cons i dera[ i on of tl~e aforement i oned i tem be cnn t i nued to
the regular meetiny of the Anaheim City Plannin g Commission on August 29, 1917,
in order for the pet i t ioner to submi t revised p(ans.
8-15-71 77-529
MINUTES, l1NANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au~auSc 15, 1y77
77-53~
ITEM N0. 7 PUBLIC 11EARING. Owncr: JERRV b SHERRI MARKS, 2q Inverness~
E~IR NEGA?IVE DEGLARATION Newport ~~ach, CA 9266 O, Agent: JOSE~'H OOY~E, 1432 W.
RECLASSIFICATION N0~ 78-IQ 8ever7y Dr?ve, Anaheim~ CA 92801. Subject property is
' ^ a rectangulsrly-shaped pArce~ c~f land consistir~g of
approximetely 0.7 acre located at tht~ Suuthwest c~rner of Lincoln Nv~nue and Empire Street.
haviny apprnximate frontage5 of 105 feet on the sou~l~ .:.;e of Lincc~ln Avenue and 280 f~et
on the wes' side of Empire. Reque~st for reclassificatio n from RM-12QQ(RESIDENtIAL,
Ml1LTIPLE-FAM~LY) and Cl ICOMMERf,IAL, LIMITF.D) ZONES to tl~e CL~CUMMFRCIAI , LIMiTCO)zone.
There were thr~e prapie i ndicat inq the i r pre5e ,ce in rppc,rs ~ t i on to thc request and
althot.iqh thr_ sta~f rr.port to the Planniny Cc~mmission d~ted Auyust 15, ~y11, was not
read at the publir he~rinq, it i~, rhf~rred to and made a p~rt of the minute5.
J. J. Tashiro, AsSistant Planner, rFad thrc~e letlers which had been rr.ceivcd in ~ppositi~n
to the request. TheSe lett.~rs were from Georqe Mayc~. 11$ Hickc~ry Ridqe~, ii~uston, Texas
])02~+, owner nf prnrnrty at ~fly S. Fm~ir~•; N.~nr,y Suc~ CurriE•, 2Q~8 Ernh~~s5y; and Jim
Klinx~vich, 201 Empir<~ Street. ThesF lettc~rs are on file in the office of the Planninq
Drpar lnirnt .
Carl W. Kalie, 1341 Avila Place, Orangc~, ownr.r and operator of Kay Kalie Music Store b
Studio, 84n8 LaPalma, Eiuena Park, was pres~nt t~ answc~r any quCSti~~ns.
Chairman 7olar ~sked Mr. Kalie if the Markti ~~Arc the ownerti of thr prc~p~rty fomrr,only known
as Ole's or Linhrooks and Mr. Kalie rPplied that they were.
Mr. K~lic~ Pxnl~in~~1 h~ has <~p~rated the bu5inesti in Hue na Park f~r 13 ycars and wiShPs
to relocate to the subjPCt property in ordPr tn Nxpand his busin~~,s. He prc~5~nted photo-
qraphs ~f buffer zone5 at othPr businessc~s in the immP diate area and pointc~d out they
vary quite a bit,
Jerry Shoffner, i226 Polaris Drive, Newpc~rt Eieach, CA, ~~rchitect, referred [o the sta(f
report, Item N6, reqardinq vehicular acce5s to the pro p~tied devef~pm~nt and pointed c~ut
there are three access points, rather than twn as stated. The third acceSS is actually
~ff the 20-foot rasement on thc frant of thc~ prop~~rty t~n the Lincoln side. He stated
there will be no access on therr_arportian of the prope rty; th~t ~e~ple would not be able
to tome from Linbrook Hardwar•e and exit onto Lincoln; that the hl~ck wall would remain~
and that they will have access rights for the first portiun of that 20-fc~t easement.
Mr. Shoffne~ referred to Item N13 of the staff report concerniny the 20-foot wide land-
scaped buffer strip. He stated ~ lot of considerat:io n had been given to thi5 and in an
attempt to have the building compatible with the surro unding areas in terms of height,
keeping the anx~unt of the seconc~ story area to a minirr~urn, the 3-foot wide strip ha5 been
prc~posed. He sta[ed if the petit~oner is required to provide [he largcr buffer zone
and to re I oca t e t he pa ~k i nc~ away f rom t he res i d~nt i a 1 deve 1 opmen t, t t~en he w i I 1 be reqia i red
to put. more of the building area on the second floor and this could be objectionable
to the surrounding homeowners. He stated tne petitio n er i5 w~lling to heavily landscape
for sound control.
Mr. Shoffner then refe rred to Item N14 regarding the TrafFic Engineer's recommendation
that the southerly driveway be relocated to align clo sely as possibie with the centerline
of Embassy Street. NP stated the driveway is as far svuth as it can go without eliminating
a row of parking.
~osendo Euzarraga, 2043 W. Embassy, referred to a small center which was not mentioned
and reported employees from that center are parking c n Empire StrePt because it is more
convenient. He also reported that when Linbrooks ru n specialsaies and on weekends, a lot
of peopte park alang the sireets.
a-~ s-» »-s3o
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, August 15, ~977 71'',i31
EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATION b R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 77-18-10 (continued)
Mr. Euzarr~go also ~tate~l his eoncern reg.irdini~ parking lc-t liyhtin~a and thc loeation
of the trash bins, pointing out the trash bins for the shc~p~inq center he rnentioned
previously arc bchind his property and pcople throw tra~~h over the fence now. He
stated the trash biris shc~uld not be plar.ed in thc front of` the property.
Cha~rman 7oldr po~~ited out the loca~iur~ of the tra5h hins an che plan5 to Mr. Euz.arraga.
Mr. Euzarra9o stat~d thcre are many children in the n~iqhborh~od and fclt their safety
was a majur toncer'n. Ne stated ail his nr_iyhb~~rs and he abject to any driveways
opening onto Empire Srre~t because they already havc, a problen~ thcre,
Lorette Duguay, 114 S. Ernpirr, stated her property Fat,es the 5ubjrct property ar~d she
objected to the driveway openiny onto Empire, facinq hc:r pr~~perty; that she thou9ht it
would t~e devaluatinq tc~ hc~r prc~perty and would make il very di(ficult to sell the
~~rnrrrty. Shr nlt~~ ~tnt~rt Shr w,~5 ~~inr~rn~~1 ~h~ut th~ 1 i~~ht inr~ ~~nr1 ~ugqc~st~d ~ binck
wall would he n~re desirable alony Em~~ire Strcet.
Mr. Shoffnc~r stated employr.e parkinq on re5idr_ntial Streets is a hr,rd thinq t<~ confrol,
hut the intention w~3s that the parkiny located r.~n thc rt:ar portion of thc property
adjacent to the r~~sidential zonc wi 11 bc dc~5ic~nated for employc~e parkiny. Re.gard~ng
the lighting, he stated there will be ~~uffic:ient liqhting for security control of thr.
parking lot; the normal operatinq h~urs ~~~~ fr~~m IO:f~O a.~~. [0 9 00 p.m, with security
patra) aftei hours and thc lighting would bc rninirnum as con•~parrd to a fast-food operation.
He stated lne lighting would be de~~ignr_d to rnecl the sati5facti~n of thc Ciry standards.
Ne also state~ tf~e trash bins havP heen rclocated tU the rear of the buildiny ad_jacer~t
to the 20-foot easement; that thi, operation will not run crash sales simila~ tu thosr_
referred tc~ hy l.inbruoks ~•~hich are c~u~in~~,~ parking problern; that tht~ ~arkiny pr~blem
will be there whether this s[ore is huilt or rio[. Reyar~~inq the driveway access ref'erred
to by Ms. Cuyuary, he pointed out the southerly driv~rway iS across from her property
and the northerly dr~veway is acroSS from commercial property on the c.~rner of Lincoln
and Empire.
