Minutes-PC 1976/04/12~
,+~
~
r.n.
~
~ i ty li+~l 1
llnahclm, Californla
A~ri l 17., 1~37f~
Rf.fULAR MFETIFIG OF TIIE ANAr1EIM CITY PLA~R~ING COMMI^ SSI~~~
RfGULAR - A regul.~r meetln~ of the Anahclm Clty P1Anninq Conxnlssl~n was calted to
MF.[TI~lf order by Chatrman Farano at 1:3~ P.~n, in the Councll Chamber, a quorum
befn~ present.
PRF.SFNT - CHl11RMAN: Farano
COMMISSI~PJERS; dA1'ne9~ !ierhst~ Johnson~ King~ Morlty~ Tol~r
ARSGNT - CQMMISS I c1~lERS : None
ALS~ PR~Sf~IT - Frank Lowry
Paul Sln~er
Jay Titus
pon Mc.Dan i e 1
AnnikA Santalr+liti
BI11 Cunningham
Joel Ficlc
Patricia Scanlan
Deputy City Attorney
Traffic En gineer
~ffice Engincer
AsslStant Planiilnc~ Director
Zon(n~ Supervisnr
Assoclacr, Planner
A.ssistTn[ Planner
Planning Commiss(on Secretary
PLF.Dr,E OF - Cumm(ssioner Barnes leci in ehe Plecige ~f Alle~lance to ttie Flay of the
ALIFGIAPIC[ Uniteu S~atas of ^^~c'1='?.
RECLl1SS I F) CAT ION - COFIT l tlUED PUBLI C 1lEAR) MG, CRUl. VARGAS ~ 1$39 ~ou[h Mounta 1 n V I ew
Np~ 75-'jG-27 Avenue, Anah~lr~, Ca. 97.E302 (Uwnerj. Pr~perty descrlbed as a
-"'-'- rectan nularly•shaped parcel uf land cons(sting of approxlmately 1.3
TENTATIVE MAP ~F acre having a frontage of appr~xim~tely ?10 feet on both si~es of
TRACT N~. 92~7 Waverly Drive, and being located ~ppraxim~tely 31~+ feet south of the
;,enterllne of Wakefield Avenue. P rope~ty present'iy r.lasslfled
RS-A-43~QQ0 (RESIDE~dTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ..4tJE.
RFCLASSOFIC~TI~N REQUES7: RS-5~1~~ (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-~AMiI'l) ZOtI~.
T~NTATIVF. TRACT RE(IUESi: EIIGIPICER: JQHN E. STEVENSOtI, 31~ Latchatt~od Lane, La Habra~
Ca. 90631. SubJect property is proposed for subdlvision
into ~3 RS-5Q00 lots.
The subJect ttem~ viere continued from [he Planning Commission meeting of March 2~, 197G,
for investiyatinn of thP easements which may e:tist on the subject properey,
Four persons indlcated thelr presence in ooposition t~ sub)~:ct petition,
Chairman Faran~ note~i that on March 7~T 197H, the publlc hearing on the subject items was
clospd.
Althouc~n the Staff Rer~rt to :he Planning f.ormiission dated April 12, 197G, was not read at
thP meetinc~ said Staff Report i~ referred to and macie a part of the minutes.
Mr. Bob Avila, representinn the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commission and
statsd that a Southern California Edison Company (Sierra Electric Comp~ny) easement was
previously recor~!ed along the south property 1(ne; tt~at they hacl retained Title insurance
and Trust Conpany to in vestigate the status of the eas~ment but they did not have a final
repart on same; that th~ easement shown o^ t~~ely deed did not restrict the construction o'F
bulld(ngs, to a height of ~+Q feet; tha*_ they hacl investigatEd the area and found that many
homes were currently sxisting under the wires along the easement; anci that they were
watting f~r final repo rts from the Edisor~ Company and Title Insurance and Trust Company
prlor to finalizinq the proJect.
Chalrman Farano inquire d how far away the easement was from the south property iine. Mr.
Avila res~onded that he had submitCed a plot plan indicating the existing easameni~ as
well as ~i ploi pl~n with elevations and floor plans tentatively orop~sed r'' property.
76-151
p ~
MIMUT~S~ CITY P1.11NNING COMMIS~IOr~~ llpri) 12~ 197F 76r15~'
RECL/1SJIFIGATION_ N0~5-7~-27 PND TENT,IT1\~E MAP OF Tk` A~ C~ T NO_,~~ (ContlnuPd)
Commisslaner Herbst inqulr~~d if the peCitioner wante~l ~nu[her continuance In order C~
subr~lt the Informatlon pertilnln~ to tl~c ease~T,ents. Mr. Avlla stotccl he wanted approva)
of the pr~p~s.~l at this rtx~etin~~; that they would basa their f(na! plans on the reE~orts~
whlch would be raceivecl~ an~i on wh~t wAS existlnn In the area. Commissloner Nerbst then
irqulred wh~t woulcl hRppen to thc proJ~ct if they wcrc unahle tn b~~ild over thr, e.~+semcnt,
as proa~secf. Commisslnr~er Tolar s~~~~~yest~ I that ttie Nroposal ha reduced to six RS-7200
lots t~ alir~inate tha ~pposition From the ~d]~~cent pr~c~r~rty cwrners~ ~n~l nlso ta eliminate
any probleins pcrta(nln~ to any exlst(ng r.asements ~n tlic property.
In rasponse to questl~ning by Cha(r•man Farr~no~ Office Enqtneer Jay Titus acivfseci tliat
other homes pr~bahly werc bullt undcr the p~wer lines In ~uestion. Deputy City Att~rney
Frank Lowry edVlSe~1 that structures were pcrmitt2<~ un~ier powor llnes~ de~~n~ling ~~ the
easements; ~n~1 thnt the City had 9r~nte<1 encrnachmer~t permits tn bulld un~fer C(ty p~wer
lines in the pnst; h~wever, the easement in questicn was an Edison e~~senane.
In respc~nse to questl~n(nc~ by Camm(ssioner Barnes. Mr. Avlla ~tate~i Mr, Fltrsch h~d
con~~~cted the Edlson C~mpany who ind(cated no quarrel wieh reducine~ the size of the
easement or permlttin~ structiares to he nuilt beneath the wtres; thit Mr, f~ersch was ~o
longer Involvecl oiith the subJe:.t. applicatlon; that Edlson had been contacxcd again •and It
was too s~on ~or them to have researched the matter an~1 render an opinian on it, however~
on the surface~ Ed(son had indlcated therr would be no prohlem if a huilding permlt was
issuecl with al) of the rec~ulred s~tbacks~ etc.; that he had ~lso disc~asse~.i ~he matter with
Title Insurance ancl Trus* Company who would be Insuring the property an:i they ind(cated
there was no restricticm withln the c~asement to a height of ~'1 feet; and that he was aware
Chat written documentat(on perta(ning t~ the easement would be requlrecf before the proJect
could be ftnaltzed,
Commissioner Johnson noted that lt ~ppeared the status of tfie m~~tters of concern w~s
bas(ca11Y the s~~me as on Mar~l~ 29th; I~owever, if the petltloner was willing to stipulate
tc.~ puttincl sir. homes on the propprty, the matter could probably be resolved .~t this
meet(ng. He furthcr n~ted that he would not want to vote to have eic~ht homes as proposed.
s!nce he d(c1 not know whak would be invulved when Lhe matter of the C75r,.,.nY was resolved.
Commisst~ner• Johns~n offered a mot'.on~ secanded by Comm;ss(oner Nerhst, to further
continue c~nsi~ieratlon of Reclassification No. 75-76-27 and Tentative Map of Tract No.
9?£37 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 2G~ 1976- in order to resolve the
c~ncerns reiatin~ to the ensements ~n Che subject praperty.
Chiairman Farano notecl that the people In opposition had attenciecl two meettn~s so far in
connection wlth the subject items and~ therefore, he was not sure that dnothe.r continuance
was appropriate; hc~iever, he was not too enthusiastic atsout ~1!owing homes to be built
beneath the power ilnes since in the recent past those particular lines haci come down.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he c~ncurred that tne people attendinc~ the publlc hearing
deserved to h~ve the matter conclu:led upon at tnis rn~:etine7; that the petitic,ner had been
prevlously apprisecl of the Plannin~, Commission's sugg~stion for six homes, rather than
eigfi~; and that he would vote against the motion to continue the items on the basis that
he was opposPd to bulld(nc~ bene~th the power lines and~ further, that lf the prcposal was
for six RS-7200 loCS~ there would be no problems.
Tt~e forecioing motion F<~II.f.U (Commissioners aarnes~ Morley~ Tolar an~~ Farano vo*_ing "no").
Commissioner Tolar lnqulrecl if the petitioner wished tio revise the plans ar,d stfpulate to
construcCing a m~ximum of six homes in conformance with alt of the sitc development
standards of the RS-720~ 2one; and, if not, he would make a motion to deny the proposal.
Thereupon~ Mr. Avila ~se stipul~ted to develap the property with six homes constructed in
c,onformance with all of the site development standards of the RS-7[0~ Zone, and with no
waivers; anc1~ furthermore, if any building was to be erected on the easement alon9 the
south bound:~ry of the property~ a letter would be obtalneci from the Sou*.hern California
Edison Company (Sierra Electrlc Company) ap~reving such conscruction.
Cortmissioner Tolar offered a motlon, seconded by Commissioner Morley an~f MOTION CARRIED~
that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby recomr~end to the City Council of xhe
City of Anaheim that the subJect project be exempt from the requlrements to prepare an
environmenta) Smpact report~ pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quallty Act.
Comm(ssioner Tolar offered Resoiution No. PC7~-61 and moved for its passage and adoptton~
that the Anai~eim Clty Planning Commission uoes hereby recammend to the City Council of the
City of Anaheim that Petltion for Reclassification ~!~ 75~7~-27 be approved fur RS-?200
~ ~ ~
MI~IUTES~ CITY PLAPINING COMMISS~ON~ Aprl) 12~ 197~ 7~-!53
RF.CLASS~FICAI'ION tIQ. 75-JG-i7 AND 7FIJTl1TIVE MAP OF TRl1CT ~~0. 9287 (Contlnued)
and that the petitloner stipulatr.cl t~ subdividinc~ thc pruperty lnto six RS-720~ lots, g~fd
lots to be developed In uccordance with all sfte devel~pment standards of thP RS-720U
Zune; subJect t~ th~ et(pulaClon of the pettttoner to obtnin ~ letter of approval from the
S~uthern Californle Edison Compnny (°terra Clectric Company) if any build(n~ is 'to be
erec°.ecl on salcl comp.iny'3 oASement along the south boundary of subJect property~ s.~ld
latter t~ be obtalned pri~r tn the issu<~nce ~f a bullcling permlt; ~+ncl s~bJect to the
Intercle~:+rtment~~1 Cortmlttee rec~mmend~~tfons. (See Resolutlon Dookj
On roll cell ~ thc farecloinc~ resolution was p~isse~i by the follavinct vote:
/1YES; C~MMISSI~~JEttS: dARNE.S~ NERRST~ JOHNS~rI~ KING~ MORLEY, TOLA~~ FARAN~
NOES : COMM I SS I ~Nf RS : PJQPlE
I1~SF~IT: C~Mf11SSI~tIF.RS: ~IONE
Mr. Lowry acJvised that~ baseci on t.he foregolnq resolution approvinc~ the rar.lassification
of subjoct ~r~perty fnr six ItS-720Q lots~ the Tentative flap of Tract No. 9'LF7 should
appro(~riaCely be continueci in arder that the petitloner might sutmlt a revise~i tratt map
showing the slx lots rather than eic~ht; and that if thP Planr~in~ Corr.~nisslon denied the
submitted tract m~ip, the petitioner would he delayed several weeks for the processing of a
new tract map.
Commisstoner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded b;~ f.ommis~ioncr Morley .~n~l MUTI~N CARRIED~
that che An~ihe(m C(ty Planning Commissl~n cloes hereby continue c~nsidaratlon of Tentatlve
Map of 7ract No. 92A7 to the Planning Commiss(on mpeting nf Aprll 26~ 197G~ in order for
the petltioner to submit a revised map.
RECLASSIFICl1TIO~J - READVERTIS[D PUdLIC HEARING. I~IITIATED BY TIIE AMAHEIM CITY PLANMIMG
N0. 75-76-19 CQMMISSI~N, 20-+ East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca, Property des~rtbed
as °ortion A: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
VARI~~ICF. N0. 2793 approximately 0.7 acre having a frontage of approxima;ely 2~E~- feet on
the norCh stde of Ball Road~ having a maximum depth of approxlmately
12?. feet~ and heing locatecJ approximately 2$9 feat west of the center-
line of Emplre S;reet; anci Portions A and B: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consi~ttng of anproximately 6.~ acres located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and
Empire Street, hav(ng approximate frontages of 62Q feet c,n the n~rth side of Ball Road
and 438 feet on the west side of Empire Street. Property presently classifled CL
( CQMMERC ! A~. ~ L I M I1'E D) ZOP~E.
PROPOSE~ RECLAS5IFICATION: PORTIONS A AND B- RM-120~ (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPI_E FAMILY) ZONE.
PROPOSED VARIANCE: ?ORTIO~! A- WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES.
The su~Ject petition for reclassification wa~ contlnuad from the Plannin~ Comn(ssion
meeting of March 1, 197h~ for ~he adverttsement of the varlance.
It was notecl that no one was present in the audience in favar or ir opposition to subject
petltEons.
Although the Staff Re~ort to the Plannin~~ ConKnission dated April 12~ 1976~ was not read at
the public hear(n~, sa(d Staff Report ~s referred to and mide a part of the minutes.
TNI: PUBLIC fIEARI~IG WAS CLOSED.
It was noted that the Direct.or of the Planning Department had determinecl that the proposed
activity fell within the defi~ition of S~ctior. 3.~1, Class 1, of the City of Anahe(m
Guidelines to the Requirement~ for an Environmenta~ Impact R~port and was, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requir~ment to file an EIR.
Commissior~er Herhst offere~i Resolution FJo. PC7G-62 and moved for its passage and a~i~~ptlon~
-.nat the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does he~eby recommend to the City Council of the
City cf Anaheim that Petition for Reclassificati~n No. 75-76-19 (readvertised) be
approved. (See Res~lution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resol~t~on was passed by the followinn vote:
AYES: COMMI3SI~NCRS: 4ARPIES, HERBST, JOHNSOtI~ KING, MQRLEY, TnLAR~ FARANQ
NQ~S : COMNI S51 ~tl~RS : N~~Ik
ABSENT: COMMISSIONFRS: NQ~IE
. ~
MINUTE~~ CITY PLA~ININ~~ CQMMISSi0~1~ Aprll 12~ 1q76 ~f'~15~~
RfCL115SIFICATION ~l0. 75°76-19 ANO VARIANCE N_ 0.,______'17_.93 (Continucsd)
....._. --
Commissloner Herhst offerocl Resolutlon No. PC7G-G3 ar~d movr_d for its p~ssoc~e ancf adoptlon~
thAt the An~~helm City Planning Comn ssion does h~r~~hy grant Petitlon f~r Varinnce ~~o. 2793
to perriit the contlnue~i use of carrn~iercla) ofFices fn khe RM-120~ Zone on the br~sl~ th~t
the sub~ect prorerty is currentlY beln~ utilizescl for c~fflcos. and a h~~rdshlp would be
cre~te~1 for thc property a~n~r(s) if sald varl~~nce werc not grantcci pcr~,itting the
contlnuAtlon of salri ~sc; provided, however~ tliAt sald variancc Is granted for r,hr.
exlstlnc~ busfnesses only, unless otherwlse ap,.roveci hy the Pl~nnin~ Conmi~sl~n or i.ity
Council. (Sec Rcsolut(on l3ook,)
bn rol) call~ the f~rec~oinc~ resolutlon was passed by thc followin~ volc;
AYF.S : COMMI SS I ONF.RS : I3~RNFS ~ HEP,iIST ~ J011NSOPJ ~ K I NG ~ MQRLEY, TOLl1R ~ FAR~tI~
NQF.S : C~MM I SS 1 b~JERS : N~NF
ABSFHT: caMr~issio~irrzs: NOtJE
EIaVI(tONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC H[ARI~lG. TEXACQ-ANAHEIM NILLS~ IMC., c/o crtk Derg, 3~~
REPf1RT ~~0. 17?_ Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim~ Ca. ~2~~7 (~ner). Property descrtbed
"-'"""'--" as an irre~ularly-shnpcd parcel of I~nd conslstinq of approxi-
RECLASSIFICATIO~; mately 5~~ acres having a front~~ge of approximately 993 feet on
N~, 75_~(,-2~ the south sicie of Nohl Ranch Road ancl be(n9 locate<I approx(mately
31~ feet west of the centerline af Royal Oak Ro~d, Property
TE~I7ATIVF. MAP OF presently classificd COUNTY OF OMNGf: A1 (~CKCliAL A~RICULTUR/1L)
TMCT N0. ~?.(~$ 01 ~TR 1 CT.
RECLl1551F1CAT10~1 REQUEST: PQRTIOtI A- RS-HS-1~,Q00(SC) ZQNE.
TF.";TIITIV~ TRl1CT REQUEST: E~~~!NEER: LIND 6 HILLERUD. INC.~ 2~~15 I+~anttngton Drive~ San
Marino~ Ca. 91148, SubJect property Is proposeci fr~r sub-
divi~ion into 132~ RS-HS-l0,Q~0(SC) lots ^ Portions A and D.
Mrs. Janice Na11~ 51-5 Tumhlewood~ Anaheim, indicate~ her presence (n c~ppositlon and waived
the f~ll rzadinc~ of the Staff Report to the Planning Comrnisslon dated April 12, 197~. on
the basis that she had reviewed a copy of same.
Alttiough the Staff P.eport was noc rea~i at the pu~l(c heartnn, it ls ra`eired to and made a
part of the minutes.
Mr. Horst Schor~ representinq ~naheim Hllls~ Inc., appeared before the Plannlne~ Cortmission
and stated Chat the subJect prooerty had previously been considerPCl ancl approved by the
Planniny Commission and City Council as a portion of a four-tract~ RS-HS-l0,Q00
suudiv(sion; that they had reconsidered and redesi4ned the proposai to be more In linz
with Che current marketinc~ cunditions arid in accordance with t`° new grading or~(nance;
that they were propo~ing a m(x of custom and standard sin~le-family homes; that they had
met with the Westriclqe Homeowners 4ssociation, an~1 lndivi~iually with the homeowners
immedlately adJacent to the proJect, concerning the impact of the ~radinci on thelr lots.
and a nuMber of chanc~es to tt~e lot elevatlons had heen incorporatecl in the plans so as not
to disturb the existing views of the adJacent lots, etc.; ttiat a presently exi.sting
ovenc~acf uttlity llne would be un~'ergrounded~ improvirg the views of the Westriclge
development; ~~nd th~t drainage for the site would be through an improved storm draln
facility which was part of the plannin9 for a oortion of the Westridge development.
Mrs. Janice Hall~ representin~ the Westridge Nomeowners Association, appeared bafore the
Planning Commisgion ~nc1 th~nked Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ for m~klnq sure tha: the tract maP
was avallable to all of the homeowners in the area anci for thelr cooperation in other
respects. She state~i that the problems with the heights of some nf t~~e lota h~~1 been
rnsolved to the satisfaction of the adJacent homeowners; that the traffic continued to b~
a very serious problem, even though mirrors had been insta~ll~~ at che intersectlons; that
approximately nine propPrtv damage accidents had occurred stnce the f(r~:t of tl~e year; and
that the p~oposec~ ~evelopment would brina a c~nsiderable amount of ad:~ittonal traffic into
the area and a solution to the traffic pr~blems was imper•~tive prior to the c~nstruction
of the new hoMes.
