Minutes-PC 1975/02/03;+ R C 0 MICR('FILMING SERViCE, INC
, ,, .
~ ~ ~
City Hrsll
Anal-eim, Califurnia
Feb:uary 3~ ~.975
REGtYLAR MF:~TINC UF TItE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COtR~1ISS].UN
KEGULAR - A regulnr mectl«g of thc AnAheim City Planning Comn ~eion way called to
MEETLNG order bq Chnir.mnn HerbsC at 1:3A p.m. in the Counci. Chamber~ A quorum
being pL~aenC.
PRI:SENT - CHAIItMAN : Herbe t
- COI~4~IISSIONERS: Faruuo~ Gnuer, Johneun, King~ Florley, Tolar
ABSENT - COt,41ISSI0NERS : P~one
ALSO PtIESLNT - Deputy City Atturney: Frank Lowry
Officc~ Engineer: Jay Titus
Fire MarKhal: Iiob Phillipe
Zoning Supcrvisor: Charlea 1toUer.te
Ac~slaCant Zoning Supervi.scr: Acmika Santalah~i
Assaciate Planner: Bill Young
CommisRion Secretary: Patricia Scanlan
PLEDGF OF - Gommissioner Kinq Ied in the Pledge o£ ~"~llegiance to the Flag of tt-e
AI,L~GIANCC Uni.ted States of America.
APPRCVAL OF - Commigai.oner Ki.ng offered a motion, aPCOnded by Commiseioner To1ar and
THR MINUTisS MOTION CARRTEn, to approve the minuCes of the meeting of January 6, 19'75~
as submitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMFACT - CONTINUED P'JBLIC IiEAKING. N~IAHEIM HALLS, INC./TEXAC~ VENTURES,
~'
111
REPORT N0 IN~., c/o Horst J. Schor, 380 Anaheim H111s Rond, Anaheim, Ca:
. 92g(17 (Owner). Property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped
RECLASSIF'ICATION purcel of land consisting of approximately 22 acres having
f Hidd~n
id
73-74-28
N0 e o
approximate frontages of 830 feet on the east s
. Canyun Roud and 1880 feEC on the north side of Avenida De
VARIANCE N0. 2566 Santiago, and being locaced approximately 500 feet southsasterly
of Che intersection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road.
TGNTATIV~ rIAP OF Property preaently classified R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE AND COUNTY
TRACT N0. 8520 OF ORANCE A1 (G~NERAL AGRICULTUR!!L) DISTRICT.
REQUG5TED CLASSIFICATION: RS-HS-22,000 (It~SIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILI' HILLSIDE) ZON~
REQUESTEU VARIANC~: WAIVER OF ltEQUIREMENI' THAT SING'LE-r'AMILY R~STDFNTIAL STRUCTURES
RE,AR ON ARTGRIAL HIGHWAYS.
TENTATrV~ TRACT REQU EST: ENGINEER: WILLDAAI ASSOCIATES, t25 South Claudina Street,
Ananeim, Ca. 928U5. Sub~ect property is proposed for
subdivision into 17 RS-HS-22,0~0 lots.
Sub~ect petitions were continued from the meetings of December 10, 1973, January 7~
;Iarch 18, April 29 and June 24, 1974, at Che request of the Fetitioner; from August 5,
1974, for readvertisement to include additional. property; ~nd from September 16 and
September 30, 1974, at the request of the petltioner.
7t was notecl that the petitioner was requesting an additional continuance for ten weeka in
order to resolve pr.oblems aceociared with the proposed development of t~.e subject site.
Commiasioner Morley offer..3 a motion, secc~nded by Commi~sioner Tolar and MOTION CAR1tIEA,
to f~.rther continue the public hearinga and conaideration of Environmental Impsct Report
No. 111, Reclesaification No. 73-7G-28, Variance No. 2566 and Tentative Map of Tract No.
8520 to Che meetii.g of April 14~ 1975.
75-50
•
~
i1INU7'LS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, F~bcuary 3~ 1Q75
~
~
7S-~i1
ENVIKONMLNTAL IMPACT - JUHN D. LUSK & SON, P.O. Dox 21b0. Nc:wport Aeuch~ Ca. 92G63
RE:YORT N0. 132 (UevQlopar); HOPEN~ Hi:DLUND b DARriY. INC., 3030 Weet Main 5traet,
Alhambra, Ce. 918fi1 (Englneer). Suh~ecC prop4rty~ consi~ting of
'PF.NTATIVF MN' UF epproximately $7 acres huving n Er.oiitage of upproximate.l.y 3209
TRACT NOS. a418 feer on the north eid~ of N~hl Kanct, RoAd, he~ving u maximuw depth
AND 8647 of uppraximutely 1800 feet, and being locuted npproxi.mately 1810
RFVISION NOS. 2) fer.C eMSt of ehe centerline of N~~h1 Cnnyuti Ro+-c1~ i.a proposed for
'~ siibdivieion as followe:
7'ract No. SG18 - 40.6 acres - A~ RS--iS-10~000 lots; and
Tract N. 8647 - 4U acres - 1~4 RS-HS-10~000 lote.
The sub~ect mutters were continued from the meetings of Auguet ].9, September ~0, October 1G~
NovembGr 11 And 25, llecember 9. 1.974. r~nd Janu4ry 6, 1975, ~t thce reyuest of the pe~itioner.
Oc:~ person indicated hia presence in ,~paeition to sub~ect mar.ter~.
nirr~~~ugh tha Stuff Report to the Planni.ng 1:~mmieaion dated February 3, 1975~ was not rc~ad
nt the meeting,'i: :Ls reEerred eo ~nd made a part of Ctie m~.nutes.
Mr. Bill Lusk, represeriting the developer, appeared bef.ore the P].anning Commiseion and
stated he believed a comrromise had beei~ reached with the °eralta Hi11:a homeowners along
tlie northerly purtion of the subject property and aeveral ad~uatmenCe were wade moving
tt~ree of the lotb t.o the west and moving some of Che banke. Mr. Luek then suggested that
the Planning CoIIU~isaion hear from Mr. Rol~tnd Krueger.
Mr. Roland Krueger~ 561 Peralta Hills Drive, appeared hefote the Planning Commiseion and
stated that the compromise discuased by Mr. Lusk was the best tranaition plan the hame-
owners had seen f~r the sub~ect devel.upmsnt ~nd the homeowners thanked the developers .for
their cooperation; that the plan displayed WIIAC contour gruding could do to 7.urgely alleviatp
the prison wall effect; that along tha east, some urtificial watlb would be graded to create
a feeling of opennese and to allow for some bresze; thar. some small gre~nbelts were part
of tlie plan to preserve aome of the hillside amenities; that the propo~ed contour..ng had
increased the privacy for many of the lots in the project and for the surrounding humea;
tha~ the lots in tl~e project with three sides open would be premium lots; that there stil.l
was a problem witti the banko tn back of the Joaeph residence on Peralta Nills nrive; that
Mr. Joseph felt a reasonably good compromise wou].d Ue to delete the series of houses along
the corner in back ot- his reaidence and swcep the bAr-k up to the road to provide for. air
flow; that although the homeuw--ers in general were not happy with the mass grading the
eituation was sumewhat similar to an escape from dear.h £rom aesau].t and batCery and being
thankful for it; and that the developer had made a sincere attempt to alleviate some of
the problems, however, there would be an environmental impact aince the pro~ect, ae built,
would be Chere forever.
Mr. Krueger continued by stating that the Planning Commisaion, in making the final deciaion,
should consider that any compromise woul.d noC completely sati~fy etther the developer or.
the Peralta Hills homeowners in the area and, with respect to the overpowering bank proble.,n,
the homeowners were requestin~ tu be ahle to have ~he opportunity to review the contour maps
to be sure that they conformed to whatever placi w:~s approved; that the engineer for the
devcloper was trying to alleviate the problem in the ahallowest transition area; that on
the easterly si.de, the banks were essentially natural buC a few contoutR had bee~.worked
tn to eliminate some of the harshness and create a natural.ness, and those contours resulted
in some lots being wider and providing lower density right oppoaite some of the exlsting
homes being to the advantage to the Peralta ti111s homeowners; that the homeowners were
auggesting a lower den~ity for the atrip of lcts along the northerly porti.on of the develop-
ment, being one of two area5 needing improvement; that the developer had offered to erect
single-story dwpllings alor~g the perimeter ro the norCh af the property, with landacaping
to try to improve the privacy and lesaen the impact; Chat regarding the westerly aide of
the proposed developmentr the r~d~acent Peralta Hilla homeownera felt there ahould be
landscaping along with the manufactured slopes atid included in thp alope landscaping plan;
that regarding the Buz~o property, a manu£actured slope was proposed next to it and if the
property to the east developed, the Buzzo property mlght be left ir- a hole; and that to
allevia+:e that problem, it was being suggeated Chat aome of the lcts be deletad. In
conalusion, Mr. Krueger atated that the pr.oposal, as revised~ was an il].ustration of what
could be done to overcome some of the effecte of mass grading and the tranaieiun zone
planning could be used throughout the Canyon, h~wever, he regreted that said planning
cauld noC be used thro~ighout the proposed tract .
~
•
MINUTGS~ CITY PI.ANNING CI)MMISSION, Fabruary 3, 1975
75-52
ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPORT_N0. .132 AND TENTATIVE MA1' UF TRACT NOS. 8418 AND 8647 (Continued)
In rebuttul.~ M;•. Lusk ~tnted thay plnnned to set back 30 femr from the top of the alope to
guarancer che privncy ot ttie ax 1sCi.ng homea c~long tlie nortlierly boundary; and that three
lote were baing moved.
Zoning SuFervisor. Cl~xr.lae Roberte noted for the Planning CommiaAion that eubsequQnt to the
previoue P:lanning Commiesion meatinge, correapandcsr.ce had been resceived from tt~e City of
Orange Plannir-g Cammiseion indicating concern re~gciraing potenCial tra£fic pt'oblema; tl~:it
An~heim'a Traffic Gnginear hnd rev.tewed the r_oncerns and ~.ndicatad khat due Co the prux-
imiCy of khe fronCage road (Street "A") tu Nolil Ranch Road and the poCential vehi<:le
conflicte of the acceos points. a recommendation wae made that the landecaped Atrip aepa-
rnting the two etreets be wi.dened to 60 feel• at the access poi.nt for beckup epi-ce for
~~ehiclea; and that the Cit~~ of Orange wae fur.thex concerned abuut vieibility tu tlie ~Aat
of t.he intetsection of Vil.la Real und Nohl Ranch Rnad. thaC the roadway elevation should
be J~wered and stabilir.ed~ and Mr. RoUerts noted that that nwtter would be tuken care oE;
and thet people wauld probably use Villa Rea~ rarher than Notil Ranch Zond anct i.t wae
i.mpoes~'.te to try to•diecour~ge the iise of u particular road.
Mr. Sirius Buzzo appeared before r.he Planr-ing Commission and atated he was present to
voice hia famlly's opinion that, on the praposed tract map~ the elevations were too high
and the development wuuld create problems for t~im; that his pcoperty would be left in a
hole ~nd hio ob~ectiona were greater then the rest on that bae:te; and that he hoped the
Planning Curomissiun could consider his objectiona along with any other.s made.
In r~buttal~ Mr. 1,uak stated he agreed that the bank Mr. Buzzo was referring to was high;
Chat Che plan was to soften said Lank tremendously and allev~ate any other hi.gh banks that
were immediately adjacent lo Mr. Buzzo's property.
Commisainner Gauer offered ~ motion, ~econded by Commissioner Kins and MOTION CARRIED,
that Environmental Imp~ct Report No. 132 havtng been conaldered this date by the City
Planning Commission and evidence both written nnd oral having been presented to supplement
said draft EIR No. 132, the City Planning Commisaion believes that eaid draft EIR l~o. 132
does confom~ to the City and State Guideliues und the StaCe of California EnvironmenCat
Quality Act and, based upon such information., dues hereby recommend to the City Council
that they certify sa~.d EIR No. 132 is in complianct with ~aid Envtronmet-tal Quality Act.
Commissioner Gauer then indicated that he was ready to offer a mation to recommend appxoval
of the subject tentative tract mapa on the basis tt~at the Plunning Commiseion had conai.dered
the proposal and the oppoaitioii very thoroughly at aeveral Planning Co~ission meetings
and had done everything they could do to bring the pt'oposal to a reasonabLe concluai.on;
that if t1-ere were additional changas to be made, there would be son-e time before the City
Council cnnsi.dered the matCers for the de~~eloper to make said changes; and that he woul.d
compli.ment the developer, the Peralta Hills homeowners and other concerned parties for.
their cooperation in trying to reaolve the problems.
Chairman Herbst noted that approval of the subject tracts should incl.ude the stipulation
by Mr. Luak to soften the effect of the lots diacussed with Mr. Krueger and Mr. Buzzo,
etc.
Mr. Itoberts noted that a further condition ahould be added to the Staf£ Report for Tract
No. 8418 to extend Che lot line for those lots lytng norCherly of Street "A" to the south
across Street "~" and include a1.1 the slope areas ad,jacent to Nohl ~ Road and, there-
upon, Mr. Luek so stipulatsd. Mr. Roberts suggested a further condition that a 6-foot
high, decorative, openwork wa11 be cunstructed at the top of the ~lope ad~acent to Nohl
Ranch Road for Tract No. 8418.
In respocise to questioning by Co~issioner Tolar, Mr. Lusk stated there were two alterna-
tivea for aiope landscaping, that they could water it and bring up the r-atural chaparrel,
or leave it natural~ aaid 'landscaping to be included in the homeowners' CC&R's for main-
L•enance purpoaea.
Chsirman Herbst noted for lhr; developer that on the upper slopea the contour was not to
the extent intended by the new Grading Ordinanc~ and since said ordinance would be effec-
tive with the dev~lopment of the aubaequent tractsy aome addi.tional effort might be deair-
able to incorpotate the ordinance with the propoaed tracte so that a contouring problem
would not exiet with future development.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNiNG COl~4~tI~SION~ Fobruary ~, 1975
75-53
ENVIRONMGNTIu._ IMPACT RL~PORT N0. 132 AKD TEN1'ATIVE MAP OF TtZArT NOS. 841.8 AND 8647 (ConCiruad)
Commis;lionoc Johneon noted that iC wHe queeCionabl.e in hie mind whether to proc~ed when
u~~e i.ridiv.idun! propnrty owner'e properCy would bQ damugod, referring to Mr. Suxzo`,
ptoperty; und thut Mr. Buzzo's ob,~ectionH were ~uet e~s ~reat a9 tha othQx ob~ec.c{+,nF.
Mr. Luek then stated that With future devol.opment they would crant~ sweliw and so~ten the
banks Cu the ~trcats in the aras of. Mr. Buzzo's pzoperty.
Mr. Buzzo th~n otaCed th~C whutever was dec.ided upan for Che prnposed Cracte would deter-
mine what wae de~~elopbd e~-srward.
~ommissioner Jot~n~nn discuesed the 10-fout lift of Nol~l Ranch Road a[ the eoutheaste,rly
boundary of the propoaed tructa~ and Mr. Lusk etated that was to make the property drain
and that at the time the prup~~rty Co the enst was Jeveloped~ they could take tlie 10-foot
lift aut. The engineer for the develaper indicnted thaC development Co the eaet would
dr.ain to the~ east, and that by rai_sing Nohl. Rancl~ Road 10 feet they were decrec~sing the
bank.
Commic~si.oner Gauer offered a motion~ aeconded by Commiealoner King and MATION ~ARRIF'D,
that 'f~ntative Map of TracC No. 84.~.8 (Reviaion N~~. 2) be and hereby ia approved, subject
to Che stipulationa of the petiCiener and subject to the fotlowing condiCions:
(1) That should ttiis aubdivlsion be developed as more Chan cne subdividion, ~ach
subdlvieion thereof ehall bP submitted in tenta4lve form for approval.
(2) That a six-foot high, decacative, openwork wa11 ahall be constructed at the top
oE Che sl.ope adjacenr to Nohl Ranch Itoad. Plana for eaid wall shall be aub-
mitt~d to the Planning Commisoion and City Council for appr~val prior to approval
of the final tract m~p. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigati.on faciliti~sY
shall be installed with~a Che slope areas of each lot adjacent to the roadway
and in the unceraenr~d portion of the arte~ial higliraay parkway the full. di.~tance
of said wall. Plans for said landecaping shall br_ submitted to and subject to
the approval of the SupPrintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Followinq installa-
tion and acceptnnce~ the property owner(s) aha11 assv~ne responsibility for
maintenance of autd landacaping to the lot linea, and the City of Anaheim shall
aseume Che reapon~ibility for maintenance of the landscaping in the Nohl Ranch
Road right-of-way.
(3) That all lota within this trart shall be served by underground utilities.
(4) 'That a Einal tract map of sub~ect property shall be submitted to and approved by
the CiCy Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recordsr.
(5) That any propoaed covenants~ conditions and restric[.ions ahall be submitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City ~ouncil approval af ttie
final tract map~ and, further, that the approved cc~venants. conditions ar.d
restrictione shall b~ recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
(6) That atreet names ahall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of
a final tiract map.
(7) That the owner(s) of aubject property ahall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as dNtermined to be appropriate by
the City Council~ said fees to be paid at the Cime the buildln~ permit is issued.
(8) That drainage of said property sha11 be dispased of in a s~anner satiefactory Co
the City Engineer. If, in the preparaCion of the aite sufficient grading is
required to necesaitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted
between October 15rh and April 15th unless all required off-site 4rainage facili-
ties have been installe~ and ~r.e operative. Pos3tive assurance shall be provided
the City that auch drainage facilities will be completed priur to October 15th.
Necesaary right-of-way for off-site drainage facil.ities ahall be dedicated to
the Ciry. or the City Council shall have iniC•lated condemnation proceedings
therefor (the casts of which shall be borne by the develaper) pri~r to the
cummencement of grading operations. The raquired drainege `acilities ahall be
of a size aud type aufficient to carry runoff :~a~kera originating f.rom higher
propertieH through said property to ultimate disposnl ae approved by the City
~
~ ~
MINUTFS, CITY I`LANNING COt~41ISSI0~t~ rebruary 3, 1975
i5-54
SNVTRONM~NIAL IMYACT REPORT N0. 132 ANU TENTATIVF. MAP OF TRACT tiOS. 8418 AND 8647 (Continue~d)
Bngi~eor. Seid drainage fucilitiee ehall be Che fi:eC iCem of conetruction and
ehul.l be cumpletud and be functional throughout the t~a.::. end frum the dowr,stream
boundury of the properCy to the IYaC~II18Cd point o£ di~-pos~il prius to the iaeuance
of any final building inepectione or occupancy pr.rmite. Drainaqc dietr:cl•
reimb~-rsement agrec~menta muy be mfcde avail.able ~o th~ deve].opere of eaid property
upon their. requeat.
(9) 'Phat gruding, excavr~tion~ und dl.~ otl~er con~eruction acCivitieR ahall be con-
ducted in such a manner Ro as to minimize the posaibility of any sil" ori.ginaCing
£rom this pra~ecC being carried into the Santa Ana River b~ eCurm wnter originat-
ing from or flowir~g through thia project.
(10) 'Chat u11 ~f. thF lots a'long lhe northerly perimeter of aubject property which
nbuta Pe:alta Hills ~nall be developed with one-atory einple-fnmily dwe111ngs,
and any Cwo-star,y dwelii.nge ehall. be con~structed on the interior c.~f the tract,
ns s~ipulated to by the developer.
(11) That the loc lines Ear thoa~ lots lying alang the north eide ol Street "A" shall
Ue extended sourl~erly acrosa said Street "A" and include th~ slope area adjacenC
to Nohl Ranch Rond~ ua skipulated to by thP peCitioner.
(12) That Street "K" sh+~ll he devei.oped accordi.ng to the City oP Aniiheim standard
detuil for a Hillside Collector Street.