Comr!~issioner King asked if the northerly driveway i; aliqned with t.he driveway across
the street and Mr. Shoffner replied that he wa, not s~re whether it wa5 ar not~
bu[ didn't think it was.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLASED.
Commissioner Johr,son asked h~w many en+ployees were anticipated and Mr. Shoffner replied
there wnuld t>e 15 ~mploYees, ~ part-tin~e.
C~rronissioner King pointed ~ut the property a[ the south end is zoned fnr apartments
and sta~ed the re would be r,iore traffic and parkiny problems cr~ea[ed with apartments
than wi+h a music store.
Comrnissioner Barnes asked the location of the entrances to the buildirg and Mr. Shaffner
replied there was one on the north s~de of the building franting on Lincoln and one
entrance adjacen[ t~ the stairwel) in the ~ear~ plus one entrance adjacent to the
trash area for employees and service.
GommissionPr King asked that the 20-foot easement access be clarified because he thought
it was an exit only from Linbrooks and Mr. Shoffner replied the music store wi11 be
allowed to use it .
8-15-17 71-53T
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT~ PLANNING f,OMMIS510N, Au~uSt 15, ~917 71-53?
EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATION b RECLASSIi ICATIOW IJO, ii ;~ 1C (~c~~~t~~~~ucd)
Joseph Doyle, 1432 W. Beverly Urive, Anaheim, expl~ined thc f~asement at th~ present
time is not an officia) easement, but is oeing madc inta one f~~r thi~; lot split;
tFiat t.he hardware. store will have egress only and the mu5ic stor~ will have ingress
and eqre~,s.
Commissioner Kinq was contern~~d therc: wo-ild bc accidents with traffic going weet
and that vision would be blocked hy the carpet store. Mr. poylr ~ointed out that i~
set back 26 feet,
Chairrnan Tol.~r felt the music store w~~uld be thc~ hiqhese ~ind best u5e for the
property, but stated he could not ~~uptx~rt the inqress ~~nd crre,s on Cmpirc at thc
s~uth property line; that a block wall should he construct~~d So there is no fngress
and egress and the employePS can park in the rr_ar; that a written ayrecment shoulcl
be obtained trom th~ Marks [o allov~ in_yress ott lincoln; that hF telt the ~ther
problerns c~uld be resolved reqardinq thr~ liyhtiny and IandSCaped bufter Strip.
Mr. Shoffner stated the petitioner would br.~ willinq to e11mIf1~3IC the tiuutherly driveway.
Comrnissioner Herbst Stated thc 20-t~oot landscaped buffer zonc adjacent to che
residential area should be pravided tc~ protect the homeowner's privacv. He fel[ fhe
building v~ulcl b~ place on the lot to provide that 20 fect l,etween lhe hon+es and a
commercial area. Ne als~~ fel! thi~s was important because nf thc~ ~~ffice and studio use
and raof-garden nrop~sed.
Mr. Shoffner explained the office use and s[udios are only feir the use c~f the music
store; that it is a one u~,e Uuildinc~.
Mr. Shoffner stated he felt the width of the strip was not .~; imF~nrtant as what would
he planted thcre, i.e. some tvpe c~f larqe~dense, hedgc-type (oliaye vc~r~,us a 20-foot
landscaped area w~th qround cover.
Chairinan Tolar scated he was suygesting an 8-foot high blc~ck wall, with a 10-foot
densel~- landscaped buffer strip to mitigate the n~ise from the traffic.
Commissioner Barnes suggested the entrance be relocated to the front of th~ building
with parking also in the front. Mr. Shoffner explained that a piano store needs
t~ d~splay their pianos,much like an aurorrx~bile dealer. Ne stated the noise fac.tor
is very low because the building will be sound proof and thac there !~il) be n~ sales
of tapes, recorcl:, or anything that generates noise. He s[a[ed i.he bu~iness is primarily
cuncPrned with G,eople interested in learniny Lo play the piano.
Chairman Tolar stated he was satisfied with the plan if the petitioner stipulated to
close the driveway referred to; to provide an 8-foot wall along [t~e south property 1ine,
with a 10-foot landscaped buffer; to relocate che trash as mentioned previously; and to
make certain [he lightirio will be away from the reside.nces.
CommissionerJohnson asked if there would be sufficient parking and Mr. Shoffne.r replied
that nx~re area wuuld be on the second floor in order to c.ornply wich the stipulations.
Commissioner King referrPd to a pawer pole located in the center of the property
and asked if that would reduce the number of parking spaces.
Chairman Tolar stated he wanted to be sure the employees wil) park in the designated
spaces and not on Empire and Mr. Kalie staced that his employees will either park where
he tells to or they won't be working for him.
8-15-77 17-532
MINUTE~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au<1~i~~t I~,, 19;7 77••533
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION~ b RECI.ASSIFI'~;ATION N0, 77-78-10 ~continued)
Commissic~ner King asked ab~ut the w~il 1 at the west G,r~~p~rt.y 1 ine and Mr. Sho''fner stated
the bu!lc~ing would Forrn a portion o1 the wall.
Commi ss ion~r Darn~~s JSI~~~a i f t~~e ~,et i 1 ii~ner would hz~ve eyrNSS the ent i re length of
t.he pr~perty on the ~0-foot F~~sement ar~cf Mr. Uoyle replfed that he would.
ACTION: Cnrmii55ioner Bar•ncr~ offe.red ~, rTbtion~ secondcd by ~c~mn~issioner Kin{~ and MOTION
~CARRIED UNANIMOUSL.Y, that, the Anaheiiu City Planning Ccmx~~;ti5ic>n has 1'r±VIrWP.~~ the subject
proposa) to reclassify the z~ninq iro~n F;M-12Q0(Residenti~~, Multiplr.-Fam~ly) and CL
(Corrunerciai, I.imited) zones to the Ct(Cc~mmercial Limi!~d) zc.~r;c on approxim~~tely 0.7 acre
located at the southwe~~t torner of Lincoln i~venue ..nd f.n~pire 5tr~et, havinq approximatc
fr'onLaqes of 105 feet c~n the south 5idi~ of l inc~ln Av~nur• ~nc1 ?AO fr~t ~n rhr WP.Sf SIC~f'
of Empire Slreet~ and does hcreby approv~y a NPgative Decl~:~ra*ion from rhe requirement
to prcparc ~n cnvironi~~r.nt,~l impact rr.~art on thc basi; that thcrE~ would bc no ~iqnifi-
cint individual c,r cumulative a,dvrrSe envimnn,ental impact due t~~ the approval of this
Nr.gativcr Declara[ion sinr.e the Anahc~irn Gener~l Plan dc~sir~nate~ the su,hjei:t property for
general commerr.ia) and !ow-medium de;nsity re,identi~~l u5~~, commen;urate with the prUposdl;
that no sensitive enviranmenta! in,pacts are invUlved in the propos~~l; that thc Initiai
Study suhn,itced by the petitir~nc~r indic'ates no significant individual ~r cumulative adverse
c~nvironmental impact5; and thnt th~e Negative Declaration ,uh•,tanti~~tinq thc foregoinc~
Findings is on file in the ~fficc~ of' the Anaheim City Planninq Dep~r[ment.