7raffic En~ineer Paul Singer advised that the proposer) praject would have an impact on the
traffic in th~ area anci miti9ation measures would include thE closur~ of the southerly leg
of Rural Rldge Roac1 at Plohl Ranch Road and the signa~izatian of the Intersections of Nohl
._, ~_.._, ~.~, o....+ ...,a a~~~at Ri~~~P Road; and that the sictn~l laatton had not been
I~dllbil i~vou ~ ~.v~ .~ ~ ~..~.. ..--~ - ~ °
LJ
~
h11~lUT~S~ CITY PL~NIIING COMMI!,SIOIJ~ Apri) 12~ 197~~
7G-155
E~IVIROPIt~' fAL IMPIICT RFPORT N0. 177.~ R~CL'~SIFIGATI01! Na, 75-7~>~28 ~ND TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT PJO. 97Ga (Contlnued) ~~~_ -
bud~etad f'.>r etther in the 1975-7~~ ~r ~`~7~,-7] hud~~~^~5 and~ thercfore, stop slgns on Nori1
Ranch Ro7~1 wculd h.: Inst~~llr,J hy th~: C1'ty becaus~ ~f the bl(nd candit(oiis at Rural Ridge
R.~aci anrl ~s ~'~ tem~c,r~ry mc~i~~urr.. L~ h~pcfully reduce t~~e t+ccidents fn the area.
In rebutt~l, f1r. Schor st~tec~ An~heim Nills~ Inc., ha~i hCCn Intrreste~t for a perlod of
time (n the con~lltlons of the intersectinn beln~l dlseussecl; ~~nd that it would take
approxlmately 1~ to 2 ycars t~ resolvr. tl~e tr~ifflc s(tuitlon or~ Nohl Ranch Road, whlch
wnuld he~ bet`orr the subject pro,lect was Actut~lly cons!ructe~l.
In response to auestioninn by Ch~~lrm~in Farnno~ Mrs. Hall st~~ted thi[ ~lthcuc~h the stop
sic~ns proposecl to be insC~llecl by thr Clty werc nnt a perm;-nent answer for th^ fncreased
trafflc In the areo, t'~ey pres~ntly harl no controls; th~~t the homec~wners would llke to
have signals, especl.+lly hec.~use of the sehoc~) chlldren tn the ~~rea; hrnvever, that she
would be cnncerned about the enforcenx~nt of tl~~: sLc~p si~ns•
Mr. Richard Owners~ 529~ East Rural Ridc~e Clrcle, Anahelm, appeared before tne Planntng
Commissinn and slatecl Mr. Schor hacl in~llc~t~<1 to ttie property ownr.rs In his tract located
aiang thc ~~st°!'~Y ~'^~~n~lary of tf~e subJect prnperty that the clevations would be dropped
approximatcly l~ feet to insure thcir vlews.
Mr. Ira Shar~es, 53~1 Rura) Riciqe Circle~ An.~heim, ~~ppe~~recl I~efore the Planninc~ Commisslon
and indicatecl the proposed plan~ droppln~ the elevatlan of the proposed Lot No. ~3
approxim~~tely I~ feet, is ngrer.d to by Nr. Sel~or~ 4f85 s~~tl sfactory; an~l that because of
the cooperatlon given by Anahcim fillls, 1nc.~ pertainin9 t~ the ~han~e In elev~t(ons~ he
favored the pro,Ject.
Tf{~ PUBLI C HEl1RI~IG WAS CLOSEd.
Commissloner herbst reviewed the number of lots ~nci pacl si~es pr~posed on the cul-de-sacs
in the proposecJ pro.ject, notinn some concern that the cul-cle-sac tots would h~ve 25'foot
minimum setbacks ancl provisions for a minimum of four on-slte parking spaces. ~1r. Schor
then stipulated to submitting pl~t p1~+ns which would inciicate their 25-foot setbacks and a
minimum of four park',~g spaces.
In response to qiiestloning by Commissioner ~lerbst recarding participatior~ in the
sie~nalization on Nohl Ranch Roa,~ M~. Schor ~stated the traf`ic prohlems ancl condi:ions
presently exi5tecl ~~nc1 lie did not feel the subject proJect shoulci be required to solve said
problems created by oth~:r tracts, etc., in tho area. Chairman Farano noted that all of
the proJects in the subject are~ were develop^d by An~hefm Hills an~f, to the extent that
problems exist~d, they w~re created by Anaheim fliljs. Cnmmissioner Herbst noteci that he
did not fee' the t.~xpayers~ In general~ sliould have to perticipatc i~ resolving the
traffic problems which were beinc~ creat~J in the Anaheim Hills area. Mr. Schor then
stated that the prohlems were not ent(rely relatad ta Anaheim Hills since rtiany peopie
came throuqh the subject area to get t~ schools, wurk, etc.; and th.,~, in his opinion~ the
through-traffic on Nohl Ranch Road v~as causing the problems. Commissi~ner NPrbst added
that the proposecl project would add more tr~fflc at the intersections on Nohl Ranch Road;
that other tracts 1n the City haci been requirFd to participate in si~n~lizatian when they
contributed to the traffic pr~blems, ~7nd he concurred in that practice; and thaT. a minimum
of 25~ participat(on for the proposed proJect would not be out of line.
Irt response to questionin9 by Commissioner Tolar~ Mr. Singer aclv(sed that the price for
installing sign~lization at an inter~~~±f~n var(ed between $48,000 and $36,00~ and it was
estimate~i that the current price would be approximately $40~~~0• Commissioner Tolar
incllcatecl that he felt 5~~ participation would not be out of line. Mr, Schor stated that
the only commltm~n~ he coulcl make at the present tlne was that Anahieim Ilills, Inc. would
particirate in the sign~lization ancl that the amount of participation would have to be
d~termined whenever the signalization was ready M go In. Mr, Schor then sti~utated to
minimum participation of 2:,~.
Commissioner darnes noted that the reference to the "tiarnes" Orain on Page 17 of the
EnvironMental Impact Report d~cument was incorrect; that she clicl not recall that storm
drains were referrec~ to by name (n EIR documents; and that shc was not flattered 'uy the
reference since others were involved and she would like to have the referer~ce cleleted.
Mr. Schor stated the name was used for 'ack of othe~ identification for the storm drain.
Cc~mmission~r Johns~n noted that he appreclated the cooperation of Lr~c d~':~!o,^•er in
negot(ating to lower the two lots mentio~~ed by Messrs. Owens anci Shames; hawever, he
~ ~
MINUTF.S~ CITf Pl.AFlNI~~f, COMMISSIO~~~ Apri1 17., 1hJ6 7G-15G
ENV I R~~NM~NTl1L I MPl~CT RF.PQRT PIO, 172 , RCCLl15S I F I Cl1T I Olv NO , 7~~- 7F>"~ ~ ANU T[:I~TI1T I VF MI1P OF
TRACT PIO 9264 (Cuntinued _ ~.
questioned whetfier those were the "only ~~heels that syueeked" and whether nthe~ lots may
need lowe;rlnq. In responsc~ Mr, Sch~~r statecl the two lots ment:loned were the only problem
lot~ ~r~d the other adJ~cent lots were up to 77 feet with unobstructecl v~ews.
Commissic,n~r Tol~~r acl<~owledned th~~t n topo~rn~hic display h~~d been provided ~ind the
developer had in<Ilcatecl the c~sts were approximately $2~7~~; and that sald dlsplay gave
thc Planninn Comnission a better perspectivc on the devclcpn~ent and the Comm(ssfon would
be insisClnn to liave thr.m fe~r future projects of this nature.
Asslst~~nt Pl~inner Jo~1 Fick. ~~clvisecl that one of the recor~men<~pd conditions uf appraval of
:he tract was "7hat the devel~per of ;:h~ suhJect tract shall nnter inco n speclal
facllitir.s ~~recr,ent with the City for a~at~r faciliCles In thc 1~119h Elevatlon System~ as
req~~lred hy Rule 15fi of the W~ter Utiiity Rates~ Rules, and Re~iulations prlor to ~approval
o~ ~~ fin~l tract map." Thcrciip~n, Mr. Schor so stf~~ulatecl.
Cortr~issl~ner Herbst ~f}ured a motion, seconcled by Commissione; Y.ing ~nd M(1TI~PJ CIIRRIEDp
Chat Fnvlranment~l Impact Re~ort tlu. 172 (as amcnded to delete the reference to the
"Rarnes" Drain ~n pa~e 17)~ supplementin~ Mastcr EIR ~o. 8~, havinn heen cansidered thls
~~'+te by thc~ f,try Plannin~~ Commisslon and eviclencc.~ both written anci r~ral, having been
presenteci to su~plement salcl ~lraft Elft No. 172~ the Anal~elm City Plannin~ Commission
believes that s~(d ~iraft EIR tJo. 172 c1~,es conform t~ the City and State f,uldelines and the
SC~te of Californi~i Envi mnment~l Quality Act and, b3sed upon such information~ does
har~hy recommend to thc City Counc(1 of the Clty of Anahefm that they certify sald [~" is
in compl (~~nce wi th s~~i cl En~rf ronment~l Qual i ty Act.
Commissloner Herbst ~ffered Resolutfon ~do, FC76-64 and moved for lts passa~e an~1 adoption~
[hat thc I!nahelm r.it PlanninU Commissior~ dues herehy recomrnend ta thc City Council of the
City of Anahelm thatYPetition for Reclassification No. 75-7~+~2~ he approved, subJect tu
thc Intcrclep~~rtmentil Comr~ittee recammendations. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, thr: foreaoinq resolution was passed by the follcw~ing vote:
AYE'S : G~HNI SS I(1~lF.RS : 9~R~IES ~ NC RE35T, J(1HNS~N , KI Nf , MO ?LEY , T(1LAR, Fl1RI1P10
N~FS : C~MHI SS I ~~If'RS : PI(1NF
AdSCIIT: CbMMISSI~~'IF.RS: N0~lE
C~mmissioner Nerh~t offered ~ motion, seconded by Comm~ssioner Y.inc~ and M~TIOPJ CARRIED,
that the Anahr.im City Planninn Commission does herehy find that the proposed subdivision~
to9ether witn {ts design ancl improvement~ is consistenC with the City of Anahelm's General
Plan~ p~irsuant to Government Code Section E~f-~r73.5 and, therefore, the Plannin~ Commission
does herehy aprrove Tentative Hap of Tract No. ~126;~ subject tn thP following cnnditions:
1. That the ~pprova! of Tentative Map af Tract No. ~.'_~~ is ~rantecl sub.iect to the
approval of Reclassification tlo. 75-7f--?~•
?., 7hat shoulci th!s sul~division he developed as rnore than one _:uhdivision, each
subcfivision thereof sh~ll ue submittecl in tentative form for approval.
3, That, in accorciance with City Councii policy, a b-foot hinh, oper, clecurative
wall shall be c.onstructeef on the top of the slope on tFie north property line separatin~
Lot Nos. ~i tlirou~h " anri Lot ~~os. 17.7 thrcugh 132 from PJohl Ranch Ro~d. Reasonable
landsr.apin~, inc.luclin~ irri~ati~n facilities~ shiall be installed in th° uncemenCecf portlon
o~ the arterlal hic~h4ray parkway the full distance of said wall and plans for said
lanclscapinct to be subnir.ted to an~l suhject to the approval of the SuperinCendent of
Parkway Maintenance. Followi~a installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall
assume the responsibility for maintenaiice of safd landscapiny.
4. That all lots wiCt~in this tract shall be served by ~anderground utilities.
5, That a final tr~~ct map oF subject property shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Council ancl then be recorded in the Office of *_he Orange County Recorder; and
s~~de~~aciinePto protectitheevieweofcce~tain lotseinV~the~adjacent~Tract ~~o~n~~~~e assterly
P P Y
stipulatecl to t~y the petitione~•.
6, That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitte.d to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract
map and, further•~ that the approved c~venants, conditions, and restrictions shall be
recorded concurrently with the Final tract map. ~i~~nt shall subm(t to Che C1ty
7, That prior to filin9 the final tract map, the app
Attorney for approv~l or denial a complete synopsis ~f thie proposed functioning of the
opera*inq corpc+ration includinn, but not limited t~, the articles uf incorporation~
bylaws~ propose~l methnds of mananement~ bt~nding r.o insu~e mainter,ance nf cammon pruperty
and bulld(n~s, and such other information as the City Att.orney nay desire to protecC the
Clty~ Its citizens, and ihe purchasers nf the prnject.
~
~
1~
~
MINUTCS, CI'i'Y PI,ANMiNG CqMNiS510h1~ ~prl1 I?.~ 1~7f~ ~"`~"
EriVIRO~~MENTI~I IMPIIC7 REt'ORT N~. 172~ RECLAS>IFICI1TIOt~ ~l~, 75-7t~-2$ l1~ID TE1~7~TIVI: MAf' OF
TMC7 N0, 926t~ (Contlrued)
E~, Thnt street n~mes sh~~~ 1 he apprnvccl hy thc City Fnninc~er prl~r t~~ approval of a
flnAl tr'1Ct r~Ap,
~, Tht~t the cri~ner of SUI)~CCC ~~roperty shall pr;~ t~ the. Clty of An,iheim the
approprl~te p~rk ~n~1 recrratlnn 1n-11eu fees as determined to bc ~ppr~pri~~te by ths C1ty
Councfl, s~~<1 fees t~ be p~id ~t: the tlme the bu(ldin~ permlt fs I55UCtI,
1~, Th~t draln,ine of sni~l pmperty shall be dispos J of In a manner s~~tlsfactory to
the City En~inecr. If, ln thc preparatfon of the site, sufficl~nt ar~i~iln~ Is required to
necesslt~te a ~r~~dinn permit, nc~ work on grt~~ilnn will be permltte<1 hetween October l~th
and Aprl1 15th unless nll require~l off-site drainaqe facllltles havc bcen lnst.~lled and
are operAt 1 v~. Fos I t(~ie assurance shal I be prov I decl the i. i cy th~~l ~u..~7 ~1ra inane
facilities will be camplete~l prior to October l;th. Plecessary ri~ht-oF-a~ay far off-sfte
dra I n~ne fac I 1 i t I es sh,~ 1 1 be ~te~l i c.~ted to the C i ty, or Lhe C i ty Counc.l 1 shi 1 1 h~ve
initlate~l conciemn~itlon pr~cc~:dinns tl,erefor (the costs of which sh~il) bc borne by thr_
develnpcr) ~rior to thc c~mnx:ncer~ent of gr~din~ oper~~tions. The re~~uired dralna~e
f~cilftles sh~ll he ~f ~ size ancl type sufficic:nt t~ cr+rry runoff w~ters ~riginating from
hiqhPr ~.~ru,~ertias throunh :,~It1 property to ultimate dispos~l as ap~roved by the City
Enq(neer. Sal~f ~rain~icl~ ri~il'tles sh,~ll be tlie first item of construction ~~nc1 shall be
cor+nlete~l ~n~l be funct(~n~l th~0UC1hO~1L the tract and from the cio4~n~tre~m boundary of the
property t~ the ~iltir~~te point of dlsn~sal prior to the is5u~nce of any fln~il building
inspections or occup~~ncy perr~its. Dr~in~ge ~Iistrfct reimhursement aclreements may be made
available to the rlevelopers of safcl pmperty up~~n their request,
11, Th,~t ~rarlinn~ excav~tion, ancl ill other construction activities shall be
concluctecl in such a manner so as t~ m(nimize the possibility of any silt or(ninating from
this proJect beinc~ carriecf into the Santa Ana River by st~rm water originatl7n from or
flowlnn throu~h this proJect.
17., Th,~t thc ~~Ei~nment an~l terminal polnt of storm dr~ins shown on this tentative
tract rnap sh~ll not he consi~lered final, These drains sliall br subject to precise design
consicleratians ~inci ippro~~~~l of the City Ennineer.
13. If permanent street n~mc si~ns have not bc•~r~ installed, temporary street nam<:
si~ns sh~ill he installed pric~r to any occup.inty.
~l,, That the cw~ner(s) af subJect property sfiall pay appropriate cirainage assessmert
fecs to the CiCy of Anaheim as determine~l by the City Ennineer prior to approval of a
final tract map,
15. That thr_ developer of suhject tract shal) enter into a special tacilitfes
aqreer~ent with the City for water facilities in the Higfi Elevati~n System~ as requ?red by
Rule 15B of the IJater Utility Rates, Rules, and Re~ulations prior to approval of a final
tract map~ as stfpul~ted t~ by the petitione~•.
lf~. That pav~ci~ vel~ic~.ilar access satlsfactory to the Street and Sanitatlon
Superlntendent shall he provided to all puhl!c storm drain Inlets.
17. Yhat all cut or flll slopes alonc~ the sauthern tract baun~lary shall be include~i
a~ithin the hounclarles of suhject tract.
1~, ~'hat prior to *.he ap~.roval of t~~e final tract map, the petitioner shall submit
f!ral specific floc,r plans an~1 elevations ta the City Council for approval,
19, 7hat ro roof-mountecf eq~~irr~ent shall be permitted in accordance with the Scenic
Corriclor Overlay 7_one.
2~, That the develo~er of suh_ject tract stipulatzd to participatin~ in the cost of
installinn ~ traff(c sic?n~il(s) at the intersections of Nohl Ranch Road, Rural Ridge Road~
and P,oyal Oak Road. Sa(~i participation shall he a min~mum of 25~ of sa~~1 costs~ and
payment sh~ll be made at the t'ime said traffic signal(s) is determined to be necessary by
tl ; City Traffic Engineer,
RF.CI.ASSIFIf./1Tl(1'1 - PURLIC H~P,RI~IG, PACIF!C AMERICA~I PRf~P~RTIFS, INC,, 1~nR9 4111shire
~~0, ],-7G••7.9 Boulevarci, Suite 1602, Los Angeles, Ca. 9~~7~E (Ow~ier); VICTQR J.
VIDAL, 11171 Brenda Lane, La Habra, Ca. ~~F:31 (Agent); reguesting
tliat pr~(~erty described as an irre~ularly-sl~apecl parcel of land
cansiscinn of aprroximitely 1,2 acras located on the west side of Miller Street between
nrangethorpe Avenue and Crowther Avenue~ having approximate frontines of 55 feet on the
west side of Mi'ler Stre~t~ ~-35 feet on the north side of Oranyethorpe Avenue, and 375
feet on the south sicle of Crowther Avenue be reclassifiecf from the RS-A-43~0(10(Q)
(RfSiDENTIl1L/AGRICULT:1R~i.-OIL PR(!DUCTIOtI) ZONC to the CL(0? (;.OMNFRCIl1L, LIFtITEa-OIL
PR~~IlCTI~~I) 7.~Ni',
tJo one in<licatecl their presence in opposition to suhject petition,
Althounh the Statf Report to tiie P~anning Commission Jated April 12, 1~7~~, was not ~ead at
the public hearin~~ saicf Staff Report i~ referred to and madP a part of tfie minutes.
-.J
~
~
MINUTF.S, CITY PL~IJ~JING COMMISSI~~l, A~~rll 12, 197~~
7G'15~
RECLASSIfICl1TI0N IJO. ~J5-7~~'Z`1 (Contlnucd)
Mr, Vlct~r J. Vi~lal ~ thc .~nent for the p~~titloncr, appc,7rec1 hefc~rc the Pl~nnirrn Commisslon
an~l statr.d the suhirct property wes :~ hy~~~~s~~ci 1~t r~nd they wcre pro{i~sin~ a sm~~ll
satcllito sh~p~~nn centr.r with 1~ gCnros.
7Hf PuRLI~. IIF~RIrIr~ W~; cl.nsfn.
Commissi~ner Morley nnt~~~l tl,ir Ir. was n pleasure to consicler a proJec[ ,uch as the one
~ropose~l~ ~vith n~ w~iv~rs.
