Minutes-PC 1976/09/13-~ .----..--.----
~ ~ ~
City Nell
Anal~elm, Call~ornla
September 13, 1976
REGUI.AR MECTtN~ OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~IiNG COMMISSION
REf,IIL'AR - A requlAr mr.ettng of the Anahelm Ctty Plannln~ C~mmisslon w~s celle~i
MEETINf, to order by f,halrman Johnson ~t 1t30 p,m,, on September 13~ tg76~
tn the Council Chamb;:r, a quarum betnq prosent,
PRESENT - ~NA1 RMAN: Johnsan
COMMISSI~NfRS; k3arnes, Herbs~~ King~ Morley~ Tnlar
ABSFNT - C~MMISSI~NF.RS: Farar~o
ALS(1 PRFSENT - Ronal d Thompson
Frank l.owry
Paul Stnger
Jay Titus
Joel Flck
Patrici~ Scanlan
Plann' ~~ Dlrector
Daputy Ctty Attorney
TrAfPtc Englneer
Offtce Englnear
Assiatant Planner
Plannin~l Commisston Secretary
PLFDf;~ QF - Commissioner Ktng led In the Pledqe of Allegl~nce to the ~'~ag oP
At,LEGIANCE the Uniteci States of America.
APP!tOVAL ~F - Commisstoner King offered a motion~ seconded by C~mmissioner '~{orley
THE MINUTES and MOTION CARaiED (Commtssioner Farano being absent), that ~I~e
minutes of th~ regu~ar Planning Commission meFting held n~~
August 16~ 1g76~ he and hereby are approved, as submi ~.ceci.
Cc-mmisstoner King offered a matlon~ s~conded by Commissloner Rarnes
a~nd MQ1'ION CARRIED (Commis~toner Ncrb~t abstaintng stnce he wa~ ~~.,2
present at the meeting i~ que~tton; and Comrnlsstoner Farano being
absent)~ that the minutes of the .J~Int R•adevel~rr~~ent Commission,
Planning ~ommission and ~',-oJect Area Cnrtmtttee Meetl~~~g of July 20,
197F~ be und hereby arE adopted and approved~ as submitted.
Commissioner King offered a mot'f;n, seconded t,~ ~.ommiss:e~:er Barnes
and M(1TIQN CAItR1ED (Commissioners Fierbst and Joh~son abstatning since
they were not present at the meeting in ques~ion; and Commissioner Farano
being ahsent) that the minutes of the ,lo(nt Community Redevelopment,
Planning Commtsston and ProJect Area Commlttee meettng of July 22~ 1976~
be and hereby are adopted end approved~ as submittecl.
Commissioner Ktng offered a mctlon~ secor~ded by Commissioner F!erbst
and MOTION CARRIEU (Commtssioner Morley ~bstnini^y ~ince he Was not
p-esent at the meeting tn qu~sti~;,; a~,; :ommissioner Farano being absent)
that the minutes of the Joi. t Communtt~ Rede~~lopn~? ~t Commisston~ Pia~ntng
Commtssion ancl ProJect Area Committee Meeting o° Jr„~r ?.7~ iq76, be
and hereby are adopted r,;,~ approved~ as tubmltted,
Comnissioner King offered a motlon, $econded b~~ CommisRioner Morley
and MbTION CARRIED (Commissioners Barncs, Herbst, 1'olsr and Johnson
abstaining since they were not present at the meettng in question; and
Commissioner Farano being absent)~ that the minutes of the Joint
Community Redev~lopment Commission~ Planning Commission and ProJect
Area Cortmittee Meeting of July 2q, 1976~ be and hereby are adopted and
approved as submltted.
Commtsstoner Ktng offered a motion, seconded by C~mmissioner Herbst
and MOTION CARRIED (Cammtssloner Johnson abst~lning since ha ~aas not
present at the me~tinq in questio~; and Commissioner Fa~ano oeing absRnt)A
that the mtnutes of the Joint Comms~nity RedevelopmeRt Comm~sslon, Planning
76-420
~ ~
MINUTES, fITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Septemhcr 13~ 197~~ 76--i1.1
f.ommissfc~n ~nd ProJect Arafl Committee. M,e~tfnci ~f lluqust 3~ ~g76~ he
bnd t~c,reby are a~lopt.cd and approved~ ~s submtttr~l,
Commtssion~r King offerod a motion~ seconded t;y Commissloner Flerbst
and M0710~1 CARRI[D (Comrt~is~inncrs Barnes rncl Johnson abstnining st~co
tlir~y wcre not present at the meetina In question; and C~mmiss(cmer
Farano beinn e~bsent) ~ that the ~r~lnut~s af the .lolnt Communl ty Redevelop-
ment Commiszion~ F'lannin4 Commisslon and Pro)ect Aree Committee Meeting
~f Aunust ~~ 197~- be and herehy nre adopted flnd ap~roverf~ as submitted.
Commissi~ner King oPferr.~1 a rtatlon. secondcd hy Cammissloner Herbst and
M~YION CARP,IED (Commissioners Barnes~ Tolar and Johnson ahstatning sincc
they were not present at the meettnq in questlon; ancl Commtssione~'
Far~+no belnq absent). that Che n, nutes oP the J~Int Communlty kc.develop-
ment Cnrr~nlssl~n, Plannin~t Gommission and ProJect Area f.ommlttee Mceting
of August 10~ 1976~ be and hereby are Adopted nnd approved~ as suhmitted.
Commissioner hing offered a rnotion~ seconded by Commissloner N~rbst end
M01'I~t! CARRlfD (Commmissioners Rarnes. Tolar r~nd Johnson abstain(ng since
r.hey were not pre~ci~t at the meeting (n questlc~n; an~ Commissioner Farano
beinq absent), that the minutes of the Jolnt Community Redevelopment
Cammisslon, Planning Commisslon and ProJer,t Arca Committee Meeting of
August 12~ 1~7~~ be a~d herehy ~re ~d~pted an~1 apprnved, as submitted,
~l~-IR~NMF~ITl1L IMPl~CT
E - C~HTI~lUED PU[~LIC HFARING. 1JILl.IAM 1~lAGNER (TRUSTEE) AND DOLJ~
P,
.
183
REPORT N0 HN
RAINS (TRUST~R)~ 530 South Shellman~ 5an Dlmas~ Ca. 91773;
.
'-' ~~>26 Pullman, 112G0~ Santa Ana~ Ca, 9~7~5 (Agent). Property
BOOTY
RE~LASSirICATtQIJ ~
descrlbed as Portions A and B consisting of two Irregula~ly-shaped
76-77^9
N0 portions of land comprtsin~ apprrximately 9.7_ acres located at the
.
__ __ northwest corner oP Lincoin 1lvenue and Rel Air Street~ having
VARIANCF N0. 2$32 approximate frontac~es oP 'i31 feet on tlie north side of Lincoln Avenu~
resently
t
P
y p
roper
an~1 280 feet on t~~e west side of Bel Air Strect.
COPIDITIUNAL USE classifted RS-A-43~n00 (RE5IDFNTI~L/AGRICU~TURAI.) Z~Nf.
PCkMIT ~an, 1643
RE~U[STED f,~tiSSIFICATIOM: RM-1?~~ (R!'SIDENI"IAI~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY)
ZONE (PORIi;,N A).
RE(~UESTED VARIAtif,F: 41AIV~R bF (11) PER~~I1'TFD Ft~CROACHMENTS INTU REO.UIR~D YIIRUS, (E3) MAXIMUM
AND (0) MINiMUM
DINGS
'
.
P,F!CE BETWEEN BUII.
BuiLp~Nr, NEIGN'. (C~ MINIMUM D!S'
p~~°~~ t NG S I TE b~ i DTH AWD F RO~ITAGF , TO c::'r1~ ~ i,l1CT AN SS-UN I T APARTMENT
`LF.i~ (P~RT I ~[~ A) ,
RF.QIIESTF' COP7DIT1~7N, " 70 PERMIT A PUBLIC RECREATIQNAL F~CILITY WITN WAIVER 0~ MINIMUM
,~UILDING SITE WIDTIi AND FRONT'AGE (POR710N B).
Approxii~~dtely nine persons indicated thetr presence in opposition to the subJeci petitions
and fo~thwith waived the full reading oi' the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
September 13, 1976~ on the has(s that they had reviewed copies of same.
Althc,uqh the 5taff Report was not read at tihe publtc heartng, said rPport is referred to
and ma~fe a part of the minutes,
Mr. Gerald NTcoll~ the 5oils Engineer for the develaper, appeared before the Planning
Commission and reviewed the drawinc~~ which In~„cated the basts for' the coHe, Jis~1a edeY
had drawn wi ih «espect to tlie methane gas benearedtin 1952eas vacanttland~ and as it
photographs of he subJect proparty As tt app
looked in 19 55 as a sand and gravel extraction pit. He stat~d that only the rear
approximate~y 40~ ~f chP property was used as a borrow site unttl 1956; that the 1g55
photos showed that the pit was a maxlmurn of 30 feet deep; that they had stereoscopic
methods of deter~intnc~ wh~~ th~ depths were in third di~nenslon to withln 2-foot accuracy;
that he had dtrected the ...ploration of the subJect site personally; and there were
correspondi ng Pindings from the di fferent methods used to determine the facts pertaining
to the site glvin~ ~hem confidence in sald {`tndinqs; that they sincerely believed that the
proposed ba~r(er system was completely adequate for the apartment proJect and the adJacent
adJacentepropertlesewouldih~enefttSf~am,the proposedeba~riea1systPme thatatheyadidnnothc
~ ~
MI NU1'k5 ~ C I TY Pll1NPJ i tJG COMM~ SS I ON, Septembc r 11, 197~ 7('-~~` 1
ENVIRONMCNTl1L IMPACT RCPORT NU, 183~ RECLASSIFICA7IUN N(1. 7~"77^9~ VIIRIANCC P~O, 2832 AN[)
COPIDITIONAL 115E PERMIT N0. 16~~3 (Continued) ~
Inten~l Ca tmply or In~icete that the t-arrl~r woulci not be permeable or not nllow any ctas
to esscnpe; that tliey ~ild n~t fenl 1~. was ~CCr,!~SAf•y to havr, Che barricr At ~hc lrnvest
extremlky of thc r4fu~,e flll; that at the west ~+rop~rty line~ the b~rrier intrrcepted the
rnPiase fill~ that the prnposed barrier was not rn erCiflclal measure but w~s e worktng
me~s~ire nnd haci her..n praven eff~ctlue where tnstalleJ; and that ~~~Pn though thero was
dense sAnrl bene~ith the F111~ the harrlcr would transmlt a falr ~mount oP methane gas. Mr.