ACTION; CUmmi55iUnC1' darne4 offerEd Resolution Nc~. PC77-178, and moved for its passac~e
and adoption~ that the Anahcim City Planninq CommiStiion doe~ hereby yrant Petition
for Reclassification No. 77-18-10, suhject to the followinq sli~ulations by the petiticiner:
a) that the southerly driveway c,n E~npire Street. wi-1 be closed; b) that the 20-foat wide
easement ~~lon~ the~ wesi pr~apert~y line will include in~ress and eqre5s along the entire
leny!.h af the subject property; c) that an 8-f~ot hiqh bloc~. w,ll and a 10-foot wide
densely lanc!scaped buffer area will be pr~vided along the sout, property I~ne adjacent
to the existing resicic~n[ial uses; d) that ~ minir;~um 42"-high ~rlock wall to effectively
scre~n the parking lot from the rer~idrn[ia) uses on thc east side of Empire Avenue
and a 5-foot wide densel~r landscaped setback will be pr~~vide.~ along Empire Street northerly
from the souLh property line of subject property to tt~e wes+erly prologation of the north
side of Embassy Avenup; e) that ihe anticipated hours of op~:ration will be from 10:00
a.rn, t~a 9:00 p.m., with o after-hours operafions; and f) +nat all parkiny lot lights will
bP directed down and away from nearby residential areas; a,d s~bject to Interdeparkmental
Committee Recomrnenda[ions.
On rall call, the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMI55lONERS: Barnes, David, Herbst, John~on, Kir,g, Linn ~ Tolar
NOES: COIiMISSI0NER5: None
ABSENT: COMMIS~IONERS: None
ITEM N0. 8 RUBIIC HEARING. Owner: WAf.DEEN B. b BETTY C. HART, 1825
EIR NEGA'fIVE DECLARATION Beryi Lane, ~~ewpart Beach, CA 9z66~. Agent: BILL PHELPS,
ttECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-11 10~5 N. Main Street, Suite 5, Ora~gN, CA q2667. SubjPCt
~ proper[y is ~n irregularly-shaped rarcel ~f la^~ consisting
of approximately 0•7 acre having a fr~ntage of approximately 241 feet on the west side
of Magnolia Avenue, having ~ maximum depth of approximately 200 feet, and being located
approximately 525 feet nortn of the centerline of Linco{n Avenue. Request is for
reclassification from RS-P.-k3,000(Residential/Agricultural) to RM-1200(Residentiall
Multiple-Family) Zone.
CHAIRMAN TOLAR LEFT THE COUNCIL CNAMBER BRIEF~.Y AND CNAIRMAN PRO TEMPORF HERBST ASSUMED
THE CHAIR. $-15-%7 71-533
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Augu~;t. I5, 1~77 71-534
EIR NEGATIVE DEClAR/1TI0N AND RECLASSIFiC~TION NQ. 77-18-I1{continued)
There was no one indicating their presence in opp~tiition tr~ the ~request and althuugh the
staff rep~rt to the Planning Carnnissio~ dated n~~~~5c. ~5, 1917, wa~; not r~~d at thc
public hearing~ it is referr~d tn and made a p~~rt ~~~ thr. minute~~.
Frank Lowry~ Asst . C i ty At [arney, p~~inted c~ut tc~ the ~~evcloper the racPnt ly enacted C i ty
C~uncil palicy which stale~~ t.here may h~~ no perrn~nent strucLurr_5 ~recced in a public
utility easerr~ent, ancl n~ted three carprart5 .~hich would not be permitted.
William Phefps, 1095 N. Main Street, Stc. S, Oranc~~~~ stated h~~ was aw.7rr of the CUUncil
pol icy and the thrr.c carport~, would be rclocatrd. Ne ~ointec' ~~~it -.hr~rc werc no w~~ivers
beinq reyuested nn thi5 prc~ject; th,at the church i~; relocatir~q its hiqh schc~ol and
they were the main opa~~sition to ~i ~~~evi~~u5 r~r~>.ject on this Site.
THE PJBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Conuni~„ion~r Kinq r~ferr~d to the Traffic !nc~ineer's recr~mn~endatic~n th~t the proposed
driveway be reloc.ateA to aliqn wi~~~ the e~•nterline of the rxistinq driveway on the
east sidc of hiaynolia, and poini~•: out thr~ hiqh p~wcr electric~~) utility pole located
on the property and asked if th. ~~ wc~~• ;,I~ns to r~~locate that polc~.
Mr. Phel~s stafcd tha[ Mr. s •'ti ~~~cummendation is that the driveway bc relocated,
i f possiL,le.
Paul Sinyer, Traffic E.ngir .=~• he always rec.ommends aga~nst offset drivNways;
that offset driveways cr~, • tc~ left-turninq vehicles.
Frank Lawry, Asst. Cit~• ~ ~,ked Mr. Sinyer if the Utilities Department
was agreeable to movir ~ _ ~~olc and Mr. Si~yer stated he felt the driveway
could be adjusted to r~~ '~.+ ~~1c~.
ACTION: Commissionc~r Y,~~~~: --~~ ,+ rnotion, seconded by Cormnissioner David and MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, ;r . ~• ~~~aheir~ City Planniny C~rrnT~issior. has reviewed ehe subjec[
prr~posal to rFClass~'y ~_ -~~erty from RS-A-43,OOOiResidential/Aqricuitural) to
RM-1200(Residential, M~, - -Family) on approximately 0.7 acre haviny a frontage of
approximately 242 feer ;,~- ~~~~ west sidr_ of Magnolia Avenue, havinq a maximum dEpth of
appr~~ximacelv 200 '~•~-1 ,.~~~. ^~ring locat~d approximatefy 525 feec north of the centerl ine
of Lincoln Avenue; :~nd ~~~~•- . tiereby approve a Negative Declaration from the requirement
to preparF an envirurt~~~-~~t impaCt report on the basis that there would be no signifi-
cant in~f~vidua) or c:R~ul. ve ad~-ersQ environmental impact due to the approval of this
Negative Dr~claration ~i~~:~~ the ~aheim General Plan designates the subject property for
medium-dens~ty res~G~~ `~.a< lan uses commensurate v~ith the proposal; that no sensitive
envirornncnc,il impac;~ ar~• invo~ved in the proposal; that the Initial Study subrnitted
by the pe:~t~~ner ind~,-.~te s no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
im~acts; and tnat t~,c Nega tive Declaration aubstantiatiny the foregoing findings is
~n file in th~~ ~ffice~ of t he Anaheim City Planning Department.
Commissioner Kinq offered Resoluti~n No. PC77-179 and mc~ved for its passage and adoption.
that thc~ knaheirr~ City Planninq Commission does hereby grant Petitir,n fo~ Recla~sification
No. '7-7~-II, subject to the petitioner's stipulatinn to rel~cate three carports
wf~ich are proposed to be constructed within a public ut~lity easernent, and subject ta
Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
AYES: COMMIS510NERS: King, Barnes, David. He~bst, Johnson~ linn b Tolar
NOE':: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
8-15-77 77-53M
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION, August 15, ~977 77•535
EIR NEG. DEC. AND ~ECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-I1 (continue~)
Ch~~irman T~lar indicated even though he had been aut of t.he Cauncil Chamber briefly~
he felt he was sufficiFntly informed to act c~n thiti ma[ter.
ITEM N0. ~ PUBLIC IiEARING. Owncr: BLAND f~~Uf'FMAN F, SIiIRLEY S.
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION HUFFMl1N, ll,ri6 linda ViSta Strect, Or~~nye, CA 926G9.
RECLASSIFICATION PJO. 77-78-I2 SubJect praperty i~; an irregulnrly-shaped parcel of land
consisting c~f 1.) acre~; havinq a frontac~e of approxi-
mately 96 fect on the west side of Wcstern Avenue, havinG a maxim~~m depth of approxi-
mately 618 feet and beinq located a{~proxim~~tely 32~ fe.~et north of the centerline of
Ball Road. Request is for reclassification of subjett property fr~m RS-A-43,000
(Residenlial/Aqricultural) to RM-1200 (Residential/Multiple-Family) r.one.
