PC 75-64.. . • ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-ti4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COt+A1ISSI0N OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECONA;ENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT kEQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RECLASSIFICA.TION N0. 65-66-59 BE DENIED.
1VHEREAS, on January 25, 1966, the City Ccuncil of the City of Anaheim did
adopt Resolution No. b6R-68, approving Reclassification No. 65-66-59 to rezone
properties on the east and west sides of Harbor Boulevard between Santa Ana
and Seuth Streets in the City of Anaheim from the R-1, R-2, R-3, C-0 and G T
Zones to the C-1 'Lo-+.e, said approval being granted subject to certain conditions;
and
}y~{.F,REAS, one of the conditions of approval of Reclassification No. 65-66-59
stated "That all vehicular access rights to Harbor Boulevard, except at street
and/or alley openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim"; and
IYHEREAS, the rezoning for Parcels 1, 2, and 3, consisting of a total of
approximately 0.45 acre located at tne southwest corner of 5anta Ana Street and
Harbor Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 153 feet o~ the south side of
Santa Ana Street and 129 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, was final-
ized by the second reading ~f Ordinance No. 2731 on November 4, 1969 under
Reclassification No. 65-66-59(1); and
{VHEREAS, the petitioner submitted a written reque.st dated February 26, 1975,
for deletion of the aforementioned condition requiring dedication of vehicular
access rights to Harbor Boulevard, to permit construction of a"forced right
turn egress only" to Harbor Boulevard; and
}VHERFAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on March 31, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., notice of
said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance
with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Cliapter 18.03, to hear and
consider evidence for and against the aforementioned request, and to investigate
and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
{Y~IEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence
and reports offered at said hearing, DOES HEREBY FIND:
1,• That although the stated reason for egress to Harbor Boulevar3 is to
accommodate the customers wishing to utilize the proposed drive-up
window, the petitioner acknowledged that control of the use of the
proposed access would be difficult since the other customers may
tend to utilize said access also, thereby compounding the traffic
hazard along Harbo: Boulevard.
That the petitioner indicated a maximu~~ of twenty (2Gj to thirty
(30) customers per day are anticipated to uti:ize the drive-up
window service an.d, therefore, the Planning Commission determined
that the anticipated and intended use of the drive-up window does
not constitute sufficient justification for an access on Harbor
Boulevard.
That approval of the requested access would create severe traffic
hazards along Harbor Boulevard, especially since there would be
restri.cteci visibility when an exiting driver must turn in order
to check the southbound tx•affic on Harbor Bculevard and, further,
because of the possibility that northbound traffic on Harbor
Boulevard may attempt to make left turns onto subject property
into a drive cut intended for exiting vehicles only.
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-64
~ ~
That approval o~ the requested acce~s on Harbor Boulevard would set
an undesirable precedent since the other parcels which are a part
of Rer_lassification No. 65-66-59 may request similar access which,
in turn, would tend to disregard land assembly for development of
the area as encouraged by the City Planning Commission and City
Council; and, further, since the subject property does have alternate
means of vehicular access on Santa Ana Street and on the yroposed
alley to the westerly side of subject property.
That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition, and no correspondence was received in opposition to
subject proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING: •
That the Uirector of Development Services has detennined that the proposed
activity falis within the definition of Section 3.~1, Class 5 of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental I~pact R~port and
is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement L•o file an EFR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim tltat the subject
request for amendment tu conditions of approval for Reclassification No. 65-66-59,
to delete the condition requi.ring dedication of vehicular access rights to Narbor
Boulevard; to permit construction of a"forced right turn egress only" to Harbor
Boulevard, be denied on the basis of ~he foregoing findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOiUTIGN is signed and approved by me this 31st day of
March, 1975.
.-~ ~
"""~ C IRMAN, AH I ITY P NG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~~~~ ~~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI~IISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan,.Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a m~ating of the Citiy Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
held on March 31, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN ti9ITNESS WHcREOF, I have hereunto set my han3 this 31st day of March,
1975.
~ ~~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONIIAISSION
_2_ RESOLUTION N0. 1?C75-64