(13) This tract shall not be construcCed until ufter the Rtreet improvements for
Tract No. 8647 (kevtsioii No, 2) have been constructed.
(14) Th~t prior xo approval of the final tracC mrap, the petition~r shall make aome
provision, acceptable to the City Council, for the ].anda~aping anc!c~intenance
of the slopes within and/or created by th~ development of this property.
(15) That prior to approval of the final tract ma~, the petitioner sha11 siibmit final
floor plans and el~vations Co L•l~e City Council for approval.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner King and MOTI6N CAdRIED,
tnat Tentative Map of Trdct No. 8647 (Revision No, 'l) be and hereby '.s approved, sub~ect
to the atipul.ationa of the petitioner and sub~ect to the following condttiona:
(1) That should this eubdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof sha11 be submitted in tentative form for approval.
(2) That a 6-foot high, decorative, openwork wall shall be constructed at the top
of the s1.opQ ad~acent to Nohl Ranch Road on Lot '.Jos. 1 ttirough 5. Plans for
said wall shall be submitted Co the Planning Cummissiun a.nd City Council for
approval prior to approval of the final tract map. Reaso,z~ble landscaping,
including irrigation fac:ilities, shall be installed witP,in the alope areas of
eacYi lot ad,jacent to the roadway and in the unc:emented portion ot the arterial
highway parkway the fuJ.l distance of esid watl. Plans fcr sa~d landscaping
shall be submitted to and aub~ect to the approval uf the Siiperintendent of
Parkway Maintenance. Fullowing installation and acceptance, the property
owner(s) shaJ.l ase~~rv responsibiliCy for m&intenance of said landscaping to the
lot lineo, and thE .;ity of Annheiu~ shall assume the rESponsibility f.or mainte.-
nance of Che landscaping in the IVoh1 Ranch Road right-of-way.
(3} That all ? ots wi.tliin thts tracc st-all be served by undergrc~•.nd utilities.
(4) Ttiat a final tract map of s~b3ect property shall Ue submitted to and app=oved b~~
the Clty Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orang~ County Recarder.
(~) That any propoaed covenanta, conditions and restrictions shall be submittzd to
and approved by the City Attoxney's Office prior to City Council approv~l of Che
final tract mep, and, further, thak the approved covenants, conditions and
restrictions ahall be recorded coacurrently with the final tract map.
(6) That strPet names shall be approved by Che City of Anaheim prior to approval of
a final tract map.
~ ~ ~
MIdU'lt?5~ CITY PLANNINC CUMM[S5ION~ F~bruarv 3~ 1975
75-55
Lt:VI.RONMENTAL IMPACT.KI:PORT N0. 1_32 A~ID Tt'~1'tA'PIVL MP~P OF TMC'C NOS. 8G18 ANU 8647 (Conti.nu~d)
(1) 'fhat Ch~ owner(e) of eub~ect proporty e1zs1l pay tu tha City ~f Msetieim the
approprinte park nnd raacaat ton J.n-lieu fees as datarmined Co be apprupri.ata by
thu City Counci.l~ Rnid foae to ba paid ak the Ci.me the building permit is iPyued.
(8) Tl~at drulnago of eaid pcopPrty Nhal.l be diepoeed of in a mgnner. aatiefacCot; to
ths City Engiriac~r. ~f, in the prepuratinn of the siCa eufEicient grading ie
r.e<~•-ir~~.d [o neceRC~itaCe a Rrading p~*.mlt~ na wnrk on gradi.ng wi11 ba permittcsd
l~etwaen (~cCober lSth and April 15t1~ ~mleoe all raquired off-ai.te drainage facili.-
tieR hIIVC .~Gen in~tnlle~d and are operntive. Poeitlve aeaurance eliall be provided
thc Cf.ty thi~t ouch dr.ninc~ge fncllitiee wi.ll be completed prlor to October .lSth.
Ne.:eesary ri.ghC-oL-wuy `~r off-sita dr~inaga fa~ilitiQe ehall bo declicnCed tr~
thc City~ or th~ City C~ur.cil ehall hav~e in~tiated candemnatior, procead]ngH
therefor (tlie coet~i af whicla ehall be borne by thQ dav~eluper) prior to tha
commencemenk of grading operakione. The requi.rr~d drainage fecilltiee uhall. be
of. ~s sir.e and type sufficitnt ko cnrry runoL•f wutere originating frum higher
propertics Chrough said prop~rty to ultlmate dispoe~l xe approved by khe Cit,y
F.n~ineer. Said drninage f.aclll.ties Shal~ be the firet ir.em of coc~etruction and
ehu11 be completed und be functional throughour. the tr• and from the doan-
sCream uoundary ~f. the properky ~.o the u1Cim~te point ol dinposal pcior. Co the
lgeuance ~f <1ny final bt~ild ~ng inepHCtione or occupancy permite. llrainag~
dist:rict r~imbursement agre~menGe mAy be made available to the develapers af
said property upun their requeat,
(9) T1iAt grading, excavuzion. and nl.l uthe conetructl~n acr.ivities shall. be cun-
ductert i.n ~.u~h n manner ao as to minimlze th~e pasaibility of an,y eilt eriginac-
ing frow ti~ls ~ro,~ecr being carried into tha Santa Ma River by etorA water
originating £rom or f lowing lhrough t,iia px~.ject.
(lU) That al.l of the lots alung the nor[1.~erly Fi:rim~:~w of uub~ect property which
abuts 1'eralta Hills shall be de.veloped tirith on2-story s1.:¢1~-family dwellinga,
and any two-•atory dwellings eh~ll bP con~tru:ted on the interior of• the tract,
as stipular.ed t~ by the develuper,
(1l.) 'rY~aC the lot 1•ines for those lots lying a].ong the c~~rth side of .~creet "A" shall
be ext~nded southPrly ncro sa said Street "A" and include the slope area adje~cent
to Nohl Ranch Road, as stipu2ated to by tl~e petitl~ner.
(12) ThaL prior to approval of the final. Cract map~ the pQtitio:i-r ehall. make ac.me
provi.sion~ acceptablt. to the City ~o~~ncLl, for the .Landsca~ing and muintenance
of the st~pes within an~"~or created by the devel.opment of thtr.: pr.opecty.
(13) That this tract sY~a].? be d=~velopca prtu;- to the development of Tr~ct No. 8418
(Ravision No. 2).
(14) That pri.or to aFnroval of the final tract map, the pet?.ta.oner shall subm:~ final
flaor plans and el.evations to the City l;ounc3l fur Hpproval.
C~NDI'I'IONAL U~E •- C~N'fiPIUF.U PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM S. .!~NL CAROL P. HARVi•;Y, 26385 Nacc~me
PFRMIT NU. 1512 Drive, Mise~on Vfe~o~ Ca. 92675 (Owners); LOUIS G. KEI,~. , Ace Fireworks
~~ ~ Compeny, Inc. , 2025 Cedar Avenue, 4i2, l.ong Besch, Ca, 90806 (Ageat);
rec;uesting periui3aion for STO?t~-Gl: OF FIRF.WORKS on property ~escribed as:
~u1 irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiating af approsimately 0.37 acre huv?.r~g a frontage
of approximately 84 feet on the noct~weat side of Fountain Way, having a maxamum depth of
approximatel,y 175 f,~et, and heing located appr.oximatel,y 1180 feet nortti of the centerline
o~ La Palma Avenue. Propert.y presently clasaified ML (INDU3TRIAL, LIMITED) ZOIvE.
Sub~ect Fetiti.on was conttnued from the meeting of Jan~ary 20, 1975, at the Yec~ueat of the
petitioner.
T'hree persons indi~~t Chetr preaence in opposition to aub~eRt peti~ior~.
Assiatant 2oning Superviaur A~ini~Ca Santalahti read the Staff Report to the Planning :ommis-
,;;on d~3t~d Fohr~~ary 30 ].975, and said Str,ff Report is referr~d to as if set forth in full.
in the mizute~.
~ ~ ~
MINUTCS~ CITY hLANNINC (:UMMTSSION, February 3~ 1.975 ~~'~~
CUNDITIONAi. US~ PERIIT NO. 151.2 (Gontlnuod)
1~".r. LuulN G. K~l.ly. repreeenCi.ng Ar,e Fireworke~ Tnc., thn Agent fnr che petlCioner,
appeared hefore the 1'lanning Commi~;sion and etat~d they employe~ upproximaCely Cen te~n-•
por~iry ~mployAae and approximn[ely flve ynar-round eaiplayecsa; lhut 4he f.lreworka to bcs
A tored nt the eub~ oct locac ion were clnsei f ied by the State l~ ire MarEihal' 8 Of f~ce ae "Baf e
and 4;-ne"; that none of the mercliandi.se w.,ul~ be packaged at the eubjer.t loc~tion but iu
the Stute of Waeliingr_on and sent to tl~e aub~ect location under senl; that all of ttie looRe
itema would be in bnx~e ar b~ge nnd r.he fuees would ha~~e a epecinl tah to prevent uccid~snta.l
lightLng; that n represer.~ntive of the City Firo DepartmenC had looked at t:he bui111ng and
r,fftred euggeetlona for more i~:~~'<~ty; and Chut printe hnd bcsn ~ I~mitteci to [he lluilding
~nd Firc DeparCmente of tl~e City for theic approv=l~
Mr. Herbart Myers, 1181. North Fountain Wny, appeared beEore tl~~ k'lau~iing Commiesion und
statecl ho uwned the propc~rey to the aouth of rhe aub~ect building; ttiat he I~ad became
alt~rrted und pr.oceeded t~ gather eignatur~s oF thuae persone in the entire block who were
opposed to ehe suU~cct uae fur aeveral reusone being 1) potenti~l fire nnd expoaure haxnrd
to pereonnel and nenrby ac:joining industrial propeT~tiQe nnd their p.~rking lote, 2) thie
would c-1NO include vehictil.mr transportation ut said commodi.ty in aiid u~it ~~f the area by
tt~~ use oC Fountain W<1y, 3) the undue peychologlcral strea~ of a potenti~l liazard to per-
sonne]. nnd properties in ~hc area, 4) thc poseihle loas oE £ire and liabfli.ty insur~n~•e or
incrensed coets Uurdened by the estnblidhed buslnesses and owner~ uf the properr.i.es in Che
exposurc nren, and ~) the ooasible reluc~ance uf new Leasees and employee~ ta locate on
Fountaln Way ~!~~ ~ to the patent~lal haxard and exploaivea; that a.pproximaC~>.ly 92X of the
people in the block had slgned the petitton in oppositiun to the proposul, eignaturas
being of employees 1a well se tne business operatots in the immediate block; t:~at his
tei-ant was told hia insurance rnCe woul i increuee if the aub~ect uae ~.as located as pro•-
posed; that~ there was rec •aay nf knowing how mi,ch the i.nsurance rnr.e would be increased
but, wlien that hap~...~ed, }ie quec~tioned. wh~tler the fireworka company would Ue willing r.o
pay thuae differe.ices; that if. hir~ CenanC mo~ ed nut, how would he be protectea; tl~ut in
other communitiea fir.eworks ccmpunies wetn :equ~red to have a 500-foot setback from othEr
buildinge and in tht,; partic~ulnr inatance ~~.::re wae onl,y 20 feet between his building and
the subject bullding; that there wzs ~lways C-ir. possibility of an acc:ident; that the
peop].e on thc~ b:lock were agaiast the use, i.nc~udi.n~ Autonetice, however, t.hev wc ~ld not
voice theix ~pinion ~gvin:~L the propos~l because of. oppoaiti.on wh~n they req~~ested parmits
and they wished to remain neutra'l; and thaC the property to the e^sC of his pr.opc~rty wus
VllCBGC.
Mrs. Stepliens, representing the Jewett Company, appeared befcre the Pl~nnicig Coimnisaion
and stzted they had 14 tenants who were all concerned about the propoHal; thaC there would
be psyr.hological problemy seei~g a sign "Ace Firewerks" in the block; that the.re was a
possibility of expl.osion or there wauld not be the ~r.ringent restrictions; Lhat there aas
nothing to atop the unde:w:iCers fr~m going by the operty next year and raiying the
insurance; and that she had checked wi.th each of their Cenants and the matn abjection was
Che insurance problem and safety.
rir. halph McCurdy appea~ ~d bef.ore the Planning Commi3si.oci and ntated h~ uccupied the
building owned b} ttr. MyLrs ad~acent to ''~e proposed slte; that his ~nzin con~:ern was for
his employees since w~rk!.ng next door t~ the prnposed ~iae wo~ild be ~i haxard and would be
on their minde; thae most of his em~loyeer~ si.gned the netition in opposition; and that he
waa also concerned abovC his insurance rates going ip. In resnonse tc~ questioning by the
Planning Comm~asi.on, Mr. McCurdy s,.at.ed his bueine~s was manufacturing printed ~ircuit~;
with approximately 28 empl~yees.
Fire tlarsl~al tiob Phtlii~s appeared be°cre t:~e Plaanim3 Commission and noted khat in their
tnspaction of ~.he s:ite they had strlctly used nothing but the apPlicNble Codes and
Ordinances; that the Stat~. classified the fireworks in Class "C" for common fireworks s~ch
as firecra~kers, Ro~ran car ~lles, etc. , tiowever, the f. ~.reworks in question ~~ere not Cl~s~•
"C"; t.hat r.he "eafe Fnd sane" fireworks were rea~c+nably sa~~ un~ler certa'n c:ondi:iona~
Chat the f irewarks would be stor d no higher Chan 8 feet wit:~ 8-focC aisles, rhere wouZd
be no open flame~, the building wou19 be sprinklerel, the fireworks wvuld be st~red in
enclosed containars only of r~gular h~avy cardb- zrd, and regardi- ~ ~he 500-fooe .:iatance
away from thc ~uildi~ag, that requirement was probahl.y foi Che r.~aurfaccuring of fiYeworks.
THF PU9LIC HBARING WAS CLACED.
In response to queotioning by Chairman Herbet, Mr. PhiLlips udvised tbi~i ,Just tl~e wo:d
"f~reworks'' mig~it hav~ something eo do with the insi~rance ratea.
U
~
MINUT~S~ C~TY PLANNTNG COFC~ITSSIUN~ February 3~ 1975
CONDIT1UNAi~ U36 PG~FtMIT NO.~iS12 (Continued)
75-57
Commiasloner Geuer notc~d thn~ lf peopl~ hnd a f~~ar thnt eomething wae gning tu hnppen due
to the prop~~Aed us.~. thon ic ehould nut be allowed to Ro in; Chat people had enough etreee
nnd ~trnin without ndding somett~ing t:~at wns prohlemr-tic; and that occaeionally khere wore
exploeione nnd. iE tlie peop:o did not wnnC Lt. ~ th~~ ue~e ahould not be allowed at tl~at
locntion.
Mr. Kelly tl~en ~tuted Ct~at lie had been in Uuein~ab tor npproximuC~ly 35 yeare, Ap well se
tiio pnrlner~ and they knew of no building Htoring "snfe and sene" Ei.reworke that ha<1 e~er
caught tlre; that lie had aeen ~ i.r~s at locnl f ireworke etande but Chose f irt~s werc+ set;
and that their in~urance compauy check~d in every n~w an~! Lhen to sec if reguJ.atione werc~
being followed.
Commi.esioner Kirig lnqui.re:l if the Chamber of C~mmer•ce or the Kealr.y r had boen c~ntacted
fo:' an l~olat~ad locatt.on in the Clty, whnreupon Mr. iCe11y stated they h.ul looked over the
entire Cour, .y fnr approximxteiy three monChs before thsy fuund the eub~ect site; ~I~.~t they
w~r~ propo~~:..~g to hnvE f ireworke r_hat woul.d not be etoxed in the warehouse for e very lonA
time; r.hat the ! r sale~ per. i.~d wae i`our ~ays of the ysnr; and that t'iey had very little
fireworks unlil around March.
Yr. reeponae ~u questionirg by Comaiis~i~ner Farano, Mr. Kelly atc~ted dur.l.ng their budy timc
of year they would have approxima*.ely ^200,Op0 worth of fireworks on hand for who:~esale;
ancl thnt he helieved tlie powder wae hard-paeked. C~~mYniseionar Farnno noted that un'Lec~s
the petitloner could outline how much powder in pounda was in~~olved in the peuk pE~riod,
theii the risk was unknuwn.
Ir reaponae to i;ommiasioner ~arano's further questioning, Mr. Kelly Atated tl~at since al~.
ol the merctiundiae wuuld be packed i.n heavy packaginp or cardt~oa~d, a hot flame, in hia
opi~iion, would not gener.ate enough heat to cause a eimultaneous explo~ion. Mr, Phillips
then advised that there would ~~ot be ~ big ~:xploslc~n but it would be a caba of one hox
after the otlier burning and he coul~ itot aee how there could possi.bly he nn explusion.
i,~mmissioner Earano noted that it was conceivablz, with t'.~e size of the aubject bui.lding,
thaC there cc~uld be approximately one-hul.f million pounds of powder involved.
Mr. Phillir~s correcred an earLier statement of Mr. Kelly and stated the powder in the
firewarks was loose-packed and ~.f it c•iught on f lre it wouJd ~ust iizzle. Ha further
stated tl~at the material would requirc. dir~ct exposure tu a flame befcre it would burn.
Mr. Myers indicated he had a dif.ference nf opin:~.~n and that compresaion would explude Che
macer.ial aince if heated it would buxn fasCer than the gases c~uld escapa; Chat due to the
n:~rure and exposure of his own buainesa hia fire insurance was car.celled ten days Uafore
r.he 1'ourth of July and he had not ~ cen ab.le to get insurance so he installed a aprinkler
sy:~.em to protect his interior and exterior snd i_nsured himself; that ..f the proposal was
aptiroved, he would not want to sieep in the build ing Mr. McCurdy or_~:vpied; and Chat each
tim ~ ehey hiY ed someotie they had to re-educate them.
Commissiuner Faran~ noted thaC exposure was a F~e:.l-founded reason and if the prote~t~lon
wa~s even slight he could under~tand, however, f rom Mr. Phill.ips' explanation, Chere was
ver~~ little if any ~~otential for er.pJ.osion.
Mr. htyers explain~d ttiat fireworks were c~natruc ted to push sgainet the ground when they
ign~.ted and that ii one item ignited it wo..ld probahly launch othei's in a chein reaction
depending upon how the items were luid in the packaging for storage; Ct-at a tightly packed
box could explode from heat and the aub~ect buildi.ng had been on fire two ;.imes ~lready.
He further stated it took :n actual fire to act ivate a sprinkler aystem.
Coromig£ioner Gsuer noted that the paychological feeling of Lhe s_rrounsing neighbors could
ciot be removed, eapecially if a sign ~as erecced.
In responae to quest:loning bv Commi.ssioner Farano, Mr, Phillips advised that Mr. Myers was
probably tfllking about hazardous f ir worka wl~icr. would t~ave a problem; that Che bui.lding
had automatic spr!nklers; that he had examined trie building which appeared to mc~et the
Code requ?rEmen[s of the City; Fhat regsrding the ca~~se and effect of "safe and sane"
fiYeworka heing ignited, he atr~ted th~~y were supposed to b~ s:~fe for peop:e to light
opposed to the firecracker-type firer~~rks; and that ne had inspected the building only to
see if it was safe :or the type c,f commodiCy•
~
~
~
MINU'iB3, CITX PLANNING COMMIS5ION~ February ~~ 197.5
CONUITIONAL U5~ PERMIT Nl~. 1512 (Continue~d)
~
~
75-Sd
Commleai.ot~er M~'~rley noCed tha[~ in hie opinlun~ there would ncit bd a fire hazard~ howevAr,
he would haye to agrWC w1.th the ad~oining prop~rty ownere tl~nk Chey ehould not b~ saddlad
witti additionel l~surnnce exponHe, ~nd he would b~ uppo~ied ta tTie propoeal on [he baels of
~cCual coaC Co the noighbors.