7hcrc ti~crc appror.imatrly 9 pco,;lc indic~tinc; thcir ,>resence in o~.~pc5i!+a~ t~~ fhe r~quest,
and although the StaCf report to the Planniny Conimi5tiion dated Auqust 15, 1977 was
not read at [he publ ic hcariny, it is referrerJ tc~ ancl m,~~1e a~~~ir ~~~f tl~e ininute.s.
Bland Huffm~n, owner, stated th~~re arc no waiver5 bciny reyue~;ted ~~n this project and
that the prop~rty is xoned for medium-density un:ier the Genc~ra) Plan and that lhis
developmen[ meets al) zoning requirernents.
Jim Cogwin, 922 5. Westchester Orive, llnaheim, ~re5c~nted an uF~dated traf'fic thart. Ne
stated thr_re has becn c~ntinuous property owner opposition to proposed development on
this odd-shaped piece of pruperty; that they realized p rorye~s has t~ hF~ Served :~nd
there w+ll be a de~velopment on this propcrty; and that F~ven though no waivers are beinc~
requested, they felt 18 unies on I.I acres is toc~ much density and that most of the
property owners would yo along with 13 ur 14 unitr,. He stated the previouc action,
referred ta were by different owners and he didn't fee) anybady had been stuck with a
hardship piece of p roperty becausr_ the propcrty has been dormant for many years; thai
he telt this praperty would have a severe d~aina~~e problem which he felt Should be
5rought to the Commis~~ion's attention; and th~3t the n~ain concern of the property owners
was the [raffic proble~ns and rrferred to tl~e !raffic charL submitted indicating a drastic
increase in accidencs and injuries ac the intersP~ti~n of Western and Ball,
Mr. Cogwin indicated he had not receivPd a property owner's notice of this hearing;
that he had contacced the Planning Deparc~~ent and had been informed that 16 notices were
mailed and iwo were returned but !hat at least thrf~r• ;>ropE•rry ~wnc~rs ahuttinc; rhe ~:ubjeet
proper[y were not even an the list.
Annika San[alahti, Asst. Planning Direct~ar-Zoning~ 5tated tt~at this had been a mistake,
that the prop~rty owners on the north and west, the two most interested areas,
were not notified, b~~t that the hearing htMd been published in the newspaper and [he
property was posted.
Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney, apolo_yi;~ed for this error and pointed out there arc
[hree legal means of notification and nn~~~ ~n~e is requir•c~d by law and most Cities
only use one and mailing is dons by very few; that the City of Anaheim is one of tlie
few who still use this expensive form of r~otice, plus adver•tisement +n Che newspaper
and posting of lhe property.
Mr. Martin, 811 S. Western, Anaheim, stated he f~ad been a resident of the area since
1943 and had been before the Corr~nissic~n many times. He pointed out his property
is contiquous with the Donovan estato whicn is contiguc~us to the subject Froperty and
that he ha~ riot received a natice in the m~-~il; that he drives past subjeci property
and did not see the pesting there, indicating a Few weeds could canceal the notice.
8--5-71 77-535
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auqust 15~ 19)7 17-53~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7A-12 (continued)
Mr. Martin stated he wa5 roncerned ahout the coverage; that 48`~ site COVPI'~yP. was too
rnuch in thc rnedium-density resident~al zone; that children will liave no place to play;
that he is stro~igly opposed to site coverage b~cause he felr this would be marginal
living ~nd ~eit the developer was trying to put too much on too littlc ground. He
stated he was not sympathetic to someone buyiny land that nobody wanted f~r 20 years
and that land becominq valuable land because it can he called a hardship parc.el;
and that he was concerned about the parkinq problem which already exists and whicl~
will increase if these apartments are allowed. Ne fclt additi~nal land ~hould be avail-
~ble s~~ [here will be parking spaceti and the people have more rc~om and nc~t be living
in a Small res[ricted area.
9i11 White, F'astor of the llnaheim Baptist Temple, 3233 W~ Ball R~ad. Anaheim, presented
a petiti~n containing 27 signature~ in opposition tu lhi~. I'r_yut•5i. fiC ~tated the churrh
h~s he~en there fo~ 21 years and new buildinys have been built accordin_y to the Code
requirements. He indicated the cliurch members and the surrounding neigh5ors woulcl
like to have the height ~f the wall incrcased because of the probicros with window
breakagc, the children's safety, etc. the entire lenyth of the church prc~perty.
Frank Lnwry, Asst. City Attorney, indicated the Crde requires a minimum of 6-feet for
site screening, but the Commission caulcl require a 10-foot wall, if thcy deemed it
appropri~[e.
T. C. Dannvan, 9~5 S. Western, indicated his property is contiguous to the subject property
~n the north side for the full 600 feel. Ne rrferred to a le[tr.r he had submitted which
was included in the Commission's aqenda and stated he wisfi ta poin[ out to Mr. Nuffman
that fie was not ~pposed to the concept of the praject and felt the problems could be
resolved and that thr. devel~pmeni could be compatible with the neiyhborhood. He presented
a lisf of signatures of people agreeing with the letter referred to ear•lier~ and dis-
cussed the five requests in the letter as follows: 1) We request a minimum 30-inch
planting and curb area on the sou.h side of our existing wall wherever a driveway
is presentand to continue on the south side of the new wall between the two covered
carports and continuing beyond the second carpart to the end of [he proper[v, including
the 61 lineal feet abutting the neighbors on the west. He stated this 30" width was
fur protection of an existir,g wall and that the averaqe overhang of a car will require
a 30" pro[ection area. He stated the peoGle to [he inxnediate west propose a wider
planting area since [hey dan't have an existing planter and this ~vould have to be resolvcd
between [h~ Comrnission and the petitioner. 2) The blc~ck. wail fence height fram the
beginning of the carpor:s abutting our property line be raised to 10 feet and extended
at that height to the westerly boundary and kept at 10 feet on the west 61 lineal feet
of the project. This wall not to be used struc:turally to sup~ort or enclose the carports.
He pointed out the carport and trash area are adjacent to his barbeque, abo~t 40 feet
away. He requested that the 10-foot wall be a continuous height so there would not
be varying heights of the wall. 3~ No lighting be approved within the project to be
over 7 feet in height. He stated while adequate liqhting must, be given for security
purposes, the res~dents did not want high mercury lights shining down on adjacent
proper[y. 4) Tl~e trash pick-ups be relocated away from aur property fe~ce line and
5) Since this project has the extreme interes[ of the neighborhood, that the Planning
Commission stipulate its final approval as per the precise plans that have been
submitted for zone changes and hopefully inclu~ing the a'.:ove conditions in its approval.
8-15-77 77-53b
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISS~ON~ August !5, ~911 77-531
CiR ~~CGATIVC DEfLR°1`,T14N AND ?ECLncciF~r,~TI~N N0. 77-78-12 fcuntinur_d)
!'r. Phelps stated he was willing to meet a~l khe requests of the op~-osition and
to meet all requests of the City in putting these garden-type units on the property
which arP ~ompat(ble tv the neighborhood. H~ ~tated the sautt•~ and west walls were
i~re imporlant than the north wall and that hr~ felt thc~ problems with childr•en
pl.~ying unrestricted and shooting BB guns at the windows would be alleviated.
THE PU4LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissior~er Herhst statPd it appeared to him there would be twc, t.cn-font walis
creating a long narrow, concre[P-encased parcel and fc~lr lhe project was backwards.
Ne SII~~~P..StC'C~ thc living areas should he adjacent to each other and f.he carports
should be adjacent to the commercial area an the south side. He felt it could be
dane in a manner to make the project morr. viable as far as living ~uarters are c~n-
cerned. He uui~~lrJ out the nr.cd for onother recrcationa) ar~~~~ f~~r t~~ rPSid~nts
in the back portion of the d~velopment.