Micall further rtiscussecl t.he ba~rrler system~ statln~ that IP the gas entere~~ an enclosed
structure~ Flare coulcl occur but that h.id not hAppenecl wlth r.hN type ba~rler proposed;
tht~t about 3x of thr, qas mi~~ht escape thrc~uclh the cap; Chat the harrter wciuld have a
polyvinyl sheet and a ptpc t~ concenCrAte thc qas; tht~t there was r~a guarantee th~t the
c~as would noC c~o aroun~l the system~ howevr.r, they would s~y that~ withtn all practtcal
ilmits~ the barrier system w~s adequate and had been used successfully and safely; ti~at
there was nQ need for the polyvinyl sheet on thc west slde of the properCy as t~ wo•~ld be
of no ber~efit; that. although they had gas-Indicattn~ equlpment, It could not tell volun-es
or types of ~.~s ancl that type~ oP fnformatton dld not appPar to be necessary on the sub~ect
stte; th~t Cf~ey estlmated approxlmately 5 to 10~ af the qr~s would probably came through
the cap, in whi~.h case and when It did come throuqh~ denendi~q ~n how much was generated~
it could colle~:t anywhere; that the amount ~f the ~xlsting problem would be rECiuced by 85
to 95~~ ~s ~aell as permittfng some escape throu~h the c~p Itse1F; that there should bc a
requlrement that the proposed si.riacture~ be either ventilated or alr-condt~i~necl; and that
at least from an env(ronmental standpolnt~ they felt they had evaluated L'he lateral extent
of the rGf use fill.
Mr. Rooty. the aclent for thP petitioner, appeared before the Plannin~ Commisslon and
stated the revised plens eliminated the access on Bel Alr Street ancl acce5s was now shcswn
on Llncoln Avenue; and that the propose~l apartinents wcre not the tota~l problem with
respect to traffic in the area.
Mr. Joe B utterworth, ?.RS~ hbnrOe Street, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planrin~ Commisslon
in oppasition and read a statemc:nt from Mr. Paul Wflson~ resident cf the l.inc~ln-Beath
Mobile Manor~ which indlcateti it was diff(cult to get a commitment from an expert without
the benefit of a contract~ however, th~ey had been able to obtain an anonymousand they
~xpert's optnianregarding the methane gas situation on the subJect property,
would be happy to provide the name of sald expert Lo Mr. Titus~ xhe City's Office
F_ngineer~ lf requested tc+ do so; that the o~(nion was that a barrier l~ to ~ feet desp
would do no good whatsoever for gas control; and that a clay zap would prevent escape~
however~ the cap would crack. Dr. BuCterw~rth stated that a sniffer should be used to
evaluate the low concentrations of gas; that he had been 1lsteniny to Mr, Nicoll's
presentation and was o,° the opinlon that the cap would pressurize the gas and he would
view that as a hazard and concern ~o the residents alor~q 8e1 Air Street, as v~ell as In the
mobilehome park; that the 5 to 10~; of gas tt~at would escape wo u!d increase; and that the
cap would force the gas to mtgrate horizor'~~~y.
ur. 3utterworth discussed his memnrandum to t',~ Planning Commission which was dtstributed
wi'th the Plannina Commission's packets prior to the meeting, in which he had suggested
that a park be butlt over the fill site~ and he stateci that three local agencies wQUld be
lnvolved in the development of th~ park which would be an Ideal candidate for federal
funding; that Park an~i Recreation Dlrector James Ruth had ir~dicated *_ha~ his department
wauld be willin~ to pursue a federal grant; that nono of ±he agencles could solve the
problem tndivl~iually but together they co~id work th~~:ugh a federal grant; and that most
of the people who would use the park be f~om the City of Buena Park.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Baoty stated that p~ ~~ ~ of inethane gas and traPflc were presentlv
existinq 'n the area~ and to disapprove the proposed proJect would not be a good solution
-n his, as well as Mr. Nicoll's opinion~ that he was upset that the defense (expert
opinlon) was anonyn~ous; that~ if the cap was the main concern~ t.} were willing to drop
the tennis court and recrsati~nal use from the proposal; and tl~. ;:f ~he area wanted a
pubiic park, he w~uld like tf~e Plannin~ Commisslon to consider approval of the apartment
proJect portion ot the proposal since it was we l l ~us t t f t e d.
Mr. Nicoll stated that the cap they were proposing was to slightly modify the existing c~p
which was already a 2 to 3'foot cap~ and make it more effective by reducing the amount of
escaping aas by approximately 90$, however~ 5 to 15~ of the gas mlght escape underneatt~
the barrier system; that the situatton was poor at thn present time anJ the proposal would
reduce the h~zards by a ve ry larqe percentage; that a park on the site waufd also need a
methane rale~se system which could be monltared; that they uttllzed sniffers to monitor
thelr systems; thAt they would punch holes tn the qround to determine how much gas was
~ ~
MIMUTES~ CITY PLAWPlING COMM155i0N, Saptember 13~ 1g76 ~~~~~23
ENVIRONMF.NTAL IMPACT RF.PORT N0~ 181~ RECLAS511TICATION N0. 7b-77-9~ VARIANCC N0, 2832 AND
CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nd. 1(~43 (Continued) __,_.,_,_.
pre~sent tn the arca outsl~lP ~ne system; that thelr system w+~s not meant t~ ba pernu+nent ar
ultlmnte to .inswcr all qos mlgrt~tory problems but was a centrol ancl monttor'nr~ system; and
ths~t they dtd noC feel that the retus~ fill wAi so ~Ich thnt It wt+rranrecl an ambl~nt-typQ
barrlcr syslem.
THF. ~ lIE3LIC NEARI~IG WAS CI.OSE~.
(n rpspons~ to the su~nestlon for a p++rk~ Conmissloner Mortny noted thAt many areas had
bcen suggestinc~ s~ich a~ise wPienever tlicy dtcl not ilk^ pruposAls Pur other typas ot
deveiopment on propPrty In fheir nelghborhoods and there would be Coo many parks If the
Clty took thP advlce oP the publlc; and that~ !n hls opinlon~ deallnq wlth tiiree local
3gei~cles and thc fecieral !7overnrnent t~~ dev~elop a park slte might be out of the questlon.
Commissloner Barnes tnqulred IF Mr. tJicoll was concerne~l About the 5 to 15$ of the gss
being trapped underneatl~ thc apartmenr_s. In reply~ Mr. Nlcol) stated that probably a
lesser amount of qas would be beneath the apartments and the hazard would be if there was
to be a b~sement; that Chc gas could also migratc betwecn the Ploor sla5 and thE ~ootf~~gs~
however~ they were recommendlnq thAt the slab and foottngs be tiecl toc~etheri that they
would als~ recornmencl ventflatlon measures to adequately tnhibit the mtgratlon from the
system.
Chalrman Johnson noted that the ~etitior~er had not addressecl tt~e Increase or decrease of
methanc gas ~ver a period of llrr~. In re.sponse~ Mr, N1co11 stated tlie gas nor+nally
increa~ed witli time; that if he were a resident In the vicinity h^ would be tn Pavor of
the addltiona! monttorin~ system to determine the habit of the gas and how effect(vely it
was beln~ taken care of,
Commissioner Herbst lnquired if the increase of plant mat°rial~ l,e., trees~ grass, etc..
would increase the flow of gas, In response, Mr. Nicoll indicated in the affirmative and
stated that the watering of the plants would cause the increase; and that, addttlonally,
tt~e migratinq gas thrnunh the cap would kill the trees anci grass.
Commissioner Tolar Anreed that the chances of getting the different agPncles together te
develop a park would be very r~rrx~te; that t.. would quPstion the viabtifttheFapartment
coming in wtth the barrler s~~;tem for the rematnder of thc property.
portlon was approved separat•ly and~ therePore~ he w~uld not he in 1'avor of such a
consideratlon but ~NOUId rather consider all of the property as one proleGt: that ito~~~ t~c
standpoint of the proposed tennis court Pacllitles and considertng the closeness to
residentfal uses and, withau: heavy traffic~ he was leaning t~ward it as the best use of
the land without crsatinQ further probl~ms; that this was an opportunity for sameone who
wanted to spend the money for the deveioprnent of the front portion of the property to aiso
elimtnate the rna,1or hazards and put some ktnd aP use on the remaining portion~ and taking
the risk away from tne homeaaners that were already in the area; and that the petttlone~
a~as providlnq an oppor*_unity for circulation from the back of the property to the front~
etc.~ which he also favored.
ChairRian .lohnson indicated his reluctance ta approve the subJect pro,}ect because of the
dangers which mlght ~urch in the future; that something was nPCessary to alleviate the
existing probiems slnce there was a cap over the refuse fill and there were existing
Inherent dangers; that there was lateral spreading of the gas presently to the residences
on both sides of the property; that thp public hearing had been fruttful and he wtshed to
conc~ratulate the clevelopers for wanting to imp rove the prohlems; that he agreed that to
try to develop 2 p~rk on the site would be a monumental task although it sounded itke a
panacea for all thin!~s; that there was also the ~lternative ~f leaving the property as it
was rlth inherent dangers on all sides or to watt for future alternat'ive plans that mlght
be "pie in the sky".
Commissioner King note~l regarding the sugqested park~ that the taxpayers wanted thetr
taxes lowered and such a su4nEStion would not h~lp the taxpayers 3ince the land woulcf be
taken off the tax rolls, there would be maintenance costs, and the federal grant would be
taxpayers' mon~y.
Dr. B~~tterworth inquired if t~~e proposal For development included the entire 9 acres.
Chairman Johnson in~icated that all of the property except for about one-half af the back
portion would be devsloped, Dr. Butterworth then st~ted that he thought at thP tast
meeting the Planning Commission had ~equested a complete plan for developmert of the 9
acres. in response, Mr, Booty stated he considered the plans comple:e althounh the rear
~
~
~
~41NUTE5, C17Y PLIINNIN(~ COMMISSION~ Saptembor 9?~ 19'~
7~-424
ENVIRnNMLNTAI IMPAC7 REPORT Nn, IR3, RF.Cl.AS51FiC~T1(1N N0, 76-77-9. VARIANCE N0. za3z nNo
Cn~IDITIO~IAI US[ PEP,MI'f N0. 16-f3 (Contf nue<9)
portlon Indir.atecl futur~ developme~~t. 7hrrciipon, D~, Huttc.rworth tncilcate~l thAt the
part~on beina ~ePt out wc~uld t~e I~ndlocked; thet the Mahelm UnlfiecS fligh Schoc~) District
Superlnten~tent had tncllcatc}d to him thet when the dlstrtct purr_ha~ed thoir lAnd they wer~
advlsad ;.h~t the subJect property would be a park; that he hod dtscussad the park
suc~gestion wlth two of the conccrneci local ~qencles a~~d hr. was n;so ~ member of the
Anahelm Unified Htqh School Dl~trict HoArd oF Educatlcn: that the C-ty of BuenA P~rk was
ready to wrlte the c~r~nt; ih~t the prohlem wlth the a~entles was be~~,q over~xpoundod since
.hey would All coc~pernte~ in his opinion; thot nn i.~ca) tex rn~ney would be s~ent on the
,.~nrk dtvelepment, sinr.e nc~ mnney was ln 1Jashinciton an,l rhe cittzens ~:~ould 11'ce ta hevn It
used in M~helm, and t:he .:1~!?~ny ~.~u~..' n~'t ~at tax the r~~oney back unl+ ~~s it was asked fur
throunh qrants s~~ch as .~~s belnq sun~+ested; nnd that r'~P adJacent pr~perty owners were
afrald of h~vin~ rhL l~ndl~rked p~c:ce of ~~round t-~~t ml9ht sit Ch~t~ forever.