Commiesionor Johneon nnted tt-a~ he wae inclined Co agree with Coo~mieeionere Gauar and
Murley; that the n+iture of Mr. McCuruy'e bumi.nees gavo hf.m a cc~ri t.n lisbility and some
ui.fficulCies to ~~peratc; that he woul.d be onnoee~~ to Che propuwnl unleee more favorabl.e
evidence wee providcsd; nnd [hat he would base hiy voto on Che p.ychologicel ef.fect to the
surroundir.g b~~Hinese~s. ~ `c.
Ct~airmen Herbat noted tt~at f ireworka e_ands werc al.lowed all over town and hn c~'..d nol•
belir.ve the fire ineurnnce rateo for the ahoppir-g cPnCere wer.e increased; that l~ased un
the Fire Dnpartment report~ he conAidered the pt'opoaed operation Co be eafe r~nd c~ul.d be
compar~~-1 with a cardbourd fuctory whlch wue permit.ted in :~n induetrial couununity; ~nd thr~t
if thcs ~:~~ndlCians w~~r~~ met, the uae should be a1low~d.
In response to yueslioning by Mre. Ste{~hens~ Mr. Phillipe advised that Clas~- "C" explosives
included skyrackets. Roman candles, fi.recrackErs, er~., nnd that "anfe and s«na" flrEworks
were Caken out of that claeaifica[ion.
Mre. Stephena yuestione~ why the ten items or conditions aet forth in Che .lunuary 20~ 1975
S*nff Report to the Planning Conm~iesion were no longer being requir~~d, and Ch~lrnian Herbat
clarified that ~ince it was tound that "safQ and sane" fire~ -ks was a different class
than originally thought~ ihose items wexe no :~ngei• necesear . including that inatead of a
Cwo-hour fire wal.l only a one-hour f1.c•e wall w~s required.
Connnie9loreer Farana offered n motion, seconde~l by ~ommiaeioner Tolar and MOTION CA°w i~D,
CI~aC the Ylanning Comm.lssion recommendo to the City Couucil that the f;ubject pro~E:ct be
exempt from the requirement to prepar~ an Envir.onmental Impnct Report puraunnt to the
provieiona of Che Callfornia EnvironmPntal Quality Act.
Commissivner Furano offered a r.eaolutiun and moved for . paseage and adantion to grant
Petitlon for C~nditional Use Permit No. .LS12, aubject to aonc3ltiune, baoed upon the nat:ure
of the materinl to be stored ~~ outlir.ed in the tesCimony of the Fire Ptrirshal; that approval
of said use shal.l not be consrrued to raea.i an endoreement of fireworka but ir~ based on
land uae policy since the material r~ b~ atored will not preaent any undue ti srd ro the
surrounding pr~perty owners or in any way endanger ttie life~ health, or saf".y of the
immediate area; and that for comparison L-here are other bueineases ~n the City which are
imminently more dangerni~s tl~an a"safe and sane" fireworke wareh~:u~e, i.P., a cleaning
establishment.
CommisslonEr Farano noted that if tlie City wished to sdopt an ordinance prahibiting fire-
works in the City of Auaheim he wo,~ld be in favor of it.
Commisai~t:er Johnaon noted that he was againFt Che cesolut:ion bec3use he did i.-ot believe
aince he had been a Flanning 'o~issioner that where so much ~pposition was presented,
including signed petitions by the overwhelming najority of people in the area, that a
pr.oposal was appLoved; and that although the opinions stated may not be entirely valid,
the reasons ware real to those people. Thereupun~ Commiaeioner King concurred w:th
Corn~niasioner Johnson's feeling regarding the matter.
On r~ll call, the foregoing rpsolution f ailed by the following vote:
AYES: COhII•tISSIONERS: FP.RANO, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COA4IISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY
ABSF•A1T: COMMISSIONF.RS: NONF
Commisaiuner Johnaon ofPered Resolutioa No. yC75-2.i and moved fa: ita passage and adoption,
that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1512 be and hereby ie denied on t:he basis
thst a~pra•:imately 6Q pcraona. cansiating of property owners~ r~eidents and employees in
the imr.iediate area. aigned petitions in opposition and, therefore, the proposal would be
detri.mental tio the peace, health. safety and generel welfare of thoee cit..zens, although
City Staff pruvided inf -mation indicating that the proposed uee was compat~.ble with
induatrial deve;opment. (See Resolution Book)
• ~ ~
t4INUTES , CI'I'Y P1.AN2iINC (:OA4~1ISS1 UN, February 3~ 19 i 5 75-59
CONf)ITI~JNA1. USE PERMiT NU. 1512 (Continued)
On roll call.. Che foregoing reBOlution wae paseed by t:he tallowing vot~:
pYE3: Cot•tr~tSS1~JNERS: CAULR. JONNSON~ I;1NG, MORLEY
NUES : (:UMM l SS IONi:R.~i t FARANU ~ TOI,AR , HisR~1ST
AASENT: ~OI~lMIS5i0NP.IL4: HONE
Choirmc~n Herbet then n,~ted Chat if the mntter dho~~ld bc brought up agnin, thc~ opposition
would probubly ~ritlidr,:w on tl~e besis of tlie Plre Marahal's report.
CONUITIONAI. USE - I'UBI.IC kl'r.ARING. MARTIN LUTHER NOSPITAL, INC., 1825 Wcst Ltomneya Ur1ve~
PEIZMIT NU. 1130 Anal~eim, Cn. 92801 (Owner) ;'T. El1GENE DAHLCRL~N, AsAiatant Secretaru,
~RGADVERTISE~~ Mnrti~i l.uther Hoapital., P. 0. Bux 3304, Anaheim, Ca. 92803 (Agant);
raquesCing DEL~TION OF TIiT PARKWAY MAIN'fGNA.NCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A HOSPITAL on property deecribed
as: A rectangularly-shaped parcei of land consiating of approximntel;~ 10 ~cres havin~ a
frontage of npproximately 835 f~et on klte aouth eide o£ R~mneya llrive, having a mxximum
depth of approximately 437 feet, anc- l>~~Ing loc~ted approximately 820 feet weat of l•iie
cent:erline ~f Euc11d Street. Proparty present.ly clasaified RM-12U0 !RCST.DENTIAL, 1~niLTIPLE-
FAMII.Y) ZONi:.
No ane indir.aCe~ thei.r presence in ppositi.~n to ~ub~ect peCi.tion.
Alrhough the Stnff Report to ttie Planning Cowmi~sion dated rehruary 3, 1975, wus i-ot read
nt the publi.c henrfng, i~ i, ret~rred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Eugene Dahlgren~ Assistant Secretar,~, Msrtin Luther Hospital, the agent for the petL-
tioner, appearad before th~ Planning Cummission and stated the request to delete Cond:.:ion
No. 6 of tlie original appraval of. Conditional Use PPL'N~C No. 1130. "That n parkway ma,.~-
tenan~~~~ asseysment distrtrt Co provide for perpetual maintenance of r.he medtan planter
prrposed in Romneya Drive sh~sll b~ establi.shed in sccordance with Co~incil Policy No. 532,"
wo~~lrl eliminate the obllgation on the part of the petitiuner.
THL PULLIC HFAKING WAS CLnSED.
Mr. Dahl;!'P~ further atatec they were ma' ig ctie request, howeve.r, the City Engineer.'s
Office had indicated ChaC RomneyA Drive wuuld be an arterial highway znd the City's policy
was to rnaintain t}ie landscaping along ~uch a etreet.
It was note.i that ct~e Dire~tor of Bev._~pment Service~ had determined thut the proposed
act~~~iCy fell wiChin the d~~finitio~ oi Sectton 3.01, ~lasa 1 of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to Che Requirementa for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore,
cate~ur~~ally axempt from the requirement to fi.le an EIR.
Comniissioner King otfered a resolution to approve the sub~ect request and amend the original
resc!.utton of approval for Conditional tlse Permit No. 1130, bnsed on the ~valuation set
forth in the Sta£f Repo:•r. that "The Engineering Division has, therefor<, recowmended that
the City accept the maintenance respon~ibility for the planted median and irrigation svstem
when the improvementa have be~n completed." Office Engineer Jay T1tuK furthered *_he
evaluation statement set forth in the Staff Report by noting that normally when a reaiden-
tial aingl~~-family trac~ backed up Co an arterial :~tghwav, the daveloper was required to
cunstruct a concrete block wall on the property line and plant a median which the Ci.ty
maintained, however., there were many iustunces on Ganta Ana Canyon Road wl re the devel-
opers were iequired to landscape the medisu and unpaved portion of the right-of-way, with
the .~~ditional requirement that they maintain it; and tiiat the decision on the proposal
was a matter ot what ~he City wanted to do in this particular case.
Ir~ reaponse to questioning by Commisaioner Farano, Mr. Titua adviaed that R~mae,a Drive
was proposed to ext~nd further wPSt of the hoepital through the Maheim Shorea pro~ec*. and
then bend ~~~uth to 1nCersect wit ~a Palma Avenue, and that diacussion at the previoua
pub?ic hearing wa~ tha: if tY-e developer wanted the median, the devela~er would maintain
it. Theraupon, C imnisaioner Farano made an observation that preaen~.:ly the landscapin~ was
of more bencf±: t:: the hoepital rhan to anyone else.
Mr. Dahlgren submitt~~l thaC he did not recall the apecific discuseion on the matter,
however, he seemed to recall that they were preciEe about the width of the street; that
they had originally ta.lked abouk a planted median and made an attempt to have it w~l ~d
later ~n because oE the cuet involved and were ui~succesaful on the basia ~hat the Cit~
wanted it.
~ •
MINUTGS, CITY YLPNN~:NC COMt:IS510N~ rehruAry 3~ 1975
CONUITIONAL IiSI: I'ERMI'f NU. 1130 !RF.ApVLRT'ISI:D) (ConCit~u4d)
~
•
75-60
ARAistant Zoning 3uperviROr Annikf+ Santelahti noted thnt in 1972 the petitionQr requESCad
that the planted mcdian be c',letad from thc: street and the Pl~nning Commi9eion amended 4he
conditla-: a l~ttlc to rpoii~? the landr~caping for o p~riod of ~wo yeare and, th~•reforo~
it ~+ao raqulred but no ~edlatQly.
ChnS.rman Ilecbel noted [t~at if the NUbj4Cl' r~~qu~ ~~t was approved, thon Anaheim 3hores w~ul~l
probably make th^ ~;r~me requcet.
Thc Planning Commieoion r~~quested Staff ~ review the conditione for approval of thc
Analie..i St~~ores project and muke u rKpurt.
(Thereupon~ the deliberAtione regarding Petitio~~ for Ci,nditional ~e~e Permit No. 11.30 ~
Readvertised wc~s del.nyed to :ollowing Item S ot ct ~ Ylanning Commiseian agenda - Nnandment
to Title 18 -'Loning Code - Anah~im Municipal Cade.)
The F.Lanning Commiaeion resumed deliberAtion~ r~garding Pet:Ltion for Conditi~nal. Uac
Permit No. 1130 - Readverttaed, and ~~~ning Supervisor Charlee koberte noCed that the
conditi.ons of. approval. for the Anu ~~lm Shor.ea pto~ect had been revtewed and a condition
was in~ ~~ed foi l~~ndscaping and maintenance to be provided by thP devcloper on Romneya
Dr.ve ~ iuu~ r•he westcrly boundary of the Mnrtln Lut}ie.:' Hospitul pruperty.
Coounissi.oner Gauer noted thnt deletion of the conditiun as requeated would be setting a
doubl~~ ar_:,,Zdard since tho Anaheim Shores pro~ect would 'oe maintainin~ the lnndscaping.
On ro11 call, tlie foregoing rcaolution failed by the foll~wing vote:
AYFS: COl4NiTSSIONERS: KiNC, IiGRAST
N01.S: COI~lISSI.C~NLRS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHr1SCN, MORLEY, TOLAR
ABSLCI'C: COMMISST~Nf:RS: NONE
Commissiuner. Far;:,,u offered Reaolutioo No. PC75-24 and moved for its paseage and adoption
that requesl for deletion of Condition No. 6 of the oriFinal approva~ of Coadi.tianal Use
Permi.t No. 1130 be and hereby ia denied, without prejudice~ on the basi~ Chat 1) the
port.ton of Romneya Drive in queat~ot~ does not presently extend Fast the aub~e~:t property
to the wast and, therefore, the subject property owners ac'e deriving tha majority of the
benef.it of said street; 2) thaC a proposal for development of r_he proFerty to the west of
sub~ect property (Anaheim Shorea) was approved aubje~t tu a si.milai• condition of approval
requiring a Parkway maintenance asseaement diatrict [or perpetual m~aintenance of a median
planter in Ro~r eya Drive and, therefore, granting thc subject request for the delation of
subject condition would estsbl.ish an undeairable precedent since a:~imilar re~ve~t might
be suUmitted for the property to the west; and 3) Chat at auch tt~e as Romneya Drive is
improved through the sub~ect pruperty and through ths ad~acent property to the ~aesC, and
following acceptance of said street im~rovements by the CiCy, upon requeat by the petitioner
the Planning Co~^i~sion may r.eview the matter of deletion af. the reierenced condi.tion
again at public hearing. (See Resolution Book)
On rcll cali, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COA4~liSSION~:RS: FARA.'~0, (~AUGR, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAIt
NOES: CONIMISSIUNCRS: HERBST
ABSENT: COTLMISSIONERS: NONE
!~'`;DMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLiC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAH~:ZM CITY PT.ANNiNG COI~iISSION,
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODC 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; to consider amendment
to Sectio~: 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipa'1 Code, proposing tree
preservation in the (SC) Scetiic Corridnr Zone-Ove1lay.
Upon req~est by Chairmon H~rbst~ twc~ peraons in the audier~cP indicated they were in favor
of the proposed amendment to tlie Anaheim Municipal Code and no one indicated their presenco
in opposition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February ~, 1975, was not read
at the public hearLng~ it ia referred to and made a parC of the minutes.
~ ~
MINUTCS, C[TY t'1.hNNTNG COt .~ST.pN, February 3, 'l.9 'S
AMF.NDMENT TO Ti'PLI: 1B_, ANAHI:IM MIiNICIYAL_ CODE (Continuad)
~
~
7'i-61
rtre. Mitzy Uzeki, 1122 Ti~.ken Roud~ appearad before the Planning Cammi.eslon and etated [he
Staff Report wne vecy comprehensive; ttint eti~ would question how Section 18.84.036.020~ as
propoeed. could be enforced a-id ahe suggeated that parhape enforcement nroblems should be~
c meidered :-loug wieh the ~m~~ndmant at the prasent time; und that even though the eacietinK
Sceiiic Corridor Overliiy ?on i1~ Code did have eimilar pcovieione, there was abuse in the
pnet anu yh~ wae looking f~~~ some camment fxom tha PJ.nnning Cammiasi.~n ae to the enforce-
ment. She ~:unCln~ed by st ting regarding Sec~l~n .1R.8G.036.021, ~~roviding for approvnl of
removul or clestructlon of .ree~, ah~~ wonclered lf thc Planning C_pnrtment coul.d post notice
with the trac~s ~ ndvise ~he people of any destrucrion oE trees. ln conclusion, ?ir4.
(,znki requested thiic an &ddltional krca be 'ncluded in the li~..: of trees for preeervat.ton,
beinq the very old~ stately palni trees e~t the cld ranch home a~ Che northwest corner of
Imperlnl tlighway and Santa Ana Cnnyon Road.
1)e~ut.y City Attorney Frank r.uwry advised that enforcement hau been on a complainr basis
und violat:un would be miedemeanor to Le enforced from a criminal etandpoint; LF~:~t the
pr~posed Code had been adopted by many c~ties throughout the ~kate and th~re was no ~ourC
decision on the mateer, howevec, tl~~ City Attorney's Office had eeri..~ie~ dc~ubts regazding
lts conetitu[ionality on t.he ~tIIN~B o1 discriminAtion ~ince snld Code wo~?d apply to only
one area in klie City, the 5ceni~ ~orrLdor ZonN~ und it was di£ficult to suatain an or.dt-
nance of thls type under Che general welfare clauae.
Chaii-man Herbs~ noted that if the Sce~,'~ .orri.dor Overlr~y T.one wae Plr~ceu over the entire
City, there woi~'-t bN a br'~er chance uL enforcing the pruposed Code amendment, and Mr.
Lowry further c~.iviaed thut thnt was a possl-biliCy, not on the basio of eesthetica, but on
the baeis thaC trees contr.ibuted to oxygen and othPr vFilues for health c~~ld welfare; and
thAt although ther~ was no authority for th~ propozed Code amendment, ~~cher cities had
them.
Chair.man lierbat then noted that the purpose of the proposed Code +amendment was not ta C3ICP_
away Che righr.a of the pevple to take down a tree in their own y~rd, as auch, however,
Chere were some very old oal+, Feppers and sycamores in the Canyan that took many years to
grow anrl with ~evelopm~nt growth in the Canyon, the City w'+nted to know about th~ dispos'.-
tion of thP trees; and that he did not oee any prubleme in attaching the proposed Cod~
amen.dment to the entire City since it would not persecute anyone.
rir. Lowry advise3 that since the proposed Code amendment wrsa adverti.sed i.n connection wi.th
the Scenic Corridor ~~erlay Zone onl.}, action would have ta be confined to that zone or
readvertised.
It was note3 that a letter dated January 30, 1975 was receive3 from the Santa Ann River/
Santiago Cr~.ek Greenbelt Commisai~n reconm-ending spproval of the sub~ect amendment to the
Anaheim Muiiicipal Code, propoaing tree preservation in khe (SC) Scenic Corridor Zone-
Overiay, and sai.d letter is rei~r.red to and made a part of the minut~s,
Commisaioner Farano offei,u Resolution No. PC75-2S and moved for its pnssage and acloption
to adopt and rer.ommend to the City Cc.uncil adoption of. amendment to the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Ti'tle 18 - Zoning, proposing tree preservation in Che (SC) Scenic Corr;dor Zone-
Ov~r.lay, as set fcrth ln the Staff Repor.t. (See Resolution Book)
On r~~! 1 call, the foreguing resc~lution was passed by r.}ie following ~ote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING~ MUktLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSION~RS: IJONE
ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: N0~7[:
RECESS - A_ 3:3U p.m., Chairm.an Herbst declared a recess.
Ft~CONVENE - Ac 3:40 p.m , C~~airman Herbst raconvened the meeting witti all
Commissioners being present.
~
~
~
•
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING C(1MMiS5IUN, 1'ebrur~x'y 3, 1975 ~~3'h2
STH~ET NAMr CNANGE - 1'UBLI.~: HGAkIN(;. INI't'IA'CF.D 13Y THI: AN.1HI:iM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
Y 7.04 E:nat I,Lnr~.ln Av~.i~~e, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; to coiiaidor a street name
c:hnnge f.rom Stfite Colleg~ fiaulQwird to Univareity 'toulevard for thak
portion af Stato Collegc~ Boulevard extending norch an~ eouCti within the C1.ty of An~heim.
Tan perarny Lndic red cheir preae~ 'n oppoaition to the euU~ect aCr~ot nume cheing~.
The Staff ReporC ~o th~: Planning Commir~aion drit~d Fehruury 3. 1.975, wr~s reviewed nr~d mude
a p~rt of the minu~.~•d. Tt wFi~~ no[erl ttiat x requeet wae ~+ubmitted by the President of t' ~~
Culiforni~~ St ~~ College Univu~yity ut Fullerton propoefng to change the n~me of State
Collega Boul~.~~rd to University I~~ulevaxcl~ extending through Che CitieR of AnAheim and
Cullarton to ite tern~li~ue at Imperial liighway; thal• a prevl~us request for l'~ s aubJect
name chr~nge wne coneidered hy lhc Anahtim City Council. nnd c•~ Novea~ber 14, 197?., the
mn~ority of said Council.~ rememher~.ng the name of thP etreet had been chnitged frum
Placentia Avenue to Stntc Collrrge B~ul.evard ap~roximetely ten yeara prior, ~aere oppc,sed to
any further change of the nAme on t'~e UaAis af the expenoe property own~r~ nnd huained:aen
would incur by such a c~hnnge ~nd~ thereupon, decline~t echeduling a public l~eari.ng on the
ieaue; thnt. however, Counci.lm~n 'Cho•• (prr_aently tt~e Mnyor) requested thnt the record show
that he did not oppo~e the holding ~f u public hearing on Che request; ~nd that a publi.c
hearing had been ~clieduled to: t:his Planning Cammiseiun Meeting.