Mr. Phel,~s stated Cornmissioner Herbst's suqgestion could be done if this was the
wir~t~ of the entire Commission which would p rohably make the Traffic F.ngineer happier
because the driveway could be aligned with the one across the street.
Commissioner Johnson stated he agreed with Cc~mrnissioner fferbst and he did not like the
10-foo~ wall residence to residence concept either.
Mr. Donovan stated he thought thc icle~ 5un~r~tpd would be bet,c~r for everyone
and that the only reason for the 10 foot wall would be tn havr th~~ w~711 all the s~me
heic~ht.
Commissioner tiing asked Mr. Donovan if he woutd prcfer the residential area nc~~•t
to his pr•operty racher than the parkiny and Mr, ponc~van stated this p-oposal would
be acteptable to the neighhorhood.
The C~mmissior,, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Donovan and Mr. Martin discussPd the wall heights
and locations.
Commissianer Herbst suggested eliminating one unit and possi~ly two to provide another
recreational area h~ecause he fel[ ~ne of tfie main points of contention was the density.
Commissioner Johnson agreed and stated the 5 ar 6 units at the rear of the pr~ject
are very difficult ta get tu and to fullow Cnmmissioner Nerbst's suggestion would
improve the circulation and that he would probably have to eliminate some of the uni[s.
Chairman Tolar suygested Mr. Phelps request a continuance to redesign the project and
Mr. Donovan asked if Mr. Singer would n~ake a traffic study c~f the intersec[ion at
Western Avenue and Hall Road, pointing out exis~ing problems. "Ir. Donovan also requested
that the neighbors be ~,rovided a copy of the revised plans prior tr.. [he mee;ing.
Chairman Tolar stated he could not tell Mr. Phelps co meet with the neighbors, but could
sugg~s[ it.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a rnotion, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that consic~eration of the aforementioned item be continued ta the
regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission on ~~~tember 1'1, 1977.
8-15-77 77-537
MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITV PLANNING f.OMMISSION, Auyust 15. 1977 77-538
ITEM N0. 10 NUtslll. HtNniNC,. uwiir~ . CAi~I L' 'JC"1~ ^"T!!CF'EP., 2~~^5
EIR NEGATIVE DEC'_ARATION Cliff Drive, Newport Beach~ CA 92663. llgent: FRANK
RECLASSIFICAT101~ N0. 77-78-14 WOOLSEY, 16917 3olsa Chica Strcet, Nuntington Heach, CA
"~ 92649. Sub.ject property is in irrr.yularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately I.0 acre, havinq a i'rontaqe~ of approximately 146
feet on thc south side of Orangewc»d Avrnue, having a;nrixinium depth of 415 feet, and
being locatcd approximately ~(15 fret weSt of the centerline of H~yrbor 9oulev~rd.
Request is (or reclass~fication ~~f the subject prc~pert~;~ from Rs-n-43,000 (Re,idrntial/
Ayricul[ural) to CL(Cn~~n~rci.~!, Limited) zone.
There w~~.s no cinc i nd i cat i nc~ t hr i r pr~~seni.e I n e~~>~,~,~, i~ i on t c~ t he re~~ue~, t.~nd a I t hc~~~:.~h lhe
staff report to the Plannin9 Conxnission dated llugu5t 15, 1977, was not read at tha~
public heariny, it is refcrred tu and rnade a part cF thc minutes.
frank WoalSCy, aqent, was present ta an5wer any qu~stions.
THE PU~LIC NFnRINr, WAS ~LOSED.
Commissioner Kinq askcd Mr. W~~olsey if he woi:ld b~ able to comply with the requirement
for 15 ft. vertical clearance for inyress ard cyreSS to perrnit tr,tsh truck accessibility
and Mr. Woclsey replied he had th~ught this wa5 to :~Ilow acces,s tc~ emeryency equipment,
but there was no problem with complyiny.
ACTION: Commis~ioner King affcrc~d a motion, Scconded by Commission~.r Hr_rf,st tand MOTION
CARRIED UNANIM01)SLY, that the Anaheirn City Planning Cummission has reviewed the subject
proposal to reclassify the praperty frorn RS-~A-43,000(iiesidential/Agricultural) to CL
(Con~niercial, Limited) on approxirr~:~tely 1.0 acre, haviny a frontag~ ~~f approximately 146
feet on the s~uth side af Or~-~nyewood Avenue, haviny a maximum depth of 41~~ feet, and
beiny located approximately 205 feet west uf ~he cencerline of Hanc~,r Boulev3rd,
and doc~, hereby approve a Negative Declarat.ion from che requirement to prepare an en-
vironmental impaci re~+ort on the basis that there would be no significant irdividual
or cumulative adverse environmenta) impael duc to the approva) of this Pleqative Declara-
Cion since the Aneheim General Plan designates the subject property For gencral
commercial land use5 commensura[e with the proposal; that no sen;itive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal; that [he Initi.~l Study submitied by the petitioner
indicates no signifir_an[ i~dividual or curr~ulative adverse environmen[al impacts; and
that the Negative Declaration substantiating thc foregoir~y findings is on file in the
office of the Anaheim City Planniny Department.
ConxnisSioner King offered Resol~tion No. PC77-18~, and ~~~ ved for' its passage and adoption,
that the Anaheim City Planning Cornmission does hereby grant Petition for Reclassification
No. 77-78-14, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendation~~.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Barnes, David, Nerbs[, Johnscm, Linn b iolar
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
17EM N0. ll PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: CEN?RAL ASSEMBLY OF GC~, ~'~26
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATiON E. East Street, Anaheim, CA g2805 and SOUTFIERN
CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT NC. 1737 CALIF'ORNIA DISTRI~T COUNCIL OF iHE ASSEMBL.IES OF GOD.
INC., P. ~. Box ~+398, pasadena, CA 91106. Subject
property is a rectangulcrl~~-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximate.ly l.S acres
having a maximum depth of approximately 380 feet, being located approximately 132 feet
north of the centerline of Turin Avenue, and further described as i026 5. East Street.
Request is for approval of a c~nditional use permit to permit a church exp~;,~ion with
waivers oi minim~m sideyard setback and minimum rear yard setback.
8~15-i7 17-538
MINl1TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au9ust 15, 1971 17-539
C I F iiCGNT i UL DCCLARAT f Ot~ At~C C~`JD 1 T 10~J11L US~ "EP.N I T M0. !?,?
There was no onP indicating their presence in opposition t~ the requesl and although
tiie staff report •o thc Planning l'ommission dated 11uq~~si I~, 1977, was not read at the
publ ic hearing, ii is referred to ~-+nd made a~art of th~~ rninutc~~,.
Elwin Lewis, 825 S. Avoceda, Pastor af thP f,~~ntral Assembly of Gaci, stated the prop~sa)
is to add a second stnry to the existinq structuri,~ ,.nci to add 8 feet ~~t the east end
for restroams; :hat there is a pre-schr~o) ~~nd thr.~ licensing agency requires more restrooms;
th~t th~ huildiny will bn close to the property line aC the rast end, which c~n be
con5id~red an easpment piece of property since thcre i; only a pump houSe fhere owned
by Menasha Cc~rp~.ation and the whole structure w~~uld bc IS fr~t c~n th~ nor[h and
]0 feet on the eas,t away from any structure and thrre iti ~i 6•foot fr_nce araund the
entire property; that no objections have heen received from thc~ property owners
~nd that the construction will br done in two staqeti,
Cornmissioner Kinq referred t~ the Traffic Enqinr.er's recomrn~ndation that 6 parking
spaces, loc~ted adjacent to the sanctuary nurth o( [he~ 2-way access drivew~~y be
realigned to accomr~ date the two-way traffic.