Asststant Planner Jr.~el Ffcl< advise-' that i.-~e staff tn the Prrk.s ancl Recre~tlon Department
indlcAte~ the. Clr.y woulcl accept th~ land 1P it werP ciedtct+ted~ inweva~r, the~ City of
Anahetm dtd nat have thc~. nx~ney t~ purcha~e or ~ncquire It.
Dr. Butterworth stated ~hat: no local f~:nds wou1~1 bc: used to buy or dr.velop the park; tF~ak
Mr, Ruth had indfc~ted he developed parks in Los Anc~eles County an land fill prnperty~
however~ they h.~d some prc~blems growing ~ar~e trcr..s slnce the roats would sometlmes grow
Into the refuse:; but that p~rlcs were typic.:~l use~~ fc~r this type properky.
Mr, Nicoll reitcr~~te~i th~t thr wa:erinq of cne pl~nls and trees, etc,, wouid cause an
eJvanced rate of decomp~siti~~ti oP the refuse flll and the composition aP m°.thane gas; Lhar.
the proposal s~eme~l to be a way ~f controllin~ the wa~t~r run-off; and thaC was wliy they
were proposinq tc~ have r.he additlona~ 1 or 2-foor. cap on t:he ground.
Comml~si~m'r Hrrhs': a9r~.:ec' with Co+rnnissioner iola; (n that what t'hr. Clty had at hand was
import~nt sl~cr. it ~~uld 'nelp the ar~•a; ¢hr~t rp~ro~~al of the prc..~ect wou~d nat preclude
th~ develop+nent c,~ a t~•ark on the back ~ortion if Di~. '~uttr•_rwor•th and his group could get
th~ agencies r.oger.l~er prtor to the actual dE:velapment oF the tennis court and recreatlona)
faeiltties; an,i that the propose~l developrtient wauld tie ~ bztterme.nt ~f the ~rea and al~o a
realt+ty .ae thi, timE~,
Commissloner Tolar• irnuired about the construction ~~hA5~5 af the pio]ect and questioned
whether the tenr,(s c~urt and recreati~nal facilities porti~n could be abandoned if Or,
Buttsrw~rth's aroup cane to s~me dectsion ln Che ne~,• futurc. to give everyone the
opportunity to bet:ter the neiql~horhoocl. Ne ~ndfcated he wouid iike to s~e the ,~roperty
developed tn imprnv:. :he present conditlons and thak there was no pra6lem with the
approval of khe apartme~~*_ ~ortion of the prnlect~ in his ~~inion.
Chairn~,~n Jcnnson nnted that the ric~ht~of°w~y Por access to the recreational facillties was
rather serpentine and quesl'i~r+e~l If there was a re3son why it a~as so cr~oked and if it
w~uld be a leqal e~asement. Mr. BootN re~~lieu that the easement could be straightEned out
by relocat~~~n th~ strucLures,
Comml~sioncr Tolar noteci that when he had suq~3ested the streets an the ~ronC of the
propsrty~ he was thlnkino in ierms oF alsn reduclny the cienslt•;; ancl that he was thinking
in ter~~s of widenin~ the acr,ess e~serr+~nt ai~d having no twu-story structures backing up to
the Bel A1~ Street res+dential ~i-operties.
Discussio~ pursued re~arding the width ra~ the access Pasernent and the reduction (n density
which would also eliminate the ?50-foot building setbac:k walver~ during whlch Commissinner
hk~rley noted tl7at 2~~ units per acrF was not too high a den~ity and Mr. Booty stated they
were actually proposinc ?.~~ uni~s p+~r acre.
Chairman Johnson not~ed r.hat a 25-f~t casement far accr_ss was narrow and Mr. Booty stated
they di~t nat ir~~end ta have parking ~n said easemcnr.
Deputy City Attorney Franic LowrY ac~vlsr~d that if the second half of the property was
propc~sed for dev~lopment at a future time~ the proressing aF a parcel map w~uld be
faqialre~i with the creation of a pr.rmanent a~asement ko the open space,and said easement
would need tn be recorded,
in response to qu:stioninc~ by Chalrman Johnsort~ Mr. Booty statecl tliat the walkways would
be open anc~ not covered.
C~
~
~
MI~JUT~:S~ C171' PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ September 13, 1~7b
76_~~z5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. lAi, RECLASSIFICA7t0~1 ~IQ, 76-77~9, VARIANCf•. NQ. 2K3° AND
CONDiTIONAI USE PERMIT NO 1643 (Continued) -
Commisslon~r -iarhst rnr~de an observation that. (n one lnst~nce~ thd 150-foot bullding
setbnck walver pertalned t~ property which was nc~t a buildable rarcel on Bel Atr Stre~t.
Ne further noeoct that the ~asement would provlde +nccess tn tFie tennls c~urts end
recreat~~ne) fecllitir.~~ however~ ff sald facllttiea weres nat constructec~ an~f A publlc
park was devel~pe~1 on that portion of the property, chc r~sement shoutd be terminrted
since the eesement six~uld not have to servic~ the approxlmatPly 5~~~ p~oplo who might
utillze a public p~rk,
Commis~loner P-arnes noteci thls proposal hAd been one of the most (mportAnt decisions shE
had considered on tho Plannlnq Commisslan and she wss eg~~nlzecl over it; th.~t she was ~f
thc oplnian that somc allevlatlon of Che exlsting pr•ohlems tn the area was better than
none; that she belteved Mr, Ntcoll's a~mments wcre subsiantially correct ancl the proposa)
would mltinate some of the exisklnq c~r~F~lems; a~d that she also ag~eed with Commisstoner
Tolar regnrding dnvelopment of th~~ bac:k portlon of the prorerty and that the proposed
development shoulci he constructed unl~ss the cltlzens coulu came up with a park at no cost
to the CICy.
Commissioner Tolar further noted th~~t It was not h(s tntent for the dsveloper t~ drop the
proposal for tf~e tennls courts and the recreatlonal facilitles; an~- that either the
apartments and the recreational facilltles would be constructe<i~ or t!ie ~~partments and a park.
Mr. Booty stated that he would Iike to ~:onstruct a barrler which was greater than what Mr,
Nicoll was recommendinq~ and s~itd barrler would be put around the hroperty at the depth
they felt ttiey couid put it,
Commissl~ne~ darnes lnqutred whether vents would be pl~ced on the pr•operty if the tennis
courts were a~vCloped, and Mr, Nlcoli stated that xhey would if necessary~ dependfng upon
the m~nltorlnq re.ults,
In resporse to questloning by Commissioner Tolar~ Mr. Nlcoll stdted they would install
vertlcal risers aro~~~d the perlmeter, if necessary~ and It mivht also be necessary *.o have
some isolated rtsers as determined fram the monltoring systcm.
Commissioner Tolar questloned who would pay for the latera) vents if dekerrnlned necessary
when the developer and Mr. Nicoll were out of the picture. in response~ Mr. Nicoll stated
they would normAlly be looking at stx months to ona year for manitoring of the system they
wc~uld be Instalting And that at some future time~ l.e.~ ~tve or ten years from now, Chey
would be willing to c~ntract to install the addltlonal systtm, Comrr~isstoner Barnes noted
that ~he felt the addttional vents should be instalted with the proposed proJect~ and Mr.
Nlcolt stated th~t altf~ough they could put thsm in at any ttme~ ~hey would ltke to do tt
with pay; and th~t it may be determined *.hat n~c~re gas than desirable was escaping beyond
the barrler,
Thereupon~ Commissioner Tol~r suggested that if th~ praposal were approved~ a candition be
imposed that the develcarer pay for the required gas control for one year and if the
mo~itoring syster~ inclicated that a lateral system ~~as raquireci~ then the developer would
lnstall same.
Mr. Nfcoll clarifled that they waul~ be putting in a permanent syster~ that would serve as
a monitorin~ base and if a larger amount of yas resuited within a year, additional vents
might become necessary.
Commissioner Barnes then inquired who wauld be rssponsibie to instal) thP vents after the
year had passed lf the gas butlt up and reprssented a maJor danger. Commissioner 7olar
noted that it' the property was develap~ed as a park site, part of the recommendatior wauld
be that the developtng agency would take over th~ responsibility to alleviats the problem~
as well as taking into consideration that the problem was to be correctec~; that with the
proposed tennis courts and recreattonal faclilties there woulcl not be the watering
problems~ etc., and with the park site there would be more oP a methane gas problem than
wir.h the concrete slab proposed.
Commissioner Barnes pursued the question of responsibility of the mc~ni;oring~ etc.~ and
Cfialrman Johnson noted that if there was lack of control and n~ monitoring at that tlme,
the Ctty would still be better off than with the exist'.n~ condltlons and the correctlve
measures would be pald Por by the deve~op~r. Commtssioner Tolar adda~ that the total
effect af the proposal was that the situation would be 00 to 6yX better than it was
presently.
• ~
76-u26
MINUTES~ CItY PLANNIN(', COMNISSION, September 13~ 197~~
ENVIRONMCNTAL IMPAC'T REPQRT MA. 183. RECLASSIFICATIqN N~~ 7b-17-9~ VARIANC~ No. 2832 AND
CONDITIQNAL U5E PERMIT N~. 16~~ Co_ntlnued~,_,w___.. -- ----------"--'
Mr. Nicoll then statecl that~ in hl~ optnion~ the proposed berrlcr systcm bei^~,takWh~epaY~
of tha problems for at I~ast the n~xc 20 years, lie posecl two questi~ns~
fc-r tha firemen t~ c1o out?" and "IP there was a flare from uncontrolleci qa~~ who would pay
f o t h e b r enka4c7" nnd he scat~~ that tAxas qenerally pald for sortre of thoae leesms~
hcn~ever~ he dld not know If t'hey s hou l d.
Mr. P~Icol) st~teci the pr~posed
In respon~e to q eAtlonlnc~ by Commissloner N~rbst~
struct~-'aand~thAthitrmight betfeasibleht~C~r~~vectha refuseifll-nend`pleceutheWbuildbngs
remove ~
below ~round levol ~ ctc.
Cammissioner Norbst questtaned tho bufFer'..~ne behind khe sl~gle-femily reslctentilel
properties and the mobilehome p~rk; and (ncficated that some buffering was needed slnce
Chose adJacent propertles were permanF:nt resl~iences; th~t che Plrnnin~ Canmisslon dld not
necessarOlh ~~ae~~tiOSOathat,thetllc~htstwouldfnot shlneeir~osthaemobllehamesrts should be
moved 1`art c Y
,;omnlssloner Tolar inquire~l as to reasonable hours 1~, t~rms of ilghting and traffic in and
00 p.m, for operation of
out of the tennls court facilltles and sugg~sted no later thnn 10~
the factlitles. Mr, ao!~ty stated he would agree no' t~ Install llyhting of thP'moufor the
adJacent t~ the mobllehon,es; and that they would shut off th~ 11ghCs at 10:00
rest of thc courts and sooner for any courts not tn „~.;.
Commtssioner Kinn notad that he unclersL•ood that the available modern lic~hting facllit(es
would not shine awey from the areas they were ,ieslgne~i to light~ C~mmtssioner Tolar noted
that generally the areAS were dark adJacent to the lighted tenn.- s since th. lights
very effectlvely llt only the areas intencled t~ be li~hte~f, Corranissloner Herbst took
e:xc•eptlon and noted he had observeci some tennis caurt lic~hting that lit ~ap Che entire area
and the sky included, dependtn~ on the barrlers used.