Mr. Charles I. Wrlght, $5.i ~outh SCate College Boule.vnrd, eppeured before the Planning
Commir~sion as a husi.nessmrin r~long the sub~ect atr.eet nnd reviewed the effec~.s of the
previous nnme chnnges of the boulevard; that he purchased F~is store three years ngo and
ot~e of the vendore still. addres~;ed the mail to the convenience food market which had not
been at that location for six year.s; that he did not like to think what wo~ald happen if
the etreet nnme oras ch~nged ugain; that he had Crouble making xny kind of chan~es even
with the ]ocal vendors; Chat he was oppoaed L•o the atreet name chang~ as a busineasman in
the area; and that he alsc ltved or. State College Boulevard in the MIIhet.m Gnrdena condo-
mini.wn und was autharized by ehe board eo expreas oppoaition fnr the 54 proper~y ownera
who resided there also.
Mr. Robert Cotman, representing Pa~ific Scientific Company, 1346 Soutt State College
Boulevard~ appeared befaz•e the Planning Coimnission and stated they had been in busines~ at
the sub~ect location sinc:e 1957 and t~ad tt~r~~ dffferenT. addreases so f~r; that hia bu~i-
ness was national and international ,.ind they l~~~gan with a customer being pre:sented blu~-
priiits and, if they were sellir.~ t~ an al.rplane company, the item would be in productton
for perhaps £ifteen co sixteen years, and the contracts were fixed with an addresa which
might or mignt not be accurate; that fortunately they received a..:r.centsge of their mail
that was aki11 being addres4ed to former street namea for State College Boulevard; that an
address change woiild be coatly fur new stationery involvit~g approKimately 100 different
documents f.or his business; tliar when :he last chunge was made he was given a cerCain
length of time prior to the r_hange tak'n~ effe~~.t to us~ up his st~tionery forma and ~.itera-
ture that were on hand, and presen[ly h~. s:ill had literature frc,m when the boulevard was
Placentia Aveue; that t.ne cost to replace h~~ current litezature would be thousands of
d~ll.ars; ttiat State College Park had monuments that were big investments to those people;
and that if the name ~f the boulevard was chanEed it would affect the area for yeara to
come.
In resF•onse to questioning by Cl~airman Herbst, 1':. Cotiuan stated it would take a minimum
of thre~~ years to use up the Uulk of tii.s suppllE s.
Mr. Richard Nicholson, j.540 North State Co.lle~e i~urevard, appeared bef.ore the Planning
Commiseion L...i atated ti:~ had ma.~e a survey on this a~:•~ ~p and down State CollegP Boulevard,
of real estate affices, doc.tors, etc., and 41 indicated the change should not be mr~de
becauae of Che cost of both changing the si$na and t.he suppl.ies; thax it would c:ost him
abaut $2,000 sis~ce he hr~d mail orde- catalogs; that State College Bnulevard was a recog-
nized atreet ~ame which wae helpfui in udv:rr.lsing; and ihat any change in tl,~ name would
not be on the street maFe for a mi.ni~um of a y~ar.
In resa~nse to quuatl~ninF by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Nicholson stated Che length of time to
uae up i~is cataiogo was ~~t as important as the uumb~r of cuatomere and buPiness he would
loae from the change of address.
Mr. Dick Fagter~ Assistar.t General Manager of th~ California Angels Baseball Club, appeared
before the Pl:~nning Commis~ion and stated they were not oppoaed l•o the atreet name chflnge
ita~~lf but to the logic involved; that they spent vast amounCs of wonQy ir~ mail'ord,:
ad~~c Laementa acr~sa th~ Western United States, et~., Znd if a r_hanae wae t~ be made,
the ~ould like iC to he done in ~~tober or November, the off-season, with at least a one-
yea ~iot.lce; and r.haC ~he; would suggest tli~t thp name not be changed, howevery if it was
they aould live with it.
~ ~ ~
MLNUTI'S. CT'TY PW,NNT.NG CON~l1SSION, l~ebruary ~, 1975 75-53
STRGI:'[' NAME CHANGL -• STAT~ COLI.EGE BQl1LI:VA1tD ~(:onCinued)
Mr. Gr~ry Mein, repreeent.ing Mah. .m Buil.ding Suppllee~ Inc.. 1.b3 ~ South Skete Co~l~ge
Boul.evard, appeared b~fure the PLanninK Co~amiRK+_on and stated thr~y had eubmitled a lEtr~~r
ln oppoeiCiun to thu eub,je~~t r.eyuest~ how~~vnr~ he wi.ehad to emphneize tiiat his company
could not x~~e how the ^hange in n~~me would .~ffec[ [he ability af the univereiCy to aduct~te
Chc elu.iente; r.hnt l-he City had a beeur.iful ba~;chal'~ etad~um~ akc., Dll(I Che City of Anat-eim
ehould loolc only nt tha efFerte the change would havc~ nn the City; and that there ehould
be a 11miC to how c~"`en che mind could be ahanged.
Mrs. Thelm~ Beaver~ llld South State College Iioul.svard, appeared boford thc Ptanning
Commic3lun and atAted ehe op{wsed the sub~ecl• Atreet name chonge terrib'l.y, speaking f~•um A
housewife's atandpoinc; thnt it had t~ken two yeare to gE~t her mail eince ehe moved thc+
last time; that changing tha nnme of the street looked bad when creditore ;~ere trying Co
find ~eople Rince the po~:t office did not indJ.cate that a eCreet namN had been changed
when they reCurned mail~ ~uAt that tha sddrese w~e changed; and that otherR in her binck
appoaed Clie change ~tlyo.
Asaiatnnt Zoning Supervieox Annika SantalIIl noted fo~ the Planning Commiesion thut three
lettera t~ad been rec~ived ln oppoeition ~i1g frora Anaheim Buildere Supply, Inr_., 1635
5outh StazE College Boulevard; the Anal~ m Chamher af Commerce City/County Gover.nment
Commirtee; and Continental Ineurance ~' ~kers, Inc:., 430 North ..tate College Boulevard.
THE PUBLIC HEARIIvG WAS CLOS~:A.
Commissioner Mcrley o£ferQd P.eso ~Clon No. FC75-2G and moved for ite paesage und adoption
to de-iy and r~commend to the Ci ; Council denial of reque~t fo3- a street name chanp,e -
State College Boulevard, for t',~ reasona preaented by the oppo~i.tion. ("-:e Resolu~Lon
Book)
On roll cal.l, the foregoi.ng resolution w~A passed by the following vote:
AYES: COI~IIV(ISSIONERS: FARANU,
NOES: COhtI[ISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: ('(1MMISSIUNERS: NON~
ABSTAIN: LOt~fISSIONERS: HERHST
GAUGR, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR
Chairman Herbst noted that he was abataininq from voting since he owned proper`y on State
College Boule~ard which might conatitute a conflict of i.nterest.
ENVIRONME~TAL IMPACT - PU$LIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THG ANAHEIM CITY YLANNING COP4fISSION,
REPORT N0. 143 Z04 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 91.8Q5; sub~e~t EIR to be
considerel in connection with a£aciliCy for the b~arding of
horses and other equestrian a~tivitiea on 15 acres south of tYie
Anaheim Hills Golf Course, southwest of the intersection of Nohl Rsnc.h Road nnd Country
Clul Road.
Nu one indi~ated their presence in opposition [o aub~ect Envirorimental Impact Report.
Although tti~ Staff Reporl: v the rlnnning Commission dated February 3, 1975~ was not read
at Che meetinr, ie is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. John Milllck. Vice PrEaident of Anaheim Hills, Inc., appearecl before the Planning
Commission and atated they had a reac~?uCion from the Maheim City Council for aHoroval to
lease the aub~ecr, property to build what they called a"temporary equeatrian cencer"; that
the reagon they had r_hosen tl~e cub~e~t :.ocatton, as oppos~d to the~r ariginal location, was
the availabilitv of utilitiea; i.hat ':heir terms with the ~ily for the lease was for three
yearR wi~:h an option to renew year-to-year~ ~aith a stipulaCion or cancellation clauae r.t~at
if rhe City wishcd to ~ake the property back ln order to ex.pand the Anaheim Hilla Golf
Course on that aide of. the road, they could do so; that, as ehown an the renderings, tl~
propoLad buildinga would be modular aith tt-~~ ability Ca be unbolted and rEmoved to the
final equestrian cent~r when appropriate to do so.
In rnsponae r~ questicning by Chairman Aerhsc, Mr. Millick atnted rhey did not anticipate
aeneratii-g the type waece thut was generatcd from a residential-type developmen~ a:td that.
the animal waste would be r,old.
• e •
6;INI1 iES ~ CTTY PL!-NN INC COI~tISSION ~ N'~bruary 3~ 1975 ~ ~'~4
rNVIkONMENTAL IMl?AC7' ktftFQRT N0.__,_14~ (Cotttinued)
In response t~~ yua~tiuning t~y Commiesioner King rpgardinK psrkinK epace un~ fi.re hazardN,
Mx. Mill ick alated ~he :iub~jec[ ~~roparty wnx n cauyon-type srea and Chere w~e c~ meadow w~ h
Eiv~~ ncre~ of lEVel ground which ~•ould aexv~~ ae a parki.ng arca; ci,at nny flre hrizard wo~,ld
not necesaerily bc r-aeociatpd wil•h the e~ ~eAtrian iacility but was ~ geane+t::.l ~+roblem fot +i
ricting and tr~il syatem throughout the r~,iich; end they would be a~~tting i-p nn uesesemei~t
a~~w manu~ement ai.8r.ri.~r to h~ndle thnt; [1~ ~t the ridc:ra ~~ere generally reeponeihla peopl.e,
however~ for weelcend ridera -:he propurty would be poeted quiGa freyuently to warn of the
fir.e haxard~
In rPpronse to quae,l•ioning by CommJssioner Gai•~r, Mr. Milli.ck atnted l•he eqiiesrriun
facility wae being moved out in fronr uf the development to be used ah rs marketing t:oul;
rhak lf the equeatrian facility wae w~:ll mai.nrained~ from n clennliness atandpolnt~ ik
would be a show pl.ace; and they wuuld have a hi~;.~ly sophieti.car.ed training center and
t}iEre would be people nnd liorses in trAining fur showe and riding evente; thnt Che nports
eventa would be tiigh cl.ass and we11 maintained~ as oppoyed to a riding er.able thar. was
uaually ~hoddy luokinR• and th~t the facilities would be a marketing amenity instead of a
liability.
In respunse Co further qua~tianing by Commieaioner Gauer, Mr. Mi'_.lick atated nay odor
~:ould be at t}~e center, unleas it was w~ll. maintained; thnt the manure would be packaged
and sold eo agricultural concerna for fertil.izer; and there would he no coneta~t build-~ip
crcating odor ~roblemc.
Chairman Herbst noted that i;e had an opportunity Co view aome of the trails and e+naheim
H111a was pursuing use of rhe Edison ear~sment and it looked very nice.
Commissioner ICing of.Eered a motion~ seconded Uy Commissioner Juhnson and MOTION GAkRI~D,
that Gnvironmental Impact Report No. lro}, supplementing master Environmental In.pnct Report
No. 80. having Ueen considered this date by the CiCy Plauni~g Commic~aion and evidence both
written and oral having been preAen[ed to supplement said drart ~lR No. ].43, `he Plrntiing
Commisaion believes that eaid draft EIR No. 143 does canform to L::c •.^•ii.y ~nd State Gu~de-
linea and the SCate of Calif~rniu EnvironmenCal Quality Act and based upur. suc.h inforn-a-
cion does hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify sai.d FIR No. 1~-3 is in
compliance with sflid Environnental Quality Act.
ItEGLP.SSIPTr,{',TION - Pi1BLIC HEARING. ROBGRT M. CROSS, 469-A West V~lencia Arive, ~'ullerton,
NG. 7v-~5-2Z Ca. 92632 (~wner); ROY DE CBLL, Anahetm Lincoln Cc.nter, 4941 Orange
r ~ Avenue, ~yprea~, Ca. 9063~ (P.aent); requesting that pronerty described
as: A rectsngul~rly-shaped pr-rcel of land consisting of npproximalely
1.7 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gain Street, having approxi-
mat~ frontages of 358 feet un the south si.de of Lincr~ln Avenue and 210 feet on tlie ea~:t si~ie
of Cain Street be reclassiPied from the CL (COhII~tERCIAI., LIMIT~D) AND GO (COIVII~LFRCIAL, OFFICF
AND PROFESSIONAL) ZONES to thc CL (GON411',RCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
No one indicated their presence in oppoeition to sub~ecC pe~~_t~~<i.
~~lthough the Staf' Report to the P'lanning Cowni~ssion dated February 3, 1975, was not read
at Che ~ublic hearinK, ~t is r.efe,~red to and made a part of the minutes.
It was no~ed that Rec'lassi.fication No. 68-69-14, originally proposing CO zoning on the
entire parcel, was approved for CL zaning on the westerly portion only with the easterly
lU0 feet being zoned CO to serve as a buffer of commerciaJ. off~ces ad~acent to the ~xist-
in~; ~ingle-iamily homes to the east.
Mr. Ruy De Cell, the agent for the pr.tiCioner~ apppared Uefore the Planning Commi~~ '~n and
stated regarding Che required trash s[orage areas that I~e was working with the Sai tion
Diviaion to resclve the problem. Mr. De Cell reviewed the history of the zoning anu
proposed deve~opmento on the sub~ect property and etate.l they we*_-e proposing a commercia'
shopping center conaieting of tWO aingle-atory buildinas containing a total of 15 unita
and said canker would be on both the CI• and C~ ~~~rtions of the ~ub~ect property; that they
submiC~e~' that the proposal was not only more desirable in the ~inds of the residenta lhan
any ~£ Lhe pre~ious pr.opoeals an the aubject property, but was a quality building site
which they would not have had if tl,~y were using only the CL portion; and that they were
propoaing to construct a 6-foot block wa11 aZong the pronerty ~.ine to i..~ther enha.nce the
privncy of r.he buildir.ga.
THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSEn
~ ~ ~
MINU'i'LS ~ l;1'CY PLANNIN(~ COI~IISSION ~ FebruF-ry 3, 1975
RCCLASSIFTC:ATIUN N0. 7~-75-22 ,-untinusd)
75-65
In r~~sponeFi Co que:~4l~~uinK by Chairm,~n Harb~c~ Mt. De Cel.l t~tai~J nc~re wr~~+ buEfaring to
tlie ~-orth end south, hawever, he had diecueBeQ mi~thode of ].nnd~cnplr.g for that puxposu
wfth Cit~~ Staff who suggested cyprce~s or Hvllywond [~iet~•re and thi~~ rhey ware propor~ing
o~eandere,
Thce Planning Commieaion entered inta diacueeion wi[li Mr. Da Cell reqHrdinq the buffering
zone~ during whlch M:~ De Cell atated th.~t the prop~sNd building "B" WA8 for a rPtail
b~~einQes and uellveriea ~~ould be made in rha renr~ ~nd the capa~ity o£ the trucks ~aould
depRnd on their ahility to enter tho area.
Chairmnn Herbat noted thnt when the eul>~ect property wae previoualy conei~ered for develop-
mcnt. tt~e people wez'e ~resenC en roasse to voice thsir opinirn, regarditg s<<r~e; and thaC
;.ho,:e people still needed to be considered.
Mr. De Cell atated i.t was not in the interesC of the rieople tu de~ lop the property with
two-etory buil.dinge; that uc~dsr the CL Zone, he could come in hy i-lght a~cordinR to Title
18 and do exttr~l.y what he: was proposing at thia time; that he could develop the CO n~operty
according to Title 18 prebabiy with a narrowin~ of the 53-foot wide bui'ldings wi~hou~
having to go to the ?lanning Commisai.on~ atc.; however, they had tt-e i:ttereat of r.he
people nt heart a~nce tt~e~ were not propuying a two-etory offlce build~ng where windows
were pe~rtng down into the back yards and~ although the delivery trucks would be com!T~R in
duri.ng tiie day, there wouid not be tno many delJ.veries.
In response to qsestionin~ by Commisaioner Farano~ Assiatunt Zonin~ Supervisar Annika
Sacitalahti noted tliat with a setback of 47~ feet~ the building height could be 23~ teet
adjacent to the sin~le-family resid~~~tial zone.
Commisaioner Tolar noted that tlie petitioner had a valid point and thc.r he wou'ld rather
not see a Cwo-story building on the CL 7.one portion of the property.
Commisaioner Farano r~oted that the petlcioner had g~ven no reason for the requeated zone
chrnge, whereupon Mr. Ue Cell Etnted a one-etory building wauld be better than a:wo-etary
buildiag for the CL zoned portion of the property, and tt~at they ~~ere proposing to be get
bRCk 47~ feet.
Commissionez Tolar then noted that from a resale stan~point, it wax better net to hav~e
two-akory buildings backing up ~~ a residential development.
Chairman Herbet nuted that he would do e~~erything posaible to proteck the residen[tal
properties backing up to the sub,ject property.
Discuasion pursued r~gardin; tlie propo~sed buffering zone between the residenti~l proper-
ti.es and the sub~ect property, during whi Commisaioner Farano noted that it was rhe
policy to require a 20-foot landscaped buffer strip along the applicable prope-ty llnes~
however, the Code requirement was 10 feet, and ttiat he wuuld suggest that the desigr. of
the buildin~~ be s~~ch tha[ there would ~~, no delivexies in the baclc.
'°her.eup ,:•ir. De Cell stated to pravide a 20-foot wide buffer strip would be economically
infeseib~~ for t~e proposed developm nt, and Chairman Herbst notec: that, in r:~ct cr.se,
Ferhaps Che siib.i~~~t properCy wr~s not ~~itabJ.e or proper for Lhe proposal, sn<; chat if the
peti[ioncr wished to develc,p commercial prupercy, he wo~lld huve t~ abide by ~'ie rules.
Diacussi~n pursued concerning other appropriaCe uaes of the property, during which it was
z~oted that apartiaents would be unsuir..ahle aince two-dtory apartn,ents could not be bui]t
wttt-in 150 feet of the adiacenr reaiJ~ntial properties. Commt~~;~ner King inquired if s
10-foot buffer atrip would be reasonable baaed on the size a~., shape of thP propertv, and
Chaizman lierbst noted that the 3 feet proposed was deffnitP' ~io;: enough Commissi~~e:.
Farano then noted that he also ~~ould not be wllling to rec .~if.y the property without
aeme buffering and deletion of the loading zone in the rear.
Mr. De Cell stated he could prubably rewc-rk the prnpossl uaing a 10-fuot wide buff.:r
strip, and Commissioner Farano nor.ed th;~ he would •~robably go along wi.th hh~ 10 feet if
tl~e delivcry doora in CY~~ rear were eliminated si.nce that aspect was probl•~nta•tic for the
ad,jacent r_~xidential Froperties, due to the noise and diatraction, and that he did nat
int ~d that thete could be no custome: ingreFid or egress to the rear.
~~
~ o ~
MINUTC~, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION~ Fc~bruary 3, 1975 75-66
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 74-75-22 (Continued)
Cammisetonera Y.i.ng and Tolar took exc:eptio» to Goami.byioner Farano'e comcQenCe regurding
Che dc~ivery duore~ due ta the nola` gener~~tad by tl~e traf~:[c un Lincoln Avenue; and
Commiesioner. Mor~.ey not~ed fro~.a his experiec~r_a that it wae much more convaniant to deliver
in the rear~ both to thg delivery people and ro the pec.ple doing bueineea there; Chnt
delivariee ln Che fronC would inc~rfer.o witl~ tl~e pedestrian traffic~ the customere~ nnd
the ~p~ratiAn in goneral; tt~at witii 15 tennnta thPre would probebly be a maximum of five
to ten trucN.e e day and, depending upor the t:~•ne of ,,usineseoe. Che trucke woul~i probably
be amall; and that he would aRree w:lth tha n~ee.i for buffering.