Pastor Lewis stated hc had discussed this and it was suqgest~d the angle of thr parking
on the south side bt anqled the other way. Fle Stated this, could be accomplished but
they would prefer to leave it the way it is now; that it is used for staff parking.
Paul Singer, 7raffic E~gineer, stated he would suygest that parkiny should always
be in the direction of the tra(fic t~ecau5e i[ creates less hazard than having to
cross a stream of tr•affic in order to park,
Chairman Tular stated 'niS cuncern regarding the t:vo-story building since it is abutring a
residen[ial area and Pastc~r Lewis pointed out the 5econd story is looking onto an
adjac.ent street.
ACTION: Commissioner Linn offered a nx~tion, secanded by Comn~i5sion David arid MUTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY that the Anaheim Citv -'lan~~ing Comr~iission has reviewed the subject proposa)
consisting of a church expansion on approximately 1.5 acres having a fr~ntage of approxi-
mately 174 feet on the east side of East S!rec[. heing located approximately i32 feet
north of the centerline of Turin Avenue. and further described as 1~26 S. East Street,
with w aivers o( minimum sideyar•d sethack and minimum rear yard setback, and does approve
a Negative Declaration from the req~irc~menC [o prepare an environmental impact report
for the subject property on the basis that there woutd be no significant individual or
cumulativr adverse environrnental impatt due to the approval of this Negative Declaration
since the Anaheim General Plan desiqna[es the ~ubject property for low-density residential
land uses commens~rate with the proposal; that no sensitivic environrnental elements are
involved ?n the proposal; and the Initial Sludy submitted by the applicant indicates
no significant individual or cumula[ive adverse environmental impac[s; and that the
Negative Declaratiun substantiating the foreyoing findings is on file in the office
of the Anaheim City Planning Department.
Commissiorer Linn offPred Resolution No. PC7?-181 and moved for its passage and adoption
that the Anaheim City Planning Comm~ssion dc,es hereby grant Pe[ition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 1737; approving waivers (a) and (b) on the basis that the proposa) is
an expansion of an existing use.
On roll call. the fore~oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Linn, Barnes, David, Herbst, ,lohnson, King 6 Tolar
NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8-15-77 17-539
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING CQMMISSION, Auqust 15, 1971 77-54Q
ITEM N0, 12 PUHIIC HEARl+~G, Qwn~r; MYUNG SNIK ANb KUM OK YUN,
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS I 733 S, Beach Boulev~~rd, Anaheirn, CA 92804. ~ubJect
I,UNUIIIUNHI. UJt F'kltMll NU. i]SC praperty is a rectanguiarly-Shaped p~rccl uf }anJ
consfsting of Approxim.~tely 0.7 acre. havfng a fr~ntage
of approxirnately 100 feet on the w~st sidc of Bcech Boulevard, being loc~ted approximately
1200 feet north of the cent~~'11ne of Ball Road and further describecl as 733 Sou;h Beach
BoulPVard. Request (s for ~pprovfll of ~ cnnditlon~l use permit to permit expansion af
an exlsting m~tel.
There w~s n~ one indicating their presence in ~ppoSition to the rFquc~st and although
khP staff report to the Pl~nninq (,ornn,issioi7 datcd AuquSt 15~ ~97~, was not read at the
public hearing~ it is rcferred to and made a part of th~ r~inutcs.
Myunq Shik, petitioner, was preSPnt to answer any questions.
THE PUHLIC HEARING WAS CLO~EQ.
It was notecl thal the Director of the Planninq pepartrn~~nt has ~letcrmined that the
{~r'oposed ~ctivity f.~llti within the definiti~n of Se~ctir~n 3.01, CIeSS I, of tht+ City
of Anaheim Guid~lines to the Requiren~nt5 for an Enviro rnnental Impac! Repor[ and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requir~n~ent to (il~~ an EIR.
ACTION: Commissic~ner King offered Rer,olution No, Pf,7)-1$2 and movcd for• its pass~7ge and
adoption, that the An,~heim City i'I~nninq Comrni5sion do~s hereby qr~nt Petition for
Conditional Use Perrnit No. 173$, subject to Interdepartrncnt.al Canuriittee Recomn,cndations.
On roll call, the fc~regoinq resolution was pa5sed hy th~~ following vot.e:
AYES: P.OMMISSI~NERS: Kinq, Barnes, Qavid, Nf~rhtit, Johnson, Linn S Tolar
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; Nonc
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nane
ITEM N0. 13 ~WNER: FI E li pEVELOPMENT, c/o J. H. HEDRICK b Co.,
EiR NEGAT'IVE DECLARATION 900 South San Gabriel 9oulevard, San Gabriel, CA
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9981 9~7?6. ENGINEER: tINO b HILIERUp, INC., 2Go5 Huntington
~ Oriv~, San Marino, CA 91108. 5ubject prc~perty is a
rectangularly-Shaped parcel of land cuns~sting of ap~roximately 0.8 acr~ having a ironfage
c;t approximately 120 feet on the east side o` Loara 5treet, and further described a~
Z110 South Loara Strcet. Request is to establish a I-lot, 6-unit condorninium subdfvision.
There was no one~ndicatiny iheir n~esence in opposition to ihis request. and although
the staff report to the Planning ;ommissi~;n dated August 15, '•9?1, was not ~ead at the
publ ic hearing~ it is referred to o~~+ .,~sde a part of thc minutes.
J. J. Tashiro, Ass[. Planner, noced that the plans for this project was approved in
c.onnectian with Reclassification No. 76-77-5•
ACTION: Commissioner Ying offer~d a motion, seconded by Commissioner Da~~id and MOTION
CARRIED UNANtMOUSLY, that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission has reviewed the
~ubject propusal to establish a I-lot, 6-unit ~ondominium SubdiviSiOn on land
consisting of approximately O.B acre having a frontaye of approximately 120 feet
on the east side of Luar~ Street~ and furtner described as 2210 South L~ara
Street, and does hereby approve a Negative Declaration from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there wo~~ld be no
s;gnificant individua) or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the
approval of this Negative Declaration since the Ana heim Genera) Plan designatea
8-15-71 71-540
~ e..
'l
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Auqust 15~ 1977 77"~~~
FIR NEGATIVE DFCIAAATION AND TENTATIVC h1AP OF T~ACT N0. 9gRt (Continued)
the subJect p~operty Fo~ rt~dium-density residentia) lend uses commensurate with
the proposal; thet no sensltlve anvironmental elements src tnvolved In the
proposal~ and the Initial Study submitted by the applicant Indicates na signl-
ficent ind(viduel or cwnulatlve adverse ~,~vtronmental impacts; and that the
Negative Declaration substantiating tha f~~ogaing findl~gs Is on file in the
CI ty of Anahe Im Planning Department.
ACTION: Comm{ssionnr King off~reJ a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner David and MQTION
~- CARRIED ~Commissioner Johnso~ votiny nc-)~ that the Anahelm C(ty Planning
Commisstor does hereby find that the proposed subdtvislon, togethcr with its
desiqn and improvea~enc. is conslstent with the City of anaheim's General Plan~
pursuant to GovGrnment Code Section 66473.5; end does~ thereforc~ app~~v~
Tentat(ve 1!~+p of 1'rACt No. y961 for a 1-lot~ 6-unit~ RM-4000 (Resldential~
Multiple-F~miiy) Zone conc~aninium si~hdiviai~n, auh)ect to the follow(n~
condl tions:
1. That should tfiis subdivisfon be developed as rrnre than ~~ne subdtv(slon,
each subd(vision thereof sf~all bc zubmitted in tentative form for approval.
2. Th at all lots within tlils tract shall be served by underqround
uti ilties.