Comm(ssloncr Morl~y uffered a mc,tlon, aeconde~l by Commissioner Klnc~ ancl MnTInN CIIRRIED,
that the lln.ihelm Clty Plannlnn Comrnis:.iui~ Jvi:; hcreby recorm~n~~ t~ the Clty Council of the
Cir.y ~~f An~heim thot the suhJect pro~ect be ex~mpt frnm the reyuiremer~t to prepare an
envlronmenC~~l lo~p~ct report, pursuant to the provls(ons of the Califcr~fa Enviranmental
Qua!ItY ~C*~
Ca~~missioner Norley offc~red Resnluti~n Plo. PC7(~-G'.i ~ncf moved for its p~issage ancl adoption,
th~t the ~nahe~m City Planninn Lomr~issinn does herehy recommend t~ the f.ity Council of the
City of Anaheim th~t Petitl~n for Reclassiffcati~n No. 75-7E~-Z`1 be approved, subJr_ct ta
the Intcr:lnp~rtme~,ta1 Commitr.~:c recorrnnenclations, (See Res~lutfon Dook)
On roll call~ the fore~~inr~ resolution was p~ssed by the following vote:
AYf.S: C~~IMISSI~NFRS: Hnr~~irs, HERRST, JnHPis~~l, KING~ MORLEY~ TOLl1R~ F~RA~10
Nf~CS : Cb11111 SS I O~IF. RS : N~HC
AE1S[Dl7: CCMMI SS I ~~IFRS : NQNE
RF.f.LASSIFIf.~TI~N - PI~tiLIC NEAftI~IG, A~JAHEIM UNI~N NIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, c/o Sta~~ley
Nf1, 75'7~~'~~ F, Lattimer, 5~1 Crescent blay, Anaheim, Ca. ~2$~3 (Owner);
P~CESFTTfR IIOMGS, 45h~ Campus D~ive, Newport Eieach, Ca, 97.E>GO (llgent).
TEIITATI~iF M~P OF Property ~~scrlt~ecl as an irregularly-shaped parcel of lancl c~~sisting
7RACT ~J~. `1~~~ of approxim~tely 27..5 acres havinc~ a`r~~tage of approximately GG;
- "~ feet on thc east side ~f Loara ~treet, havinn a m~~ximum depth of
approximately 1287 feet~ and being located approxir~ately 6G,r, FecC
south of the centerllne of ffroadway. Property presently classified RS-A-~~;,~QO
(RiiSIU~tIT1~L/Af,RiCULTU~nL) Z('~![.
RCQUf•.STE~ CIASSI~ICATI~tI: RS-5~~~ (RESIDEPITIAL~ SINGLF••FAMILY) ZONE.
TF.tITATIVF TRACT Rf•.QUEST: E~IGINf..FR: TAIT b ASSOCIATES, il';., 90Q Or~nnefair lane,
Anaheim, Ca. 92a~1S. Suhject property is proposeci for
subdiv(sicn inta 11G~ RS-50Q~ lots.
One person indicatecl her presencr, t~ ask questi~ns ~ertrinin~ to the subject items.
Assis[ant Pl~nner Joel FicE; read tne Staff Report t~: the Plannin~7 Commission dated April
~2~ ~~7f~, an~1 salci Staff Repork is referrecl to as if set forth in full in the minutes,
Mr. Fre~.{ Kincidon~ representln~ the anent for the petitioner, appearerl befcre the Planning
Commissi~n ancl stated the ~etitfoner was in taCal agreemenr. with thc Staff Report and the
conditions of appr~val set forth therein.
Mrs, Cratn l~lhitr+~c~re; 6?_7 South Gilmar', appeared before the Pl~,nning f,ommission and
inquire~~ whetl~er tl-~e praposcd RS-tiQQ~ zoninn meant one housc for one family on one lot
5nnn square feet in size~ which w~u1d n~~t include any condominiums and the Planning
Commisslon indicated in the affirmat:ve. She further inquirecf wliether a 1()-fc~ot drainage
easement Existe•~ Prom the railroad to Gilbuck Street along the souiherl~ ed~e of the
subject pro~erty~ anci whether salcl clratnage easement was to carry surface water and Offfce
Englneer Jay Titus advisecl that such an eas..ment did exist to carry surface waters; that
he did not know wnat the developer was propnsin~ in connection wi:h saicl ~lrainage,
however, the City would like to have a pipe instalied in the street to carr, the water.
Mr. Y.i^gdon stipulated that thcy fntended to install the pipe a5 sug~ested. Mrs. Whltmore
then inqulre~i when spec~flc house plans w~uld be preparecl, notin~ tha[ there was some
concern in the neignhorhood t'tiat one-story h~c.~mes be constructed adjacent to tfie existing
one-st~ry homes to the south r.o minimize the visua! impact ~nd preserve the privacy of the
existing homes; and Chairman Far.~no explained that .ne developer would begin to prepare
specific site plans follayinq approval of the roniiig~ and unless Lhe plans were i~ total
conformance with the site developr~ent standards of the zone, thP cleveloper would have to
~
~
MINUTF.S, CITY PLANNII~G GOP1r~IS5lori~ Apr(1 i2~ 1~7G ~~'~~~9
afCLllcS~FICATIQN ~IO.~ i-7n-3~ AND TFNTATIVE MAP OP 7Rl1CT N0, 930(1 (Conttnued)
come bef~re the Plannin~ Commisslon with the waivers; ~nd that :-lthouc~h the zonln~ ~a~is for
sln~le-fr~mfiy homes, the homes would not necessarlly h~ve to hc onc-st~ry hut would <1c~~and
rn tho ~1^veloPer's coi~ccrn for tha n~~f~~hl,or's.
7Nf PUdLIf, UC/1RIIIf 41~5 CL~SED.
In response to Mrs. Whitm~,re's questl~~ns~ the planning C~mmissiun and Starf In~licnted that
the concc~pt of the prnposed mne was correctly stited; ancl that the 1~-foot drai~~,~ge
sase~ent rli~i exlst.
In further res(~onsc Co Mrs. 1~Ihitrn~re's qu~st~ons~ Commissinncr Flerbst innuirecl IP the
developer w~~uld be prop~sin~ two-story homes ln the developr~~ent~ and Mr, Kingdon a;~swered
In tho ~~ffir~~~~tlvc. Chairn,an F'arano notc:cf that thG pro~osed lots o~ere lar~ier th~~n Che
exlstinel adJacent. I~ts ~~n~l s~me attempt cc~uld be m~i!ia to protect the views of the exlsting
hor~es~ b~it the Inte~r(ky of the new development would alsc~ neecl prote~tion. Cummissloner
flerbst notecl thnt a fe~v two-stury homes m.~y he requ!red acl.)acent to the er:isting one-stor'y
h~mes anr.i a few of the ~~c''cent propertv oarners may not care if a tw~,^story home ~~butt~d
thelr pr~perty.
Comm(ssic~ner Herhst in~uire~l whar soun~l-attenuation measures w~uld he taken <~loncl the
rallroa~i krack; whereupnn~ Mr. Kin~don stipulated that an ar.oustfcal ennineer would be
retainecl ~ncl the~~ ~~r_re proposin<~ ,~ six-fc,~t berr, and G-fon; wall cor~bination and whatever
addit(nnal me~sures were rec~uire~l to ~~chieve s~und levels of 6> dbA in the rear yards of
the lots a~lJacent to the rallroad ancl ~i5 df+A (nside th~e hnmes with winclows and dciors
closeci~ in conformance witl~ City Council p~licy.
In rPSp~nse to further questionin~ hy Commissi~ncr Hcrbst. Mr. Kin!~don stipulated to
neqotiating wfth the nelc~hhors t~ the so~.ith for any tv~o-story homes proposed adjacent to
their proryerties.
Commissi~ner I~erhst offere.ci a m~~tion, sec.~ndecl by Commissi~ner Morley and MOTlfl~l CARP,IED.
that the Mahe i m C i ty P 1 ann i nc~ Commi s s i on d~es he reby recommend to the C i ty Counc 1 1 of the
Clty of llrahelm th~t the subjecC project he exempt from the requirement to preFare an
environmental ~mpact report~ iursuanr tc, the prav(sions of the California Environmental
Qual ity Act,
Commissi~%ner Herhst offereci ResolLtion Nn. PC76-fi6 and moved for its passa~e and adootinn,
that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission does herehy recommend to ttie City Counc(1 of the
City of llnaheim thal i'etition for Reciassificat(~n No. 75-16-30 be approved, subJect to
the stlpulati~ns ~f the petitioner pertainin~ to sound attenuation for those iots proposed
adjacer~t to the railroad trick dnd pertaininq to a minimum number of two-story homes
adJacent tn the existinc~ ~nc-st~ry homes to the south; an~.l subject to the
~nterdepartmental CommiCtee recommendat.{ons. (See Resolution Book)
On roll cail, the roree~oit,q resolution was passed by thc following voCe:
AYFS~ COMMISSI~PICRS; R~Rt1ES~ H[RRST, JONNSO'I~ Y.ItiG, Mf1RLCY, TnL~R, Fnr,n~in
NQES: COMNIS~I~NFRS: P!O11F
ABSEtIT: CQHMISSI~~IF~S: N~tlC
CamMissioner Herhst ofFered a motion, secnnded by Commissioner K(ng anci NOTI~N CARRIED~
that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmission cioes hereby `ir~d that thc proposecl subciivtsion,
~ogether wtth its design anci impr~vement~ is consistent witli the City of Anahelm General
Plan~ pursu~nt to Government Co~1e Secti~n ~~•~+73•5; ~~nd~ therefore~ the Rla~nin~ Commission
does heraby aNprove Tentative Map of Tract tJo, 93~0, suhJect to the following condltlo~s:
1, That the approval of 7entative Map of Tract No. ~3~~ ts gr~nted sub_ject t~ the
approval of Reclassification N~. 75-7~-3~1.
2, That should this subclivision be develope~l as morz than one subdi~~ision~ each
subJivision thereof shall be subm(tted in tent~~tive form for approvai.
3, That all lots within this tract sh~ll be served by undererounu ul•ilities.
4, That a fin~l tract ni~~p of sub~ect praperty shall be submitted to and approved hy
tl~e City Council ant, then be recorded in *.he ~ffice of the Orar.c~e CounYy Recorder.
5. That street names sfiall be a{~prove:l by the C(ty Enginear prior to approval of a
final tract nap.
~
~
)6-1G0
MIIVUTfS~ CITY PL~NNI~IG fOMMIS5IQl1~ Aprll I~, 1~17~~
Af:CIASSIFICr~TIOIJ P~O, ;;-7G-30 ArlD T[NTATIVC MAP OF TaAf.l' ~10. 93~0 (ConClnucJ)
. G. Th~t thr awncr(s) ~~f SIIb~CCt pr~pr.rly sh~~tll pay t~ the City ~~F M~ihcim thc
aprroprlntc ~.vrb 7n~1 rccrr.,~ti~n in-licu fecs ~s ~Ictermined ln I,~ ~~p~~ro~~i'lacc by the C~ty
Coun~il, s~l~l fer.s t<~ he p~~l~l ~it the Cimc: Cl~c bullclinc~ pcrmi~ Is Issue~~.
7, Th~~t dr.~ln,i~~c c~f suL~;ect prorcrty sh,~i) Mc dlspr~sc~1 c~f In ~~ m~~nrcr sntl.fa~tory
to thn Clty Ennineer.
A, If perman~~nt strret n~m~~ sicins h.ivc ~~nt hccn Inst~~lle~l, te~~~pc~rary s[rc~:t nime
~ic~ns s1~.111 hr, inst~~llecl prinr C~ iny nr.cupincY.
c~. •,~~i~ i~~rc,~~i~t~ water ossessnx~nt fe~s ns ~letermino~i by the Ulrecte~r nf Puhli~
Urilities shnll hc p~iirl t~ thc Clty c~f /lnihcir~~ ~~rlor to thc Issunncr.. of ~ buildlnc~ pcrmft.
;~, That ;,rl~r tn thc nppr~v~~l of rhe fin.~l tr<ict map, the pctitic ,cr sl~al I subnilt
Flnnl specific ~~lot pl,~ns, floor plans ind CIP.V~lllvn5 t;, L~,c CI;; C^uncil f~r opnrovAl;
anc! thn: sai~l pinns sh~~ll indic~+tc .~ minlninl numl~cr of [wn-sc~ry homes tc~ bc locat~d
a~'Jacen~ [~ th~se existlnc~ one•story hcinien~ in c~rcler to mi~,imize thr. vl:~u~l Impict ind
p•es~:rve the privacy ~f tlir exlstin~t homes tc, the s~uth.
il, Thit ~rlor t~ City Councfl a~pravr~l of [ho fin~}1 tra~t map, chc awnrr(s) ~f
s~~b,Iec~ property sh~ll submlt plan; f~r City Council rcvl~~w and approval sh~wlnc~ the ste:p.~
takr.n by the ~ie:veloper to reduce Che noise Ievel ~}eneratecf I~y rr~l!~~ad triffic to G~ ~tb/l
~ ~~h rou~~h 1 h ancl h2
In the rc.~~ yar~~s of Che I~rs ~cl~ncent to the rnilrot~cl (Lot Nos.
through ~i5) Hncl ~0 4~ dbA inside the homcs with windows and doors cius~~i. Tlia sound~•
attenuatlon devices shall (nclude ~ six-f~t high carthen berm toppe~i by a six-foot hl~h~
~iecor~~*.Ive masonry ~•~all ~~l;is whatever n~1~11ti~n~) m~r.~7sures ire nc~cessary to achleve the
l~vels st.~~ecl abovr,~ as sti~ul~tcd t~ by the petitloner. These plans sh~~ll be ccrttfled
by a r~coc,nlzed icoustic,l experk ~tipul~~ inn th~~t the proposerl soun~l-attenuntlon measures
will ~~chleve the levclti st~ted ahove.
RF.c:Ll1SSIFIC~TION - PUf3LIC tIE~RINr,, HAt1K OF AMFRIf.~, .:/o H, G. Johnson, ;55 South Fl~wer
~~~, 7r,_~~_~~ ~ trcet, Los Anqeles ~ Ca, 9~~7) (~nar) ; VERN~fI W, r~o~~r,nr, 5?~9 Seashore
DrIvN, tlPwport Cie~+c~i, Ca, n~f,f,~ (Agent). Pronerty drscrlbecl is an
C~PI~ITI~~IAL USE irre~ula-'ly-shiped pircel of l~~nd corisistine~ of appr~x'm~tely 6.'i
PF.RNIT ~IQ, ltil7. acres located on the south ind west sid~ ~ o" 5equola Avenue, having
appr~xim.itc fronta~es of 525 feet on the south side an~l -i03 feet on
the west side of Sequola ~lvenue, an~l f~irther <1es:,ribecl as 91i North
E~ro~l~hurst Street. Property presently classiPlad CL (COMI•1fRC111L~
LIMIT~D) Z0~lF.
RE~UFSTEO CLl1SSIr';C~1IOtl: ML ~Irl~us7rln~, IIMITLD) Z~-~~~.
RF.QUES7ED CO~I~ITIOt:~L USE: T'(~ PER111T A CNURCN ANU PLAN~~ED UNIFlEQ I~JDUSTRIAL SERVICE
CG~dT'f.R WITH '.JAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUM[~Ei OF PARKING Sf ACE.S~
g~C~t1n ( p) LREnUfI RFD~I I HPROVEME~ 7 OF) SETBACK'1AREASCI\Npn (E} ~T
REQUIRFO SITF SCREEtiING.
Two persons in~iicated the(r presence in oppositlon to Sub~ect (~etitions, ancl walved the
full readirc7 of the St~ff Report to the f'lanning Cammissinn daCecl April 17, i~~7~~ on the
basis that they ha<1 r~.viewed a copy of said renort.
Althouc,h the StaFf Report was not reaci at the puhlic he~rin~, saicl report is referred to
and made <-, part of the minutes.
Mr, Vernor~ !bnroe~ the a~ent fnr tne petitlaner, appe~+red 'n.efore the Pl~inninq Commission
and stated they were proposinci to convert Murr<iv Manor jnto a husiness parlc; an~i that the
church parkincl lot woul~ t,e used by the businesses since ~enerally no church service woulcl
be held durin~ business h~~urs.
Mr. Delbert Lamh~ 9~s~ Siasti Street, apPeared tef~re the Planninn Commiss(~n anc! stated
that rath~~ th:~n a sidewalk, the ncighbors would pre~`er landscapin~ alonn Seq~la Avenue
since no one traversed said street on foot, anrl the Clty could landscape Ch~• other side of
Sequo~~7 next to the railroe~d tracks. Ueputy Clty Attorr_y Frank lowry advlsed that thc
rallroad ric~ht-or-way ~xt^"'iP,~ fr.~m the r~illroa~l to the street and was not owneci b;~ the
City of Anaheim.
Mr. Lamh contlnued by st~tinc~ that the type of Industrial uscs ~roposed were ac~reeable to
*_he nelyhbors, unless a change in ~ses occurred in the future.
In rebuttal ~ Mr, hbnrs~ho~i~to the south;~~howeverSethere wasnan openinn, ~nnthe$c1~mc:Wfie~ld
be students from the
~
~
w~
~
r~~-~u~'~'s, c i Tv PLAri~t ; ~i~ C~~MM I SS I Ot~ ~ n~r i 1~ z~ ~ 9'l~
Af.CLASSIFIC~TION N0._75-76-3) APlp CONDITIQNAL USE PCRMIT NQ, 1612 (Continucd)
7G-1(>1
fonca f~r l'hc~ stu~~~.nts whci llvc~l tn thr_ nnrt.h ~1~ -h~ schonl ~~nd there wcr~ n~ m.~rket5 In
tlio nrc,~ whleh wou1~1 ncr.d th~ tildc~w~lks f~r eu9Comcrq; th~~t thc title rerorC fnr thc
subJQCt prop~rty ln~licntc~l L'hnt thc schtx~l t:'> t~~o 5~~uth was encrc~ichfn~t 3~' fcr_t nr.t~~ thc
siih~ect ~r~~~~rty, hrn•rc+vcr~ thr_ ~~atiClc~n~~r w.~s oillllncl t~ dc~llcntc th~t s[rlp ~~f lnn~l lo
th~ sch~~~~l, wl th the i~prn><imnlr.~ly h~ ~) ~vc~ t rees t~~ rc•m~(n nn khe subJect pr~perty nncl
p;irt of tl~c propc,sol ; tliat thc r.hurch wos rcq ue+stlnn to hav~ in ~~dc1( L Icinal eurb eut for
circulntlon .7n~1 ~1CCCSS tn their pirkin~i <~rea pnst the hnncl in Sequ~~li Avenue an~l sn!d curb
cut wo~,lct nnt b~: I~;iz~r-1^~i~; alnr.c Lhe tr~ffic foimt on th~~t str~•~~t w~~s ~~~~r<~xim,~tcly 117
cnr; per ~I~~y ,ir~~l thr.re w+>> n~ hi~ih-spcecl tr,~f flr, In t!~at rirr.a,
TIIC. PUl1LiC UEA'clhlR 4l~S CL~SL'q.
Trt~fflc. Cnr~ineer Paiil Sinrr_r advlse~l th,ii the 'fr~~ff~r, Dlvl~inn was reconanrn~linc~ th~~C onr,
of thr, curb culs bc rcrK~vc~l since it would b~ hc~~vily usc~i by tli~ church triffic. Mr.
M~nro~ t~~~•. ~~r.ception, st~~tin~i Chit the u~e c~f ,~nnther drivewiy 2~ feet ~~~rtl~er down the
l fnc w~~ul~l n~t riccompl i sh ~nythin~~.
-1r, Nonrnr fiirthcr• 5[~itc~l th~t hc woulct ~lso prefcr to lancl~care r~ther th~n Inst~~ll
sl~low~~l4;s alonc~ Sequoii Avenue; ~ihercu~on~ Commissioncr Ilerhst note~l th~t ~lthou~h the
Plannlnq Conmissi~n c~ul~i not wa?ve th.: rec~uiremnnt for si~le~•~alks~ the pe[~~loner c~uld
mal;e ap~llr.at~~n to thr. City L'nqlnccr fc,r a walver.