In rusponee Co questiortng Sy Commia~ion~r Furano, Mr. De Cell etated they were anticipat-
ing tt~at kh~ cenante in building "S" woul.d be a restaurant.
Mr. De Ce11 stated that his underRtandinE of the T'lanning Cemmieeion's diecussion wes
that if he came in with a].0-fuot wide lnndsr_nped buff~r strip neat to the ad~aceiiL•
residentisl ptopc~rty and c.ontinued to ~iae tiie :~1'I.ey in the rear rur delivtr3.ey, th~n tY-p
Commisaion would consider the pr~pusal more favoraUly, and Chairman Herbet noted khat the
Planning Gommiseion inrended to pr~ _ct the homeownere to the bast of their abili~y and
sCi?1 trv to approve a vixblc~ de~elopment on the sub~ect proparty.
Thereu~:on~ Mr, De Ge~l cequeated a contl~z~iance to reviae his plane.
Cummission~:r Morley offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner King grid MOTION CARRL
reopen the publlc hearing and continue I'~~tit.ion for Reclassification No. 74-75-22 to t.
mceting of February 19, 1975, xs r~quest~d by the petition~r.
Misa Saretalahti noted for Ch~: petitioner that the reviaed plana wuuld have to be aubmitted
to St3ff within one waelc.
~ ~ •
^iINUTGS, C1'fY PL~WNTNG CUt~L~tISSIC~N, FebruAry 3~ 1975 15-h~
FLAN AMtiNDMF.NT
GENERAI •- FUDLIC N1;AltINC. INITIATGI; BY TH~ ANAliEIM CIT'Y PLANNINC COt~1I3SIpN,
.
38
N0. ] 2Q4 ~aeC Lincol.n l+venue~ Anaheim, Cr~lifornia; to coneider amending
.
~ tl~e land uee pol.icien sl~nwn on ttie Annhelm c;eneral Pl~n relatints
tn th~; ~rea gener111y lncated b~tween komneya Drive. Stete Collc~ge
Iioulevard, L~ Palmu Avenue and A~•~~~la Str.eer,.
ENVINONMIsNTAL J.I~ACT ~ PUBLTC HF.ART.NG. C[?ORGG J. NELTZFR COMPANY, 740 Nor.th La Brea A~enue,
RE1'ORT N0. 141 Loe Angele~t, Ca. 90038 (Owner); ANACAL F.NGINEERING COMPANY, P. 0.
~ V ~ Box 3668, Anaheim, Cn. 92803 (Ag~nt). Property descrlbed ae: An
Et,:LASSIFICATTON irregularly-ehaped parcel of land conaieriri~ of approximately 33
N0. 74-75_23 ucres located between RomneyA Drive und Ln Palma Avenue~ hoving
~p~~roximate frontases of. 662 feet ori the aouth c-ide of ltort~neya
VARIANCr N0. 2670 Urlve ~nd 1435 £eet on Che north side uf l.a Palma Avsnue, having a
mlximum depth of approxi~nately 1320 feet~ and being locnted Approx.l-
matcl.y G83 feet wesr of the center~ine of Stute College Iioulevard.
Propc:rty pre~ently c.lassi.fie~l RS-A-G3,000 (Rk,SIDENTIAI./AGRICULTURAi,)
ZOIVF..
[tI~:QUFSTi3U CLISSIFICATION: ttM-4000 ~RF:SIDENTIAI., MULTIPLL-PAMiLYI
70NG
R~QUI:S'ILD VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM 9UILDINC HFIGH'~ ANL' (B}
MINIMUM FP.ONT SGTBACK, TO CUNSTRUCT A 252-
UNIT CCNDUMINIUM DEVEI.OPMEDIT.
ENVIRONMENTAL IF4'ACT - PUBLIC HCAItINC. G~ORGL ,T. HELT2GR COt~'ANY, 740 North Ln Area Avenue,
RGPORT N0. 1~~2 Los Angeles, Ca. 90038 AND 'IBXACU, INC., 3922 Campus Drive,
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 (Owners); ANACAL ~NGINEBRING COAIP!uVY,
RECLASSIFICATIOP~ P. 0. Box 3668, Anaheim~ Ca, 92803 (Agent)! requeating th~t properCy
74-75-24
N0 described a3: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land coneisr.ing of
.
'~ ~ ~-pproximately 7 ac~rea located .iorth and weat of. the northaest
corne~ ~f La Falma A~~enue and State College Boulevard, having
approximate frontage~+ of. 265 feel' on the north side of La Palma
Avenue and 7F,3 feet on the west side oz St~te College Boulevard
be reclassified from the RS-A-43~000 (ItGSIDENTIAI./AGRICULTURAL)
7.ONE to the CL (COP4IERCIAL, LIMITF.D) ZON~.
Three persuns indicated their presencN in oppositf~n to sub~e~t pet~.tions.
A gentleman repreaenting Ralphs Groce y Company appPared before the Planning Commisaion
and read a letter dated February 3, 1975 from Che Cl,atrman of the Board of said Company
requesting that if the action by the Planning Comn,lssion upon the sub~ect matters could or
would have a beariag on tiieir ~pplicati~n which was scheduled to be heard by khe Comm!ssion
on Eebruary 19, 1975 For coromercial development of .land ;,onsisCing of appzoxi.mately four
acres at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Sereet, then thev would request
that decision on the sub~ect matters Ue deferre~~ until the Corwission was able to hear
their owr. application and any oCher applications which might be pending which would bear
upon tt-e plan.ning process in the sub,ject area.
Chairman tierbst noted that the proper.ty referrea to by the gentleman representing Ralp'
Grocery Company was a distance away and the proposal presently before the Commisaion
sl~ould have no bearing on the Ralphs proposal.
Associate Planner Bill Young preaented the Staff Report to the Planni.ng Commins:lon daCed
February 3, 1975~ ard said Staff Rep~rC is referred to as if sec fuith in fu11 it: the
miniites. Mr. Young furth°r presented six exhibits to illustrate possible alternatives fur
~ne Comuiission's considerxtion of General P1an Amendment No. 138, and noted that the City
i:ouncil had indicu.ted in view vf budgetary limitations, that there was a more urgent
pri.orit~ to develop exieting pa=ksit~ rather than acquire additional properties whicri
might rEmain undeveloped for some tirae. He further staY.ed if the developer, instead of
peying in-lieu fees, would pav proportianate fees for a park, the City Council mlght be
more amenable to the purchase of a smaller park rather than a nine-acre ~~rk on the subject
propert~.
Mr. Cal Queyrel of AnacaJ Engii~eering. repxeasnting the develop~r ot the aubject property,
appeared before the Planning Commi~eion and stated the main consideration w.~a whether the
City was or wn4 not in~erested in acquiring the park area; that, in hie opinion, Edison
?ark w~a constr.~icr^d prior to conaCruction of the Edison F.lemc:nc8ry School ar.d was probaUly
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANtIiNC CGP4~IISSIbN, February 3, 1975
75-68
G3NERAL PI.AN AM~NDM~NT N0. 13&; I:NVIRONMENTAL IMl'ACT NF.PORT N0. 141, RF;CL.ASSIFICA~'ION
NU. 74-75-23 AND VARIANCE: NU. 2670; MID ENVIRONM~~;TAL IMPACT REPURT NU. 142 AND
RECLAS~I~ICATION NU. 74-,75-24 Conti^nued _^~~_,~,.,_._ _ ______ .__
intended to he uAed in con~uncCion wlth r.ha hiqh acho~~l whlch wae noC conetructed on tt~e
subjACt property; that the high schoo.l site had been Aold fu- a coneiderabl~ price and the.
c~et ta the City Eor nome of thc '^nd for a parkeite would be excesFi.vel.y h'_gh; Chat there
was an addition~l yu~ation conce ~ng the exteneion oE Baxt~~r 5treet through the sub~ect
property as a public etreet since +•hey ~.~erc prop~eing the ext~noi.on tu bP .. private ekreet
with tlie exist.i~ig etraets in the acen being eufficl~nt to ~r~Yry F~:;iatin~, Craffic und
traffic which hould be generaced by the propaepd developa~ente on r.he aub~ect pr.operty;
thnt they had met with tt~e City'~ Senlor Truffir. F.n ~ear who indicated *.hat BAxter SLreeC
was not needed Eor CraPfic puzposes; that ther.e waR u nee~ :'..~ peueatrian and bicycle
traEfi; paseage i~i the oroxi~iCy of Edieon Park and they tiad agr~ed to provide fox that~
howevcr, they wanted to keep Baxter Street as a pri.vate street L-or control purpoaea; thet
if Baxter Street wue a pub:.i.c street, it would epl'~ the project; thut the pnrking areu
for lhe Ediecn Pnrk w~s not paved snd was not too iarqe nowever, ic was ndequate for the
7.5-acre park; and that if the Cily acquireA the 10 acres down to I,a Pailmc~, that wauld
make seiiae.
Mr. Queyr.e]. th~~n d±apluyed a rendering of the propusu7. nnd diacust~ed t.he nccesa points to
the residentlul ~levelopment, ~hat the acce~•, at tl~. aouChwevt corner c,f ~.;he property was
fo!- emergency accesa only; th~it se~urity garea would be utilized to secur~: ~hu pro~PCt and
Chr~t pedestriana and bicycles wouJ.d be able *.~ travel through th~ ,~~o~ecG in the norl•h and
south directions. He further stated that the wttivErs listed in rl~c~ Staff Repott f.or the
rasldentiAl develnpment w~re Cechnical i;~ nature; thAt any trao-~~~~ry structures were
prUp~sed to be 150 feet Erem the exi.sting residentinl zone on Romneya Drive; and that tlie
pr.•oposal was to have one of the higheRC c?.as~ commercixl development~ in the City of
Analieim.
Chairman Herbst not~d tnat ti~Pre was a large shopping center acr.oss the strett from the
aub~ect property wl~~ch was tti nead of people and the Commissi.on was conai.derin~ ade:i.ng the
subject 9 acrea of commercial.
Mr. Bill Reinhdrdt, Presi.dent~ Newp~r.t Deach DeLelopment Cor~oration, the developer of the
proposed commerci.al., appeared before the Planning Comtniysiun and stated in xeRponse to
Chairn-an Herbst's comments. Chat they wc~uld b~~ canszru~tinp exacCly what was shown ~n tbe
rendering; that reseai•ch had been conducted ancl an analy~i. of spendabl.e dallars in the
area was made; that therE appeared to be a c-eed in the ar:~ wt~ich was further evidencPd by
tYie fact thaC one competitor (Ralphs) was of auff~.cient c ncern to appear at tt~ia we.ting;
that khe commercial proposa~ woulcl include a 39,000-squar~ £oot A1berCaon's supermarket;
that r.tiere would be approximately 95,000 total equare feet in tl~e commercial developmenC;
that ot;~er tenants in the complex would include Security Pacific Natinnal Bank, Anaheim
Savings and Loan, etc., wi.th s~ total of 65~000 aquare f^et a].r.eady ueing ~.ccounted for,
all ueing tripl.e A tenants.
Chairman Herbat then noted there weie to!o cnain pr.oUl.ema in connection witlt the proposals,
being the extension af 3axter Street and draiiiage for the area, and in reaponse, Mr. Queyr.el
stated the City had a master plan o£ drainage for the area involvin~- aeveral m+.llian
dollars for s~orm drains, and that d~ainage ior Acacia Street to State Colleg~ Boulevard
would be in the .Zeighborhood of $30C,'.~00; ChaL regarding Condition No. 2 as r.at forth in
the Staff Report, they ob~ecCeu strenuuusly to con3truc*_ing three miles of btcrm dr.:ins
which would service oth~r properties in the area; tha: aeveral ~:::dr~d thousand dollars in
rela~ionsiiip to development of only 30 acrea of land was u--rea~onable; that the property
owner was not advised when he w~s considering purchasing the pro~erty regarding the require-
ments for atorm diain facilities; ~hat if they constructed the stozm draina w~th the
propoaed development, and the city did not complete them from Acacia Street right away,
ehere would stil.l be a probJ~em in the area. Mr. Queyrel then questtoned who would be the
deciding bady conce~ning the park area.
In r.esponse, Chairman Herbst noted that the Parks and Recreation ~ommi+:tee and the 5uper-
intendent of Park~, etc., had ~lndi_ated there would he a need in the area for additional
park land and, therafore, the City ~ouncil should probably be given the opportuiiity to
reconaider t'ne aituation. Chairma~ Herbst f~rther nor.Qd that the Sc:hool Distr:ict and the
City were suppnrted by the ta:;payars; that the original price of the park land was so high
the City was unable *o af.ford the acyuisition and now the land would b~ even high.~r; and
aince the taxpayers owned the land in the fi~st place, the situation was very diaturbing.
~ ~ ~
M1.NU'1'L.,~ CITY YLANNINC COMMIS5LON, Cei,runry 3~ 19'1S ~S"F~
GBNI:ItAL PLAN AI'1F:NL~MENT N0, 1.3A; GNVIROhMI:NTAi, T.DiPACI' RN;POfiT N0. 141~ RCCLASSIFICATION
NU. 74-75-23 AN1~ VARIANCL NU. 2670; ANU ENV [RONMEN'f,1I. IMF '.C'[' 1tFPUR't NU, 142 AND
RGCLASSIFI!.'ATION NO _ 74-75-24 1Cont.inued) __ ,._., r .r.~-_-
Chr~i.rn~~:n Hcrbet. mndc an oUservnti.on tliat thc Fnvir.onmental T.mpnct Rep~~rt No. 141 ~~' ~~~.
diecus~ th~ low-dant~lty uye of the subJect pr.oparty, howevar. it did didcuse .r.he hM-4000
nnd higher d~neitlas; nnd tl-at ii wr~uld be approprinte to dlecur+o ~+ingle-family d~velap-
ment a~ eo lt.e impuct cn the Areu. ot;iPr.wise the IsIR wae def iciant. l1r. (~ueyrel etnted
tha guch c~ d1H ~uecalon in the I:IR cc>uld huve been done; how~ver, the price r.ange for thn
lio~...:a would be b~t~r~en ap~roxJ.mar.e"y $40,000 and S47,S00.
Mre. Ruth Sharp. Pr~esidenr. o[ Che Edison i:lementury ~cho~l i'.'f.A., appeare.d bef.nre the
Pl~nning Commi.deion +ind etAted ehe had lived in ~he arta tor 2C- y~nrc~ nnd ahe recul.led
tti~y were to have a muc}~ larger park; thet ahe did not eoe the ner. foc another ehopping
center eince CranHda Sy~~nra and a grocery etore in the immadiate erea hed ~acnnt epace;
and thal et~e would like tu s~_~e Baxter Street opened up inta A public etreet eince tEie
pnrk was ueed b,y l.ir.tle LenE;i~e and Bobby Sox and they did no~ have ample parking, etc.
Pntlier Nash, re.pres~nting ~t. Mthony Cloret Parieh and Schaol~ 1450 14ast La Palma Avenue,
nppeared before the t~tanr~ing Comrnir;si:.n und ~CaCed 600 childre~n attended the pfirochJ.al
echool t~nd tliere were appXOximfltely 1,000 peopl.e in his pc~rish; tt~at for anotlier petition
in the past, tie tiAd collected signatures in oppos•ltlon ni~d l~e offered l•o do so agai.n if
the Commir~si~n felt it wne neceasary; that the children and other citi.zen~ i;, t~:~ area in
upposiL•ton needed to be recognized aince there was an ~bligation to do eo; that lt, acemed
the City at~u~lld re nble to zfford to purchaae aeven or eight acres of Che sub~ect ~roperty
to expand ttiP idison Park; thut it appeared ever,ything war~ pr.rfecil.y eet Por the ~.evelopers'
convenience, bUt prior to considering the developers' convenience, the welfarN cc Che
citizene must be consid~-ed; nnd khaC he would bring the eub~ec! matcer to the r-otice uf
those peopl.e in his parie}~.
Mr. Raymond Grant, 2403 Sycamore Street, ~ppenred beforc Ghe Planning Commiasion in favor
af ttie sub~ect petilions nnd etated lie t~ad lived at his present address for appr~ximately
19 yeacs and had seen the area devPlop with nll the shopping centera; thAt ther.e WSB
inlense residenl•ial growth alon~ i.a Palma Aveiiue, as well as shopping cenl•ers; that he was
±.nvolvecl '.n an accident at the East Anaheim Center hecauae of the unsaFe condltions the
Center wa:~ faced wi[l~; t:hr~t the East Anaheim area n~eded a bank where people could go
wiChout having probl~ma, a.s we].1 as a ma~'ker; rh,at th2 urea was loeing sales hax reve.nue
since shoppi.ng was being done in the C~ties of Placentia, Fullerc.on and Orange; that, in
hia o~,inion, with 9ome competicion acrose Lhe atreet at the sub~ect location, the Granxda
Square would Ue able to fill i.n its shops and the additi.onal competitiou might cause tY~e
ot•hFr sho,~p:~ng ce _ers to sprucF up; that the aub~Ptl developers ahould be complimented
for d~ing their part to bring commercial to Ea9t Anaheim aince presently there had not
been ~he com:n~erciul development that was ~n other part~ of the City; that the Northeast
Industrial Area fed from the subject area Rlld there wus need for a good coffee ahop off
Stata Coilege I~o~ilevard; that with respect to parks, there wris b park in the immediate
vici.nity and oCher parks wer.e witnin a mile from the sub3ect locatior., and addi.tiona~iy a
regional par.k was to be constructed along tl~e Sant:a Ana River; and that he favored the
propc~sal on the basiy of need in the area for a shopping center.
Chairman Herbst noted that although the render.ings usually presented for proposal~ were
be ciful. to look at, the developments did not always look like said renderings.
Mr. Reinhardt responded that unfortun~itely he coLld only speak for the commercial portion
of the develepmQ^r; that they had just coYUpleted a proJect in the City of San Juan Gapintrano
whlch inciuded ~tn Albertaona Market ^nd the pro~ect tiad a very good rep~ltation; that the
com~aercial development would probabiy generate Sti0,0U0 to $70,OQ0 in tax revenues for L•he
Ct*_y; that they li~ced to construct a pro~ect properly and were pruud of the proposal bein.g
,~eaent~d; and thai. the proposed Albe.rtsona Market wau~d be :~lbertson's largest unit,
Commi3nioner King noted that competiti.on wae the American way of Iife, and competition
wuuld not only bring prices down but would result in better e.ervice.
Ghairman Herbsr. noted that the aub~ect area had more children per square foot than any
other area in che City a.nd the Existing playground recpived a lot of use during the summer-
time and was beneficial to Che area; asid he reiterated thaC before sny deciai~n was made
~n tt~e sub,ject mritters~ the City Coun~:il should be given an~ther opportunity to review the
park si;;uation for the si!b;~~ct area. Zoning Supervisor Charles RoberCs C.hen noted that
the issue could be brought up at the Cit.y Ccuncil Meeting on Febr.uary 4, 19i5, however,
that would not give the Council mt~ch time tor the review; and that i: could also be brought
up at the City Council MQeting on February 1~, 1975, which woul.d atill be prior to the
next Ylanning Coromission Meeting.