In response t~ questtonirsg by Chairman Johnson~ Traffic Engineer P~ul Slnc~er advi~,~~~ that
his real concern was with the single entrance on Lincoln Avenue which would require a
great deal ~rancefan~Aei Alreb`e usedstonexlt ortleavehtherproJectttotred ce"thernumbernof
that the en
U-t:~rns on Lincoln Avenue.
In ~esponse to questioning by Commissioner Talar~ the petitioner stipulated thidentca~ours
o~ operatlan for the tennts courts adJacent to tl~e ~~roperLy lines near the res
uses would be until B:bO p•m. and that the intertor courts would operate until 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Herbst explai~ed that most o~' the people tn the area were older and needed
protectfon and if they could not be protected t'rom the lights~ then the eennts courts
should not be allowed Yo be censtructeJ next to them.
Commtssioner 7olar noted that he would vote for the 8:00 p.m. stipulation, hnwever~ if the
hours of onninnjCummfssionaPor~b~nslderatlonpoflailOc00 pF~my closinghti~~le to a~me back
to the P1a
A gentleman from th,c audience stated that there a-as a m1nl-bike establlsemein j~~~hhts,
neiyhborhood that was open untii about 11:3~ p.R~• and there was always y 9~ 9
etc.~ ancl the people could not get their sleep at night.
Commtssioner Herbst suggested that the plans be redesigned to eliminace the requested
waiver of the permitted encroachment into the required yards since it was possible, Mr.
Booty stated fie was not sure Just how the wtdening ~f the access easPment to 33 feet wou7d
affect the overall design of the pro,Ject and whether the watver (~ questian could be
eltmin~:ed~ but thnt he would stipulate ta :he widening. C~nmissianer Herbst then noted
that waiver of the permitted encroachment could be approved as a minimum request and he
~~ould not want the subJect property to came back as a public hearing item on that account.
Cor^mtssioner Herbst further notecl that the requested waiver of the minimum building site
wid'ch anc1 frontage would 6e ;asolved ~n the basis that the petitt~ner v~es proposing access
over Portton A to Pnrtton 8 of the property via a 33'foot e~scment.
Commissioner Herbst note~i thet the waiver of the maxtmum building haight shoulcl hr-
elimi~ated affecting Pive second-story dwelling units within the 150-foot setback area
adJacent to rea-dentlal uses~ with tt~C exception that the undevelpped property to tha east
was probably n~t butldabie ~nd therefore~ wo~ld be a technicAl waiver in that area.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PL.ANNING COMMISSION~ Scpt9mber 1~~ 1976
76-A2.7
E~~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT RCPORT N0. 183. R~CLASSIFICl1TION N0. 76-77-9, VARIANCE N0. 2832 11ND
CONDITIQNIIL USE PERMIT NQ. 1h43 (Contlnued) _______,_ _
___.__..~ ---
ChalrmAn Johnson noted that ho w~~4~~1 sup~ort the propoaal stnca he firmly helleve~f thr~t ft
would help rather thAn hln~ler the methane gas sttuptlon In the subJect arc.i an~i~
furtherrtx~re~ It should help tha Cltti end Che cltizcns to perhaps qet a preblem plece ~P
property at. least p~t't-way of u~ePul beneflt to the City.
Commisstoner Herbst ~ffnrecl a n~ol•lon, sc~conded by Commisslo~ier Kinn an<1 h10TI~N CARRIED
(Commissloner FArano b~lnq ebsent)~ that the Anahcim Clty Planninc~ Comml~slon cioes hsresby
rocommend to the Clty Councll of the City oP Anahelm that the sub~ect FroJect be exempt
Pr~m the requi+-er~ent to prPpare ~+n envlronmental Impact r•eport~ pursuant to the provtsions
of the Cr~l i Pornl~ Envl ronn~ental Out+l I ty Act.
Commisslaner Herbsc offere~l Res~lutlon No. PC75~-169 and mnved far its passsge and
adoptlon~ thAt the Anahelm C.Ity Flannin~ Cortmission d~es her•eh,y recommenci to the City
Cauncil of the City of Anal~elm th~t Petition Fc,r RcclASSificatton No. 7~-77-9 be appravecl~
subJect to the conclltl~n thot reviso~l pl~ns shall be submitted for Planning ~~mmtssion
revlew and approval, said plflns to show a 33~fooc wlde access over Portion A of subJect
proparty to Portiun P, and also to eliminate ffve of the secand-story dwelling unlts
proposed withfn the 1~~^foot buildfng sethack adJacent to single-famlly residentlal land
uses~ with the exceptlon of sAld sntbaclc a~lJacent to Lot No, ~E of Tract ho. 7.7~0~ as
sCipulated to by the petitloner; suhJect to the condttlon that, in the event subJect
prc~perty Is to he divtded for the purpose of sale~ lease or financing, the 33-font wi~fe
access shall becarne a permanent easement to be recorded in the office af Che Orange County
Recorder, provided~ however~ thar, iP Portion B sh~ll become a park stte~ sald e~sement
shalt na lon~er be n~cessary and access to the park site shall be required t~ the narth of
subJect proparty~ as stipulate~l to by Che petitloner; ancl subJec,t to the condition that
the sub]ect property shall be develop~d substanti~lly in accor~lance wtth rev{sed pl~ns and
specificatlons, as specified ln the foregot~g con<iitlons; anri subJect t~ the
Interdepartr~ent~l Committee recumrnenciatians. (See Resolution Buok)
Qn roll call~ the fore~oln~ resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote:
AYFS; COMMIS~~I~NGRS: 8/1RNE5, HF.RRST~ KING, MORLFY~ Tl)LAR~ JhI~NS~N
NOES; COMMISSI~MFRS: PlO~IE
ABSE~~T: COMt415510NERS: FAR~Nn
Commisstoner Herbst effered Resol~aLion No. PC76-170 end moved for its passane and
adoptton~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does harehy grant Petltlon for
Variance No. 2ti37.~ 1n part, granting the requested waiver of the permitted encroachment
into required yards on the basis that the Planning Commission had previously granted
slmllar waivers for ap:~rtment developments; ,y~'~ntinq, in part~ the requested watver of the
maximum buildtn~ hetght to permit two-story butldings withln the requlred 15Q-foot
building setback adlacent to Lot No. -i of Tract No. 27£30, since a portion of satd lot may
not be a buildable site~ and that revlse~i plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for appraval In~lic5ting that the remaining two-story butldtngs c^nform to the
15Q-Foot butldtng setback requtrements; that the requested waiver of the minimum distance
beYween b~+ildin~s is deletecl by the revised plans submitted by the petittoner; granting
the requested watver of the minimum building site wlcfth and Prontage on *_he basis that
Porttan 3 of the sub)ect property may become a separate parcel Por development pi.irposes~
in which event the petitianer stip~ilated to the recordatlon of a 33-fndt wide access
easement over Portion A of sub,Ject property to Portlon B~ unless Portlon B shall be
developed as a park site~ in whlch Pvent acces~ shall be required from the north of
subJect property and the e~sPment may then be terminated; subJect tu appropriate
directional signinq bein~ erecteci on the subJect property to fndicate rtght turns only
onto Lincoln AvenuP; ancl subJecr, to the furtFier stipulatlons of the petitlonsr and subJect
to the Interdepartme~ta? Carr„~~;;*ec recomm~ndations, (See Resolution Buok)
An roil call, the foreaoing resalu~inn was passed by the follor~ing vote:
AYf:S : COMt11 SS 1 ~PIERS : BAR~IFS ~ HF.RRST ~ K I Nf; ~ M~RLEY ~ TOLAR, JOFlNSOPI
NOES : C~-",,~I S51 nNE.RS ; NONE
ABS EMT : CQMM I SS 1 ~~1F.RS : FARt1N0
Commissioner Herbst offered Re~~lution No. PC76-171 and moved for its passege ana
adoptlon, that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission cloes hereby grant Pctltion for
Conditional flse Permi~ No. 1h43~ granting the requestecf waiver of thc minlmum building
slte width and frontage on the basis that Po~'titon B of the subJect property r.~ay become a
separate parcel for development purposes~ in which case the petittoner stlpulate~l to the
• ~
MINUT~S~ CITY PLIIPJNING CqMMISSI~N~ Sertember 13~ 1`~7h
7G-h2A
ENVIR~NMENTA.L IMPACT REPORT N0. l~:i~ REC1.115SIFICA710N N0~ 76•7'J-9~ VARIANCE N0. 2a3? P.NQ
C~NDITI~N/1L USE PERMIT N0, 1643 Cortinucd~
rocordntton of a 33-foot wlde access ovr.r Portlon A oP the subJect propert~~ to Part(on B~
unless Portl~n 8 shall be daveloped As a pt~rk stte~ in whlcli event access shall be
r~qulred from thc north oP subJect pror~rty and t.he r.asement mny than be t.erminate~l; that
tha tennis court lt~hklnc! Imn~dlat~ly adJacent to the resldentl~l uses sh~ll be shut dawn
no later than the ho~ir of A:00 p.m. and that the lighttn~ of the intertor tennis co~~~s
shiall be sh~~t down nn leCer thpn the haur ef lO:OQ p.m,~ as stlpulated to by the
petit(oner; that a sofls ennlneerin~ con~ultant shall l~c retalnad for the flrst one-ynar
p~rtod fallowinn fi~~+l bull~lina an~i zonin~l Insrectt~ns of tt~e pr•oposed ~roJect~ sotci
cansultant be1n~ retatned for tho purpose of monitering and recommondinc~ any Addlttonal
contro) systems~ devices or moasures In connect~on with tthe un~lerlying mathane g++ses~ an~l
that during satd one-year time perlod, tiie potltlaner shall Install And bear the costs of
any and all systems, devices or measures as may be recammended by the solls anglneering
consultant~ to lnsure the saPety af the occupants ef Che subJect property; anci~ more
sppclficr~lly~ tf a lateral control s;~stem is indicated to be r~quired by the Yea~tt~meQ
system, satd systo~~i shall be Installed prior to ths en~l af the ~pectflcci ane
~er(ocl~ as stipulated to by the p~titioner; that~ in the event tf~e si.ibJect pr~perty
(Portl~n K) shall be developed alternativcly as a park stte, aCC045 shall bc rcquired from
the north o° subJect property; that the sublect pr~perty sh~ll be d~vPloped precisel;~ in
accordance wiCh plans and specificatians nn ftle wlth th~ Ci~y oP Anahelm marp~ovtdedbtt
No, 1(Revis~on No. 1); provtded~ howevcr~ Chat an effectivc buPfer shal) be
along the west property line ad,Jacent tn the mobilehome park to protect the lntegrity af
satd restdent;al use; and subJect t~~ the Inter~lepartmenta) Committee recommendations.