Chairman Faran~ n~te~1 xh~t n~thinq was proposed to he devel~pP~l in the vicant r.xpanse of
the property, ilth~unh subst~ntinl waivers were bein~ requcsteci in connection with
setbacks arcl parkin~ spaces. In response~ ~1r, Monroe stated the church was ne~otl~~ting to
pui chase lhr. extra property ~ wi th the pmvi s ions that the churr_h would not block the vlew
ot thc freew~y for thc Industria) park~ e~c. Chai rrnan Farano then noted that he ~Ild not
fecl favor~bly toward walvinc~ the minimu;n parkin~7 re~uirements to ~11ow less than one-half
of the requirement when s~ much l~~ncf was presently ~~vall~hle for E~arking, In response,
Mr, I1onroe slated the ire~ t~ the east o~- tF~e churcli woulcl he completely committed tc~
parklnn; an~l that the Plannin~ Departr~Pnt had nn recourse in their anilysis than to assume
that Che church structure aiould be sol id wi th seaiinn; however~ there would probahly he
only about 7_~~ seats an~1 he felt the waiver was ~lirectly related to the church.
In respo~se t•~ questionin~i by Chairm~n Farano, Mr. Monroe ~tated th~~t the church was
leasin~ t.lie property t~ the n~rtfi f~r $1 per year for parkin< ,
Comrilssi~ner Nerbst reviewed the present ~o:~in~ on the sub,ject pr~perty, noting that he
dirl not nc~ree th~t it w~s appr~priate fur lil(IUSt!"~al uses; that the ~resent commerclal
zonin~ was more approprl~tr. and the petitioncr could apply for c~nditi~nal use permfts tu
h~ve certaln other USP.S; hc~.~ever~ m~ny ~n~lustrial use~ w~ulci not fil into the sub,ject
area.
In res~onse, Mr. Monroe statecl the subject propr,rty had been an eyesore to thc area; that
quasl-distr(but(onal uses werc~ rroposecl, however~ he diJ n~t want to piss up some 119ht
commercir~l u~es; an~l th~t there wis an approximatr. four-monrh waitln~ period for
conel(tional use permits t~~ he processe~l and the p~osper.tive tenant:. would neC want to wait
that long.
Commissioner Johnson noted th~t he anreed that the suhject property was not appropri te
for industrial since it would not be a fair prlvilege to the pe~ple who ~Ivcd in the
surroundin~ area.
Commissioner ?olir nokecl that the petitioner appearecl to be Y~antin~ Lhe best of two zonGs
-- commercial and industrial; that if the subject Nroposal were granted for [he industriel
zonin<7~ any future armerc of the {~ruperty would n~t he restricted; and th~t the propa~al
woul cf be sp~,t zo~' ~~ ~nc1 dunl ~on i n~~.
Deputy ~ity Attorney Frank Lowry n~te.d that ~"p+-Ivate card ciuh" was am~nn the proposed
commer~t~il uses in<1 he adviseci that such a use could anly he ~ranted by the i.ity Council.
Thp Plannin~ Cc>mmission entered into d!scusslnn witli ~1r, Monroe cc%ncerni~ c~ the proposed
commerclal u~es, snme of which were not~d as bcinci outdonr uses, and Mr. Monroe offered to
revise the listinn to in~ficate only thc,se useswhich were presently desirs~i~ striking
automc~tive res*.~ration, repair anci sales, recre~itlonal vel,icle stcrage ancl sales~ boat
sales~ ctc.
C~~mmissi~ner Tolar ~~fterecl a rmtion, secondecl bY Commissioncr Morley and M(1~ ~~~1 CARRIfD,
to reopen the pubtic he~rin~ and c~ntinue consi<ier.~tion of Pet(tions for Reclassificatlor
No, 75-7~-~1 n7d Conrl~tl~nil Use Perrnit Na. Ihl? t~ the Pl~nnin~ Commission mcetinci of
11pr11 2f~~ 1'~71,, f~r more inforrration pertalninn to s~eclfic uses propose~l.
~
~..-.
~
Mi riurES ~ r.I Tv ri n~ir~ i rvr, cur~M i s~ i ori, n^r t 1 1 z, 1976
7G-167.
R~f,Ll1SSIFlf,l11'I~tl - PURI.IC I~EARINf, IWiTIl1TFD E3Y THk AN/11~I'IM CITY PLl1~!!Iltl(~ C~MMISSI(;N,
~It1, 75-?f~-'i). 2n~i Last L~ncoin Avenuc, nnahAlm~ Ca. ; pro~osin~ tl~nt praperty
~ ~ clescribed .is Portion A; An lrrec~ullrly-shn~~~~1 ~nrcr,l ~f l:~nd
c~nslstin~ ~F :~~proxim,~c~ly 1,f icr~s hav(nn n frcmt~~cle of npproxl-
m~tr~;~ ', 1 fcrt on t~-e snutF- side c~f E3urton Strcet, hevinc~ A mnxlmum depth of ~pproxl-
r~~at.:ly 12~ feet~ nn~1 beln~~ l~c.at~d a~prnximately ~7~ f~,et wos[ nf the centerl tne of
.~cacin Street; an~1 Portlon B: A rectan<~ulAr~y-shnped parcel ~f Innd consisttnn of
ap{>roxim.~taly ~,7 acre loc~~te~l ~it the southwcst corn~r of Plnewoo~l Avenue anci Ac.ocfa
Straet, h~~vlnq ip~roxim~tn frontn~es of 137 faet nn tlie south slde or Plnew~od llvenue
an~1 72.~ fe~t on the ~.-eSt Sldr ~f Acacia Strr.et~ be reclas.sificd from Cf~e RS-A-~i~,0~~
(RES I DF.~lT I ~L/AGR I CULTURAL) 7.011f to the ~S-7~no ( P,ES I DEf:T 1 Al. ~ S I PI~LF-FAf411.Y) ZONF..
Approxlmately six pe~sons in~lic~,ted thelr prc~sence In opposltl~n, an~l wr~(ved thc full
rc~~iclinn of the Staff Report to the Plannino Conm1451o~i d~ted Aprfl 12, 1'~7(~~ on thc basls
tl~nt they h~d revfewe~l ~~ copy of sald report.
Alth~unh the Staff Rcport s~as n~t read at the publlc hc~~r(n~~~ sAld rep~>rt Is rnferre<1 to
an~l r~,~dc a p<~rt nf the minutc:s.
Mrs. F.sther Fount~in , Ih3.'. We,t Roherta Avenuc:~ Fullert~n~ ap~~e.~red heforc the Planning
Comm ssion and st~~t.:.1 her purpose in being at this pubi lc hearinci was not to oppose the
r~~onln~~ but to rec~uest th.~t her propertles be exempk frocn s~l~l re~onlnct ~ictton.
Thcreup~n, 11rs. Foun tiln read the fol lowfn~ lettcr:
"1 ~~ 1?_ bl. Rober t i Ave,
Fullerton, CA `)7.G13
April 1?.~ 1~7G
Anat~elrn C i ty t, a~nln~ Commi ss ion
Aniheiri C1 ~• ~1a1 1
2~h E. I_i ~ ~ve,
An~~h~ i m, 97_ ~~3
RF: RFCLASSI FI C/ll'IQIJ
Gentlerrwn:
~~. 75-7G- 3?_
We hereby earne.stly re~uest the exemptlon from subject r zoning r+ct(on of properties
we own in Joint tenancy:
Parcels ~)7'~-3~~~~-0~ a~d 073-31s~--03 ~1~i0Q E. Durton St.~
A rev(ew of the plot mip describ i ng subJe~ct ictlan wi l l sup~~rt the uniquely
lsolated situat ionof our two conringent properties at th e~,J o~ the cul-de-sac
ancl bouncled by the Ri versi~'e Free:way ~sc+uth) and the Oran~e County Flood Control
Channel (north) . These properties comprise an estimated 8/1~ ~f one acre an~1
represent an ipprox(mate one-hal f of the total area of "Portion A,"
!1t the time we purchased a:~ch o` these properties we were aware that the zoning
was R-A for a~~ i^ 1culCurai purposes , an~l th i s fact i n f 1 uenced our dec ( s ion lo buy
them wi th the p l~v~ t~ soend ou- reti rement years wi th a measure of sect us ion and
sufficlent y<rcf to raise oarclen crops ko "stretch our bu~i~et,"
ble have absolutely r,o ot~jec.tion to the rezonin~ of the other properties to the
east of our cwun, 1ut, we can see that the rezonin~ of our propertles could be
a cletriment~ nat only for our soon-to-be-reallzecl retirement plans~ but a~so for
any passible plannf our heirs.
Your cons i cle ra t lon ~incl qr~nt i nc~ of our reques t for exempt i on wl 11 be ve ry much
appreciaCed,
sJEvart C. Fou~taln
s/Estf~er L. Founta~n"
w
~
~~
~
MI~lUTE'S~ GITY r~nr~rii~~r, c~~r~M~ssinN~ 11pr11 -2~ »7G
RE:CI.ASSI FICATION N0. ]5-7G-~2 (Contlnucsd)
76-1 F~3
Mr. E~art C~ Fountalr~, Ih~.'. Wc~t Rob~rP.i llvenue, Fullerton, .~~pc~~recl hef~rc the Planning
Commissfon an~l gtitc~i Chey purchHSr_d thcir prupcrty as a~lric~;llur,il and w~uld c~re~~tly
9pnrecl~~te the property rer~~~lnin~i ~, a~ricultur~~l.
Mr. lllhert Gruss, 1.h~7 Alclen Avenuc, Anaheim~ nppe~~red before fhe Plr~nnlnc~ Comnlssion and
stnt~~l he hnd b~en in thc re~~l est~~te buslness for a numher of y~~irs an~l lia<1 represented
thc ~ropcr~y presently ciwn~~1 hy the Fountilns f~r the last th,ree <~wners; th~t hc~ h.~d
developr.~l thc 7~ icres ~Nllt~~n Ilotcl) inmedlatcly ~~dJacent tc~ the Fount~in's property;
th.~t the FountAln's prnperty ihuttecl the floocl control channel ancl ln the future, Il may
be deglrnt.le t~ p~~ve over the channr•1 and acld p<~rkinc~ f~r the h~tel ~r~perty whlch took
access to the Clty of Fullert~n.
Chai rm~n Farano ~ticknnwlerlned thaC perhaps t.he Fount~ii~'s property did have cr,rtaln values
whieh were ~Ilfferent from t~ie rest ~f the property bein<~ c~nsfdered for r~:zonlnc~ and he
notecl th~~t the futi~re potentla) for thc pr~pcrly would exist~ Gomc what m~y.
Mr. P~ul Watcrman, 5333 South W~odland, Or~~nc~e, appe~red bef~rc the Plannin~ Commission in
f~~vor of the pro~~~sal, re~resentinc~ the Moreno's pr~perty which was ~~d)acent to the
Four~taln's prnperty on thc r,ist. Mr. W~terman st~ited that the P4oreno pr~perty ~Has alreacly
of thc RS-77_~~ 7onc s I ze ~ncl h i s c I I r,n ts cles f re~l tlie r 1 qhts tn use thc 1 r propcrtY s i ml 1 ar
to oth^rs ~lonq Burton Slrcet wlilcl~ were resicl~ntlal~ sfngle-f~m(ly h~omes.
Zonin~ Supervisor Annika Santalahti nc~ted that the Morenos had applled for a varlance (No.
?.7`~7) to construct a room ad~fition on one lot on Burton Street~ with walvers of ~ne
minimum side an~l re~r y~ir~l seCbacks. and the Plannin~ Commission denird sald variancc: on
March 1~~ 1~7~~- ~n the basis that they felt RS-7200 zonln~ would he approprlate for tl~e
subject prupertles bec~use of the existinn substandard RS-A-~+3,~'1~ Zone lot slze, the
nea rby RS-77.QQ zoning~ ancl the fact that said walvers would not be necessary if the
propcrty was ~oned R`'~-72~~,
Mr. Paul Pel frey, 11_31 Nc. ~tli Acacla Street~ appeared before the Planninn Commisslon and
st~ted he ownecl propert~ in Pnrtion D of the subj~ct prn~erty; ancl khat he wished
cla rlficatinn that the ~nl~ time his p mperty would be reclassifled N~s when someone
applled fcr a permit.
Gh~ irman Farano responrled that the rezoninc~ actlon would iMp!y that the properties were
sui table for RS-7?.QO zoninc~ an~i whenever the ~nvrer~ wanteci co p~~fect tt~e zone they might
do s~ wir.ho~~t comjng before the Planning Commission or City Council in another public
hearinh; anci that whenever the propc:rty owners warited to c!evelop and comply wi th
development stind~~r~s they could do so.
Mr. Peifrey then statecl that cievelopment of his property would require 37 feet of
dedication ilonq Acacia Street for street widenin9 p~~rposes. ~~ncl he understood that the
requlrement would ipply only when there was an application . a lot split or rezoning,
ete,; that Acacia Street was busy enough without any ac!clltional tr:iffic; that his bi~gest
ob_jection was that the ,yenileman next door was askinc~ for a rezoning of onc RS-A-A3,00~
1 ot wh ! ch was deve 1 oped wi t h r.wo res i ciences ; that one of sa i d res i dences was r i c~ht o~ the
property line ~nc1 a nuisance since there was a fireplace in the corner next to his o.+r~
property; ~+nrl that he was objectinc; to any variance which mic~hc be granted for the
property next cioor to retain the s*riictures right on the property line.
Miss Santalahtl advised that if the property adJacent to Mr. Pelfrey', proper'y filed for
a lot split, the City woulcl be concerned al~out tl~e new property line ancl nct the exis.*.ing
outside pr~pcrty I inn_s; that i f the a~1Jr~cent property owner tried t~ sel l in the future~
mosC le~ders woulci rzquire th~-~t tfie structures comply with the City Codes ancl~ .it thak
time, if the ~1ty fo~nd o~~t they a-ere setling, they would have to either comply or file
for a varl7nce~ a~i~1 th~ ~d.jacenr pr~-,rrry owners would be notifled of any public hearings
o~ the rnatter.
THE PUfiLIC NE~RING 4JAS CLOSCD.
Commissioner Nerbst noted that; in his npinion, the rezoning to RS-72fI~ for all of th~
parcels in Portlons A e~ncf B woulcl he ir. the best in:~~rest of all cc~ncernecl; that he would
be concernsd about any industrial traffic dumpinc~ into the residential area an~l wauld
prefer that therP be no incl:istrlal intrue•ion.
.~..
~
~
~
r~~riuYr.s~ ciTY p~nr~r~ir~c COMMIt~lf1~l. Anril I2, 1~7F~
RECIl1SSIFIC/1TION N0. 75-7G-3Z (Continuvcl)
7G-1G4
ChalrmF~n F.~r~no cl,~~ ifled fnr 11r. f,russ that whcther tl~r. Faunt,~in's property a~~~s clnss(-
f(ecl RS-A-43,~f)n ,~r ha~l a r~~sc~lution of Intent tn RS-77.~0, a furthcr pr.tltl~n w~ulcl he
roqulrerl t~ ~cc~mplish the usewhich Mr. Gruss hn~l referred to; that the RS-l1-h3,A~~
mnin~ wc~~~lci n~t nivc ~~ny futurc r(~hts f~r Inclustrial uses uf the nrn~~crty~ Such as A
pi+rkinn lot; th~t if tha prc~pcrty was pr~~sontly f~e'nq usecl f~r actrlcultural pur~oses~ a~
well as a resicl~nce, there was noth~nc~ t~ prevent r.he cont(nued use of the pr~perty t~s
such if the subJect reclasslfic~itlon were ~~proved; nnd thnt lhc properr.y rx~ners Chem-
selves were tho only nn~~s who c~uld anticlpaCe the proposed chancle ~f zone (fln~lizat(on
of the pr~pose~l r.~ne) ~~~ 1 arh f ch t imc the zone woul ~ autom:+t f cn 1 1 y hecc~me RS- ;'l(1!1.
Mrs. Fountiin then stated they Just wanted t~ hav~ their pr~~crty rem,i(n RS-A-~+3,~~~
zoned; an~ Mr, Fountnin reiter~ted that they Inten~led c~ Ilve <m thclr prnperty an~1 ralti~~
crops, r_te.~ ho~~ever, they hicl no ohJectlons to thP othr.r ~ffected prnperty owners h~vinc~
thc rezoninn.
Ch~~lrman Far~~no m~~lc in fnqulsition ,; t~ whether ~r nat the lendinc~ instttution mlryht
require fln.~llzation of the zoninn i( ~he Fount~ins wishe~l to finnncc ~ remodelfn~ of
thc~lr home, but not subdivid~ Chc prnpcrty.
Mrs, F'ountain st~t~~~ tha; if thcir pr~pcrty was r.oned RS-7'1~0, their t~xes woulcl pmb~ibly
be (ncrease<I.
In response to c~uestloninq Uy the Plannln~ Commission~ Assistant Pl~nner Joel F(ck advised
thAt the c~rowlnn of flowers, ~~ec~etables, frult trees, etc,~ were accessory uses In the RS-
7?.~(1 Zone>
Mr, Gruss statecl he wishe~l to c~rrect an impresslon; that it was nc~t h(s intent to put
lndustri~l traffic on [3urt~n StrA~t~ rilthou~h his iclea might be to tie the Fountain's
property t~ the property across the flond control Ghannel to make ~ parkin~ lot for the
hotel; that the possibillty of pavinn over the ch~nnel fiaci alre~~cly been investi~ated witi~
the Cotmty en~lnecrs; in~l that Mr, Fountriin did not un~ierstand all that the Plannin~
Cor~missi~n was siyin~, hut wante~l t~ he left ouC of the reclassification of zoninn
presently before s<~i~~ Cor~missi~n.
Chalrm~n Farano then noted he was concerned
use of the Fountatn's property as a parkinc~
aclJacent to the residential area may not he
appropriate.
ahout any thougi~ts bPina aiven to the future
l~t for tne hotel, since ~~ parkin~ lot
r.~~nsidered co~npatible or otherwise
Commissioner Johnson requested an explan~itlon as to whv it was so necess~~ry to have the
proposec.i resolution of intent placed on ihe pr~~perCy belongin~ to the Fountains and why it
cout~l not be left ~ut. Zoning Supervisor Annilca Santalahti reported tf~at most of the
propert(es includecl in the subject reclassification were basically ~11 deveic~peci single-
family with 72~~-square f~ot lots; however~ tlie Fountain's property could be eliminated
frnm the proposal ~t tliis tfine.
C!~alrman Farano made an ubsPrvation that it was ohvious *_.~ him that the Fountalns dld not
unclerstand the wor•kin~s of a resolution of in:ent anc1, c~nsequently~ did not wish to have
such an action on their property~ although th~ Piannlr,g Commission felt lt was
appropriate.
Deputy City Attorney Fr~nk Lowry advised that til~e Governor was presently consic{ ~ing a
bill which, if sic~ned~ would prevent properties classifiecl R-A from bcing changed to other
desi~nations or uses; ancl t-~a~ therefore, the property m~~y n~t be able to be rezoned in
tlie future.
I t was noted that the Di r•ecr,or of tlie Plannin~ Deparlment haci cletermined that the proposed
activity fell within tfie definiti~n of Section 3.~1. Class l, of tl~e City of Anahelm
Guideil~ies r~ tli`~ Re~uirements fnr an Environmental Impact Report anct was, theretiore,
~a~",~•~~allv exempt t'rom the requlrement to fils an EIR.
Commissioner Tol:.r offered a resolution ancl moved for its passage and adopt~on, to approve
the proposecf rec.assificat~on of tlie subJect property in its entirety~ subJect to the
Interdspartment~l Commltte,~ recammenci~tions~ nn the basis that said reclass(f(cat(on would
have no cfetrin~entil effects on any nf saicf property and would be good planning for the
City nf ~°lnaheim.