~ ~
1975 %5-70
MINIITL,S, C'i'CY PL.ANNINC CUhiM1SSlAtJ. Fubruury 3,
GGNERAL P1.AN I~ME,~DMFNT N0. 138; }~.NVIRONMFNTAI• 1AtFACT RF.PORT NU .}141, RFCLASSlFTCATION
N0. 74-15-23 ANU VARIANCE N0, 2.670; ANU EN~-IRONMI;NTAL IMPAC't I.i'IURT N0. 1.42 AND
RECLASSIFICA'C10N N0. 74~-75-2a ~,ConClnuad) _~__~ _.~ _-
ln respone~ zo qu~etioning hy Cummlo~ionnr T~lnr~ Mr. Your.g noC~d that Che ln-lieu feea
for. the propo~ec? developmenc would be $189.50 N~r un1.t for 2S2 uniCH or upproximntely
$42~000, whlch would probably be aufficiunt ~o p~*chnae on~i ecre of the land. Chelrman
{ierbar. th~n not~~d thnt ~ny enlarFemc~nt of. ttie Edie~~n Park would he beC.ter thnn n~no and
r.h~-k onca elie property wae develup~d lt wotild be to,~ 1a[e to do anythtng about it.
In response to Mr. QuE~yrel'R requeat £or Che Plnnning Commiesion to proceed with the
publi.c lie~rinf; on ttie comm~~r.cin.l devclopr~enC pr.opoeal~ Depucy Cit.y Attorney Frank Luwr.y
ndvised_t5~~3landh74~^75e241an'd~Variance~No.N2b703ehould`al.l.ibeeconlinuedeclanaification
Noe. 7k 7
Chnirnian llerbc~t r.e.vi.ewed pnnt propoec+ls for supermaxkete for the I;ust Ariaheim area and
noted tha[ ~n Albertaona MarkeC wAS ~i~proved th~t was to be u real fine mar{cet hut it
turned out to be average; that there was nn tlverage A1pt~A Beta in thr_ eame ar~a; and,
further, that there •aE~re only so many people iu an area to be drawn to nny market place
and he would queaCion the need in rel.atianehip to good, eound zoning. Mr. Itei.nhnrdt thet~
Rtated (~~IItWe~e willing toeloan $3dmi11ionuatn9e5X itteresthand tlt8t should be`anAindica-
compnni ,
tton that a need existed in the area.
Co~omieKioner Kin~ noCed that he would Iike to move ahesd with the puUlic hear~ing for the
propoaed co~nmercia] development, and Coaunisel.oner Tolar auggested thuC the Ylanning
Comn-f.ASion should be ~ble to proceed with all of the subjece pet~itionR at this meel-ing, tc
work out the pr~blem areas.
Mr. Rob~rts pointed out ro the T~lanning Commission regarding t.t~e proposed ahopping centr:r
that the landacaped buffer stYip was not in accordance witti the generul requiremen!:s of
the Planning Commission a~•~, tl..:reLpon, Mr. Lowry adviscd thut to proceed wlth Ch~~ rPClassi-
fication fc~r the com~„ ~1 development witr~out conaidering the General. Plan Amr_ndment
wotild be out ~: .iequ~ ~ ~rith State law slnc.e~ KL.bject reclaseification wouCommi~sionez
corif.urmauce with tt~e ~~naheim Generr~l Plan. In reRp~nse to questienir-g by
Farano, MCon~ie~aianuwaserequireddto,~act~on the~Environ~~~nt~'.n ~r"1L8ReporCgions, the
Planning
In response to queationing by Chairman HerbsC regarding ~rai~ ~e, "~F; Rr~$ineer Jay
.. _ ~ ; .•~~ .1 L ;u: ~ i~C increased
Titus advised that by ~dding development to the pro~%crtv~ w
onto the ad~acent streets or La Palma Avenue; that the pi• ~~` ~:' w =~ ~'~eni.iy : strawberry
field with re'lativFly liCCle runoff; and ~hat it was xug°,~=' ~' c!«t ~<<° ~ir.y P°y Chc
expense for the at~rn- drains on La Pa1ma f•rum Acs~cia Stree.~. u~'st. tu tS~c~ tN*minurPof ~"efor
atorm drain at the Raymond Ztetarding Iiaein at Ea~t Street, and that thc ,° ~- Y
the storm drain:a from Sr_ate College Boulevard tu Acacia Street.
Comml.saioner Farano offered a motion~ seconded by Comm3.ssioner Morley, that the public
hearinga for General Plan Amendment No. 13~nvironmentaltImpamctaReportoNo.N1421and RecJassi-
fication No. 74-75-23, Variance No. 2b70~
fication No. 74-75-24 be ~nd herehy i4 closed, to be reopened only under extreme circum-
stancea, and that considerati.on of said petitions be cont:nued to tne Planning Cummission
Meeting of February 19, 1975 to allow the petiT.ioner ~lme to provide additi.ona.l information
i.n reggr~ heirndeairesnwithlre~ardRto~additionalLparic landaak the gub~ecty1ocation.to
indicate t
Mr, Roberta indicated that in the Planning Commisaion's conaideral:ion, some problems might
result with t.he pxoposed landscapQd buffer strip, and Mr. Queyrel then stated thexe were
agreements so that ha1L of the required buffer would be on each portion of tiwaodreeuirednt,
etc., and Chairman Herbet noted that a 20-foot wYOblem~~resultedudownstream. Chairmxn
and unleas each parcel was bandled separately, p
Herbst theiY suggested that the petitioner analyz~ Baxter Street as a public street khrough
the property for discusaion at the next meeting.
Commisaioner Farano emphasized the value of er.vironmental imnact reForta and noted that
the proposals did~ nneeded1tocevaluatecCheieffecta~ofdtheipr posalOcompared to alternative
and the Coumiissi n
I types of development.
~
~
MINU'ff:S, CI'fY PI.ANNINC (:QMMISSXON, ~ebr.uary 3, 1975
7S~~71
CENF.RAL PI.AN AMF.NpMENT N0. 13R; ENVIRONMENTAL Il'tP~+CT RBPORT N0~ 141, RECI.ASSII~'7'(:Ai'ION
N()~ 74-75-23 A.KQ VARIANCE '~~. 2670; AND EANIRONl~N1'AL LMPACT RU~POP.T N0. 142 AND
RI:CI.ASSIrI(,~A'PT~N N0. 74-75-24 Continued~_,_,___ - •---------
Mr. ~QOrge Heltzer~ Che potitioner~ ~ppeared baforo the Planning CammiNei.on and gtet~d he
hacl be~n n huildot and devel~pc+r for 5Q yeare and Wae reepan~iblu far ~u~:.l~ of the davalop-
manl• 1~i thc IiisnaylanJ arQa; I:hnt when he purchased Ct~o aubJoc:t px~p~rtiy r~~'- had ii~q~•~ired
and r~ceived informatlon fram thc (:~.ty Planning Divieio-~ thnt the e~~~oct prop~rty wae
inf.encled to I~av~ l0 to 12 dwelling unite yer acre denaity; that thR proposal. wa~ co have 8
dwelling units par arre denAiCy; tiiat they falt tho denei.ty euggo~ted by C1i. ~City wae
based on Qood planning and they hnd 4.coceeded on that bae~.s tu purchsae the proPerty and
to develop the eub,iect propooal; that regarding d'.ralnage, they um~~~~etood they wou.ld be
respon~lble for. drainuge from the tract and noCh ing elee; and that they could not have
purch~sed the property if t}~ey had Chought eiogle-fAmi.ly resi.dences would be required for
ite deveLopment,
Mr. Young clartfisd for the Ylnnning Commlysi.an that a letter had been sant to tI1P. pett.-
tioner under date of March 26, 1.9'1~~ regarding dPVelopmmr~t of kh~! eub,~ect property HTl(~,
thereupon, he read said letter into the recorda, u~ follown:
"Murch 26, 1474
During the past several we.aka, Che Clty of Anaheim Uevelopmant Servic:ea Aepartm~nC
hae recei,~ed n~ur.erous inqutries reg~rding tl~e devi~lopmenl• potential of. ttie Anaheim
Union Hi.gh Schoo~ 1)istrict property locateri on the aorth side o£ I~a Palmn Avenue
west of State Col].ege IIoulevurd. Due to tt--e degree of inlerest expreasQd in the
property~ this letter is beic-g ~repared to advise ~nterest~d partiea regarding the
City's land use policies for the area.
The land uac element to tlie Anaheim General Plan designates the area bounded by
State C~11ege Boulevard, I,a Falma Avenue, Acacia StreeC and thE Riverside Freeway
as being appropriate primuril.y for single-fami.ly redidential uaea wit-1~ low-medium
density uses ne~r the intersection uf Acac ia Street und La Palma Avenue.
Since considerable acreaEe is invoYved, a hlgh degree of flexibi-Dle to~Chegfactle
ln the land planning pr.ocese f'or the acho~l district propcrCy.
Che property ia bordered on two eides by pr~mary arLerial hi.ghways (La Palr~a Avenue
and S2 aCe College IIoulevard) wiCh cowmercial development existing on the eaqt side
oE State College Boulevard~ it would seem reaeonable ttiat adJitional commercial
uea~a could be established along the weat side af State College Boulevard or around
the ~ervi.ce stntion site at Che northwest corner of State College Boulevard anJ
La Pa]:.na Avenue.
For The ~emainder of the propzrl-y, iC is possible that a vari~ety of residential uses
wouLd be in order; however, caution should be exercised in pro~ecting deneities for
the area.
Since there is a h:av;~ concentration of s ingle-family residentegZcould berdeveloped
Romne}a Drive, '~ ~,~~~~:i' Qppear that low-densir.y resident
in,mediately so°,:~~ ~t !~~,.~reYa ~~' '~ ^n th~ ::~1~~••,•c prnp.-.ty~ nevelopment in this
manr.er would h~ve d ~eritlOTlC'; ~-0 rtieAr~ ,~~~;~ - ~~ ;. congestion along Romneya Drive
thr~n wuuld be expPrienced with multiple-tamily residential deve'lopment. This would
be particularly Lmportant due to the fac t that an elementary school is located to
the weat, and school ctiildren use Romneya Drive as a ruute to schoal. Since apart-
ments have already been developed along La Pa1ma immediately west of the sub~ect
property, extension of ined3creaeesthenlm3ihtnbeadevelo eduwitheadditionalisingle--
this area. The remainin~ S g p
family and planned unit devel~pment or candominium-type unita.
One of the bastc conaiderxti.oas in planning for the development of the praperty will
be the need f~r the extenator. of Baxter Street to connect Romneya Drive with La
Palma Avenue and provide udditional pub' ic vehicular circulation wtthin the area.
The extension of this etreet wi1.1 be essenCial.
Based on envirotuuental considerationa and poCential traffic congesCion problems in
the area~ and based on recent Planning Comwiseion and City Council actions eBYlthgt
developmenta near, establi~hed single-family residential areas, it wou~.d app
o ~ ~
MINUTFS. CITY PLANNING GOI~TcyIISSYON~ Februnry 3, 1975 ~5-~2
f;ENE[tAl. PLAN AM~NUM~NT NO. 138; G~NVIR4NMFN7'AL It~ACT R~PORT N0. 141~ RECLA39TFICA'TION
N0. 74~7~-2 3 AND VARIANC~ N0, 2670; ANU ~NVT.RONMENTAI, IMPACT RL'PQKT N0. 142 AND
RL~CLASSIrICATION N0, 7~i~,75-24 Gontinued _~__~^ _.~ _... _...~.. -.--
a tarqat deneiCy would be aa averuge of from ten to twol.vo dwelling unito per net
reaidenci.~l ucra for thQ RCC8AR43 Chat will devc+lop £or raeidenl•1.a1. purpnsee.
If. ther~ nre nny c+ddit~.onal. yue~i:ione w~_th regarJ to the C1Cy's r.egulnkione tind
policios or it eCaff can uffer nseiecance in tho couipletlon of zaning putition formo~
pleas~ feel frQe [.o call 533-5725 and epeak wiCl~ nnyone in thd zoning diviaion.
Very tru15~ yours,
D~VELOPMENT SGRVICFS D6I'ARTMLN'f
Zoni.ng Division
e/Charl~s W, Roberte
Zoni_ng Supervieor"
Mr, RoUerts affered to f.urther explaln the conter.~.te of said lel'ter. and Chairm~n klerbet
noted Chat if the euU~er.t matter.e were to be cont ~nued. then a copy of thnt letter aho~ild
be included in the Planning Commiesion agend~ pac;cet for the February 19, 1975 meeting.
The foxegoing M~TION CARRIED by unenimoua vote.
I-i resp~nse to questioning by Mr, Iteinhardt f~~r directione from the Planning Commisalon
reg~rding the 20-foot wide landect~ped bu£fer strip between the r.eaidential and commerci.al
developmenta, Chairman Herbat it~dicated that the Ci~waission`s policy was clear and Chat
tne petitioner and~or developer could work with S~+~cf l•o resolve the proUlems in that
regard pr ior to the next meeting~
COPIIrlISSIONER TOLAR LGF'.P THE COUNCII. CHAMBER AT 6:10 P.M.
RF,CLASSIFICATION - PUELIC f1EARING. INITIATED BY 'IlE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI~'IISSION,
N0. 74•-75-25 204 Eset Lincoln Avenue, Anaheiii, Ca. 92805; proposing ~ha[ properry
~~ ~ deacribed as: An irregularly-atiaped parcel of land conaisting of
approximately 6.6 acres located at Greenwich Screet and having frontages
of approximately 239 feet on ~he north ar~d sou:,h eides of Orange Avenu~ be reclassified from
the COUb1TY Rl (SINCLE-FAMILY RCSIAENCE) DISTRIGT to the RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE~FAMILY)
ZONE.
No ane indicated their pi•esence in opposition to sub;tiec:t pPtil•ion.
Although the Staff Report: to the Planning Commiseion dated February 3, 1975, was not read
aC the public hearing, it is referred ~o and made a~~art of the minutes.
It was noted that the propoaed reclasaification wae in conformance with the Anaheim General
Plan; that the proposed reclaseification would e~tzblish the City of Anaheim zone on the
sub,ject property moat simi.lar to the current OrangE County zoning; and that the s+ibject
property ~~as currently pending annexation to the City under the Greenwich Annexat ion and
the Gree:zwich No. 2 Annexation.
TFtE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ~•T.OSEU.
It was noted that tlie Director of Development Service.s had determined that the propoaed
activity fell within the definition o£ Section 3~01, ~~lass l. of the City of Anaheim
Cuidelines to the Requirementa for an Environmental I~npact Report and was, therefore,
categorically exunpt from the requirement to file an H IR.
Commissioner Farano ~£fered Reaolution No. PC75-27 and moved for its paseage and adopr_ion
to reco~end to the City Council approval of PeCition for Reclaesification No, 74-75-25 on
the basis of the foregoing findinga. (See Resolutioii Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing reaolution was passed by +=he fnllowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING., MORLEY, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT : COI~II~(ISSIONERS : TOLAk
COI~tISSIONER TOLAR RE-ENTFRED THE COUNCIL CHAMBPR AT 6:15 P.M.
~ • ~
MINU~rrs, C1.'lY E'LANNiNG COP4dI9~I0N~ Februury 3, 1.975 75-i3
VAF2IANC1: N~1. ?668 - YU131,IC }lE3ANiN(~. 7Hf's QUAI.ITY INN HOTEI. AND C.RGENkiORN~ M1:AT' MAKKI?T, 616
- ~ ' Conventiun Way, AnAheim~ Cn. 92802 (Owner); TF.RRY l,. GF.EK~ G7.6 Conventiun
Way~ Anahcim. (:a. 92801. (Agent); requcnting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBGR
OF SIGNS ANU (C) MINIMUM DI5'l'ANCE 13FTb1E~1V SICIdS, TO PE.tMIT THG US~ OI~ A RI:S'fORRU CtWILi,AC
FOR SICNLNG PUItPOSEB on propc~rty d~ecrf.bed as: A r ~ctangularly-ehaped parcel of land can-
sisting o` upproximately 3.4 ncrea l.ocated at the a~~~rl,west c~rner af. Cunvontia~~ Way a~id
}{Qr->or lloul.evurd~ huvi.ng approximr~ke frontage~ af 446 Ee:eC on the your.h eide of Convention
Way +~nd 331. feet on the weot eide af Flarbor Boulevard. Proper~~ nres~ntl.y clnaaified C-R
(COt~1F.RCIAi, RCCRF.ATIpN) 7.ONE.
No one in~iicut•.ed their presence in oppoaition to subJect petition.
A1Chaugfi the Staf.f Reporr. t•.o the Planning Commiasion dated Pebruriry 3~ 1975~ wne not rend
nt ttic P~iblic hearing, i.t is ref:erred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Ter.r.y (,eer, Che ~3gent for the petitioner, npper~red b~fore the Ylanning Commiaeion to
aaswer quesCtonc~ regarding L•he propoe~cil.
THF, PUBI.IC Hl'sARING WAS CLU3ED.
In r.esponae to questioning by tt~e Planni.ng C~mmisoion~ Mr. Geer etuted the car was neceyenry
ae part of their theme; that the car hud been aompletely reskored~ however~ ir wr+~s inopera-
tive; tliat if npproved~ he woald like Co have the cr~x on a permanent atructure in front of ttie
grass on the Harbor Boulevard aide of the property.
Commissioner Morl.e~~ noted ttiat an Additional. eign had been upproved by the CiCy Council
Eor tl~e sub~ect property and lt seemed that the area was being overloaded with aigns, and
Commiasioner Gauer noled that if appro~~ed, an ol.d "dolled up" car could be put ~n aer.vice
atatton lc-ts f~r advertising purposea. Commisaicner King nored that althuugh eu!~iect car
was old, it was very well. kept, pollshed and very attracti.vc.
Chairman Hert+st inquired concerning the req~iirements placed on the Bob's Reotaurant "Big
Buy" sis3n in the City, ~nd Zontng Supervisar Charlea Roberts noted that the proposal wae
to place the b~y next to the si~ewalk and the contention was that it was noh. a eign;
howev~r, the C~ty Council determined thaC the boy was a sign and it was approved to be
about '.~ feet back fro:n Che setback.
In r~sponse ~o further. queationing by Coinmissioner Farano, Mr. C~er srated the car would
evencually lo~k like a meat wagon wtth a scene to match the mea[ market scene on their
menus.
Commissioner Johnsor. inquired if the use of th.Ls car as a sign was better than the other
signs for the property~ and Mr. Geer staCed tt~at would be unf afr to answer since bot11 were
of a great advantage to the business.
It was noted that the Director of Development Service~ had det:ermined that the proposed
activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, C1ass 3 a£ the City af Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Tmpact Report and was, therefore,
cakegorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIF..
Commi.ssioner Farano offered Resolutioa No. PC75-28 snd maved f~or its passage and adoption
that Petiti.on~ for Variance No. 2668 bA and hereby is den.i.,~d oti Che basis thut nn ir,opera-
tive automobile used for signinY purpo s~s is not in keeping w ith the Sign Ordinance and
would set an un~lesir.able precedent, particular~y fnr the Cotnm~arcial-RecreaCion Area. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll. call, tlie Loregoing resolLtion was ;~assed by the fo]_lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: FARANO~ GAUrR, JOHNSUN, KING, MaRLEY, TOLAR. HERHST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSErIT: COMMISSION~RS: NONE
u
~ ~
MINU'I'!;S ~ Cl.'1'Y I'I.ANNINt; CUMMTSS'LON ~ FchruurY 3. 1975
75-74
LANU INC. , 1'. 0. T~ox J~ Newpnrt lleach~ Cn.
VAKIANC['s N0. 2669 - PUBLIC ~iGARTNG. qc;i"LUI:NTAI. , ~
- ~ 92660 (Owner); WAI.I' K}:USDER, 1691 Ker.rering 5treet. Irvine, Gn. 92705
(Agent); requ~~ClnR WAIVER Ui~ (A) MINIMUM FI.OOIt ARE~1~ (B) M7NIMUM WL~TH
Of 1'~DGSTItIAN ACCI;SSWAY ~(C) IiEQUIRI:D F.NCLOSURL~ OF CARPORTB ~ AND (D) VTs'IiICLi: ACCESS RL~QUIKE-
Mr:N1'S, Tl) Cl1NSTRl1C1 A 316-UNIT APARTMH:NT CODti'LGX o~ property described i~s: An irr~gul.arly-
ehaped parcel of l.und coneieting of approximr+tely 12 ncr~s 1.ocaCed northerly of the River-
eidc Freeway und Mirnloma Wny~ I~aving ~ irontage of c~pproxlmntely 250 fe~et ~n the nurth roxi-
of Mirulumu Wt~y~ huving a maximum depkh of approxlmatel.y 610 feet, and ~~e~nR Iocnted npp
mately 375 E'eeC we~t of the ceiiterline of Le~wrenc.e Avenue. 1'roperty preKCntl.y claseified
ML (INDUSTit1AL~ LIMIT~D) 7.ONG.