3. Th at a flna) tract map of subJect property shall Ue submitted to and
approved by the City Counc(I anJ then be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder.
4. That the covenants~ eonditi~ns~ ancl restr(ctions sF~all be subm(tt~d to
and approved by theC(ty Att~rney's Office pria~ to City Councfl approval of the
f! nal tract map and, f urther• ~ that tl~e approved covenants ~ cond 1 ti ons ~ and
restriGtlons s~~all be recurded c~ncurrcntly with tl~e final tratt map.
5. Th.~t street names shall bc approved by the City Planning bepartrt-ent
prtor to approval of a final tract rrwp.
6. Th at the owner(s) of subject property shall p~y to thc City af Anaheim
the epproprtate park anJ recreat(on in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees tn be paid at the time the building permit (s
is5ued.
7. 'fhat drainage of subject pi•operty shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the CT ty Engineer.
8. That appropriate watc~ assessmcnt fees~ as determined by the Dirsctor
of Public Utilities, shall ~e paid to tlie City of Anaheim prtor Co the issuance
of a building permft.
ITEM N0. 14 DEVELOPfR; CHARLES GORMAN, 17755 Sk•~ iark Circle,
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Irvine~ CA 9771A• EtIGINEER: TRI-iT'~T~ E~GINEERING,
~ F-T~~O. 10013 615 South Raymond Avenue . Fu l l er to ~~ CA 92631 .
""'"'-" SubJect }:roperty is a receangularly-shaped pa~cel of
land consisting of approxim: ,ly 2.b ac~es, having a
frontage of approximately 670 feet on the,~;south side of Clifton Averiue~ having t~ maximum
depth of 170 feet~ being located a~proxirs~tely 3~+0 feet east of the centerline of Anaheim
Boulevard~ ano further desc-'hed as 20Q-232 Ciffton Avenue. Request is to establish a
1-lot~ 56-untt, RN-12~U (Resfdential, Hultiple-Family) Zune subdivision.
There was na one indiGaCiny their presence i~ oppositian to the request~ and althouyh the
staff report to the Planning Gommission dated August 15, 1917~ was not read at the public
hearing, i t is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
g_~5_77 77-541
.-
#`
MINUTES~ CItY PIANNING COMMISSION~ August 15~ 1971 77-542
EIR NEGATIV,~ DECLARATION ANn TFNTATIVF MAP AF TRACT N0. 10013 (Con tinued)
..~..- ~
Hob Baker~ rep~esenting Trl-Statu Engineering~ wa~ prrsent to answe r ony que stlons.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissiencr Narbst. asked if there wcre plans for each indiv(dual unit to be subdivl~~~ct (n
the future or If each bulldiny will be sold as a unit. and It wes e:xple(ned that each
bullding would bc so;d as a unit.
Che(rman Tolar asked if CC6Rs were beiny develo~ecf rcyardinc~ the reereatlonal-lelsure
area~ and It was replled that chey were being p~epa~ed,
Comm,ssio~ar Davld asked if tliis is a way of pr~~vfding Iow and moderatc Inr.omc housing~
and it was noteJ these unlts will he pr(ce~ at 5140~~0~ for a 4-uni t bulldin q,
ACTION: Commis~~ioner Kiny offered a nx~tion~ secon~le~' ny ~ammissio~er David and MOTION
~ CARRICU Ut~l~t~IMUUSLY, th~t the Anatietm Clty Plann(ny_ Canmtssiun has revleweJ the
subject proposal to establisn a 1-lot, ~6-unit~ aM-1200 (Resiciential, Multiple-
Fami ly) Zone subd(vision on land cons i st ir,g of ~~pproxim~te l y 2.8 ae ~es ~ havinS~ a
frontage uf ap~roximatcly 670 feet on the south side of C1 ifton Av~nue, bet^g
I~c~;ed approx(mately 3~+0 fect east of thc centerl fne uf Anehefm Boulevard~ a~id
further described as 20~J-232 C) i fton Avenue; and docs hereby appruve a Negat(vc
Ueclaratlon fror~i the requirement tu p~epare an environm~ntal tmpact report on the
basis tnat tliere would be no significanl tndividual or cun:ulakive adverse
environmental imp~ct due to the app~oval of this Negative Declaration since the
1lnaheim General Plan designates the subJect pr~perty for i ndustrial and rnedium-
density residential land uses commensurAte with the proposal; that no sansitive
environrnental impacts are involved in the proposAl; that the InitTal Study
submitte•~ by tl~e petitloner inciicates no significant individual or cumulat(ve
adverse envlronn~enta) Impacts; anJ thai the Neg~+tive Ileclaration substantlat(ng
the for'yoi~ig flndings is on flle in the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
ACTION: Conmissioner M.iny off~red a motion, sec~nded by Canm(ssioner David and MOTION
CAiiR1ED UKANIMOUSLY~ that the A~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby find
that the proposed subdivision~ together with lts desiqn ~nd improvement. 1s
consistent with the C(ty of Anaheim's General Plan, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473.5; and does~ ther~fore~, approve Tentat(ve Map oi Traet N. 10013
for a 1-lot~ 5G-~~nit~ RM-12U0 (ResldPntial~ MulttplG-Fami ly) tone subdlvision~
anJ subject to the following conditians:
1. That should this subdivislon be devetoped as mare than o~e subdivtsion,
eaci~ subdivtsinn thcreof shall be submitted in tent~~tive form for ap~+roval.
2. That a f(nal tract map of subjcct property ~hal i be submitted t~c and
approved by che City Council and the~ be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder.
3. That the cove~~nts, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to
and approved by the C(ty Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the
f i nA i tract map anJ~ further ~ that the approved covenants . condi ~ i ons, and
rest~ictions shall be recorded concu~rently with the fi(nal tract map.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anahrim
the approprlate park and recreation i n-1 ieu fees as determined to be appropriate
a-~5-» »-54z
MINU7ES~ CITY P~ANNING GOMNIS SION, August ly~ 1977 11-543
EIR NE6ATIVE DECLAMTION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TMCT NQ. 1Q013 (Continued)
by the City Caunctl. satd fees to bo pald at the
issued.
j, That drainaye of sub,jcct property shell
sat(sfactory to the Clty Enginee~.
6. That approprlatc weter ~~sscssment fces.
of Public Utilities. shall be pnid to the City of
of a butlding permit.
time tho building permlt Is
be disposeci of in e mnnner
a~~ determined by the Direct~r
Anahcim prlar to the Issuanc~
ITCM N0. 15 Requcst to abandon formr.r Edison Company easemen~s~
EIa CATEGOaICALLY EXEMPT-CLnS 5~ located n~;tFi of La Palma Avenue, west of Kcllogg
, ~~ Orivc,
The staff rcport tu lhu Flanninra Cornnisslc~n doted Au!~ust 1r~, 1977, was vresented. noting
tha[ thc subJect request by 5 anta Fe Lond Im~~rpvement Company~ 121 East Sixth Strcet~ Las
Anye les ~ CA JQ')1 ~~ ~ for abandonmer~ t of pub 1 i c ut i 1 i ty anscr,x:n ts i~; submi t ced 1 n ccxnp 1 1 ance
witti provisions of Section >~1+35 of tlie St~te af California Govcrnment Codc recuiring ~
vacatl~n of an easernent shall no± be nrdcrad within the areA for wl~ich a rnaster plan Is
adopted unt 1 I the proposed vacat i on i s submi tted to ancJ acteci uE~on t~y tlie P 1 ann i ng
Commission. Thc /lnaheim Eleetrical Department in<ficates the~rc arc no ex(st1n~ or lntended
electrical facilitles witliin the subje:t e~sernents.