~ ~
MI~IUTf'S~ CITY PLAPINING COMMISSIQII~ P~~ril ~7.~ 1^7(~ ~~'~~~~'
RrCLASSIFIr,A7101J NO. ,~5-76-32 (Contlnued)
-------
Commissloner Jahnson n~ta~1 ~hat he a~oiild vote a~~~inst the forenofnc~ res~lutfon incl hoped
the ~ther Cc~mmissloners would ,1~~1~~ 4tilm ~~~, l'hr. basis thnt the Faunt~in's propcrty should be
excluclecl fr~m the ~~eclasslfic~tian ~cti~n~ :~g they I~acl requeste~l,
On roll c~ll, the f~rR~inln!~ resolutinn FAILF.p by the f~~ll~w~inn vntc:
AYFiS; C01"~ISSI~t1~RS; 11LRRST~ M~RL[Y~ i0Ll1R
N(1(S ; C~MM) SS I Q~lERS : 011R~If•.f~ ~ J~I11l5~11 ~ K I H(', ~ Fl1RA~1~
ABSE~l7: cnrtiilts~n~i~c?s: N~~JF
Commissioner Jc~hnson offerecl Res~lullon No. PC7~~"(~7 and moved fnr lts pnssa~e ,~nd
adoptl~n, that the An~helm Clty P1ann(n~l Conmission cloes herehy recommen~l ~'o-;~hbeCity
Counci l c~f the Ci ty of llnahelm that Peti tion for Recl~ssi ficntion ~Jo, 75-7
ap~rovecl~ in pirt, ^xclu~linc~ that westr_rly portion of the prc~perty in Port(on A whlch Is
comprisecl ~f ~n ~p(~roxim~itely ."~ acre located on the south sldc of Hurton Sire~~t and
adJacent to the Oran~~~ Co~inty Flood Control Dtstrict Channel; subJect tn t.he InCer-
deplrtment:l Commltte:~ rr.cor^rnen~l~tions. (See Resolutlon Doak)
Commissioner Johnson note~l Chat thcrc was considerAble fPnr on the part of Mr. and Mrs.
Fa~intair. that .~p~roval would constitutc a hardship to them; and, if included, said
property owners woulcl have the prlvilege in tl~e future to request a chinc~e of z~ne.
Commissioner Tolar to~~: exce~ti~n to the: fore9oin~ resolution~ notinc~ that in his opinion
it was p~or planninc~ to le~7ve ~ut the picce of property at the end of tlie street; that he
dld not feel the ''•ommisslon was doing the rountalns a favor by excluding thefr property in
vfew o~ what was conveyed by Mr, Lowry pertalning to the possibility th~r State law might
restrict property owners from rezoning R-A parcels. Chalrman Farano concurred from the
standpoint ~f plannln~; howevur, he noteo that he c~uld probably count on one hand the
number ~f tiries the City of An~l,eim had rezoned property a~ainst ~~ property owner's will,
which, in hls opinion, tr~nscended the Comm(ssion's responslbility to wh~~t in all
probibllity 1J15 right. Chalrman Farano suggestecl that it might be in the bcst int~resr of
the Fountains to ~~ect with representaCives of the City Attorney's Office to further
d(scuss the new potential lenlslation pertalnin~ to R-A zoned pr~pertles.
On r~ll c~ll} the fnreclolnq rc~s~lution ~~as passed I;y the followfn~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIn~IfRS; BARI![5, HERDST~ JOH~.SOtI, ICIN~~ MORLEY~ TOLAR, FARAN~
NO~S: COMMISSI~~IEP,S: NQtIF
AE~SF.~IT: CQMHISSIOtIF'RS: r~or,~c
RFCF.SS - At h:0~ p.m.~ Chairman Farano declarecl a recess.
RF.CO~IVF.r~C - E~t ~~ : 1 ~ p. m, ~ Cha i rman Fa rano reconvened the mee t I nq wi th a 1 1 P 1 ann i ng
'"-"'~' Commissioners present.
C~PIf11TI0~Il1L USE - READVFRTIS~D PURLIC fIEARItJf,. JA~Y. E. RILEY. 917 East Paciflco Avenue~
PFRNIT ~JO. 15`~1 Anaheim, Ca. 92~n5 (Ow~~er); requesting DELETION QF CO~I~ITIO~! P~O. 3
RF.LI1TIiJG TO BONDItlG FOR STR[FT LIGHTlPlG on property described as a
rectan~ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.~
acres loc~te~l ~t the northeast corner of Pacif(co Avenue and Lewis Street, hav(ng approxi-
mate front<~ges of 2A~ feet on the north side of Pacifico Avenue incl (~2~ feet on the east
sicle of Lewis Street, anJ further descrlbe~l as 917 East Pacifico 1lvenue. Property
presently ~l~ssifip~i MI. (INDUSTRIAi., LiMITf"D) ZOt1E.
~.,_.... ..~ `r~..
No one indicatecl their presence In c~pposition i.~, su~,~~..,. p..~i •
Although the St~ff Reporr to the Planning Cumnission dated April 12, 1~7~3~ was not read at
the publtc hearing, sai<1 Staff Report Is referred ta and ma~le a pirt of the minutes.
Mr. Jack Riley, the petitioner, appearecl before tlie Planning Commisston ancl statecl that he
ob,jecte~+ to the requirpment to sither i~stall str~et lightin~ f~cilities along Pacifica
Avenue and Lewis Street or p~st a bond for said i~~aprovements, since the recreational
veh{cle storane yarcl u~e~ which was previously approved~ w~s tem~or~ry In nature; ancl that
~_ .. .~,,,.,,Fnrc. rPmicstincl that Condition No. 3 of Resotutton No. PC7G-~~~ which
,~.. ..:.~, ..._. _ ,
~ ~
J6-1GG
MIPlUTES~ C11Y PLANHIPIG f.~MMISSI~~ti~ ~~prl1 17.~ 197~
CO~JDITIOt!l11. USF. i'F:qMIT FI~, 1591 (f.antinued)
r~:quirecl sireet llghts ~r be~n~lin~~ ha ~leleted until tlie; subJec[ praperty wns clevelopecl to
lts ultim~~tc usc.
TIIF PUBLI C HGl1RII~G WAS CLQ`.~~G,
It was noCeci th~t the: Dlrcctor of tl~c 1'lannln~ Department h~d det~rminecl th~~t tlie propos~J
t~ctlvlty fcll within the clc~initlon of Sect(on 3.~1, Class 1~ oP thc Cily c~f Anahclrn
Guldellnes to the Requlrements for ~n Env( mnment~l ImpacC Report end waS, thcrefore,
c~~tac~~rical1y exempc fr~~m the requlren~ent to 'rflc~ in EIR.
Commissioner Herbst offereci Resolu¢ion tlo. PC7G-61; and r~iovc:l for its p~issa9c ,ind adoptlan~
that the An~hr.im City Pl~nninq Commissi~n cloes heret~y amend tcesolutian No. PC76-~~~ to
grant n tempor~~ry waivcr of Condition No, 3 of s~~ld resolutlon a~lopted In connection with
Condltlanal Use Permlt No. 1,~1~ sald condition pe~rkalninq to the installatlon of street
licthtlnc~ f~c(1(ties~ ~ncl t~ reacl ,is folloa+s: (See R~solut(on Book)
"~. ThaC a tsr~~~r~ry walver for street lighCfn~ facflitles ~~long Paciflco Avenue and
Lewis Street is c~rante~l in cnn,junction wlth the duratlon of the recreatlon~l vehicle
st~r~~ne yir~ use of the prnpcrty or for a tim~ ltmltat(on of three yea~s, whichever
occurs first~ sub.ject tn revie~ ~nci consideration for an exten~i~n of tfine by tl~e
Pl~nnin~ Commission upon wriCten request trom *he petitloner,"
Chairman Farano took exception t~ the fore~oin~ resolution~ noting thaC the petltioner was
presently enJoying the use of the property, ~~nd the street li~hting facillties would
benefit the present use as mu~~h as the fukure use of the property.
Oii r~ll ~I1, the for•ec~oin~ resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COM111SSI~tiERS: Bl1RPIES~ NtR[3ST~ JOHNS01l, KINf;, MQRL~Y~ TOL~.R
~~~G; : C~HM I SS I ~NERS ~ F/1RA~1~
AE35EP~T : CQ11111 SS I OIIERS : NU~iE
COtIUITIOtIl1L USE - PURLIC fiEllhlNC~. JOf~N AtJD DE.l1~l~lE AZIZOAtI~ ~33~ 4215South~Br~okhurst
PERhiIT N0. 1607 Hollywood~ Ca. 9~~~~ (~ners); BILL MC IHT6511,
Street~ Anaheim, Ca, 92II04 (Agent); requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A MODFLING STUb10 LIMITED TO P[RSONS 1~3 YEAP,S OP AGE OR OLf)ER on
pr~perty described as a rer,tan9ularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately
0.5 acre having a front~qe of approximatr_ly 7~ feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street~
having a maximum depth of approximately 331 feet, being located approx~mately F,OQ feet
south of the centerline of F3roadway~ and further described as ~F21 So~~th Brookhurst Street.
Property presently classified RS-A--~3~00~ (RESIDEtlTIAL/AGRICULTURIIL) ZOt1E.
(~l~TE: The petitioner was not represented at the duly appointecf time for tl~e subJect
item, No. 9 on the agend~i~ to be considered; however, due to thc number of persons present
in epposition who f~a<I been waiting approxima~ely threr hours for the item to be
considere~~~ the Pl~nning Commissi~n postponed the hearing until following Item PJos. 10 and
11 on the ager.da~ at which tlme ~.~~e ~ublic hearing was held althou9h the petitioner was
still not present.)
It was notecf that Staff had trieci t~ contact the petitioner by telephone during this
meetinq prior to holding the puk~lic hearing, but was adviseri that the petitio~er or his
representative werc: unable to tic: reached.
Approximately nine ~ersons indicated their presence in opposition to the s~ibJect petition~
and said persons waived the full re~adinc~ of the Staff Report to the Plmnning Cortmtsslon
dated Apri) 1?, 197~, on the basis chat they `~ad revie~~ed copits o~
Alt!~ough the St.~ff ReporC ~~as not read at ~:he publ ic he~rinc~, sai~i Staff Report is
referrecl to an<i rr~de a part of the minutes.
Mr. Roy Miller~ .'_21~1 West Orange~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commtssion in
opposltion to the subJect petftlon and stated he was speakinn as the Past~r of Faith
Lutheran Church which was appro~;lm~tely 6~0 yards from the subJect property, ~~nc! as fatl~er
of five chlldren w~i~ alalked to school d~wn Brookhurst Street~ past the subJect property;
and that he was not aware when the subJect use was granted originally for the mcideling
__~_,.
StUAlO Of I~ki~~a~~c r•..~ ~... .
~
~
,-.-
~
M;~IIITCS, CITY PLANNING COMM~SSI~N, 11p~•il 17.~ Ih7G
COIJDITI(!tlAL USF. PF.RMIT N~,, 1F(17 (Contirued)
76-167
In resnonsc, Assistant Pl.~nnur Jocl Flck reportec! th~at thc suh)eck use was permitted Uy
ric~ht in the C-I Tor~n prl~r tn tlic ~~doption of thc ordinr~nr,c ~~vcrnlnn opcratinns whlch
restrlctecl thelr -~~trons ~~n~1 emplnyces to lA ycars ~f .~~ie ar old~r.
Mr, Miller c~ntlnu~cl by st~~tinq thnt the suhJoct u~e was not a~i nct(vity c~nciucive to a
fnm(ly ne(qhh~rh~wd; th~t ehe si.ih~ect use was cunt.r~iry ta whaT. he and his congreq~tlon
stood f~r an~i aiere trylnc7 t~ create In th~ nelqhL~orhood; that the SuprPme Court h,~d ruled
th~t [1~c: corTmiun(ty tiet thc stind~~r~ls ~tind hr wag prescnt to be sure that gomeone was
speakln~ in oppnti(ti~n so th;~t the ~roposecl .tanci~~r~ls would not be acce~tecl In his
comm~~nfty; th,it ~+~~ w~~s prr+sent ~ilso becau~.c it h~c1 hPen s,~t~l th~t "evll prospered when
good men ~it~i nothin~"; ~m~l thnl' the mer~be ~1` his ~~~~~.,reqation supportccl h(s corrr~~nts~
some of wh~m were ,ilso present.
Mr. Dob Ilostetter~ 7.19~ Victoria Avrn;~e~, Anaheim, appcarr~~l hefore the Planninn Commission
in oppnsitl~n~ ~~ncl sl~~te<I he was an ~~ciiacent property owner; that he ~fi~l not ob)ect to the
•r.onlnq hut con~r~t~il~~ted the Clty for brinc~ing any zoninc~ lnto proper i~crspectlve. but he
d1~1 ~ni~Ct to t~~r pro~osecl use; that the center did not dc~serve the pr~posed use~ slnce It
was n~:t concluc I vc cn thc nc i ~~hhnrhood,
Mr. M(ch~~el Garcn, owncr of the ~~ ~perty at h23 South Elrookhurst Strect, ~i~~neirad beFore
thc Plannin~ Commissi~n (n opp~siCi~n, ~~nd st~ted he ha~l becn indictecl as heln~ an owner
and operator of the suhject m~issa~e pnrlor and modeling stu~l; that a leciitimatc business
would not have "pimps" in their parkinc~ lot fighting over wi~o worked for wh~; and that the
City Attorney of thc City of Oran~le 1»~J printed retract(rn st~tement~ In the SanCa Ana
Register that hc ~~as not an owner or uperat~r of the subJect establlsliment,
TH~ PURLIC NEARItIr, 1JnS CLOSf.D.
It was note<i that tiie Dir~ctor of the Planninn De~artment had determined that the pr•oposed
activlty fell within the def`inition of Section 3.~~1~ Class 1~ of th~e City of Anaheim
Guidel(nes t~ the Requirements for an Environm~ntal Impact Rep~rt ~~n~l was, therefore~
catecl~rically exempt from the requirerient t~ file an EIR.
Cor+riissi~ner Kinn ~ffere~l ResoluCion hlo. PC7~i-G9 and moved for its p~~ssage and adoption~
that the Anahcim City Plann(nci Commission does hereby deny Pekitio~ for Conclitional Use
Permit IJo. 1GQ7, on the bnsis Chat the suhJer.r property is loc~ted in *he immediate
vicinity of a church and schools, and a sic~nificant number of children walk past the
property almc~st daily; and, therefore, the proposea use is detcrmi~ed to be Incompatibie
witl~ the surroun~~inq neiqhborhood. (See Resolution E3ook)
Comriissioner Johnson n~tecl th~t the Planninci Comm(ssion was doing what it could to protect
the members af thc c;orm~unity and their riqhts give~ under the taws of the land.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the oppo,ition did not pay for the subject public hearing
and tfie petit(oner slwuld have the right to present f~is sicle of the argument; however, he
did not understand why the petitioner was n~~t present~ +•~!~e^ h~ h~d been duly not(f(ed; and
th~t the petitloner would be advis•;d of his arpeal r(c~hts to be heard by the City Council.
On rcll call~ the foregoin~ resolution w~s passed by the followin~ vote:
AYCS: CO!1MISSIQtlERS: 4ARNGS, HERd~T, J~IINSOPI, KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ Fl1RAtJ0
tJ(1CS : C~MH~ SS I'1NERS : NOPlE
ABSENT: C011P11SSION[RS: NOhIF
CnpIDITIONl1~ USE - PURLIC HEIIRING. J~MES L. DOBRQTT, 201 Via Quito, ~Jewport Beach, Ca.
PfRHIT ~l0. 1fi0~ 926h~ (Owner); ROtl~LD PISCI~TTA~ 4~)0 South Ranch View Circle~ Anaheim,
Ca. ~)~~~7 (~gent); requesting permission to have 0~1-S~LE BEER ANb
WIPJE I~! A PROPOSED RESTAURA~lT on property described as an lrregularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11 acres having a frontage of approxl-
mately S7~ feet o~ t~~e nortli side of Sarta Ana Canyon Road~ beinn locatecl approximately
415 feet east of the centerl inE of Imr.erial Highway. and further clesc.rihed 7s 57E~; Santa
Ana Canyon Road. Property presently classificd CL(SC) (COMI1ERCIAL~ LIMITf'h-SCFPIif.
CORRIDhR OVFRLIIY) ZONE.
No one inciicated their presence in opp~sition t~ suhject petition.
• o
76-160
MI~IU1'F.S~ CITY PLANNIPlG COMMISSIQN~ Apr1) 1~, 197`~
CO~IUIT!O~IAL USE f'ERMIT PIO. IhOfl (Cantinucd)
A1 thouqh the S t.~ f f Re~>c,r t t~ thc P I.~nn 1 ng Gommi ss i an ~{~+t~cl llpr I 1 17. ~ 1 ~ JG , wns not re~~d At
Chn public he~rlnc~, ~3~1~1 Stnff f~e~ort Is reFerred to an<I f11AtIC ~ part of the minutes.
Mrs. ~race Pisclc~tt~^., re~re5entl1l~ the nnent for the pet(tloner, ~'-p-~e,~re<1 hef~,rn the
Plannfn~ C~~mmisslon an~t sC~itc~l Shr wauld he man~n~n~ thc propo3ed restaurant fon c~r son,
Mrs. f'Isclotta stlpui~~te~~ [h,it the pr~p~~ed on-sale beer and winc woulcl be sc>1c1 In
c.onJunctlan with thc scrvln~ of ine:als ~nly.
THf PI!RI.IC NFl1kIN~ 1~lAS CL~Sf.~.
Commissloner Barnes n~ted that c~tlicr sirillnr est~~hll~,liment~ exlstecl In the subJect nr~A.
It ~~~s n~tecl that the Dlrector of the Plannin~ Department hid determ(necl thnt Che proposed
activlty fell wich(n the cleflniti~n ~f Snctlon 3.~1~ Class 1~ of the City of Anahelm
Gulri~lines Co the Requlrerients flor an Envlronmental Impoct Report and w~s, thr.refo~~~
cate~orically exempt fr~m the rec~ulr~ment to file an EIR,
Commissfc,ner Barnes offerecl Resc,lutfon ~lo, PC76-7n ancl movecl fnr its passacte ancl acioption,
th~~t the Anahcim City Pl~nninc~ Commfssinn c~OP.S herehy grant Petitlon for Conditlonal Use
Permlt ~~o. ~~~~~, to permit on-sale heer anci ~Nine (n a reste~urant, subJect to the stipu-
lation of the petiCioner~ an~f subJect to the Inter~lepartmental Committee recommendatlon.
(See Res~lution Book)
On roll call ~ thc fnrecloin~l resolution aiUS passed by the fol low~ncl vote:
AYES: CONMISSI~PIF.RS: RARh1ES~ HERRST~ J~IINSQM, KING, MORLFY~ TOLAP, FARIINO
N~FS: C~MMISSI~NERS: N~N[
ABSFN7: COMMISSI~~IFRS: NO~IE
C0~lDITIOH~L USE - F'URLIC HEARIN~. At1AHCIM-LIPICOLN CENTFR~ c/o Roy Decell, h9h1 Orancle
PGRt11T N~. 1GOA Avenue~ Cypress~ Ca, ~oG3n (Owner); requestin~ permtsslon to have
" - 0!l-S11LE 4[ER Atlp 411~~E IH A~J EXISTI~IG RESTAIIRA~IT on property descr(bed
as i rectanciularly-ahaped par~el of l~nd consistinq of approximately
1.7 acres lor~~ted at the sou2l~east corner of Llncoln Avenue ard Gain Street~ havin~
approxlmate fronta~es of 35~ feet on the sau*_h side of Lincoln Avenue ond 21Q ~eet on
the east sicle o~ Galn Street, and furthar describad as 25~0 West Lincoln Avenue,
Property presently classifled CL (C~M~IERCIAI.~ LItt1TED) zOP![.
Plo one indicated their presence in opposition ta s~ibJect petition,
Althc.ugh the Staff Report t~ the Plannin9 Commission dated April 12~ 1976, was not read at
the public hearln~, saicl Stiff ReporC is referred to and made a pai't of the minutes,
Mi•. Roy DeCell, re~~resentinn the petitloner~ appeared before tl~e Plaiininn Commission and
state~l he was the operator of the subJect restaurant and shoppin~ center; and that the
beer ancl~~~ine w~uld be sold in conJ~m ction with the servinci of ine~ls only.