(See Resol~iion Boak)
On rol) call~ the f'oregoing resolution was passe~f by the following vote:
AYF.S: COM11iSSI0NERS; BP,RNES~ HERBS7~ KING~ M~RLEY~ TOLAR, JOHNSOt~
NOES : CONMt SS I ~~~~ RS : NOP~E
ADSE~JT: C~MMISSIONERS: FARANQ
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIEARING. ROYAL f,. AP~D LOUISE M. MARTEN~ R11 South Western
N0. 76-77-i1 Avenue~ Anaheim~ Ca. 923d4 (Ownersl; J-1M~5 L. BARISIC, ~i848 Lakeview
Avenue, Suite 101, Yorba Llnda~ Ca. 92686 (Agent). Property descrlbeci
VARIIINCE NC,. 2~3~~ as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of two portlans
- comprtsing approxirnately 1.2 acres located at the northwesc. corner of
Teranimar Drlve an~1 Western Avenue* having approxlmate Prnntages of
115 fa~t an the narth side of 7eranlmar Drive and j~65 feet on the west slde of Western
Avenue~ and further desr.ribed as 811 South 1Jestern Avenue. Property presently classificd
R5-A-A3~Q0(1 (RESiDENTIAI/AGRICI!LTUItAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIQN; RM-21~00 (kE51DE~171',~, MULTIPLE~FAMILY) ZONE.
REQIIESTED bARIAPICE~ SETBACK~,FAND,(C)NM1X'iMeMIWALLGHEIGF1T,iT0~{CONSTRUCTfFOURSDUPLEXES.
~t was noted that the subJect petttir,ns w~re continued from the Planning Commission
meetings of Auclust 15~ 1976, far the peltitioner to meet with area reside~ts and property
owners; and from August 30, 197G, at the request of the pet(tioner.
Discusslon pursued co~cerning a request whlch had been receivecl froM the petlttoner ta
::ithdravr the subJect petttions and~ stnce it was not clear whether the existing zoning on
the subJe~t property would b~ approprlate for the new proposal which the petitianer
tndicated he mic~ht be submitting in the near future~ it was 9enerally agreed that a
continu~nce would be in order at this t1me.
Commissi~ner Hbrtey offered a motlon~ second~ed by Commissioner Barnes and H~TIQN CARRIED
(Commisstoner Farano being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
further continue the public lie~rina ~nc~ consideration of the subject ltems tc the Planning
I i tin of October 11 1Q7~~ for the reasons discussed.
C~mm ss o~ mee g ~-~
~
~
MINIITCS~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSIOTI~ Sepr.embor 13~ 1976
76-42g
C~NUITI~NAL USE - CnPITINUED P1191.IC HEARING. UUNN PROi'ERTIES~ IN(:. ~ P. 0. Box 1439
PF.RMIT N~. 16h2 Sant~~ AnA~ Ca. 9270?. (Owner); AMERICAN NATIONAI PROPERTIES~
INC. P, Q. Box 170?.7~ Irvlne~ Ca. q?713 (Agent)i requestln~ pnrmlaslon
ko ESTABLI51~ A bRIVF-THROU~N RESTAl1RANT on property descrlbed as a
ractnngularly-shaped percnl oP lend conslsting of approx~rnately Q.~ acre having a~rontago
of approximately 15~+ ~eet on the wnst slde oP Magnolta Avenue, having a maximum dcpth of
approxlmately 90 Feat and being located approxlmately 5S5 Peet north oP the centerllne of
L~ Pe~lma 1lvenue. Property presently classifled ML (I~lDUSTRIAL~ LIMITfD) 7.ONC (resolut(on
oP Intent to CL).
It wAS noted that Lhe sub.~ect petitlon was continuesci P~om the Plxnning Commisslnn meetlny
oP August 1~+~ 1976~ for revised plans,
Commisstoner Kinn notecl that he had itled a conflttt oP ~nterest Porm at the August 16~
1976~ Pianning Commtsslon meeting in connectlon with the subJect petit!~n. THEP.EUP~TI~
C4MMI SS I Of~ER KI Nr, LGFT TNF' CO!!t~~ l-. GHnMBER AT 3: y 3 P• M.
No one indtcated thelr presence in opposition to the subJect pctitton.
Alth~ugh the Staff Report to the Plannlnq Comnlsslon d;~eed September 13, 197~~ was not
read at the public hearing, satd StsfP Report is referred to ancl made a part of the
m~nutes.
Mr. Ray Chermak, repr~sentinq the petitioner~ appeared before the Planntng Cortmission and
statced they had submitted revisect plans r:~~lch modlPied Che circulatlon plan for Yhe
sub}ect property to indtcate interic~r clrculatlon rather tlian peripheral circulatlon
whtch, tn his opinion~ createcl a considerably bett;er traffic flow and lhe Planntng
Commtsslon ha~l been riqht in their obJections t~ the previous circuiatlon plan.
THE PUBLIC HEARI~~G WAS CL(•~ED.
Commisstoner Morlcy offered a matlon~ seconded by Commissioner aarnss and MOTION CARRIED
(Cammissioners Farano sncl King being absent), that the Anahelr~ City F'lanning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Councll of the City oP Anaheim that: the suh~ect proJect
be axer~pt from the requirement to prepare an environmentai lmpact re~~ort~ pursuant to the
provistons c~f the California Environmental Qualtty Act.
Cammtssicner hbrley ofFered Resolution No. P~76'~72 3nd moved ~or (ts passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim Clty Plarning Commf;sion does hereby grant P~tition for
Candlttonal Use Permit No. 1642, subject to developrnent precisely in accordance with the
revtsed plans~ as submttted~ and subJect to the Interdepartmental Cortmlttee
recommenclations. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the farPgainc~ resoiution was passed ty the fn'ilowln9 vate:
AYES: COMMiSSI~NERS: BARNFS~ HERBST~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ J~HPISOPJ
NOES: COMh11SSI~N[RS: NONE
ARSENT: CQMMISSInNF.RS: FARANO, KING
RFCF_SS - At 3:15 p.m.~ Chalrman Johnson decla~ecl a recess.
RECONVENE - At 3:?5 p.m,, Chairman JohnsQn raconvened the meeting with
"-"~"~ Cortxnissloner Farano being sbsent.
~ ~
MINUTF.S, CITY PI.ANNINf; C~MMISSION~ Septembor 1:~~ 197h
%6-430
FMVIRONMF.~ITAL IMP-1CT - DEV~I~PER; R. L. LEW1S COMPANY, 1745 tlrannewcx~d Avenue~ Orange~
RF.P~RT ~I~. _lR~ Ca. 92~+f~H. ENGINErRt S1ILKIN F.NGINF.ERIN~ C~RP. ~ 1215 East Chapman
"-"'~""" Avenue~ Oranne, C~. 92~+57. SuhJect property, consisCin~ af
TF.NTAT1~'E MAP QF ap~roxlmetely S~ acres locAter~ s~uth~rl~~ oP SAnta Ane Canyon Road
TM,CT ~I~. a5~~~~f subdivislor, IntoAB(1f RSLHS~12~00(1(SC)r(R~SND[:NTIA1 ~,SINGLE~FAMILYr
~RFVISI~N N~, )
HILLSIDF~SCFNIC CQRRIf~~R OVI"RI.AY) zoned lots,
~ne pers~n wns present in A~~~A51tl~~n and walve~l the full reAdinq of the Staff Report t~
the Plannin~i Commissinn dACed Septen,ber 1'i~ 1~17~~- ~r thr, hnsis th~t a c~py of s~id report
hnrl hecn reviewe~l,
Althouqh the Staff Rtp~rt was not reAd at thc meetlnn~ s~lr1 rernrt ls referred t~ ~nd macle
a prrt of th~ ~•~1 nutes.
Mr. Jim Nalls, representinn ths developc~r~ nppe:+rec1 hefnre the Planninn Commission to
present the l~r~F~~g~~• ~n response t~ Mr. Halls' attempt to m~ke a sltdc pres~neati~n of
the sub.lect ar~~~ the Plannin~ Commissicm inc~t•~teci that they did not wish to see lt
bec~use they ai re~dy knFw ahout the backgroun~l an~l cher~~cr.sr nf the property.
Mr. Holls ~:ontin~ie~~ by st~ting tiie cievelopcrs had met wlth the Mohler Drive property
owners and the superintendent ~~ sr.hools (n thc arfla~ as a~all as a nx~mber of the City
~ouncll, pri~r to makin~ any dsvelopment plans on tfie property; that they h~d known about
the ~mc~unt ~~ op~~%siti~n prevlously expresse~l over cievelopment of th~ property and felt•
their epproach wa~ best uncier the circumstances; that they ha~1 been requested by the
property ~wners n~t C~ have circulati~n from this property int~ l•heir area~ that the lot
sizes stay at onc-h,lf acre with the preservation of as many Crees as posstble, th~t the
wtdths of the streets be malntained rural with no sfdewalks ~r curbs since l•hnt was
predomt~~nt in the ~re~, and that a conneGtlon be provi~led fnr the uri~ile and hiking trall
system tn the a~•ea; th~~t the property owners wantecl to malnt<~in as much og the rural
intenr~ty as p~ssible without a lot of mass ciradinc~; and thak the proposed tentative map
gave consirlr.ratlon to ~11 c-f the ltems requPsted hy the property owners in the area; that
many subseq~aent meetln~s ~nc1 telephone canversations had been held ~ith the area residents
and~ althouqh they liad not allowed the prc;perty owners to design the dev~lop-nent, the
developers had aareecf tn cooperate as much a~ possihle, Mr. Halls turther stated that
prior to this ~ublic meeting, they had discussed some af the partlcul~r concerns of
traff(c and ~~irculation ~ear the interseetion of Del Glorgin Road a~id Mohler Drive and ~t
the curve of Mahler Drive, anc! what was shown ~n the map ln that respect was not
acc+:ptable to the area and they would make some chanaes to h~pPfully satisfy some of the
nPeds; and xhat they were not requesting any site development waivers. Nr. Halls reviewed
the EIP. ahd stated with rrference to the traffic volumes ~nc1 patterns qenerated by ~he
sub,Iect development that a certain percentage would use Mohler Drive and the rest would
use Fai rrncm~ Boulevard anc~ rouc~hly 7.5~ would go tQ the east and the rest Co the west; that
regar~inq drainaqe prcblems that arose with water dralninc~ ov~r the property ~f others~
the solutl~n would be to write lnto the CCbRs that cert~ln lots would accept the drainage
from othar loCS, et~:.~ an~l the purchasers of the lots would be aware of those conditi~ns;
th~t the pads o~ the lots ~yould be drained to the streets but the remainder of the lot~
w~uld be left w~th their n~tura) terrain tn preserve the trees~ etc.; that for Lot Nos.
51~ 52~ 53 and 5-', said ~ACS wuuld not he araded at this partic~l~r time since they
abutted a syca~~x~re grove which the developer wculd lik~ to preser•ve as open space with
definitely no grading to taks place on sald lots; regardfng the riumber of trees to be
rer+~oved~ t~ie~~ were proposinq to remove 1~1 of r,he n~31+ trees on the su~Ject propprty~
however~ th-; Staff Report in~llcated there were 757 Iive trees ex~sting on the property;
that the .'ih count was apparently the numher that was co~nted be~fore they realized they
dir! not 'iave to count the trees less than f3 inches in dlameCer, and only 757 ~+ere alive.