It was alsc~ note~ that the Di rector of :he Planniny Uepmrtr,ient has determined that the
proposeJ activity falls within the definition of Sectlon 3.~1- Class ~~ of the Cicy of
Anaiielm Guidelines to the Requiremcncs for an EnvironmcAntal Impact Report and is~
tl~erefore, cateyori cal ly exempt f rom the rer~ui rement [o f i le an EI R.
ACTION: Commissioner King offerec! a rnotiun~ seconded by Co~missioner David and MOTION
CARRIEU UNA11 1 11 0 11 5LY. tl~at tl~e Anafieim City Planning Comr,ission does i~ereby
approve the reques t to abanJ~n forme~ Edison Company easemenis located north of
La Pa 1 ma Avenue ~ we s t of Y.e 11 oy~~ Ur i ve ~ Abandonmen t No, 7G-2GA ~ as recomrt~ended by
ihe City Enyineer. a leyal descripcion of saici ~a5einents bcing on file with tha
City of Anaheim,
8-15-17
l
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ August 15~ 1917 ~~~5~~4
f TEH fid. 1G
REPORTS I1NU RECOMMENUATIONS
A. VARIANCE N0. ?.G65 ~ Roquest for approval of reviscd pl~ns.
SubJect property Is en irregularly-stiaped parce) of lanci conslstin~ of approximately
5,~ a~ras Ioc~ted north And west of the intersection of C:resccnt Avenue and Loara
Street~ having approximatc fr~nr.ages of 47~ feet on the r~ortli s(de of Crescent Avenud
and 25~ feet on thc west side of Loara Street~ and furthcer descrlbed as 161~ West
Crescent Avenue.
The steff report to the Plan ntng Commisst~n deted August ~5~ 1977, wAS presented~
nAting lhe appllcent~ ft~chard Ilroacfi~ay ~f Income Property Services~ ts requesting
approval of rev(sed plans fo r an ap~rtment cr~mplex.
Richard 8roa~:way, the appl ieant~ wes present br~~l pr~;sent~=d the rcvised plans,
polnting aut tl~c I~c:k af interfor traffic circulatt~n had been ~ maJor concern of the
prevtous plens and had been revlse~i to eliminate ~ccess onto Loara Street; that the
floor ~lans werc revlseci, increasin~,~ the square fo~tagr. of the bachelor unlts from
417 squarc feet to >~~i squere feet; that the orie~lnal pl~3ns called for a totol of 130
unit~ and thr, revised plans call fnr a total of 15~) units.
Frank Lowry~ Asst. City Attorney, stated t~c was concerned with this item be~ng
considereJ oy the CurTunissinc~ under reports and recnmmendaci~ns because of the
incroase In tf~e total number of units ~roposeci an~f stated (t was hls opinlon that
this Item should be ~onsldc~ed ~t a puU~~c hearing in view of the substAntlal chanae
in the proposed de"~lopme~
The Comm(ssion gcnera „r ~~ti wlth Mr. Lowry'~ suggestton~ and Nr, Droadway pointed
o~~* the incre e in the ~u _ . units is apprc~xim.~tely 15'i•
Coir~missi~:ner `;:,rnes votced her concern that there appeared to be ~C55 recreatlanel
,,rGa ~n the revised plans~ alsa.
ACTIOt~: Commissioncr David affered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Barne~ a~d
~ MGTION CARRIED~ th at conslderati~n of the aforementioned i~em be cnntinued
for two weeks, to the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Plann(ng
Commission on August 29~ 19')7~ In order that thls 1[em may be readvPrtised
for puhlic hcartng.
B. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SAVA!INA STREET APARTMENTS - Sub)ect property (s
a LrranyuTer~;~-s ape parce o an consi st ng of app~oximateiy 0.$
acre located a: t!~-e westerly terminus of Savanna Street.
Annika Santal~hti, Asst. Planr~~ng ~irector-Zoniny~ presented the staff report to the
Planning Comnlssinn dated Augu~t 15~ 1977~ noting the Buena Park Planning Depa rtment
had requcsted input f~om the City of Anoheim regarding a proposed 12~unit apartment
dev~lopment on a parcel c.f land which is currently withln Duena Park~ but which witl
be annexed tA the Gity of Anaheim. She stated staff recommends a recommendation be
forwarcied to the 8uena P~rk Planning Commission that the proposal be denicd on the
basis th~t the p roject doe s not c~mply aelth Anaheim Zoning Standards and that full
cc~mpliante would be approp rlate since the property wi12 eventually be annexed to the
City of Anahefm; that tt is this City's policy not ta c~~ovide utillty serv(ces unless
new constructlon co-spllcs witli all applicable City regu~atians; and, furthermore~
8/15/77
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Auqust 15~ 1977 ~7'S45
tT_ EN 9 (Continucd)
th~t It w~u!d be approprlate that the developer initlate annexation proceedtngs ~nd
ftle a variance secking waivers of the Anahetm Zoning Code.
Ms. Joan Todd~ 3G20 Savanna Street~ Anahetm~ was present and commented on a petitlon
sent to tha Buena Park Planninq Commisslon stating the fceitngs of the residQnts who
had slg~ed ttie pet(tlon. She noted she hacl neglected to ment(on in the petitlon the
Clty of Anaheim's requirement that residcntial pro~ertles developed adJacent to a
rallroad track rnust be located 1~~ feet frc~m sa(d track. She pointed ~ut there hAd
bQen meetinc~s approximately one year ago regerding thc ~ossibtlity of tl~at portton of
the rallroad track being used by ANTRAK . She palnted out slie was not sure of the
outcome~ bu~ had seen one lettcr written to a ncighbor regarcfing a meeting to thet
effect. She alsa statPd that Mr. Waddeli hed indicated he would annex the property
tn thQ City of Anahelm~ which has not becn done.
ACTION: Commissfoner Ring ~ffered a rtx~tion, secon~ed by Commissioner L(nn and MQTIQN
CARRIEU, that the ~lnaheim City Planninq Gonxnisston daes hereby r~quest that
the praposal f~r ~. 12^unlt apartment ~evelopment on approximately 0.8 acre
located at the westerly termtnus of Savanna Street he denied on the bas(s
thet thp proJect does not cornply with Anaheim Zoning Standards.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL SPECIFIC SITE PLAN~ ~LOOR ~L~I!
At~D ELEVATIONS
Annika Santalahti~ Asst. Planning Director-Zoning~ presenteJ a staff report to the
Planning Commissiun dated August 15, 1977~ noting the subJect property is a
resctangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting uf approxtmately 0.5 ~cre l~cated at
the northeast corner uf Katella Avenue and Easy Way~ having approximatr frontages of
21G feet on the north slde of Katelia Avenue and 100 feet on the tast side of Easy
Way. She stated the applicanc, N(lllam ?. 8rede~er~ is requesting appr~val of final
spcciftc slte plan~ floor pian and elev~ ',~~s; tl~at the property has been approvcd
for CL zoning under Reclassiftcatton No. JC-77-51 and all condittons of the
reclasslficdtion have been met; that City Council~ at its meettn~ of June 21~ 1~77~
condltioneci the tssuance of a build(ng permit up~n Planning Commission and City
Council approval of firal specific siie plan, floor plen and elevations.
William P. Bredyer was present to an~wer ~ny quesrinns.
AC710N: Cor~missioner tlerbst offerr.. .~.tion~ seconded by Cortmissioner Ktng and
MOTION CARRIED, that the 1" ~_ ~-~ City Planning Commission does hereby
^oprove final speclfic site ~~an~ fl~or plan and elevations for
f~;c~assiflcation No. 76-77-51~ as submitted.
ADJOURIJMENT
There bein~ no further business~ Commissioner King affered a matton~ seconded by
Cammissioner David and MOTION CARRIED~ that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting adJourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully subm(tted~
~~ ~ ,
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
8/15/71
~ ~b
,