TIIE PUBLIC H~IIRIFJr 4lAS CI.OSFD.
It wa5 ~ ted that the Director of tl~e Planninc~ Department had determined that tlie proposed
activity ~elt within the ciefinition of 5ection 3.01~ G1ass 1, of the City of Anaheim
Gui~lelines to the Requirements for an Environmentai Impact Report and was, the.refo~e~
categorically exempt from the requirement to Fil~: an EIR.
Commissioner Klr.~ offerPd Resolution Pio. PC7F~-71 and mavecl for its p~ss~ae an~i adoption~
th~t Che Anaheim City Pla ~in~ Commissian does hereby grant Petitian for Conditional Use
Permlt No. 1F,~9, sub.ject to the stipulation of thP p^titioner~ ancl subJect to the
Inter~lepartmen*.at Commtttee recommendation. (See Resolution Boak)
On roll call, the fore7oinn resolution was passed hy the followin~ vote:
AYfS: COM~IISSI~~IERS: BARIIES~ NERR57~ JOtINSG~I, KiNG~ M(1RLEY, TOLIIR, F/1RA~1~
NQF.S : C~11M I SS I(1~1[RS ; P~~tIE
.1RSEtIT: C~Mf~ISSI~HfRS: N~U~
~
~1^
~
MIrIUTCS, CITY PLAt1~JIN~ CoMr11SSInN~ P,prI1 12, 1~17b
7G-IGq
C0~lUI1'I~~lAI. USC - PUCLIC HEA~tI~~f, IItCIlC AtJU CIIARLf.S VCRMUFLF~I~ 11~~1 Clclo Plr~cc,
Pf.Rt11T 11~, I(~1~ `+ant~~ An~~ Ca. ~7.7~5 (~wners); CARL IC~RClICft f.t~TERPRISfti~ c/~ D.~vid
'-"~ B. Gt~rrls~n, 12~0 North Ilarhor E~oulev~rd~ An~hcia~~ Ca, ~321'~'~ (~gant);
requeskin~ pcrr+lssion to CSTnriLlsH A nnlvr-TIIR(IU~N Rl'STl1ll~ ~t17 W1711
WAIV~R (1F' I•11-l111Ut~ ~~ur~~rn or Ft1RY.I11G SPl1Cf.S on pr~~erty dcscrihrd as an (rreq~il.~r'ly-sh~ped
{~rrc.el of lan~i co~sistin~~ of ~ippr~xim~Cely 1.~ ~icre lncated .it the n~rth~•~est corner of
K~itell.i Wey ar+~l Planchester Avenue~ h~wini7 ~pPr~ximate fronta~es of -i5~ fcet on the north
siclo of Katell~ 1•lay ~n~l 1i~1 feet ~n tl~e west s(~1e <~f flanchester Avenuc. Pr~perty
presently classified CL ~.COM~1fRCIAI., I.IMITf.D) Z011[.
Na one in~llc~te~1 their ~resence I~ oppositicm t~ suhJect ~etitior~,
Althoucth the Staff Report t~~ the Planninc~ Commi~sion tl~t~d Ap1'll 1?~ 1~17~~~ was nat rend at
the publ ic hc~rlnn, siicl St.~ff Report Is referre~l t~ anet macle a pirt af thc minutos.
Mr. Davo G~rrlson, reprr.sentin~a the ~~ent for the petlt~~ncr, appcarecl before the P1Anninc~
Commiss(on ~nc1 st~ted the propos~il was tn add a Taco de Carl clrive°lhrough restaurant to
Che ~ubiect property which was presently developecl w(th a C~ii's Jr, drlve-through
resta~ir~nt; th~it there appe~red tc~ be some n~gatlve feelin~ ahout the dr(veway on Katella
Aven~ie on the hasis [hat traffic accidenes hncl occurreel In th~t vlclnity; th~t ta~~ of the
hiowevc r the
three accl~lents dic! not re~~lly have ~~nythin~t to d~ a~lth saicl driveway; ~
Traffic [nglneer was r~:commendinc~ thnt the drivea~ay be eloserl tiince it was close to the
Intersecti~n. Mr. Garri~~n further dlscusseci the accidents whlch ha~l occurreci on Kat~lln
llvenue nea~' the subject properly, statinr th:~+_ ~ne of the <~ccident reports Ind(cated a`~n
vehlcle was exitin!~ from the subJect pronerty and was siJaswired; that he ~iiJ ~~ot fca,
driveway on Katella llvenue creat~d a traffic hixarcl but was particularly important to the
further c.levelopment of thc property; tli~it the two re5taurants co~ild oaerate comfortably
wlth 3~ parkln~i spicPS; and thit the proposal would adcl 2300 squ~re feet oF floor space
anrl botli rest~urants would be unclcr ore a~n~rship,
TIIF PIIRLIC IIE~RIN~ ~~lAS CLOSFD.
Cha+rman Farano notect~ in his opinion, that the driveway on Y.atella Avenue was extremely
awkwarcl and would aLtract cust~mers to ft.
Mr, Garr(s~n stated that i.arl's Jr, hau beer. at the subJec~ locatio~i for almost two years
and thP ~Iriveriay was bein~ used for right turns only; and that, gencrally, the trafflc
enterecf the property fi•om Katella WaY•
Cum~lssloner Herhst concurred th~t the exitin~a on Katella Avenue wis n~t gooci tr~ffic
flo~i~ with the traffir. c~~ina over the br(clc~e~ etc.; that the traffic on Katella Avenue
deserved protection from the traffic that might be flowin~~ in and out of the ciriveway on
Katella Avenue; th~t he would rather he less stringent with the pirkinn requirements~ than
to allow the driveviay on Katella Avenue; and that a better [raffic flow pattr.rn on-sitc~ In
relatfonsF,(~ t~ the stackinn ~rea and gener~~lly was undesirable.
Mr. G~rrison requestc~l a two-week contfnuance for consideration of the subJect petitlon~
so that he could r~vise the plans In llne a~itli the Planning Commission's cliscusslon.
Traffic Engineer Paul Sinqer advlsecl that presently the Katella Avenue drivew~y was for
two-a~ay traffic; that entrarce-only a~oulci miti~ate some of the prol~lems, ;~l±hou~h it would
not e1lMlnate the pr~blems altogether; and that he had an abuncfance of traffic reports on
accidents occurr!ng at the ciriveway over the past two years.
Commissioner Morley noted that, in his oplnion~ tf~e Katella Avenue ~~riveway was extremely
danc~erous an~l sh~ul;f n~t exist, particularly b~cause of the speecl of lraffic on Katelia
Avenue,
Commissioner Barnes noted that she had no obJections t~~ havinn an entr~nce-only driveway
on Katella Avenue~ however~ placing the builcllnq farther bacG: frc:m Katella Avenue would
provlde ~nore room for smoother tr~ffic flrni.
Commissinner Mc~rley offered a mc~tion, secondeci hy C~mmissioner King anc9 M~TI~I•! CARRIED~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commissinn d~~es hereby continue considerati~n of Petition
for C~nditional Use Permit PJo. 1f,1~ tc tl~e Planninn Commission meetinq of April 2(~, 197b,
for rev(secl plans~ as requested by thc petitioncr.
~.~.
~
.~.
~
F.~''UTf~~ CITY PLANNIN~ C~MMISSIO~I~ Aprii 1?.~ 197~ ~F'~~~~'
COMDITIn~I~L USf - PURLIf, IIf'11RING. FIRST I'~Mf:RICAII TRUST~ c/o -J~rva~ld Lawrr.iicc Ulvesta~~
I~FRIIIT N~, Ihl l P. 0, Box 2G7~ Sant~~ An~~, Ca, 9z7n2 (Ownr.r) ; EIUDGET DY~I~-TUtlC CORP. ~
?.~1~~!~ [ast CoASt I11 ~h~~way~ Sul te 7.~7~ Cnrona Del Mar, Ca. 92G?.; (Agent) ;
requestln~i permisslnn tn FST/1f1LISll AN I1l~T~ TU~I['-UP CF.~~TFR WIT!I Wl11VFR
OF (!1) MIHI'1UH STR~ICTIJMI. SETf1l1C1: 11H!) ([i) 111NIMU11 L~t~USC~PI~If, on property clescril~~~1 as
an IrrE~ul~~rly-sh~~re~1 ~arcel oF lancl c~nRistin~i c~` approxlm~tely O.C ncre located nt the
northwest c~rn~*.r af Lincoln ~~n~l Manchester Avenues, havin~ .~pproximate front.~ges af lh7
feet on the n~rth s i~1e of L i r~col n Avenuc: in~~ 1 R9 fr.et on tl~e w~s t s 1 de of Manches ter
Avenue, ~~nd fi.irther daar.rihed as I~~! West Llnc~ln llvenue. Property presently class(fled
NI ( I ~1DUS7R I 111. ~ L I 111 TF.I)) l.~~NE.
On~ Intorestecl ~rrs~n in~llcatecl his pri~sence In cor.nectl<m w(th tlic sub.ject petltlon,
Althou~h thc St.-+ff Report tn the Pl~~nninc~ Commissi~n c1~~tr,d April 1?., 1~7~, was not reacl at
the public hearin~, salcl St~~ff Report Is referred tc~ ancl made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Duane L, Woociw~ird, r-epresentlnc~ the a~ent f~r the petitloner, appc~rcd hefore the
Pl~~nninn ComMlssi~n an~' st~teci Dync7-Tune was rather nea~ to the area, but was esCablished
in other cIC'es. fle presented photn~raphs of tl~e ~xlstin9 oper~~tirms Por Pl~nning
Commissi~n rnvlew. ~1r, Woodward c~ntlnucd hy statinc~ thc pr~~pos~il was to perform minor
aut~~nob(le tune-ups, with no overn(~ht work or storage of automohiles on the site~ a~d no
heavy ennine worl< would be performed; tl~.il thcy would perform fir,erl-price Cune-ups, i.e,.
$)~,~r1 for an eiqht-cyl in~ier mot~r, ~ncf the worlc would be ~u~iranteecl for ten manths; that
he felt hard-nressed rer~~rcling the requlrement to install strect 1(c~htfng facil(ties, in
actrlitl~n to dedlcatlon ancl the cluslnq off of two clrlveways that nad 'oea~~ i~~~ a;;Sst~^c~ for
the past 25 ye~~rs, said re~ulrements representing a suhst~ntlal flnanclal burden for a
srr~ll opcrat~r.
THF. PURLIf, HEIIRIP~f WAS CLOSFD.
u(scussion pursued concerning the payment of street lightinc~ fees opposed to installation
of street lic~htln~ facilities~ during which Stiff pointe<1 out tt~~at there w~s no rec~rd of
p~-yment for saici street lights~ tF~at the Utilitles Department ~Ir,terminecl whet~er fees or
install~tlon was requlred, ancl that the payment of fees was noC recommendeci in thls case,
In rc;sponse to Mr. W~od~rard's quest(onin~~ about dedicatfon~ Office Engineer Jay Titiis
advised that there were no re:cords ~n flle incllcaCing that the reyuired declication had
beer~ made. Mr. 4loodward responded tl~at if the property owner expecteci the property to
progress~ tl~en the dedicatlon would be made~ however, that decision woulcl be up to the
property owner.
Discussion pursued cancerning the proposed lai~dscapln~, ciuring which Zoninc~ Supervlsar
Annika Santalahti adviseci that the requi~Ement was for 10 feet oF lanclscaping adJacent to
the property lines.
In r~sponse to questio~~t~~r, by thc oi~;~~t.,y f'n~nm„Sg_j~,n; Mr. Woodward sti~ulated to removing
the canoples; ~liat the underground gasoline storage tanks would be filled~ as required by
*.he Chlef of the Fire ~e.partment; that the southernmos*. drive~ray on Manchester Avenue and
the eastcrnriost drtveway on Lincoln Avenue 4~ould be ;,losed; and that said driveways would
be replaced witr~ t~~o additlonal redwood planter boxes.
DisGUSSIon purs~~e:{ re~a~rdin~ the type of landscapin~ proposed which consisted of redwood
planter b~xes on top of the grounc! snd on the canopy islands~ durin9 which Commissioner
Barnes noted that~ in her opinion~ the landscaping should be providecf in accordance with
what had usual ly been rec~ul reci for the subJect typ~~ use. The general consensus of the
Planning Cortx~ission was that the planter boxcs were acceptable for the subJect proposal.
Commissioner Tolar noted that the petiti~ner should be required to pay fees rath~r than
install the street li~hts~ and the offsetting benefit to the City would be the u,,grading
o` the property to make it a nice corner. The Planning Commission generally cc~~c;:r~2c1
that the fees be accepted.
Mr. Robert Overdevest, 501 State College '~oulevarcl~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planni~g
Commission and inquirecl if the petitioner would also be conducting lubrtcati~n of vehicles
In cor~Junction with the tune-up center; whereupon~ Mr. Wcodward replied in the
affirmative.
~
~
~
MINIiTES, CITY PL.ANNINf COMMISS1011~ April 12~ 1~)76
CONUITIONAL ~SE FERMIT N0. 1611 (Contlnucd)
7G-171
It w~a noted thAt thc ~irector ~f the; Plannlnq Department hacl cletarmined Chit the proposcsci
activity fr.ll wic.h(n thc definitlon of Sartlor~ 3,Q1, Cl~~ss 1~ of the City of Anahelm
Gulde!Inss to thc Requfremants fnr ~~n Envlranmcntal Impact Report ancl was~ therefore~
categorically er.empt from thc requlrement to fila an EIR.
Connnlgsloner Tolar offerc+ci Resolutlon No. PC7~~-7z and moved for its p~jss~9e and adoptlcm~
ll~at the AnZhelm Clty f'lanninc~ Commfss(on docs hcrehy grant Petitl~n For Conditic~ia) Use
Fermit N~. iE~ll to i~erm't an auto t!me-~.!p Tn~f 1ubrlcaClon center, grantlnh the requastod
Waty..r r,f thc minlmum structural setback on the basls that thc bulldiny is existln~ and
the pump Islan~ls wl II be c~nverted to landscape pl~nte~-s anci, therefare~ a h~~rciship would
bcs cre~te.d ff said walver werP not c~ranto~l; grAnting the reyuested waiver of the minimum
lanclscapincl on the basls that the petitloner stlpulatad to closin~ the southernmost
drlveway on Manchestcr Aven~~~ and the e.~sternmost driveway on Lincoln Avenue and providing
two additl~nal plant.~rs ~d.I~cent to the right-o~-way line at sa'd closure, and converting
thP existin~ ~+ump Islands to landscape pl~nt~rs; subJect to t~~e stipulatlons of the
petitlonor, ~~n~l subJect to lhe Intercferartment~~l Commlttee re~nmmencl~+tlons. (See
Resnluxl~n BooF~.)
On rall call, the fore9oin~ resolurion was passed by the following vote:
AYF.S : COMMI SS I ~N[RS : BARNf.~ ~ FIERfiST, JOHNSQ~I ~ ICI NG ~ MQRLEY ~ Tn~~R ~ FARIIPlO
N(1CS : COMI11 SS I ONI'RS : NONE
A[35E1~7: C(1MMISSI(1~1[N5: riuN~
VIIRIAPICE N0, 2F~9? - READVF.RTISEU PUfiLIC HE~RI~IG. ECONO-LUBE~ IiJC. ~ e/o Robert R.
Overdevest~ 5~~1 S~uth State ".,llehe P.~ulevard, Anahelm, Ca. 92f~06
((~ner); requestinq WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES~ TO ESTABLI5H AN AlITO-
MQTIV[ TUtJE-U~ CEtITER i~l CUF~.lUHCllOtl WITN AN EXISTINf, LUEIRICATIOtI FACILITY on ~roperty
descrlhe~i as a rectangu~arly-sliapec! parcel of land conslstin9 of approxima~~ly 0.~+ acre
loc~ted at the northwest corner of Lincoln ~nc~ 41~stern Avenues~ having approxlmate front-
ages of 11~ feet on the nortl~ sicle of L(nco~n AvPnue and 135 fec~t on the west sfde of
Western Avrnue~ and further described as 32~~~ West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently
classified CL (CQMMF.RCIAL. LIMITf•.D) ZONE.
No one Indicated their presence l~i opposi[ion to subject petition. •
Althou~h the Staff Report to tt~e Planning Cortmission dated April 12, 1976, was not reac+ at
the publtc hsarinu, said Staff Report is refe~red to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Robert R. Overdevest, the petitioner, appearad before the Planning Commission a~d
stated the proposal was to add a tune-up facility at an existing lube faciltty at the
subJect locatlon; and that they would construct an additlon wfilch w~uld be compatible with
rho s.Ylctinn far.111tieS.
TH[ PJBI.I C H~ARItlG WAS CLOSED.
Discusslon pursued c~,ncer•ninh signing for the proposal, during which Mr. Overdevest stated
t.he orai~ge and black sign ~t the facility on State College Boulevard was probably "one of
a k!nci"; ancl that the propose~l si~nina would probably be similar to the facility at West
and Lincaln. Mr. Overdevest further stated thar. the better manaqe<1 an~1 mor•e attractive
facilities of the type proposecl wnuld b~ the ones that stayed in business; and that the
Traffic Engineer's recommenclation for closure of Che easternmost drivewzy on Lincoln
Avenue k~ould be a han~.lica~ since congest;on of trafFic flaw would be createcl on-site.
In response, Traific Engineer Faul Singer reported that the easternmost ciriveway on
Lincoln was recommended ror closure beca~.~se it was in cluse proximity t~ a maJor
,_., u..,.t~..,.e un ?I,~? waa
intersection Ot CV10 arteriai streets; and Lndl dl Lf16 ~i~i~a- •o~ ~~•.~~- .
oriqinally approved~ one drlvea~ay was :losed. Mr. Ov:~rdevest statecl th~t the number of
cars that would be handled at the subJect f~cility would be substantially le.ss than at a
servtce station; that parkinq was not pr•ov1ded, as sucl~~ because the facility was a drive-
thr~ugh typc operation; and that the additional building would block the circ.ulatlon
around the existlnn buildiny.
Commissioner Herbst noted that a service station bullt to today's standards would not be
allowed tn fiave a driveway close to an intersection~ because It was a traffic hazarc'; and~
therefore~ it was ir,~portant that the driveway in questio~ be closed.
~ - - ~
MI~JU'fES~ CITY PLIINNI`~G COMMISSIUN~ April 12~ 1976 ~~'~~~Z
VIIRIAP~C~E ~IO. ~~? (Continuecf)
Comm',sslonFr Johnsor n~ted that the clasure ~f the ~lriveway In questlon should have Ecen
hanclled ~~t r.he orl~lnil puhl ic liearln~ convcr•tinc~ tho use.
Mr. Overdevest st~itcd th~t the landscapln~ f~r thc siCe r~as far in excess of thc
raqulrements.
It was noted that th~ Direct~r of tfie Planning Department had determine~J that the pro~os~cl
actlvlty tieil wi[hin t-~e definit(on of Section 3.~1; Glass l, of the C(ty of Ai~ahelm
Guldellnes to the Requireex~nts for an [nvlronm~~nt~~ Impact Report ~n~l was~ thcrefore~
c~itPn~ricnlly exen,pt from the requirernent to fll~ an EIR.