Mr. Nalfs referred tc~ a map which was posted tndlcating the trees which woiild be removed~
and stated this ~~s a large niece of property and the trees that were in the path of the
strnets wo~~ld be removed; that they were ~~lso planninq to cut off the top of ane of th~
knoils to generate some dirt io fill the pond on the property; that they were atten~ptinq
;o preserve the wincirows and trees along Mohfer Drive except for those that were dead or
were ~equlreci to be rerr,~ved to get tnto the driveways of the propose~l lots; that they wer~
nnt asl<incl for any waivers of the RS-HS-22,00~(SC) 2one st~n~lards; ~n~ that they fntended
on theCSUb~ectep~rope~ty~anclPtheeo~ldash~pecl parcel ad]acent~to~Lot~No e5~1belongeclhtoethe~
City for Fairmont Iloulevard.
Re~~r~lin~ access, Mr. H~lls st~tP~1 they had r,ot lndicatecl any access to Country HI1) itoe~
bec~use the people in the area clfd not want it since it would obvin~i.>ly increase the
~ ~
MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNINf, CnMP{ISSION, September 13. 1~7~i 7~'~~~~~
EWVIR~~~N[IJTIII IMPAC7 REPORT N0. 1~6 ANb 7fNTAT~VE MAP UF T1lACT iJ0 856Q (RE'ViS10N N0. 4) (Cont.)
[r++fflc ~~~ N~hlr.r ~rtve; th~~t they~ a4 wel) ~s th~ pe~(~lo In the ercr~ wcre cc~ncGrned
t~b~ut th~ p hlr.m of poor vislbll(ty on Mc~hler Drivo at the mn)~r curve3 and ++ny openlnq
of trAfPlc ~n~n th~t r~e~1 woul~l ~dcl to the problem rnthe~ than hel~ eolve It; and thnt wns
the oren In whir.h thcy dtsr~qresd most witfi the Clty stnff.
Re~nrdl~n thr, rc~ulrement t~ record CC6Rs, Mr, Halls stnto<I they 1VAUIc) hrVA n~ ob,jections
i~ ~iolnn so~ nn~1 ~is mc~ntl~ned earller~ th~~ drain,*qc problems wou1~1 bo cavere~l In sat~1
d~cur+~ent for the effect~~i lots. Regr+r~11n~1 ~rAding, thr ~levelopers wnnte~l la know how
rl~id thc rr.quirer~~nt f~r nn qr:+dtnq between nctober li and Aprll 15 ~as~ +~nc1 [hat thcy
ha~1 not heretoPore kn~wn Ahout silcl requlrement. Rznardln~ th~ "ire hyd~ant req~lrement,
other ~.Itles ~+llorn~~i thc use c~f p~~rtable watcr tanks pri~r t~ instal~atlon ~f thE
hy~ranC~; nn~! that tf~~y were requestina f.o I~ave the water tanks, as Appr~ved by the Flre
Depnrtment~ rather than arait~.inn for the lnst.~~llatlon~ flrinq an~1 ch~+rginq of tt~a hydrants
which normAlly f~ok several rrxmths to ~~ccomplfsh, Rec~ardfnc~ the raqulred masonry a~all
alony Falrmcmt lovard~ they ha~l no problem wich th~t conditi~n; however~ re~,ardlnq thr.
l~rrdscapinc~~ (n ~~cordanc.e wlth an agreement, the Clty was Acqulrlnn riqht-of••~vay for four
lanes on Fairmont Houlevar~l, at which time the Clty would be laneiscapinc~ tlie rtght-of-way~
etc.~ nnd the recammen~iatlon In the St~iff Rep~rt tr~dic~~ted Chat the developer would
Install landsc~ping an~i Irrigation to khe exi~tin~~ two lanes of traPfic. He further
st~te~1 th~t sald landsc~pin~ would he remc~ved whenever ehe CILy I~P.VP.~OPCCI ihe ful i wl~ith
of the strect; and~ therefore~ he did n~t feel th.it thc recommendatlon set forth the
deelres of thc~ Plann(nq Commission~ ncir would It be profltahle to (nstall the lanclscapfncl
wlth thls proJect.
In summary, Mr, Halls st:~ted that thctr plan was not to go !n ~ind do mass c1r~~dinc~ but thcy
would fo) l~w t~el r pattern for dev~~' •pment In Vt l la Park and Qran~~e in<i woul d merPlv grade
for the streets, drlveways, ancl the builc'.ing pads~ leavlnq r.he r~m~indcr ~f the land in
1ts nntural state; th~t th~y would mlti~atP soMe of the tcrrain prablems by h~ving split-
level homPS; that they h~~d n~ pl:~ns for the j~l'Op03ed h0-~e.° ~t the present tlme; that thev
~.ere cc~ic~rned about sa~ing as many trees ~s posslble, i.e., the eucalyptus and ~ranq~
trees, ~tc., espr_c~~lly ln view of the fact that the preservatlon of the trees would keep
the neiqhbonc~x~cl lookfnq fantastic from the haninnin!1 an~i they wanted it to lo~k nice from
the day they m~~ved ln ~~n~i not ilve years hencc,; and that they w~nted to 9et aw~y frnm the
trenci of dr~lninc~ all nf Yhe .rs to the ~treet~.
Mrs, Mitzi Ozaki, 'i~~~ Timken fioad, Anaheim, zipneared before the Plr+nninn Cuinmission
representinn the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Assoc(atl~n a~d statecl they were pleased
to see such a meaningful relatlonshlp wlth the subject developer; that they ha~1 been able
to resolve rx~st c,f the ~.roblems ancl the area pro~arty owners would support the c~e~eloper
(n keepina the area limited in denslty; that they appreciated the f~ct that the develop°r
would noC be m~ss qrading th~ property or flatter.inq eve rything out; thTt the properLy
owner5 felt v~ ry strongly ahout ': eucalyptu~ trees in the ~rea; and that they felt tihe
developer h~ci done a falr j~b since enly the ner_essary trees would he rerrr~~ed and that was
a reasonable appr~ach. Mrs. Qzaki notc~i that the area residents .~lso felt strangly that
Street "A" should nnt h~ve access *.o Country HI11 Road since it wou l d a lmos t ~iouble the
.. , , .. ,
traffic on -~ohler Drive; that~ accordinq tn ~!t, Co;:rc:' ~",~'.' ~'•~• 2n?n; Mohler Dr ve was
the r+cce^t~hle standard an~ ~,:ws only 1~ to 2~ feet wide in the acceptecl area~ so any
dumpin~ c,f trafFic (nto the area would create a v~ry hazardous and difPicult traffic
situatton; that the wi~iening af Mohler Drtve would result ln the ~A43 of a eucaly~tus
wln~lrow and therr. was nc~t enough room to wtden said street in rrx~st cases; that the
association was su!~qestin~ t.hat the interior strpet at the west enrl be cul-<fe-~aced prlor
tn reachinn Ser;ta ~na C~nyon Roac1; and that the Anaheim Police Department could verify the
number of accidents at Mohler Drlve near Santa Ana Canyon Road. She furtl~er state~i that
most of the proposed lots were ove~ the minimum requi~Pments ~nd the Incluslon of some
ro~ds to?D~n`{~t,~~'rha~ingaaccess~toP~bhler Dri~e; however~Ymosteof,theGarearwas excite~ot
Nos. 1,
about the proJect.
Mr. Ralph Danniger, 19~ South Mohler Drive~ Analieim~ appearecl bef~re the Pl~nning
Corrnntssi~n in opposltion anrl st~ted he was cc•~cerned th~t Mohler Driv~ woulcl be wldened at
the maJor ben~i sl~ce Lhe bulk of the road would bc on his property and that he tiad lived
fn the area f~r about 3~ ycars. Chatrman Johnson noted that ft appe~recl Mr. Danniqer was
askinq the developPr tn pa-'tir.lpate in the widenl~g of Mnhler Drive.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Halis st~ted reqardtnc~ the street wi~lentn~ ~f ~hler Orive thit he ~iid
nhe existin~hroad"or 1~stponehsld~eShrn+ever,waew'indrnw ofutrebs separai.:ctnMehlerSDrlve f
t
~ ~
MINUTF.S~ CITY PL.AN~IINf f,OMMISSI~N, September 13~ 197~ ~~'^~~~
ENVIRQIIMF.FITAL IMP,1r,T R~P(1RT Nn, lAb AND Tf.NTATIVF MI1P (1f TRACT N0. ~56~ (Rf•.VISION 110. A) (Cunt.)
from thes sul~~ect pr~p~rty rt thot locatlon~ nnd Mr. Danniner's properky ++is~ ab~itted
Mc~hler Drivc; t-~~~t wtth res~~~ct to thu three lats questione<1 hy Mrs. Ozakl~ Mr. Hell~
stated they were Indlcntln~ s omP oPf-strcet pr+rkinn for srtd lots alon~i Mohler 1lrive; thaC
they reall.~e~l th~e carner l~t wos a danc~Qrous one an~ weres seelcinq a solutlon to the
prablem; thnt the rc~~son Chey had not shown Street "A" cominn out to Del Glorglo Roa~f wa~
bocause of the scho~~l an~l th~ existlnq trafflc~ and stnce the C(ty also wantn~l to keep
from havlnn iny A:1<1lctonil traffic on ~el Glorglo Rond.
Mr. Ilatils revie~re~1 thc rr~p~s~cl chflncles tu the on-slte traffic pt+ttPrn whtch was to exlt
Let ^ At tts soiitfi corner, e xit Lot 1 through a drlveway to Street "A"~ exlt Lot 13 to
Street "A"~ cul-de-sr~~: Street "A" nt ti~e west en~i And exten~i seld stree.t bctwePn Lots 1~
and 1~ to Del Gl~rgio Drtve. He rurth~r st~ted he hape~l that a cortinu~nce for ~i decislon
on the ~ub]ect tract woul~i not be necessary t~ maice the proroserl chan~es to the
Glrculntton pattern,
In responsc Co questlontn~ hy Che Planning Commission~ TrAPftc Ennineer Paul Sinnar
advlsed that the trAfftc Im~act on Mahler Drive woul<1 n~t be insl~n(flc~nt~ ns In~iicale~l
ln th~ FIR~ sincc the ADT was ~gtimatecl at 11~~~ prl~r t~ de~~r,lopmcnt af the Junlor hic~h
schcx~l site to the e~st An~1 there woulcl be an estlm~teci 1~~, Incr'ease with the pr~pose~l
pr~Ject; that he ha~ n~t ~'s cussed the sublect proJect wiCh the Mrs. Qzakl~ wh~ was of the
irr~~reysir,n fihat tf Strcet "R" was sent t~ Country Hil l Roac1~ the traffic nn sat~l strcet
would be lncrcase~l~ h~wever~ such ~~ trafflc p~~ttern w~uld actually reduce s~~ld tr~Pfic
sinct the trnfFic would qo through Street "[~" to Fa(rm~nt for only th~se people who h~d a
reas~n to qo on Cauntry NI11 Road anyw~y; that traffic gener<~f.ed at the south enci of the
pr~Ject w~ulrl t~xit onto Fai rmont and would not have need k~ use the enerance at C~untry
H(11 Roa~l; thnt ar~other• prot~lem existed with the "Y" ~l Mohler Dr(ve an~1 Country Ntll f?~~,d
since tl~at area was blln~i; ancl th~t he felt very stron.yly tl~at the faur lots alone~ Mohler
Drive fmm the "Y" west sh~ul~ not h~ve an exit on h{ohler Drive but ~nt~ Strcet "A" for
safqty an~1 visihillty rea~:~ns.