AHSistanC %~mi.ng 5upervisor Aimika Santalxhti noCed for the Planning Commiesion thnt [here
were some yu~+yti.ona r~g~rding traffic circulution ir. the sub~ect area and Che pelitic~ner
wea, theref.~re, requesting a continuance to try to tind n sol.utton.
Commiesioner Morley offered a motion, secondc:d by Commtssioner King and I~IOTI.ON CARRIisD,
that the pub].ic hearing for Petitian fer Variance No. 2669 be poHtponed co th~~ meeting of
February 1.9, 1975, 1s requested by the petiCiuner.
VARIANCE NU. 2072 - PUALIC HisARING. BERNARbO YORBA, 125 South Cl.ttudina Street, Mah~:itn, C~.
' ~~ 4?.803 (Owner); H. R. LN'fGRPR~.SFS, AtCn: Edward J. l~oke, 12C~ Sauth
Center Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 92703 (Agent); requesting WAIVrR OF (A)
MAXIMIM 5IZE ANB (b~ FtEQU1:RED TEMPORARY NATURL OF OFP-SITI: SZGNS~ TO ~ONSTRUCT ONG INTF.CRATBD
OFP'-SITG T1tAGT SIGN on pr~perty deecribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land cansist-
ing of avproximately 0.84 acre located at the aoutheast cerner of Santa A.na CAnyon Road and
Impex'ia1. Highway, huving approximaeE: frontage~ of 93 feet on the g~uth ai.de of Santa Ana
Canyon Road ~nd 580 feet on tne east side of Imper.tal Highway. Pr~~perty ~~reFently claqsified
RS-A-43,000(SC) (RESIDENTLAL/AGRICtJJ.TURAL-SCENIC CURRIDOP.) 7.ONli.
No one indicnted their presence l.r~ oppobition r.o oubjecC petiCian; howevur, it wan not~~d
ttiat a teleplione measage had been recei.ved this date from Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, as :ollowa:
"The Santa Ma Canyon Improvement Aesociation, the SanCa Ana Csnyon Propex~ty Owners
As~oci~tion and Che Coalition of Anaheim Leader~ (CO,AI,) recommend th~t the Planning
Commis~ion take no acti.on resarding Yetition for Varian~e No, 2672 until the new Sign
Ordinance is acred upon by L-he Anaheim City Council on Febriiary y, 1975."
Mr. Ben Yorba, the petition~r, appearFd befoce the Planning Coff,mi~:sion and st.ated he was
concerned abou;, tlie general appe~rance af the Canyon, especially t!ie s:.ibject ~~rner of.
Santa Ana Canyon Road and 'imperial Highway; that th~y had appeat•ed t,efore the Canyon Area
General Planning Task Force ~n ~ccasions acd thP various orgenizations were familiar with
what was being proposed; that he would take exceptio[i to Condition Noa. 1 and 2 of the
Staff Report since those items would cosr approximately $10,000 and ~ould preclude con-
etruction of the sisn; and ~hat ehey were pxoposing to landscape the sign area. Mr. Yorba
further stated ~hat wi.th respect to the atreet improvements, }ie w~i•.ld stipulate that thay
would be willing to i~nprove Imperial Highway sh~~ula the City be o~~lling to concurrently
put the utilities underground.
Mr. Ed Hoke, representing rhe agent for Che petiti.oner, appeared before the Planning
Commission and explalr.ed the proposal and stated Che visibilil•y of the proposed sign would
be for the nortll/soilth-bound trafxic on Impe7'ial Y'.ighway and f.or the east/west-bou:~d
trafr".ic on Santa Ana Canyon Road; that they had teen working on the pro,}ect for about
Chree months and review~d approximately ten different signs; that the propoaed design was
accepted by the Canyon Area Ge.ner~l Plannin~ Task rorce and the conce.pt was to integrate
all of the aigns pr.csently existing on the subiect r_orner into one s.ign; that t_he square
fPet of aign area gzoposed was less than the *otal sq~iare feet of ~he signs presently
exi.stin~ on the sub~ec[ corner; that the total overAl.l sign area would be 637. squarc feet,
e~:cluding the roof struct~ire; that the variar,ce from the Code would allow the developer.e
adverCi~te on an integrated 41gn at one location and they were also requesCing eaid sign
fc~r a minimum period oE three years since the Hill and Canyon Area would need a di:ectional
aign fur at least thaC long to direct khe buyers t~ ~he product; that the sub~ect location
was good for such a sigz; that thia wae a pil.ot project, however, the: three-year use wae
very important; rhat the eign would be profltable to the property ownera and the drvelop-
era in the area and he outli.ned the benefits to the couununity being 1) that the si.gn would
reduce the sign clustering and sign areas, 2) that the proposed sign woul.d be landac•~ped
;CO feet on each side, and 3) that they would make unused apace available to the Cit~,
and would paint the sign f.or the City at no cost, to udvsrtiae activities in the community; and
rtiat ti~ey were requesting that the sign be exempt from the number uf signs nosmally allewed
~~~~der the Slgc- Ordinance for a tract.
THE PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CLOS~ll.
~
~ ~ ~
MINI.ITL;S, C1.'iY PLANNINC COMM'1SSION, Febx'unry 3, 1975 i 5-75
VARIhNC~ NU^ ?672 (Contiaued)
CommiNS:luner I~xranu aated th~t he would encourage the typc 9Lgn bei.ng propoped; Chat aui.d
B1{~IlD would take the pl.ace of tl~o eigiza pree~ently bei.ng dl~~i~luyed thiit wer.e the cai~ec~ oi
uny i'l.anning Cum~-~aslon con~lderution of the lt~tegruled typ ~ign tn tlie fixel• pl.ace,
huwev~r.~ he d.ld w~nt to c.ompel the developere Co removo the ~xir~tinq atgny c~t the subject
location.
Ctieirman Herbet noted that Mre. Uinndorf. wlto wae requc.ating that conRideratlon of thP
auLJect petlt:i.un be delayed~ was rs mambcr of eh~ '1'aek Force~ nnd snid Task Force l~ad
alre~tdy revl~~wed the sign.
Mr. Yorbn ttiE~n HtACCI~ th~ eian agreemente were unlaue aiid the proPosed compo~i.te sign
would not be constructed unlesa ull th~ exieting signa at L-he gul~,Ject locntlon co~ild be
removed.
Tle 1'lanning CommiRalon ent~red into diocussion regarding the propased exemption Erom thc
requirement from the 51gn Code permictin~ only twu of.f-aite tract aign~~ durLng which it
wAe cetermined thnt the eubject reyuest could Ue granted ao that the dev~l.opers who adver-
tfesd on an Lnlegruted sl.gn could also be allowed tc~ t~ave the two of.f.-siCe tracC s•1$ns
pe~rmitted by the Sign Ordinance for the thrce-year period requeated. Mr. floke 3C3L'C(j that
in the future such integreted signs, including the one Ueing proposed, could be incl.uded
as one of L'he two permiCted o£f-slte tracC si.gns and ;~at be made exempt.
In reaponae Co questi~ning Uy Chairman Herbst, Mr. Yorha ~tated L•he investmr_nl- wc~uld not
~uatify constructing the sign for a oncs-year period; thaC L•he sign for each developer
wou.ld be mucl•~ amaller than what presenCly existed ~+nd would be dlrectionul oniti; :.~nd that
three years for the proposed si~n would be very necessary.
It was noted that the Director of Devc].opmenC Services had determinecl thrst rt~e propoGed
activity fell within the definition oP Section 3.01, Clase 3 of the City of Anaheim
Guideliney to the Requirements for an Environmental ImpucC Report and was, t!terefore,
categc+rically exeanpt from the requirement to file un I:IR.
Commissioner Tolar offered Kesolution No. PC75-29 and moved for ils passa~e and adopCion
thaC Petition for Variance No. 2672 be und hareby is gran.te~, waiving the maximum size oi'
the proposed sign on ttie basis that it ia not unreasonaDle since the proposc~l is Lo inte-
grate directional off-site tract signing for approxim~tely nine de~-elopments on each side
of the inr,egrated sign; waiving the required temporary nature of off-site signs to allow
the proposed off-eir.e tract sign for a period of three year~, since the petitioner stinu-
lated to remaval of a11 ehe existing off-site tract signs at the sub~ect locatio~;deleting
the conditions req~liring street improvements and tree planti~g fees; subject *.o tt~e stipu-
lations af the petitioner and subject to conditiona. (See Resoluti~~n I3oolc)
pn rull ca11, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate:
AYES: CUhIMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHI3SON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBS'3'
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABS?:NT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONER GAUER LEFT THE MEETING AT 5:40 P.M.
RGQUES'P FOK EIR NECATIVE DECLARATION FOR GRADING PERMT.TS FOR TWO RRSIDENTIAL SITES AT
6548 AND 6550 COUNTFX RILL ROAD
It was noted t~+at the appli.cant had applied for a grading permit for single-fzmily home-
sites aL 654$ ~»d 6550 Country Hill Road; r.hat the aite slopes were greater. than ten
perceut and, con3equently, an evaluation of the environmenr.al impact was required; nn,d
that the Engineering Division determined that the proposed grading would have no signifi-
cant environmental impact.
Commisaioner King offered a motion, aecot~ded by Comuiissioner Fatano and M~'P10N t~a.?R?FD
(Gommissioner Gauer being abaent), thnt the Planning Commiesiou reconunends t~ the ~ity
Council tha*_ the sub~ect pro~ect be exempt from the requiremei~t tu prepare an L~nviron-
mental Impact Report purauant to the provisione of the Cal~fornia Euvironmental Quality
Act.
~ '~
75-7G
Fi1:NU7'LS, CI'I'Y P1,ANNINC CO'MMTSS]ON, February 3} 1975
(t~QULST FC-ft GIR NEGA'l'1V1: UL;CI~A[tA7'ION F'OR CR~~ING I~GRMI'L' FOR RES1Df?NTIAL SITE AT
12~12 A10HLE;R DItIVr ..._______~. __.___-... • -•----~--~`~---`°-"
lC wc~a noted fihAt ttie applicant had appllel ~or n gruding per.mlt for u einale-fumily
homasit~ +~t 11.1.2 Mohlpr Uriva; that the elte elope wns greatar thnn t~n percent and,
canaequently, nn evuluation of thQ enviror,mental lmpart wae requited; aad thnC tho
Engineering Di.vieion dot~~.~nined that the ~~roposed greding would huve no eignificant
environmeuC81 imp+~cC•
Coramissloner Mor.ley off~:red a motion, se~ond~~J Uy Commioeioner 9'olar and MOTION CAR'~tT.ED
(CommiAtiioner Gr~uex being ~bsent), that Ch~ Pl~nning ComQniesi.on rer_ommende to the CiCy
Counc:il thut tt~e subiect pr.o~ect be ex~r~pt Erom the requir~mecit ro prepare an Environ-
mental ImpacC Reporl• pur.auant to thc pr~~vi~ions oi the Calif.orniA Fnvironmental Q~lality
Ack.
RLPORTS ANl) - I'f1:M N0. 1
RECUMMrIJDATIUNS STR1:E'C NAMF. FOR A PRIVATE S'fRL~'i - HENNLNG WA.X
The sraff Reporc to the Pl.nnning Cow~iseion daCed Febru~ry 3, 1975, wxs presenl:ed nnd said
S~af.f Report ia relerred to and made a part of tht~ minutea.
1t was no[ed thst ttee suh,ject private street wz~:~ located east of and roughly paxallel to
Maheim Fli11s Road, south oi Santa Anu Ganyon Road, and running south from ~rboretum
llrive; tt~at the propoeal w~a to name [he private strceC to facilitate ~syiF,nmenL of street
numbers; khBC residenta of ehe sub~ect ure~ were Lnformed by letter on Novamber 25, 1974,
af t:he City's propoc~al to name said pri.v~Ce street and nssiAn street numbr:rs, and the
residenrs were inviked to participate ln the naa-ing ~t the private street; and that oniy
cne resident had responded, su~gesting Sai;tana Ro~d. Ir_ wa~ further not~~d thut the Henning
f~miLy had Ueen longtime res:Ldents of Che area and ~.haC tha nArne "Kenning W»y" wouJ.d be
appropr:Late.
Commiasioner Tolar offered a mol•ion~ aeconded by Gommi~~H~oner Fnrano a1J MOTIUN CARRIED
(Commi~s:Loner Gauer being ab~ient) , Co recommend to tl~e ~:ity Counci 1 Lhat the street name
of "Nenni.ng Way" he approved for the subjecC ~tre~t.
ITCM N0. 2
ORAt~(GE COUNTY 5ANITAIION DISTEtiC'1' -~ASEM~NT FfiR
5ANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEP;OR SLWGR
The Staff Report to the Planning Commi.Gston dated Febrvary 3, 1975, was presented, and
said St~iEf Rep~ct was made a part of tt~~ minutes.
It w~s noted that the Oran~e County SaniCation District had rec,•,.~est~d an ea~+ewent from lhe
County of Orange for an und~rground sewer tr.ansmission line so•.~.~h of the Riveraide Freeway,
weat of the Santa Fe Railroad f.or a diatance of appr.oximately i50 feet; that the property
is on the site of an old refuse die~posal st3tion; that in acc~~rdance t~ith the provisions
of Section 65402 of tt~e Government Cude, the District had re~uested the An~heim Planning
Commission to determine if Clle ensement would be in confonna~en cunseructedtyhowever',ethe:
cieneral P1an; that Ctie sEwer transmission line had already
easement had not heen obtained; that the Environmenr.al Impa~t Report for L'he Sant~ Ana
River Interr.eptor Sewer was adopted by Che Anaheim City Cot:ncil on August 7, 1973; and r.he
Engineerin~ Di~vision ha3 determined thaC the pro~ect was i:t conformance with the Cit~y of
Anaheim General Plan.
Commissioner Morley offered a motiot-, seconded by Commisf;ioner Farano and MOTION CARRIEU
(Coma-isaionar Gauer being absent), thal the Planning Commission finde and determines that
the proposed grant of easement to the Orange County Sr~nitation Diatrict for the Senta Ana
River Inti:rceptor Sewer south of the Riverside Freeway is in conf.ormance wiCh the CiCy of
Anaheim Gener.al Plan.
.
~
~~
MINUTBS~ CLTY P1.ANNING COMMISSIOtI~ February '~, 1g75 75-77
I_fE;M N0. 3
CONPJ'~'TONAL U~I's PGIiMI'~ :~~. 1313 - ~t~yuef~t fux tern~inati~n -
Property coneietlnq ~f approximctely 7 acras, lor,utod ~~n
the ~orth aida of.' ~cangetho~.pe Avenue betwee.n Kello$g
I)riv~ anJ Poat: Gune.
The Stnff Repc~rt to the Pluuning Commltir~lon dfltad February 3~ 1975~ wae fres~ntF~d. ancl
s~id Staff Report wu~ made a parc of' tltie minutes.
IC was nuted that on June 26, 1972~ Ch~ Plannln~; Commieyion granted Conciitional Usc F'~:rmit
No. 1313 1.n Reeol~ltl<~n No. PC72-:13`i !:o establla}~ n 12»~~~teit plunned r~~»i:l..~n41u1 devel.opment
with site developm.;r.t waivers; ~hflt. tl-e c~ppltcant hnd eubmitted t~ wr/.tter~ requc~et to
terminake C~nditional Uoe Permit No. 1313 in ac~r.ardHr~ce wlth the r.onJf~,ione of approvu~ of
Tent~-llve ~~lap of Tract No. '876 ~IZ~:V I.H~-nll No. 3) and Vu~' ieu~we No. 2658, eetnbl ishing ~i 21-
lot, 98••unit RM-12~0 subdivision nnd wnl.vinK Che requir~raer~t that veh~.cu].ar ncce~sa co
garages be from an a11c:y only. and, th~refore, superseJ~ng s~id Condi[f.~naJ_ Use Permit No.
1313.
Commisaloner. Farano offered Re~olutiori No. rc75-3o and moved f~r i.ty pnasm~c~ and ndopkion,
t11at a11 proceedinga •!n conner_t:i.on with i:onditional Uee Permit No. ?.:i13 be and her~by are
terminated, aH reyueKted by Che petitl«~.ier. (See Resolution Book)
On roll c~ll, the foregoing rt~aolution Naa pas~ed by tt~e fal?ow1nA vote:
AYE5: COMMTSSIONERS: FARANO, JOHN~ON, KING~ M(~RLEY, TOLAR, 1ICR~3ST
NOE5: COI~tIS;iIO.iGRS: NONG
ABSENT: COhII•11SSIONI~;RS: GAUER
I'1'EM N0. ~~
WORM FARMS - LtEC1t'r~:ST FOIt 1'ULICY CLARI~ICA7'ION
The Staff keport Co the P.LIIDSIS!lb ~'~~~lssion dated Februury 3~ 1975, was pr~sented and made
a part of Cha minute,.
It was noted thut Mr. Rtiymond r hF~~~ inquired abuut approval of ~' home uccupation
permit to alluw a worm far.m, =~inP ba~-t+ ~o be operated in tY~e bacl: yard of his
residPnce; and ~har. due to c _:~~ •~nd similar requeata, the Comrnisaion waK being
requested to review the prar • ~r~.' ~~ ~r policy guidance.
Chairmun HerbsC noted tha: ~•~:~~.oa, the wornt farm would not have an adverse effect
and if thex'e were retall .. ~~~+h ;.lc hearl.n~ c:ould be requested to consider the matter.
Commissioner Farano off~~~-~ ~~ ~~i~ to set the matter. for public: hearing and said motion
died for laclc of a seco~~~
Commissioner Mor~ey of'~eT~ti- ~ TM~~~~.Un, secunded by Commisaioner Tolar and MO'PION CAItRIED
(Commissioner Farano • ot ,:~; '°~ ",ind Commissioner Gauer being absent), that the Planning
Commiasion does hereby ~ic~:~_ ~~~ ~y~ that a worm f.arm is an appropriate hume occupation and,
Cherefore, it would be StsT ~~''icy to issue home occupntion permits for eaid use.
'f.TEPI NV ~
CONI: ;'I'' '~~EU. USE PEF ~ T N0. 1406 - Request for approval
~:= alc iate build.ng material - Prnperty located at
tze n~ '~htvest cornsr of Anaheim Hilla Road r,~nnd Nohl
R::...,~: ^.cad, conaiating of approximately 13.2 acres.
The Staff Report to the !'lanning Co~uni.asion dated February 3, 1975, wa:a presented and said
Staff Rep~rr_ ~.s referreu to and made a part of the minu~es.
It wa~ noted that on August 6, 1973, the ?lanning Comr.iiaeior~ approved CondiCional Use
Permit No. 1406~ permitting Che establishment of a private tennis club on the aub~ect
praper.ty, suL•jecr to certain conditione including development aubetsntially in accordance
witlr the ?lans consi.dered at the public hearing; thgt the developer was now prop~sing to
utili.ze composition aepha~.t roofing material and, in their letter of requeat. str~ted
"Technolo~y in the con~struction industry is coneCant.ty inilirsting new producte which are
being bccepted by the canaumer merket. One auch product ia a ro~fing material called
'Shangle.' ThiR material ls made of composition asphalk but designed tu look like a
~
~ ~
~~lTNI,'fF,S, CiTY PLANNtNG C:Oh4~i15S].ON~ Febru~~ry 3, 1y75
I.TGM NU, S (ConttnuE~~)
75-78
~:oodcm ahuke. 'Chls i^ nc:coropliehed ti~ruugh a combination uE thic{a~ese snd c~olur....thie
new producC ~olvea lwo apeciflc prc~blems for tho racquet .r.lub. The firet iei Ptrc. ratirtg,
1)ue to itR publl.c occupancy. ki~e Code requirea that the roofing materials be ficeproofad.