G~~rxnissloner Herbst ~ffere~l Re~olulion No. PC76-73 and mov~J for its p~ssage and acloptlon~
that Petition for Varlance No. ~~~9z (rea~lvertfsed) be yranted to permit ~uto tune-up In
Gan_Junctlnn with ~n axisCinc~ lubrication facllity on the basis tht~t other similar uses
have previously been ~~rnnte~l I>y the Planninc~ Gommisslon aC othcr locatlons in the City;
subJoct to the closure of Lhe c.~stc~rnmost driveway on Lincoln Avenue and replacer~ent wtth
st~ndarcl curb~ gutter, siclewalk and l~ndsr.apin~; an~l subJect to the Interdep~rtmental
Commlttee recommen~lation, (See Rcsolutlon Book)
On roll call ti the fore~olnc~ resol~~rion was pissed by th+: follo~~fn~ vote:
AYFS: COPIMISSI(1NERS: BARNES~ HERBST, JOHNS(1!I~ KING~ M~RLEY~ TOLl~R~ FARl1N~
NOCS : C011M1 SS I OIJERS : NUNt
AA~GIJT: C011MISSIONERS: NOP~E
VARIl1~lCF. N0. 27~15 - PUBLI C H[ARI t~t',, G1`,RY AtlD SUZA~l~aE LAMBO, G~i~i 1 East Kentucky Avenue ~
Anahelm, Ca. 92~07 (Owners); reyuestinc~ WAIVER OF (A) MP.XIMIIM
WALL HE I GHT ANO (B) MI N I MUM STRIlcTURAL SETBACK, TO CCH~,rRUr,T A
SI•IIHMI~~G POOL AND BLOCY. WALL IN THE FRO~~T 5ETE~ACK ARCA on property described as a
rectanaularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximateiy ~.2 acre havln~ a
frontage of a~proximately 5? feet rni the north side of Kentucky Avenue~ having ~~
mar.imum depth of a{~prox~mately 13~ feet, being located approximately 290 feet north
of the centerline of Luyola Drive~ and further described as G~i1~1 Eest Kentucky Avenue.
Property presently classified RS-7200(SC) (RESIDEP~TINL~ SINGLE-FAMILY-SCENIC COftR1DOR
OVERLAY) ZbNF.
No one indicated their presence in o~posiCton to subJect petitlon; hawever, the Plann!ng
Cornmissio~~ Secretary indicated that oppositioii had been present earlier, but t~ad to leave
the meeting and asked that a portion of the deed restrictlons on the properCy be read
("12, No fence shall be erected~ placed or altered on any lot so as t~ be nearer to any
street~ than the minimum setback iine~ unless approved by the architectural control
committee.") and that a petition signed by approximaeely 19 adJacent property own~:rs in
opp~;;~;~.;, ~~ ^r^~P~*P~ at the publlc hearing. Said documents were acknow~edged,
r•---
Mr. Gary Lambo, the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning ~ommission and st3ted the
proposed locatlon was the only area on his property where i~e c~uld accommodate a swimning
pool; that he had spoken to several of his neighbors and r~ceived no ~pposit~on to his
proposal; th~t th~ere was a 2Q-foot wide strip from Yhe back of his house to a very sharp
slope~ and said strip was apFrnximately GQ feet long; and that the bock yard was so
cluttered with the patlo~ etc., that they clecideu to put the swimming pool in the front
yard.
Commissioner Tolar nateci~ i+i his opinion~ that a block wall alon9 the front pr~perty llne
mlght be detrimenta! to the resale value of the subJect property.
Discusslon pursued concerninu t~~~e ~~~~~:I~^s Fr~rn ri-;p ~Pighborhood and th~ matter of
cl~arin~ the proposal throu~~h the "architectural contrc,l committ~e" of the subJect tract~
during which Mr. Lambo respectfully requested a four-week contlnu~nce to r~eet with the
nelghbors and the referenced comm3ttee,
Ccrmmissioner "erbst offerc:d a motion~ ~econdecl by Commissioner Johnson aneJ MOTION CARRIED
(C~mmissioner rlorley beinct abscnt), that the AnAhelm City Planning Cornmission cloes hereby
reopen the publtc hearing and contlnue consideration of Petitlon 4`or Varlance No. 2795 to
the Planning Gomnlssion meeting of May 10~ 1976~ as requestecf by the petitioner.
(NOTE: Thts ltem h~as c.~nsidere~l following item ~8 on the agenda~ since the peti~ioner M~as
not pr'esent when the item was ciuly scheduled to be heard.)
~
~
~
7G-173
MII~UTI'S, CITY PLANNIPIG COHMISSION~ A~rll 12~ '97~~
VAf~14tICE N~. 27~3~~ - PUNI.iC HC,1R~Iaf. THOMnS E. LAVENBC~tG, IlOf4 1!orth Loulsr. Drlve~
-"'- Anohefm~ Co. `)2~%~5 (~wner); rnquestlnq Wl11VCR OF MfNIN~~g1~J~'~~CR Os
RARBITS~ 1'0 PFRM~T TNC R~ISINf, OF' RAfjBIT.~ on proprrt/
an lrregularly-shape~l pArcel af land conslstin!1 of approximntely f1.?. .~cre having a
frcit~ge or ~pprc>>:Im~itely ~~7 f~:el ~n rhe east side of L~u~se ~~~~feet~s~uthaofatheum
da, th of ~7f~p~"nx~n'rt~ly 12~'1 feet, beln9 locate.d approxlmately 5
eente:rllne of Roirncy~i Dr~vc~ and furthei describ~ I a~ 110f? North Loulse prive.
f'ropcr ty pr~sent ly CI A35I f I C~{ RS-7?~M ( Rl•'S I DEIJTI AL, S I tJGLf.-FltMl LY) ZONC.
qp~;~oxlm<+iFly lh persons in~1lc~~ted thei; presence In upposltion tt~ si~bJect pr.Cltlon; ond
s,,iJ persons waived the Full rc~~iin~~ uf thc Stiff Rep~rt t~ th~~ Pl~~nning Commisglon doted
qnr~~ ~; ~~7f,~ on thc basis that thcy had reviewed coples ~~1` snmc.
Although thc Str~ff Report was n~t rc~d at thc puhlic hearinc~, sald report ls rflferred to
and inade a pirt of the minutes.
It 417l5 noCe~1 th~t a petltlon signed hy approxim+~tcly 5~~ nc~irby propert~ owners ~nd
resldents !n oppositlon wrs ~r rec:ord with tho Planning Deparlmr.nt,
Mr. 1liomas ~.avenber~, the pel.l tloner, appeired hefore thc Pl~nning C~ ~mission anJ stated
they ;~ra~C~illy h.id j~j ra~~bi ls ~n thAir property; thar, they ha~l no co•~trol over when the
~abhlts gave birth; tf7at hIs chil~iren r~~lsed th~ rabbits for :,hrn•rlr~;; ~nd th~'. thP rabbits
were kept away from the property ilres.
;~~. Y~~.~ "~ Ga~~~, I~ih2 Forest Lane, Anaheim~ appeared before the Plannin~ Comnisslen and
.~.,, ~~~~h-,,,r~ ~n~~ld harrlly etanrl tn
statr,d he ha~l signe~l the petitlon in o~positio^; ii~ut ~~~~
be ln the~r ry'"'should berconc~erlnectllabo'ut ttieehe~lthr`andcwelr~re orf thi:tnei~h~bors(}andtdenyn~
tha t tf~e C 1 ty
the prop~sal.
Mr. Steve Ue Janncro~ l~+~i~3 Forest Lane, Analieirn, appeared before the Planning Commisslon
and statecl his clau~ht~r l ived next dc~or to the subJect ~•r~~perty; thak tha peY.l tloner
started out with two rahbits for ;~ets and then fo- show. and presently there were qulte a
few rabblls on the prc+pert~~; t.hat rahbits multi~lied rapl~lly and 'nad to be L'hlnned out at
some polnt, at which tfnx; tl~e ralsinc~ of rabhit~ b~~came cc,mmercial; anci that he was
opposecl to all as~ncts of the prc~pasal.
In rebuttai, Mr, la~renbcr~ st.~~ed the Hea1Ch Oepartn~ent had been out to 'heck his ,.roperty
on three cccasio~s and advise~l him everythi~.~ was all right, an~ *.hat It would be
impossible to bh rid of flies in Ar.aheim wich or without the rabbits.
Mrs. Doris Lavenbera appea~ad `~efore the Planriing Commission and indfcated the•.e were
other neighborhoocl prohlems ~~lso~ to her knowled~e~ i.e,, sheh~ever~nthcy~lcould control
nei~hbors throwing a deacf c1~~ over into her b~ck yard, etc.;
the birth of they rabuits by pur q ther~ in individuai cages.
ri ncrn
TfIF PUB~IC Htiiiti~?~~ 4iiw 4~......~.
it was n~tc~~ tha: the ~irector of the Planr'ric~ Depd~~^Y~r~t had ~fetermincd t,~~t the propos~d
:,ctivit~~ fell w?thin the deti~itlon of Section 3.Q1 ~ Cla~s 1, of the Clt ~~>i' A~,aheim
Guidelines to the Requirements f~r an Environmental Impact keport <+^~i w~s, tl,_ref~~e,
categorically exempt from the rcau~r.:~~~ent to file an Elft.
C.~mmissi~ner Nerbst offerecl Resolutiun No. PC?6-74 end moved for its passaqe and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission cines hereby deny Netition for Vari~nce No. 275~~
on the basis Chat the subject properr.y, which i~ a typical lct in a sinctle-far~illy
residentla! tr~ct~ is not an approprlate 'ocatlon f~r Che. raisln~ of rahb~ts, that a
potential healtli h~~ard exists, a-~~i that property owners in the surroundinc~ area obJect t~
th,• ~,rnn~cai. (See Resolution Boo~)
ln roil cail~ the forecroln9 reso~ ition was passed by the ~o~l~.,,~ing vote:
AYES: COi1h!ISSI~MFRS: BAR~IES~ HF:r~~ST, JGHNSOtJ, ni~JG~ MOR;.EY~ TOLAR, FAP,~~!(1
NO[S: COh1Ml5S1(?NERS: ~~O~iE
ABSFNT: COMt•IISSI~Nf~'.S: NOtlE
RF~FSS - At 5:3''1 p•m.~ Chairman Farano declared a recess.
RECO~IVEIJF. - At r:35 P~~~•, Chairr~an Farano re~:onvened the meet~ng wlth Commissioner
'"""°-'- Morley befnc~ ibsent.
~
....
~
MINUTf.S~ CITY Pl_ANNII~G CGhirllsSl~N~ ~pr il I?, I`)7~~
)G-174
VA(tIANCF. Nq. 27`~~1 ~ PURLIC II~~',ftI~IG. Ci111Q, Ii~C., c/o Pel Chunc~ Chno~ lyh~ Sou[h Narbur
Eioulev.~r~l~ llnnh~im, C~. ~32"Q? (Ownei); WII.LIAM J. KISGCPI~ 3~~~~~1 Via
Catnlina, CapistrAno Beach~ Ca, 92(ti2~~ (Aq~nt); request~n~ WAi~":R OF
M1~1111CM ~IUMDER 01" Pl1RK11lf ~PAC~S~ TO F'~RNI1' EXPAIISIQPI OF 11N EXISTItI~~ MQTEL on property
dascrihed as <i re~.tnn~lularly-~hapeei parcel ~f l~n~~ c~nslstlny of approxim<~tely Q.7 ~icre
hoviny a frc-nt~iqs of ~approx~mt-tely 12? ~eet ~m ' nc;rLh side ~F Katalla A~enue~ having
a m~xlmum denth of ~p~,roxfmrit~~ly 2>~ fect, belnq .~cated a~prc~xim.~tely h50 feet nast of
the centc~rline of Harhor BoulevnrJ~ an~l furr.her d~scrlbed Hs -i35 West KatQll~ Avenue.
F'r'operty prr..sently classlfled C-R tCOt1MF.RC11~1 R.FCREATI011) ZONE.
Na ona Indicated their presesncu in opposfilon r.o suh)ect petitlon,
Altnouc~h the Str~ff Report to the Plannlnc~ Comnisslon dat~d April i2~ 1~3'J6, w~s not re~d at
the publlc he~ring, salci Staff Roport Is referrecl to ancl m~~c1r. .i part of the m(nutes.
Mr. Willi~.m J. Kls~an~ the n~ent f~r the pet(tianer, appeared befr the Planning
Commissl~n to answer questlons concern!nc the pro~osal.
THE PUBLIC Nf:~RI"" W~S f,L(15E(1,
r'urs:iant t~ cilscussic,n~ ~cmnilssionnr Herhst noted that a reciuctic,~~ ir~ parkln~ "equlr~mc~ts
for mc~tels had h~~en allowed In thc past~ however, the applicants wcre required t~ submit
da,:a to substanclate the req~~est. Mr. Ktsgen atated they had data ava~lable.
Mr. Qon Cnsper apN~~~red beforc the Plannfng Commisslon and st.ited he and hl, wifc had
oper~~ted the subJect r,~ntel over the past tw~ and one-hai f years; tha: :sbout one year ago
they had entered the tour p~ck~he prog~°arti and had heen very successful in It; that the
people were cominn by :~( r or bus and very few by private automnbi le; that In ~pproxlmately
one more year, they antfclpated heinc7 f~ll all year; that thelr package Included meals at
the res taurant an~l t f ckets to D 1 sney l anc1, etc, ; and that i n prev lous t lmcs ~ they averagad
one car per roam.
Commissloner tferbst inqutreci tiow ma~y of the ~.ourlsts might rent cars, usi~g up ctie
parkinn spaces anc± creaCin7 the poss ibf lity thal' 1Q ar more rooms m~ght rem;,in vacant
since there would be no pi~ce to park their cars. Mr. Kisgen respanded :hat ~ie fe?t the
tour packages would be so gre~~t that It would be far more proi'itable for then, to liave a
few vacant rooms than to have 'esa rooms and more parkfng; that the ivarhoe Note1 was
purchased about seven ye~rs before Mr, Chaa discovered that he had considerab!y ;ess
rorkirg than he thought he hacl anci, if a shortage of parkin~ s~+aces for hfs custom~rs had
oc.curr~~d, he wuul d have been ~v~are of I t.
In re~ponse to questioninc~ by f,cm~ •ssianer Ile~•bst, Mr. Cosper stitc~~ there were very few
customers who arrived by bus and rented cars~ proportionately. Mr. Kisgen addecf that one
car to Lwo roortis was ~~l so a poss i b i 1 i tY .
~ a ~.. «t,,,. ,.,i~•1, rtie lyanhnP MntPl
Chalrman Farano noted th~it the sturiy conuucic~ ~~~ ~.~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
Included most of the r~~tets in the subje~t area.
ComMissioner Tolar inquired if it h~as knawn how many peopl~ came into the area by bus,
car~ ~'r~ er.c.; whereupon~ Asslst~nt P1an~ing Director pon N~cDaniel reported that F,e Jid
not h. e tlie information readily aeeessible, however, the numbers w~ulcl depend ~~p~n the
facility nbr;ltorPd; ancl that he estimateci that at least 3~`G oi` the people c~me into the
Disneytancl area by some mode other than private automobile.
Chairman Farano then maci~ an obse~vation that, if anytfiing, ie sit~~~. ion may hav~
improved since the p~~viously mentior+ed stucly was conducted.
Mr, Losp.:r statecl the subject motel was presently fi lled with customers; nowever~ ciiere
wera ~nlV 12 car~ ~sing rlie parkin~ lot.
In response to q~.aestloning by Cortxni ssi~ner Barnes, Mr. Cosper stated they provided a
shuttle bus service for :heir customers.
Commissloner Johnson offared a motio~~~ seconde~~ ~y Gommissioner Ilerbst ~snd MOTiON CARRIED
(Comr.~issioner Morley beino absent) . that thr. Anahtim City Planning Commission doe~ here~y
recommend to the City Council of the ~~t~~ ,~f A,nahePm tf,at the subJec: proJect be exempt
frcxn the requirement to prenare are environmental impact report~ pursuant to the prc,visions
of the Callfor~ia cnvlronm~~~ta1 Qu~silty Act.
~
~
MINUTES~ C17V PLANNINCi COMM~SSlON~ ~pril 12~ 1~7~
7f~-175
VARIANCF. N0. 27`~7 (Contlnued)
Comm) ss lor~ur Johns~n nf fercd itnsol ut i un ~~o. PC7Fi-'J~ an~l moved for I ts p~ssage ~n~{
Adoption, that Chc An~~heim Clty P~annln~~ C~nenisslon cloes herehy grant PeCition for
Varlance No, 2]~1J, ~rantin~ the rcquestcd walvcr uf tfie minimum numher c~f parkln~~ sp~~a~
on the basls that che Planninq ',nxnissfon ackn~~ledgns the fact that the ai~bJect property
(s In close proximlty tn Disneylan~l ~ncl the An.~~~eim Conventi<~n Center; a~~ ! thal It h~s
been IndicAted by prevlously submitr~~d ~L-'.•i ~~n~l stu~lles that a~proxlmate~y ?.~~ of thc
vlsltors to sai~l commerclal r~~r.reation .+rea arrive by a transportotlnn r-ode other thon
prlvate automobile; an~l, f~irthermnrc~ the pe[itio~ier subm~tte~l informatlon to suppoi't the
r~queste~l waiver prnposing an ipproximnte:ty 1~1~ r~duc,tion fn thc min(mum p.irkfn~ spACas
roqulrecl; sub,lect to the Interdepartmentnl Commlttee reccr-m~n~InClons. (See Resolutlon
Qookj
0~ roll ca71 ~ the fore~oing resolution N-~s pnsse~t by the i l lowlncl v~tc~:
,4Y[S ; C~I~H I SS I r~; IF.~?S : nnc~rirs , HF.~sRST , JnII~ISrn~ ~ K f tlr, ~ T~LI1R , FARAII~
~~pC;; C011~11SS1~~lf.RS: N~tIE
AIISf•.~1T: C~~1M I SS I ~Nf RS : M~RLEY
VARI A~dCE t~~. 27~^ JBLi r, HEAR ItlG. DUNN I'ROPER'TI [:S GORP. ~ c/o Ray Che r•mak~ 2"~ tlrool<-
,~llow Drivc~ ~anta A~ ~~ Ca, ~27~5 ~~ner); reyu~:stln~ ~:AIVER OF
REQUI ftEl1F~l1 TH/tT ALi. O1'S AaUT A PUIILIC STItEET, 10 CaTA3LfSl1 ?5
Ln7s WITIInuT FU~LIr, STRFF..T FROtJT~GE on p~ ~n~•rty described as Portion A: An trrPn~~'a~1Y'
shape:f p:~rcel o~' land consistinq of appr<xlmately ~3.7. acres h~vin~ a fr~>ntage of approxl-
mately ~iF~7 feet on the cul-de-sac af Knoilwood Circle. having a maximum ciepth of approxl••
mately ~~~~5 feet, ~n~1 bein~i ~vcated approximately 2~75 ~eet narth of the eenterllne oP
Woodland Drive; an~l Portion f3: An irregularly-shaped parcel oP land consisting of
approxim:~tely 2.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 7~'~ fee; on the west side of
Knol lw~oo C1 rcle, liaving a maximum depth of approximately 5~-Q feet, :nd beinc~ located
approxima*.~ly ~~45 fcet north of the centerllne of 4Joodland Drive. Property presently
classlfied ML (I'IDIISTRIF~I.~ LIMIT~U) ZO~~E.
Commissioner K(ng noted that he had a conflict oP interest~ as defined by the Anaheim
Municip~l Cod~ Section l.l.h~~ and Government Gode S.-ction 3625~ et seq. , In that he owned
cemmon stock En Pacif(c Lighttng Carporation and said corporation owned Ounn Properties
forporatian; t`~at F~irsu~~nt to the provisions of tlie above Codes~ f~e was hereby declaring
to the ~hatrman `hat f,e was withdrawing from thF hEaring in connection with Item No. 1£3 of
the agFnda~ l,eing Variance ~Jo, 27~~~ and o~auld not take part in either the dlscussion or
the vct~ng Ch~reon; and that he haG not ~isr_ussed this matter with any member of the
Plannin~i Commissl~n. THEREUPO~~~ CQMi~ISSIONER KINC, LEF'T illE :OU~lCIL CHAh1BER AT 5;50 P.M.
No one inciicated their presence in opposition to subject petitlon,
Alth~ugh the Staff Report t~ tfie Planning Comr~~ssion dated April ~2, 1976, w~s not read at
the public hearfng, said Staff Report is referred xo and made a~:art of the minutes.