In response to qucsttnninn :~y Commis3loner t1o~•ley~ Mr, Singer advlsed that to cul-de-sac
Street "~" woulci allevtate the prnblem of the intersectlon of Street "A" ancl Mohler Drive.
Commissioner Herbst inqui re~i if the wicleninq of Mohler• Orive should be cons(der~d for the
area west of the "Y" to the curve to hanclle the through-flow of traffOc; and that
obviously there wo~ld be ~ great daal of traffir. on Mohl~r Drlve an~i it would be a good
1 c+~a to wi clen i t. Comrnl ss i on~ r Ilerbs t then noted that al tfiougl~ the f~oh 1 er Dr i vc res 1 dents
were trying to pr~tecc thei r prt~perty~ roacis were necess~ry to carry the traffic
adequa~ely; th3t approval of the pro~osal, as submTtteci~ woui~i bottleneck the area from
now on ~nd new was the time t~ correct thu situation; t,~at he would rather save a few
lives th~n a few trees; that addltlonal developme~t would be nccurrinq in the area ~~n~1 it
was in~ortant for the people who would live tn the area to have saf~ an~i adequate traffic
flow.
M r. ~inaer then advi:,ed that there was ~ private easement at the c~rner which might
develop inta a publtc drive, hc~wever. the maJor portion of the recommended widen(ng was
betwePn Santa Ana Canyon rood and the first hend. Commissi~ner Herbst questloned the
mannEr in whlcii wicier.tnn would occur and Mr. Stnger advised that lt could be desic~ned in
such a w~y as ta be compat ible wlth the entire area~ befng withou*, curbs, gutters~ etc.
Chatrman Johnson noted that presently Mnhler Drive ~~~as a 2~-fo~t wide street meanciering
over a~~~-foot wide ri~ht~ of-way and he questioned what the fcelin~~s af the property
owners association were regardinq t~~n ~~1~lenin~t of the street to rnltlc~ate the problem
areas.
in response~ Mrs. nzaki stated thAt the subJect of the road wldening was so touchy that it
should be handled separately at a p~iblic hearin~ t~ constd~r the inpiit from the prQperty
owners tl~emselves and it would he unfair for her to represent them knowtng haw tfiey fett
about It; and that thC r~ad wideninq should nut be incorporated „to the consideraCion of
the sub.ject proposal. Rec7arding the extension of "R" Street~ she felt that the curlousity
seekers would be unable tc~ refraln from c~ossinn tlie "neat" bridge that was proposed to
be create~i off Fairmont ancl there would he a lut of such Sunday-type trafftc filtering
through the area; and that the homeowners felt very stron~ly agalnst opr.ninq up this
development tc+ the traffT e,
C(1MMISSI~MF.R HERBST LEFT TH1~ COUNf,IL CHAMRFP, AT 1+:2~ P,M.
~
~
~
~
MINIlTF.S, f.l'fY PL~NNING COMNISSIO~l~ Soptemher 13~ 197fi 7~~~~~33
F.NVIRO~IMFNTAL _IMPACT RFPfIRT N~, lAb A~JD TENTATIVC MAP QF TRACT ~I~. R560 RF.VISIQM N0. 4) (Cont.)
Commissinner Barnes n~ta~i rhanrdin~ thr. ~treets beinn privr to. that tha pP~ple in the
sublect are~~e b~unht theru because they wan,ed It private wi th prlvate slroets end no
trAPfic~ ~~n~i the new rr_sidents in the areE wo~ilcl want thc: same thin!~ r~nc1 ~11 of them wr,re
wltllnn t~ p~it up with the prohler~~ Assncinte~l with smalle~ strr.ets~ Incluclinq the
h~zards; h~we~~er, It nppeare~i that the corner In qur.stion ~rpresent~~1 n c~reat hazard and
s~methtnn c~unht t~ be clnne nt>oue It~ howevar, she ~~tc~ not 4cn~w lt stroot w1~laninn was tha
~nswe r,
In respons~~ t~ questlonlnq by f,ht~irmAn Johnsc~n~ Mr. Ilal1s Sk.~te~~ the dt~~vel~~ner felC
stron~ly that the hnuses ~n Del ~Inr~lo Road sFi~uld back to the S~f10AI sin~e otherwise
there w~u1d be chllcirer eatlnq thatr lunches on the lawna, etc,; ar~c1 rl~~~t ~ backing thc
houses ~n Del Glornto~ nn~l p~~ttin~i up ~ wAl l~ et:c. ~ t lnt c~f the proi~ er~S w~uld be
ellminat~•~i,
Commissl~~ncr Tolar noted that th~ proposed pro.~ect was very vinble~ In his opinlo~, and he
could n~t clisar~ree with thr• prohfems which could ba mitlgatad by thA ~.~ldenlnq of Mohler
Drive.
Mr. Jannlner then statecl he owned the property adlacent to the suhject property from the
"Y" west tn thc corner ~f Flc~hlcr Drlvc; that che next property f~~rther wGSt had a 2~-foot
rinht-of-way; that lf nnvthinq was qoing to be done~ It s hould be done with the proposed
proJect; that~ in hls opinion~ eucalyptus Crees were the nx~st clanqerous trees th~~t could
he had next ta a house~ l~aseci ~n hts recdllection th~t his f~mily had once lost ~ r~of,
barn~ e:tc., durin~ a heivy rsln ~nd wincis in 193~~ an~i that the City sh~uld ~ot waft untll
someone qot ktlle~l on the bend of Mc~hler Drive bofore thr~y dl~i somethln~ sb~ut It,
Office Enclineer Jay Titus a~ivised Chet tliere was presently a-i~-foot wicie roadw~y rasen~ent
for Mohler Drive wlth approximrtely 7_~ fcet ~f p~veme:nt~ in addt~ion to drainag~ dltches~
flll slopes~ etr.,; that if the Planning Commissl~n was cc~nsidoring wideninq satd street~
ad~itional easements would be requtred; that one of the eonsider~tlons would be whether
the additinn~l easement should come from one ~r both slde s of the exlsting casement, or
whsther the sub)ect pr~pasal would be approvecl as it was and the necessary easements taken
from the othpr s'de when the adJacent property was developed.
Commissioner Tolar questioned what effect it would nave i f 1~ f~et of a~iditi~,nal
dedicatlon was ma~{e alonc~ the road ad.)accnt to the propos ed lot Nos. 1 and 13. Mr. Halls
resp~nded that the addikional decitcar.ton could be made If It did nor a.`fect the lot slzes
for the underlyin~ zone. 'Thereupon~ Commfssloner Tolar nnted that he would be more
conccrne~l about resolvina the street width problem than the size of the lots, although he
was nut s~i~nestPn~ that ~ ~~reet widening improvements be requlred as part o~ tl~ls
development since, in re~l~. '^ subJec;t development would be dumping very little
traffic onto Mnhler Drive from .ountry Niil Road; and th at he was only requesttn~ th~t the
developer set aside the land by dedlcating for the ~_ree t widenfng and 1~ feet of
additional dedicati~n could then be required from the propertv across t'~e street at a
later time.
Yhereupon~ Mr. Halls stipulaterl to dedtcatiny 10 feee al ~n4 the north and west sides of
Lot No. 1 and ~lonct the west side of Lot No. 13 for stre et wideninc~ purposes.
Assistant Planner Joel Fick aclvised that the two lots in q~aestinn (Lot Nos. 1 and 1'i) had
land are~is of 7.f~,~~0 an~i 27,~Q~ square fect respectively , an~1 there sh~uld be no problem
makina the requestied dedlcation. Mr, Fick then revlewed the Code provisi~ns rel~~ting to
lot sizes and allowances fr,r de~lication~ etc,
Mr. Dannicer Sn~lcate~i [hat hE w~uld not be dedica'tinq for ths strPet wtdenin~ sinr..e hc
was not ~oinq to develop his property presently.
In response to further question~ng pertaining to the us~ of portable water tanks in lieu
of providtnc~ fire hydrants prlor to commencement of scr~~ctural framinq~ Deputy City
Attorr~ey Frank Lowry advised th~t aatd req~~'rcment was n~,t waivahie. He furthcr advised
c.~ncerntna the qradinc~ arsrt dratnage sit~~at~.>n that the matter shoul' be taken up with the
City Engineer's Offtce for specific c~uidance; and reqardinq the ~~~ndSC~~pl~~q requlreinents
alonq Fatrmont, the City staff should be dtrected to in vestig~t• and make a report to thc
City Council regardin~ st+id impr~verr~nts.
• ~
MI NUTF.S ~ C I TY PI.~~JN ( NG CQMMI SS I ON ~ Sa~t embc ~r 1'i, 197~~ ~~_'4 ~~
ENVIRONME~ITAI. IMPACT RfPORT NQ. 18G AND TEN'TA'fIV[' MI1P QF' T~ RACT N~~ (15b~ (REVISION NQ, 4) ~Cont.)
Mr. Ffclc z~ivlse~~ th~it Staff hAd lnadvertent 7y ~m~tte~d a conciitlnn In tl~e Staff Report
pertalntnct t~ c~ndttlnn~l ~fe~llcatlon fc~r rl dln~~ an~1 hiklnq trr~lla thrcruqh thr, subJect
devel~~pment. Thereiipon~ Mr. Halls stlpulatdd to mekin~ salcf con~iltlonnl de~llcation.
CoMmissi~ner Tolar nffere~~ ~ rnotlon~ st~ond~d by Comnl~sioncr Ktnci and MbTln~~ CAftRIfD
(Commissioner~ Farann an~1 Ilerhst betnq ahsent) ~ th<~t Envlronmental Imp:+ct R~p~rt No. 1~fi~
hAVin~ been considere~i thls ~lite hy the Anahe~m City Plennlny Commis4'n and evlclence, b~th
wriCten an~i oral ~ hnvinc~ been presented t~ lupplement x~~id cirnft FIR No. 1R~~~ tt~e Plannin~
Cammisslon belleves thr+t said draft LIR No. l~~i dacs conform to the City flncf St~~te
Gulclellnes nn~~ ch~ State ~f C~liforr.la Fnvi ronmental O.uallty Act ~,~<I, basecl upon such
tnf~rmatinn~ does hereby rec~mmencl t~ the Clty Counc(1 tht~t they certify sald GIR No, 1R6
is ln c~mpllnncc with s~id Environm~*ntAl Quality Act.
Comrnlssl~ner Tolar offered ~ rmtlon~ secnnded hy Cammissioner hk~rley an~1 M~TI(1N CARkIFI~
(Commissi~ncrs Far~no and Nerbst bein~ ahscnt) , th.~t the Anahelm City Planntn~ Commtssfon
does hcreby Pfnc~ that the ~roposed subdivt sinn, r.o9ether with Its desi~n and improvement~
ls consistent with the City of Anaheim f,enerc+l -'lan, pw~suant to Gov~ernment Code Section
f,h~i7~, 5 and d~es ~ there Fore ~ approve Tenta Zlve Map of Tract IJo. f~SGn (Revi s ton No. ~i) for
an ~~-lot, RS-NS-22~~~n(SC) stibdivlsi~n~ SUbJCCt to the f~llowinr~ co~ditions:
1, Th7t should this subdlvlsian be dcve ~peci ~s rnore Lh~n one sub~llvislon~ each
subdivlsion thereof shall be submitted In tr.nt~tive form fnr approval.