T-ie 'Shan{,le' ie compl.etely firepco~f; wherhas a wooden ehak~e muat be treat~~d to be~:ome
tite-retarJ:ine. 'fl~~. aecond aeAOt ie rhe Ii.fe of the product. Tlie '3hnr.gle'' has twice
the life apan of the wooden ehekF ae well As not hnving ru be trec~ced with c- pre5ervativa
from time to tlmE~."
Mr. John Millick~ Vice PresidenC of Anahuim Hille, Inc,, appenred Ustore thE~ Plunning
Commiselon c~nd,in rceponse to quest~oning, stnted the ronfinb rt~terial would be a hrurize
brow~n in color and was good-l.oo`~cing,and would outlnst tl~e fixe-treated Hhnkc~ for a long
period of time. He furtt-er etated thc-t the Racquet Club r.equired tha~ the roof be firs-
praof and the 'Shangle' would be the heat material for th~t purpose; and that ae statcd
in thei.r letter, the City policy concerning roof;.ng materlal wae long standing and there
shauld be some £lexl.bility as long as the materir-1 ~vus a~HChetical].y ucceNtable. In
reaponse tu queaci.onin~ by the Plaiining Comml~sion. Mr. Mil'lick atated there were numeroua
c.ommercial structures whu had uaed the proposed buildina material and h~~ t~~ferred to those
liste~l in nc~~ Staff. 2eport.
In responae t:o furtt~er questi.oning t~y the Planning C,ommieal~n, Mr. Mi111ck indicated that
tl~e material wn~ fireproof as uppos~d to flre-retardant ahake nhinql.es; that ther~ would
be a~uvings of approximately $5,000 also to use the proposed building materi~xl on the
sub~ect structure; and that the Fi.re Ct~ief hacl given hie total ~upport of the material.
Commisaioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commiasioner Morley and MOTION CA1tR1ED
(Commissioner Gsuer beicig abaer.t), th~~t the proposed uae af "Sl~angle" as an al~ernate
b-iilding maeerial, be and tiereby is approved for applic:atlon as roofing materi~~l for the
Maheim Hillr~ Racquet C1uU, as appruvF.d under Conditianal Use Fermit No. 1G06; subJect
Co the ~rovision that the sub~ect materi.al shall. be reviewed by the Planiiing Commisaion
prior Co its usP in otlier conatruction in Che City.
ITEM N0. 6
RECLASSIFICATION h0. 72-73-34 AND GONDITIbNAL USE PERMT.T
N0. 1375 - Request for approval of revised p].ana -
Yroperty located at the c-orthwest corner of La Palma
Avenue and West Street, consisting uf approximately
11.3 acres~ zonsd i;_ •and developed with the Anaheim
Memorial Hospital co~nplex.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented tne Staff ReporC to the Planning Commtasion
dated Feb~'uary 3, 1975, and aaid Staff Report is refe:cred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Roberta cioCed that the parking was adequate for the propasal ta conetruct an additional
10,000 square feet of building area to the Cromer Tower, h~wever, the Ylanning CoimnisFtion
was b~ing rr~quested t~ determine whether Che proposed addition was eubstant3al.ly in con-
formance with the original approval of the condiCional uae permit.
Comxnis~ionar King offered a motion, aeconded by Commisaion~~r Johnson and MOTION CARRIED
(Co~mnissioner Gauer being absent), that the proposed additiona are substantially in con-
formance w:lth the original. approval of Conditiona] lJse Permit No. 1375.
IT~M N0. 7
CONDITIUNAL USE P~RMIT N0. 14'?3 - Requeat f~r approvxl af
reviaed plans - Property cons.isting of approximately 4.26
acrea and located ~pproximately 1200 feet so~ith of SunCa
Ana Canyon Road, and further ~jeacribed as 20330 Santa Ana
Canyon kosd.
The 5t~.ff Report tu the Pianning Cemmission dated February 3, 1975, was presented. and
said. Staff Report ie referred to and made a part c~f the minutea.
It was noted that on February 4, 1974, the Planning Commiasion granted Condition3l. Use
Permit No. 1453 to ea~ablieh a boarding aad lodging home for the care of ZS emotionally
disturbed~ ments~lly retarded children in an existing two-story dwe111ng; that approval
i • ~
MINUTG~S~ CITY PLANNING COT41I5SION~ Pebruury 3~ 1975 75"~y
ITEM N0. 7 (Conrinuad)
was sub~ect to several :ondi.tiona including A) thaC thQ exi.eCing se:ucture hu brougt-C up
to the minimum erandarde of the City uf Maheim~ inc.luding thr. Uniform 6uilding. Plumbing~
Blectrir.al, Noueing~ Mer.nnnicc-1. und Fire Codes~ ae adopted by the City of Anaheim and b)
khat eubject pro~er.ty ehall bc~ develogod oub~tantin7..ly in acc~rdance with appruved plane
and epecificuti~ns; cliut ttie plane euhmitted st that eimo acid diecuseiar~e held at the
public heari.ng indicated thc+t only the csxieting dwelling would be util.ized for. re-~iden-
tial purposee. nnd the 5tnff iteport lndlc~f:~~~l a p4rtion of Che cement black bern w~ould
bA uti.lized ae an arts and crafte projech. roum for the children; that the appllcant wAe
proposing Co convert the exieti.ng six-etall I~nrn with tack room snd tTiree-yuarter Uathraom
into aleeping q~artare to accomn-odate n portion of the 15 chi]dr.an pexcnitted under eul~ject
con~itonal uae permiC; and that eubmitted plane indicated lhe barn would be convexted inCo
seven rooma opening onto a cenCral coreidoz (ko be used as a eun room/play roam and etudy
Arez-) and two three-quarter baChtoomo; and that the applicant had ino'.~:atad the barn
convereion would enable Chem to utilize the main house £or an office, isolation roum and
tfier~py room, and r.o l~ouse Che rQmainder of the children.
Mrs. Doris Gibeon~ tlie ipplicant, appeared before the Planning CommieRion and stated the
barn was beautifully constructed nnd had plumbing a~d heating already i.n it; Chat they
wuuld have to conatruct f2oors; that tl.= State, County, and the City Fire Department had
approved the atr.ucture aubject t~, a finding by the Planning Commiseion Y.hat the aorivereion
was in canformance with the condltional u~e permlt on the properCy.
Zoning Supervisor Chbrles Roberts noted khat to the Ci.ty's knowledge the conditione of
approval ~f Conditi.onat Use Psrmit Na. 1453 had not been meC, whereupon Mra. Gibson
atated all of. the condi,:iona had been met and that ehe would contact the 1~uild:LnR Division
for inspecti.on of same.
Mr~a. Gibeon described the operation with relationship to aeparatin~ age groups for the
maximum benefit of Che ci.ildren; and stated that there would be very little remodeling
invo'lved ln t.he com~ersion.
Commiasioner Johnsou off.ered u ~uotlon, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Comaniaei.oner Farano voting "no" and Coruniasioner Gauer being absentj, that requeRC for
approval of reviatu plane be and hereby is determined to be in subetantial accordance with
the orig•l.nal upproval of Conditional Uoe Permit No. 1453, eub~ect to the condiCion that
the atructure be brought up to Code and that the number of children houRed at the sub~ect
location shal.l nol• exceed the originally-approved number of 15.
ITEM N0. 8
PLANNING COI~tISSTON RESOLUTION N0. PC75-252 -
Trac~ signs.
It was noted that on December 23, 1974, the Planning (:ommission adopted Resolution No.
PC14-252 pertaining to recommendataona for the regulation of tract sigis and, aubsequently,
it was discovered that legsl il~tice required f.or p~ihlic hearing had not been advertiaed,
invalidating said resolution; that a public hear~ng was subsequently rescheduled Co the
Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 1975, and advertised in compliance with legal
requirements, and at that meeting the Planni.ng Commission adopted a new resolution perEain-
ing to regulation of Cract aigns, being Resolution No. PC75-16; and, therefore, it would be
appropriate to resc~nd ttesolution No. ~C?4-252.
Commisaioner Morley offered Reaolution No. PC75-31 and moved for. ite passagc~ ar.d adoption
rescinding Resolution No. PC74-252 of the Anaheim City Planniag Cammiasior~ on the baeis
of the foregoing findinge. tSee Reaolution Book)
Qn ro].1 call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COA4IISSIONERS: JOHNSON, KING* MORLEY, TUL.AR, HERBST
NOES: COr4fISSIONERS: k'ARANO
ABSENT: COI~tISSION~ItS: G~1UER
~
~~
MINU'C[:S~ (:I'fY PLANNINC~ COMMISSION~ ref~r.uery 3~ 1975 ~~''H~
IT~M N4. 9
R~C[,P.SSIFIt;ATION N0. 71-72-21 ANU VARTANCE N0. '1310 (Imporial
Yroperties) - Continued r~yiew of Yequeet for epproval oi'
site pl.ans and elevettone - Pc'opet~ty conr~leting of upproxi-
matcly 870 feet. on the nortti Hlde c~f Santa Ana Can,yon Raad
and located approximately 365 Eeet ~~net of the canterline
of Imperial Highway~ And zone~f (:-1(S::) .
lor~ing Sup~rvl.~or Charlca Koberta noted that the eub~ect r,nquest had Ueen revlewed and
dls4usscs~ at several meetinge of thc~ Planning l:~mmiseiun und the Community Redeve.lopment
Commiestore w1Ch reepecl• to ttie de~elopment of the encire property, ccnAist.ing of ~n eaet-
erly nnd westcrly parcel, wf.th ~pproprlake acceae point9 and circulattun; und tliat the
Community Redevelopment Commiseion was requesting an additi~n~l 30-da~~ continuance to
resolve the proper access ~nd circul.ation for tl~e propesCy~
Mr. Hnrry Riiiker~ representi.ng Imperlal ProperrieA, owner of tlie easter~'.y parcel, nppeAr~~d
before the Plunning Coimnieaion ~nd reviewed the meetinge held wit4 the C~~rmnunity Redev.:lop-
ment Commiec~ion nnd boch pr.operty owners~ and etatad tt~nc a meetini3 was held on Januery
15, ~975 at which tlie Freewuy Properties reyueRted n curb cut on Imperi.al llighway ~nd the
matCer wua continued to gather engineering information on that proposa'l; tliat he mnt with
Cit.y Staff the following Mondny And at that time there wua a new concept, b~ing to trade
four acres of land wiCh Freeway Properties tu the west snd plncing Che proposed aupermarkeC
near Imperlal Highway; that the traf.fic from the eupermarket travel~ng through the entire
properCy wauld be undeairnble; that at ane of Che meetinge~ the Ciky Tr&ffic ~ngi.neer did
not ue~m in favar of r~ left-turTi lane groposal by Freeway Fruperties and rhp Cotnmu~liCy Re-
development Commisaion passed a resolution at thnt meetins to approve the Imperif~l Yroper-
ties plan (Revision No. 6) Ch~~t wao presenkly dieplayc:d for. Planr~ing Commi~siori coneidera-
tion unc the Freewuy ProperCiea representatives had remained after thA Imperial Properties
represenCatives dep~rted f.rom said meetin~; aubsequently, ariother meeting wa:; called which
the Imperial Propertie~ represen~tat.ives were unable to attend, flt which Che CammuntCy
Red~velopmenC Cummisslun made a resolution that the sr~atter be further continuesl for 30
days.
Mr. Rinker continued by stating thnt the uae for the property to the e~st owned b}~ Fre~way
Pr.operties ahould be for a tennis court, nuraery, furniture atore, app:~iance store. hard-•
ware or homs impro~~ement center, lighting fixturea aCOre or a genera]. p31nt store; that
the only storea that should not be developed on the westerly parcel wauld be a superu~arlcet,
drugstore, a meat market, a discount store euch as Akron, or a theatre, since Che pat:ona
would park in the pro~osed shopping center and walk acroas to their deRtination; that he
would urge the Pa.anning Commission to take an action on the site plans and elevatlona iar
the easterly parcel; and that he recognized that Imperial Properti.es would probably hav~•
to begin all ovpr wikh tneir arguments at City Council level, from square foutage to all
other aspects of the propos.~l.
Mr. Jim McGirr af Willdan Associates, representing Freeway Properties, appeared before the
Planning Commission and~ upon questior~ing by Chairman Herba;:, Mr. McGirr stated although
he did not personally like the plan presented by Imperi~l Properties, Freeway Properties
did not wish to detain Mr. Rinker tr~m proceeding to the City Council leve~; and Lhat, in
his opinion~ a circulation plan to serve the entire proper.ty w~u:ld be more suitable than
the plan being presented by Imperial Propet•ries for approval.
Mr. Rinker diacusaed the access at the eouth~ast cnrner of the easterly pr~rcel, said
access prupnaing no curb cuts into the shopping center p~+rking lot and, thereupon, Comrni~-
siuner Tolr.r noted that Mr. Rinker should consider moving the bank building to tile west,
eliminating the access point at that location, and having only one acceys to the entire
property, which would also eliminate the traffi.c or safety problema. Mr. Ainker then
atated that traffic from both parcels ueing the main accese point would be too mucn to
haredle. Commissioner Tolar clari£ied thae he ~as talking about a two-lane road Roing the
length of the property, said road being a narrow, marginal street, snd noted Ctiat the
ma~ority of the traffic would gravitate to the interaectlon access.
Mr. Mel Kimmel, representing I'reeway Properties~ appeared before tt~e Planning Commiseion
and stated that he had attended all of the meetinge with the Commur.tty Redevelopment
Commission and had reviewed all of the accesa proposala; that he concurred with the
request of the Community Redevelopment Commiseion for an additional 30-day continuance in
an effort to be aaoperative; and that they did not wish to delay Mr. Rinker any further
but etill wished t~ end up with a viable shopping center on the weaterly parcel.
~ ~
MINUTE9, CITY I'LANNLNG COF4IISSION~ t~ehru~ry 3~ 1975 75-81
1TEM N0. 9 (Contlnued)
Mr. We~ Pringlo~ representing Frc~~way L'rnperties~ w1~P~ared befare~ the Plunning Commiseion
and stn~ed Chey fel~ the accens nn Imperial Highway would wark and the SCata of CaLifornia
t~ad not eCttted it woul.d nc+t; and tl~at hc~ h~sd meC w1.th Mr. Crnnzow, Mr. Kimmel and Mr.
Singax' at which l•imN it wae agreed that the one accese cuuld handl.e khe properCy near th~~
interaection.
Chairman Herbe[ 4hnn noCed that Freeway Prop~rtiee had pi~cchased tlieir property with a
li~aited nccees snd Mr. Rinker hnd provided fur more acaese to Chat propurt,y.
Mr. Kimmel offered a suggestion that since th~ pro~eated ADT on Imperial tlighw,zy would n.ot
be reuched until 1985 to 199Q~ thnt the Imperial Highwby accees puint ba granted for khe
parcel to the weat untll Auch time as the trnffic pr.oj~ction was r~ached; Ghat chey were
willing tu trade ttieir 20-foot acce~s on Sgnta Ana Canyon Road to heve a right-in and
right~-o~t on Imperiul. Higiiwsy; and that Che entire pr~perty cuna~.eting of the we3ter.ly ~nd
eaeterly parcels ahould be ].ooked upon as one properCy~ even though there were two proparty
owners i~ivolvod.
Chairman Herbst noted that it appeared Freewuy Properties stil.l. w~snted the ImperiAl Nighway
acc~ae and that h~ was not in fu~or of hhat acce~~. aince the City TralFfic Er~gineer and the
City Al•torney's Office had indicated it would increase the City's 1lability.
Commiasioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Cammisaioner ~torley and MOTION CARRIF.b
(Comm~asioner Cauer bc~ing absent), th~t site. plans and elevations ae Rubmitl-ed by Imperial
Propertiss for tl~e eueterly portiQn of the sub~ect properCy, are hereby determined to be
in aubetantinl conformance wit.h the origin~l concept plans.
Commisaioner Farano offered a motion, aeconded by Commtssioner Tolar and MOTION CAkR1ED
(L'ommissioner Gauer being absent), ehat atte plane and elevatiune, ae submitted by Freewuy
ProperCies ror the westerly porti.on of the subject prupert~, are hereby determined not to
be in aubstantial conformance with the original concept plane.
ITGM N0. 10
VARIANCE N0. 2603 - Request for sp{~roval of revised plans -
ProperL•y cone•Lsting of approximately 17.4 acres locatc:d
nor[her.ly of Nohl Ranch Koad and eouth of the southerly
termini of Solomon Drlve and Leandro Street, and being
approximatel.y 1050 feet west of the cenCerline of Anahei.m
Hills Road.
Zoning Supervisor Charles R~.berts read the Staff Report to the planning Commisaion dated
February 3. I975~ and said Staff Report is referred to se i.f set forth in full in the
minutes.
Mr. Roberts noted that the building maCerial for Che pruposed dwel.lings had been changed
and there would Ue more wood and brick used; Lhat ewo of the lots in the subdivisian would
have garage aetbacks less than 25 feet on a cul-de~sac and aince an ordinance req~siring a
minimum setback of 25 feet on a cul-de-sac and provision for five parking apacea would
become effective February 13, 1975~ the Planning Coamaieaion wight wiah to take said ordi-
nance into considera[ion in connectiun with the propoeed revised plana.
Mr. Lewis R. Schmid, Che petition~r, appeared before th~ Planning Commiseion gnd statecl it
would be very difficult to meet the 25-foot setback requirement on the cul-de-eac due to
the configurati.on and depth of the lota: however, they did conform to the side yard set-
back requirements,
Chairman Herbat noted that development in cul-de-sac er=~s needed off-siee parking and
that wae bae~ically Che reaeon for the nPw ordinance. In responee. Mr. 5chmid atated they
had driven the a~ea which had short driveways and tl~ey made an aesumption that perhaps
they should not have, although they were proposing to have three-car garagee for the
dwellings located in the cul-de-eac. Mr. Schmid further atated they wauld inatall electric
garage door apenere on the two models fn question.
~ ~
MINUTGS, CITY PLANI~ING COMML33ION~ Februniy 3~ 1975 75`81
ITEM N0. 10 (Continued)
In raeponoc to quantioning hy Coromieaior~er Far~no, Mr. Roberts advihed thet altl~ough thR
houeee wera buing e~tl.arge,d from th~ oc'iginul propoAal, the lot sisee were~ et:ill in con-
formance with preeent Cod~ requir~mente. ~omraieaioner. Farano made an ~be°rvation thet the
px•oposel eeemed to bo in eubetantial confarasance wirh tha ori~i.nal approvnl.
Commi.seioner King offered a motion, seaundad by Commie~i.aner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED
(Commiseionar GauAr being nbsent)~ that th~ revise,d plana ae eubmitted :,c+ and hexaby are
approved ae being in subetantial conforruance witr th~ PTann~.ng ~~OAn11~9N~OCt~B original
approval o£ Varience No. 2G03.
AU,JOURNMENT - Therc bc~ing na further busJ~nese to diecues~ Cowomisei.or.~r Farsno
- r oEfered a mokion~ eeconded by Com~iasioner Morley and MOTIAN CARR7~ic
(Caauniseioner Gauer beinq abaent), to ad~ourn the moetin~ to
February 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m, for a Jaint Work Seesi~~n with the
CiCy Council ~nd ttie Community Redevelopment Comn~ioKion.
Tha meeCing ad~ournpd at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfu].ly aubmitted,
~ ~ ~ ~
Patricia B. Scanlan, SecreC~ry
Anat-eim City Planni.ng Commission
PBS:hm