~1r. George Bernharth~ the engineer for the developer~ appearecf before the Planning
Commission and stated that due co the unique shape of the s~~bject property~ there was n~
co!~ce(vable way to devclop it in a conventional form; that the prop~sal was a unique
concept with a 36-~c~ot wide private drive (traveled width) looped ac the cul-de-ssc; that
the proposal was very much 1(ke a shopping cenCer~ would have no parl;~ays or s(clewalks,
and the lots would come to the edge of the curb and gutter wi th thr. cars being abie to
mou~t the curbs to ~o to the parking spaces; ancl the specific reauest ~~as to permlt the
lots to tront-on tne priva~r ~,ive.
THE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CL.OSED,
Chalrman rarano nated [hat th~ prop~sal was subst~ntially different from wliat was approved
by the Planr~ing Comnissi~n on tlay 13. 197~~; that the original proposo' was for lnd~.~strial
bulldinc~s with warehouses~ etc.~ and the present propo:;al was for clu~tered buildings;
tyat the squar: foota~e of the floor space was pr~posed to be increased from 90,OD0 square
feet te 127~~~n square fcet~ and the natur:: of th~ proposal was almost completely
diff~rent; a.id that !~e was ~ot at all convi~ced that Knollwo~d Circle was adequate.
Commissioner Herhst took exce~tlon t~ thc ~,rapose~ traffic flow~ noting that he was
~oncarned about the industri 1 trafflc t'nat wou'.d be mixing with the commcrc~ai tr~T~ic~
~ ~
MI"JUTES~ CITY PLANNIIJG COPIMIS5I~N~ 11pr11 i2. 1976
Vl1RIANCE N0. 279$ (Continued)
7~~~7~
Nhich wAS pc~or trnffic fic~w, in his opin(on; ~~ncl ha In~ilcatecl cllssatisf,~ctlen w(th the
clusterc~f bulldlnns.
Mr. Ray Cherm~k, rr~presenting the petitloner, ~ppe~~rr.;l bcfore the Plannin~ Commis~ton and
stated h~~ coul~l not ~1eny that they had pres~nted an ent(rely different plan provic~~~sly to
the: Comml,;aion; that origln~lly It seemed ttie best use f`or th~ errcf oP tlie properry nortli
of the cul-de-sac was a lnrge user occupancy~ pPrhr~ps with rall servlce~ bec~use ~f ItS
locati~n .ai th 1 IAGIC of access nnd due to i ts size and confihurAti~~n; however~ s(nce thot
time~ 'che nconomics of th~e country had chan~ed~ espectally wltl~~ respect t~ the industrlal
mnrket; th~t~ presently~ it would not bG possihlc to devclop ths orlginal proposal; tht~t
in thei r marketing stu<Iies they had cletermi ~ieJ thare was a demancl on the p~~rt of the small
busines~•man to own nis own bulldinct; and that r.hPy had a bel•ler package to offer the smAll
busiries~~~~,-~~~ than anyonc else,
The Plannln;i CommissJ~n entered l~~to cllscuss~~n regarding the ~rtglnal Goncerns for
developi c~ the sub.ject F~ropcrty~ d~~ring whi cli Commissloner Tolar questi~ned thc ab(1(ty of
larc~e trucks t~ make dellv:=.r1es, etc,, on the n~~rraw street, and Chairman Farano inr~lcated
he felt the pro.)ect woulrl be unwieldy.
Mr. dernh~rth stat~ci that the proposal to have Sr~ali users would not nece5sarily create
mo~e trafflc~ and woulcl have cunsiderably lASS employees; that heavy trucks would be
excludacl for all intent~ a~~i purpases, slnce thc seril-truclc trailers were Gharacterlstlc
uf large warehousin~ type operaCii~ns. M;. 9ernharth further staCed that the number of
users was not neeessarily a maasurement fo~ the amount of ti-affic t~~at woulcl be generated;
that Chey di~1 not Intencl to ciev(ate from tt~e parkinc~ space requf rements; ancl tt~at th~y
would propose a standard strect secti~~n and~ whether they provlded publlc or pr(vate
5treets~ the parklnc~ w~uid he the samc~.
Mr. Chcrr~ak stated Dunn PropPr~.ies bullt-out a proJect )n its entirety at the beginning;
that their marl<eting indicateJ a great nee<1 for the small building packac~e; anJ r.hey were
not r;~!esttn~ to have any uses which were not nermitterl in the ML Zone standards.
Office En~ineer Jay Tit~.is advised that the ric~ht-of-way for a public street in an
Industrlul zone was G~~ FA:t. cr 52 feet curb-to-c~irb.
TraFfic Engineer Paul Singer reportc~d that the ~ine was approac.hing ~atien some mitlgating
me~sures should be formulated for the traf fic at La Palma and Magnoi ia Avenues.
Mr, bernharth respectrully requcsted that ~~ four-wesk continuance be granteci to allaw tfine
some revlsions to C.he propased devel~p~i^.nt~ and requested to be a~le to present the
three lots to the south at an earl ier meet ii g, Chai rman Farano responded that it would be
t,etter to preser,C the entl re proJect at one tlme.
Commissioner Johnson ted that the lack of a pubifc strePt ancl the in~c'...~uate street
width were the na~n c.,~ricerns~ in his opinion.
Comr*~issioncr Herbst. ~f'ered a motion~ seconded by Cortxniss(o,er Tolar and MOTIOt! CARRIED
(Commissi~ner°s King and Morley beinc~ absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss~on
does hereby re~pen the public he~+ring an~~ continue consideration of Variance No, 279~'~ to
the Plann~n~ Comm(sslon meetin~ of May 10, l~l7G~ as requested by the petitloner.
COMMISSIOt~[R KINC, RETURNF.D TO ?HE COUNCI ~ CHAMl3ER Al~ 6:25 P.M.
~ ~
7G-1~7
MINUTES~ CITY PI.AHMIIIG COMNISSION~ April 12- 1976
RFPf1R1 ~> A~ID - I TFt1 N0. 1
REf.OMMf.NDATI~IIS F.2UF.5T OR EIR NEGATIVL DFCLIIRATl~N - For a parcel mc~p c~n
propcrty IOCAr:;d southerly c~f Santa Ana Canyon Road~ botween
Cerro Vist~ and C•escent Drlve.
It was n~te~l tf„it An appllc.atlon for .~ ~~grcal map h~id been filed to divide a par~ol oF 3.G
acres at the sul;)oct location Into tliree parcels of 1.2~ 1.19 and 1,19 ncres; thHt an
ev~luatl~n of the environmental impact of parcel maps wr~z rec~uired under the provis'ons of
the Ca1lf~ornlA Envlron~~nr.~~l Qu~llty Act and State EIR Guldcl~nes; ths-t a 3tudy of the
pYOposed pnrcel mnp by the Planning Department and the Engln~~ering Division fncilcated that
approvat ~~f the parccl mnp In Itsel` would not cre~~te s(qnificant ervironmental impar,t
slnce the ~~rcels were c~mpatible wlth che zo~in~ of RS-HS-~+3~000; howeyer~ ~~ny subsequent
approvAl to further subdlvide the property or to ~o grauinc~ would requir: furnc~r
evaluat(on c~f envirnnr~nt~i Impact.
Commissloner Herbst offered a motion, seconded t,y Commissl~ner Kin~ and Hf1TIQN CARRIED
(~ommissiGner Johnson ahstalninq and Commis~ioner Moriey heing absant)~ that the Anat~e:im
f. i ty P l ann i n~ Cortm i ss i on does he • st~y r~commend to the C i r.y Caunc i l ~f rhn f. i ty ~f -1nah~ i m
that the sub)r.~t pr~jPCt he exempt from the requlrr.ment to preparc ~n envlronment~l Impact
repart~ pursu~nt to rhe pravlsions of the C~t:fornla Env~ ~mental Qu ltty Act.
ITCM N0. 2
REQUEST FQR FIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATlOM - For a parce.l map on
~r~perty IbC~te(~ west of the southwest~:~,imost ~'Qr~_inn ~f
''eralta Hills Drive (Ir the 20U South blocl:).
It was note' that ~n ap~>lication for a parcel map had been flled to divide,a~5~r~~~ssr
3.f1~ acres .+t i.ne su-~iect locatlon inte~ thres parcels of 1,OQ1, 1.035
acre~; thaC an evaluaLfon nf the envirunmentai impact of parr_cl maps ~.~, requlrcd ~mdcr
the provlsions of the Californla Environmental Quality Act and State iR Gu+~ielines; that
a study ~f the proposecl pa;•cel map by the Plannin9 Department anci the Enctlneerin~ Divtslon
in~~icatecl th.~r :,~~r,roval of the parcet map In itself would not create a si~nificant
envirc~nmental impact; however, any subsequent approval to further ~~i•.ide ~he property or
to do ~radinc~ would require `urthcr ev~>> t~nn oF environmenial imnace.
Cornnissior.er ~ierbst off~red a rtx~tion~ sec:~ndeci by Commissioner 7olar and MOTION CAFtRIED
(Commissioner Morley being absent). that the Anaheim City Plannin~i Ccm~n(ssicn does hereby
recommer.d ;o the Clty Councl! of the C1Cy of Anahe(m that the sublf:~t proJect be exempt
from the requirement ta prepare an envirer.mentai i~„pact report, purs~~int to the ~rovtsions
of ±he California Envlronme.ntal Quality Act.
ITEM N0. 3
REQUEST FOR EIP, NEf,ATIVE DECLARATION - For a grading permit an
property located at -~610 and 4620 Cerr~ Vlsta Drive.
It was noted that an application for a grading permit haci been filed to consCruct two
sinc~le-family residences on Che subJect property; that an evaluation or the e~vironmental
impact of c~r~ding at this locatfon was required under [he provisions ot` the Caltfornia
Environmenta) Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines because che project was lacated in the
Scenic Corrldor ar,d the slope of the land wa~ at least 1~`•; and that a study of the
proposed grad(ng by the Engineerbng Division and the Planning Qepartment indicated t~~at it
would have no signlficant environmental impact.
Commissioner Ktng offered a ~notiun~ seconded hy ~~mmissi~ner Barnes and fi0TI0N ~ARRIED
(CortmlSS~oner J~hnson abstainin~~ a~~~ Co~~;,=~=!^!!Pr MorleY being absene). that the Anaheim
City Planning Commtssion does hereby reco mnend to the City Council of the C1ty of 4naheim
~eatr~hePs~suent to~thetpbevlsions of thehCaliforr(ae~nvl~onmenta) QualltyrAc~nt~~ ~~pact
Po
~ ~
MI~~UTES~ r,~TY PLANNIN~ COMMISSI~N, April 1~~ 197~ 7G-17r3
lTEM N0. 4
~~R EIR NF:GIITIVC DFCI_ARl1TInM - For a grading permlt on
rrop~rty loc~ted nt 2G1 Suuth Wllldan RoAd (northw~st corncr
oF PlensAnt Place ~nd Willdan Road).
It w~s note~l t~iat an appllc~tfon hrd heen filed for a c~r~dinc~ perrnlt to canstruct a
si~qle-f;~m(iy residence AC ti~e subJe~t locatl~n; ~hat an evtiluatton of tlie environm~~~~tal
imp~ct of grgdlnc~ aC thls loc~tion was requlred un~ier the ~rovtsions nt the Callf (a
Envlrc~r~r.nlal ~ual(ty Act oncl 5tnte Elft Guidelines heca~se the prnJ~ct was locate~l in the
Scenic Corrlclor anri thc slope of the land was at 1Fast 10~; and that ~ study of ~he
proposed ~~radin~ hy the Plannln~ DepertmPnt and the Enhlneering Divisic,n in~llcatecl thAt
Chere would be n~ sic~niflc<mt ervironnx~n[al impact.
Cortmissl~n~r il~rhst ufferecl n motlon~ seconcled bv Cc~nmissioner Y.Ing and M~TI~N CnRRICD
(Comm(ss'~ner Mc~rl~;~ h~(r~~~ absent)~ that the Anaheim Clty Planninn Cormission does ncreoy
rec:omn~end to the f,ity Cuuncil of the City of Anaheim that the subJect proJect he ex mpt
from the requi rer~~nt to prepare an env( ronmental impac,l report ~ pur~ ~int to the pr~ vis ic~r.s
of the Callfornin Er.vlranment<~s) Quality Act.
I TE11 P~O. 5
,t .~ 1'SR EIR NEGATIVF DECLARATiO~ - For a parcel map on
property located at ~f77 Country Nil Road.
It was nc~te~i th~t ,~n appllcatian for a p~rcel map had ~~een filed to dtvide. the subjcct
property into three ~arcels for single-family homes; that an evaluatlon of the
envlrnnmental impict of ~~rcel maps was required under the provisions of the f.aliforn(a
Environmental O.uallty Act ancl State EIR GuldPlines; an~l that a stucly of the propose~
parcel map by thr. pl~ n'ng Depar~ment and the Engineer(ng Divislon indicated th~t there
would be no signiffcant environmental impact.
Corrmtssioner Tolar orfered a motion~ seconded by Commfssioner K(ng an~l M~TION CARRIED
(C~~mm~ssior:er Merley bFinc~ absenC), that the Anahelm ~ity Pl~nning Commission does heMeby
recommend to the City Council af the City of Anahelm that the subJect r~iect be xempt
from the requirement t~ prepare an environmental impact report, purs~ar~~ to the provislons
of the Californ3a Er '•onmental Qual(ty Act.
IT[M N0. 6
C~UNTY OF ORANGE SURPLUS PARCEL N0, P.M. 5~+~~'-3 -
Requ~st for determination of compliance with the
City of Anahelm General Plan.
It was noted that the County of C~range was proposing to declare ~urplus and dtspose of a
p~rcel of land located on the nr~~th side of La Palma Avenue approx!mately 1R~~ feet east
of Mosswood Drtve, sai~i parcel cons:sting of appraxlmately 7000 square fret an~i befn~ the
remair,der of <~ larger parcel which was acquir~d for constructton ~f La Palma Avenue; that
in accordance with Section 6;~~~2 of the Government Code~ ~he Agercy was req~~ ti~c~ the
Anahelm C~ty Planning Corxnission to detern~~ne if the proposeci pr~jECt was in conformance
with the City of Anaheim General Plen~ and whether the sale woula or would not hive a
siclnificant acfverse effect on Lhe environment; that th~ proposed disposal of subject
property dici n~t confilct with the Anaheim Genera) Pla~~; and that the Engineerlnq Division
had ind(cal•eci that the pr~posed action conf~rmed with the Master Plan of Arterie: Streets
an~ Hi~ha~ays.
Commissioner tierbst roted that due to the sir.e and locatlon of the subject property, it
wnuld be appropri~~t.. for development to the RS-~~0~ standards.
Commissi~ner Fierbst ~ffered Resolution ~10, PC7b-?b and move~i for its passage and adoptior.,
that the Anahe~m Clty Planning Cammission does hereby flnd a;d determine that the proposed
dtsnositl~n af surplus real p mperty by the County of Orange ~s in cnnformarce with the
City ~f Anahetm's ado~tPd General Plan; that the Plannin~ Commission concurs with the
filtng of an envlr~nmental impact neyative declar7ilon in conne:tion with sald proposal;
and that the Plenning Commisslon does further recor+mend that tiie subject property be zoned
RS-5~~~o for developmental purposes~ when appropriete to do so. (See Resolutfon Book)
On roll call~ tha foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COHMISSIO~~ERS: BARPlES, HERBST~ Jt1HNJUN, KIIVt~~ i~~i.„n~ ~r~~~~~~~
N4FS : CQMM) SS I bPlERS : NOPIE
AE3SEPIT: Cf1MMISS~~Mf.RS: MORLEY
~
`~
MINUTF.So CITY F~.~NtlING COMMISSIO~a~ Apri) 12y 197h 7E-~79
ITEM N0. 7
V RIANCE N0. 2G~3 - Requcst for extensian of ttme - Praperty
con~istlnc~ of approx(rt-~tely 1.5 acres lccateci at tl~ ~ nc~rt.hwest
corner of Westr+x,nt D~-Ive nnd Eucl td Street~ .ind furthcr
descrlhed ae S~> ~darth Euclid StrPCr.,
Il' wns n~Cec1 that Verlance No, 2(~93 wbs r~ppraved, in part, by the Plrnnir~~~ ~~rtnnisqlon on
April 14~ 1~175~ to construct a"thanging copy" electrontr, ign with wAlvcr of locatlan And
maximum height; thnC a letter Prnm the appltca~t Indicated that bfcls from v~rtous sign
tompanies hnd been receive~i ancl that ~+ selection would hopefully be mnde by this sumner;
that the appllcant (Mcrvyn A, Phclan~ Anaheim Plaza 3utldinq) wAS requesting a onn-yc~r
extenslon of time tor Varlancr. Flo. ?f~~13 in order to meet the condtttors of approval; and
that no prevlous +.tme extrnsi~ns hacl been req~~e~ted.
Cammissloner Johnson offered a moklon, sr.con~od by Commissloner Herbst .~n~i M~TI~1N CARRIED
(Commissl~ner Farano ahstafntn~ since he was not present at the public h^~~~~~g for the
sub]e:ct variance; ~nci Commissinncr Morlcy being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Plan ing
Commisston d~ss herehy grant a one-ya~~r extensi~n of ttme for Va-f ~~ No. 2G93, as
requestecl by the opplicant~ satd axtensi~~~ of time t~ expire April 14~ 1~177.
ITGM N0. ~
RIDI~~G AND HIKINf TRAIIS - ~~,~~est for a Master Plan
Study ~~n~ schedulinc, of public hear(n~s thereon.
Associake Plannar B111 Cunnfngham presentPd the Staff Report to the Plannin~l Ccnrnisston
~ated Aprll i2~ 197~~~ and saicl St,ifP Report Is referr~d to and made a~art of the minutes.
Mr. Cunnln~ham explal~ed rhat following the completion of a Master Plan for riding and
hlkin~ trails, implernent~jtion could be bud~eted for, and alternatives would be dlscussed
In t;~e plan concernlnq malntenancc.
In response to questioninc~ by Comm(ssloner Herbst, Mr. Horst Schor, represent~ng Anal~eim
Hills~ (nc.~ t~ppe~re.~i before the Plannine~ Commissior, and stated that at one time Anahelm
~~ills had propose-' in assessmenC dlstrtct for maintenance of the riding anci hlking tralls
which was never ~ted; tha:~ in all falrne~~, the mair~tenance should be han~lled through
an a~sessment cil~ ict a~sessin~ the h~;i ar~ci canyon areas~ and nnt the general ~axpayers
in th~e City~ for u~age of thz trails.
Deputy City Attorney Frank LoH.~v advised that he had conducted a study pertaininr to
maint,enance of rldln~ and hikiny trails and one method placed the tax with the avners af
the horsP~, to su~~port the tr~il system bel~~~ used; and that his study had beer.Mpassed on
to Counci~man Seymour ~or the Task Force. Mr. Lowry further advlsed that the ,.er Plan
may end uF~ beinc~ a General Pl,~n Ar~erdment.
Comnissioner To~ar offered a motion~ seconded by Commiss(oner King in~1 MQTIO~! CIIRRIEQ
(Comrr.issi~ner -"orley beinc~ absent)~ that the An3heim City Plannin~ Commissinn does hereby
recome~end to the City Council o~ the Ctty of Anaheim that the ?lznning Department be
direr.ted to c~mmence development of a Master P!an of Riding and Hiking Trails~ ~nd to
schedule p~~~~lic hearfngs upon corr~plcCion of said plan,
ADJOURNMFPIT - There being n~ furthc:r Gusiness to discuss, Commissioner Tolar offered a
motion, secunded by Commissioner Kiny and F107~OPI C~,''~'tiIED (Comnissioner
hlorley being ahsent)~ that the meeting be adJourne_'.
The meeting adJourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submlttec~,
0
~ ,~ 1 ~ ~.
~iZ..~C~J~ ~~ ~ A- y~. ~'~--~.
Pstricia B. Scanlan~ Secret~ry
Anaheim City Planning Commi:;sion
PI3S :hm
^ n r~'• uirunc II MINfi ,1C~~ICE. INf,.
V 1~ V v ~•~..... _.