7., That all lots within ttiis tract sfta) l be ~ervecl hy undergroun~l utilitles,
3, Th~t ~ final trar.t map ~f subJect pr~perty shall be s~~bmitted t~ ~n~i approved by
the Cl ty Counr,i l~,nri then be recorded tn t he Office of the Orange County Rr,corder,
4. That any prop~sed covenants~ cond Ittons, and restrictions shell be~ submitted to
and ~pprove~i by the C) ty Attorney's Offi ce prior to Cf ty Counci 1 approval of the final
tract map and~ furth~er~ th~t the approve~l ca~enants, conditions, anci restrictt~ns shall be
recor~leci concurrently wlth the ftnal tract map•
5. Thr~t strFet names shal l be approved by tha C1 ty P1 annin~ Departr~~ent prior to
approval of a fin~l tract map.
G. That Che cwmer of sub.ject property shr~11 p>>y tu the City of Anahetm the
appr~pri~~te park and recre~tion In-Iteu f~es as determined to be appr~~riate by the City
Cnuncil ~ sal~i Pees tn be p~id at tlie tlme the buildlnn perc~it i5 issue~l.
7. 'fhat drainage nf said pro~erty st-ial l be disposed of in a manner satlsfac~.ory to
the City En~ineer. If, in t~~e nreparation of the site, sufficient ~tradlnn is requlred tu
necessitate a ~radin~ per•mit, no work on e~rading will t: permitted between October 15th
an~ April l;th unless all required ~ff-sT te drain~+ge fact~ities have been inst•alled and
are operitive, Positive assurance shall !~e provided the City that such dra(~age
faciltties will be cornple*.ed prior to Oct4ber 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-stte
dralnage fac(lities shall be cledicated tc~ the Clty, or !he City Councii shal'i have
tnittateci con~ler~natl~n proceedinqs therefor (the costs or whicl~ shall be borne by t..e
developer) pri~r to the co~nencement of q radin9 opr_ratlons. The requi red di~ainage
facilities shall be of a size and t~/pe sufficlent to c~,rry runoff waters ori~inatincl from
hi~her preperties throu~h said property to ultimate ~~ispcsal as appro~+ed by tne City
Enalnee.r. Said draina~e facilitles sha11 be the first (tem of corstruction an~t shall be
c~mplete~ and be f~~nctlonal throughout tl-~e tract and from the downstre~m bounciary of the
property to the ultimate point of dispos al prfor io the issu~nce of an~ fin~l builcllnn
inspections ~r occupancy permi ts. Drainane dl strict relmbursement agreements ~nay be made
available to the developers of said propertY upon thcir request,
~i. 7hat qradinn~ excavation~ and a sl other construction activi~ies shall be
conducte~l ln suc'h a mannPr ~o as to minirn(te the possibil+ty of any silt ~riqinating from
this pro]ect betnq carried lnto tF,z Sant a Ana River by storrn water oriqinatinq from or
flowin~ throunh this proJer.t.
9, That the ali~nment ~nd terminal point of storm drains shown on tliis tentative
tract map shall not be c~nsidered itnal. Th~se dr~ins shall be subJect to precise desi~n
consirierations an~t appr•oval of the City Engineer.
10. If permanent street name sinns t~ave not been installed~ temporary street name
si~ns shall be fnstalled prior to any oe cupancy.
ii, That the own~r(s) of subJect p roperty shall pay appropriate draina~e asse~sment
fees to the City of Anaheim~ as deterr.irsed by the Ctty Engineer~ prior tio approval ~f a
final tract map.
12. In the event that sub)ect prop e rtY Is to be citvided for the purpase af sale,
leas~~ or fin~nctn~, a parcel map, to r~cord the approved division of sub~ect pr4perty
shall be submitted to and approved by t-~e C1ty of Anaheim and then be recordecf in the
office of thc (lranq~ County Recorder.
•
~
~
MI~IUTF.S~ f,l'fY PLA~~NIN~~ f,~MMISSIAN~ September 1'i~ 1976 ~6'~~35
ENVIRQNMFNTAL IMPACT RF.PQRT Nn, IAF, AND TF.~~T~TIVF MAP nF TRACT Nn._ ASGQ~REVISION N0. ~~) (Cnnt.)
13. That flre hVdrants shall be Inst;~lle+~ and charqed as r~quirecf end detarmine~i to
hP nc+ce+ssary by the Chlef o~ the Flre Depc~r-.mnnt prtor t~~ camm~:ncement of gtructurr~~
frAminn.
1-~, Th~t th~ developer ~~f suhJe:ct trACC st-all enter t,~t•.~ ~ specl~l Paciliti~^s
agreement wl~~ the City for water fACtlltl~~s In th, Ntr!•, Elnvation System~ a~~ r~+~ulr~cl by
Rule 15B ~F che Watrr tlclllty Rates~ Rules~ ~nc1 Rc~~ui~clons prf~r to Aprrovat r:~ a fln~~!
trnct mr~p~ ~s stipulrto~{ t~ by the petitl~ner.
1~, Th~t ul) cnnstruction in sub.;ect tract shall bc in accordance with Che
requl rements of f'1 re 2one ~~, as appro~~ed by the CI ty of lln~ohelm FI re Deparr.ment.
1fi, In accordance with ttir, ~^_q~~~ rements of Sectlon 1~.~2.n47 per2r~inlnn to the
Initial s~le ~f resicien[lal home~ li~ the City of Anahelm Planning Are~~ "8"~ the s~ller
shal) provl~le c~ch huyer with wrlCten lrformntl~n concernin~ the tlnoh~elm Gennral Plan an~1
the exlstinct zonin~ w{thin 3~Q feet ~f the bound;~rlas of subJect trect.
17, That any speclmen trees rermveci on the suhJect property sh~ll be rep~acncl on a
1:1 rAtlo~ sai~l repl~ceme~nt to be shcawn nn a plan and suhrnitte~~ to the Ptanning ~epartment
for apt~roval. pri~r to I~,suance of hullding permits and sald raplacement t.~ be
accomplishe~i prl~r to fin~~l huilding and zonin~ inspectlons.
1~1, That In ~ccorciance wiCh f,ity Councli policy, a b~f~ot inasonry wall shali bc
constructe~l ~n the west ~ro~erty line separating lot ~ios. 5~ 63 ar,d Falrmemt 8oulevard;
Nrovl~leci, hrnvever~ th~t a G-f~ot ~~ecoratlve wall may be ~arovi~ie~1. ReasonAble lan~iscapin~~
lncludinn Irrl~atlon facilitles~ shall be Installed in tlie uncernented port(cm of the
arterial hiqhway parkway the full dlstance of saicl wall; plans for sald la~c~scaplnc to be
submitte<f to and subject to the approval of Lhe Superintendent of Parkwt~y Malntenance,
Follow3ng tnstallation and acceptance~ the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility
f~r matntcnance of sald landscaping.
14, That the awner(s) of subJ~ct pruperty sl~all c~edlcate to the Clty of Anahelm
easements for ri<ilnq and hiktng trail purposes p~•icr to the approval of a final Lract map,
as stipulate•f to by the petitloner.
?.~. That the a+ner(s) of sub]ect property shail dee~ to the C(Cy of Anahelr. ~ strip
of land ten (1~) feet in widch along the hound~ries of Lat Nos, 'I and 13 aciJacent 'co
Mohle- Dri~~e for street-wideninn purposes~ as stipul~ted to hy the petitioner.
21. That a cul-de-sac sh~il be provided to terminate Street "Il" at the northcrly erid
of subJect property ~rlor to re~~+ching Mohler Drive~ sald cul-de-sac to be sub_Ject to the
approval nf the City Enqineer, as stipulated t~ by the petitioner,
22. That a strcet shall extend ~etween Lot Nos, 16 and 17~ from Street "A" to Del
Giorgio Road~ as stipul.~tecl tn by the petitioner.
?.3. That access t~ Lot ~~os. 1 and 2 sliall be provided from the south baundaries of
saicl lots to Street "A"~ as stipulateci to by the pe~tttloner,
2h. That access tu Lot Plo. 13 sh:~ll be taken fror~ Street "A"~ as stipulated to by the
petitioner.
Commtssioner Morley offerecl a mc~tion, seconded by Commissloner King and M(1TI~N CARRIEf1
(Commissioners Farano ar,c1 Herbst being absent). that the 1lnaheim City Planning Com!nisston
does hereby recommend to the C(ty Council of the City of Anahefm that the pr~posed plan to
remove 191 specimen trees~ as defined in the Tree PreServation Or~finance, be approved.
~
._..
~
MINUTF.S~ C17Y PL!-NNING COMMISSION~ September 13~ 1976 7fi-43G
RECLASSIFIf,ATI~N - PUBLIC fIEARING. WESTERN PLAY CARE~ INC.~ 6752 Nestern Avenue~ Ouena
N0. 76-77-1~i Park~ Ca. 90621 (Owne~); GARL pELVEUFRI'. 6'S2 Western Aven~ie~ auena
~ Park~ Ca. 90fi21 (Agenr). Property described as e rcr,tangulnrly-shaped
VARIAPICE N0, 2841 parcel oP land conslsting of approximotely G,7 ecre havtng a froncage
ef approxlmately 130 feet on the south stda of Oran~owood Avenue~
having a maxfmum depth of epproximAtely 2~+5 fcet~ anci belr,g located
approximt~tely 392 foet we~t of thn ~enterltne of Spinnnker Street. Property presently
cle~ssifled RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRtCUITURpI.) ZONE.
R[QuESTED r,LASSI~Ir.ATInN; RM-1200 (RESInENTIAL~ 1~UlTIPIE-F4MILY) ZONE,
REQIIESTED VIIRIAIlCEs WAIVfR QF (A) MAXIMUM BUIl.D1Nf, NEIGHT~ (H) MINIMUM SIDEYARD SETBr1CK~
AHp (C1 REQUIRED BLOCK WALL~ TO CONSYRUCT A 2~-UNIT APARTMENT
C~MPI.FX,
Approximbtely six persons indicated thelr presence ln oppo~itlon to the subJcct petltlons
end forthwith walvecl the full readlr+q nf the Staff Report t~ thr. Planning Commisston dated
September 13, 1976~ c;n ihe basis that they had revieweci r,opics of st~me,
Although the St~ff Report was not rcaei at the publlc hearinq, sal~ report ls referred to
and rtu~de a part af the minutes,
Mr. William S. Phelp~, representing the pet(Cl~m~r, appeercd be~ore the Planning
f.ommisslon and state~ therr were exist~ng walls along the property ilnes to ccmply with
the requl remr.nts an~l tl~~t the ~ther waivers WP,~'.,y tc~hnlcal ~ In his opinton.
In response co questioning by Commtssloner Morley~ Mr, Plielps stated there w+~s an extsttng
wal) on the west property line~ however~ thc Planning Departrr~nt stafP was Ignnring tt.
He further stateci they were prop~sing a 6-foot hi~h~ mesonry wall along the east and south
s i des of the p rope rty .
Mr. Hubert Vlcke ry~ 2.125 Nautlcal Street~ Anaheim, t~ppeared b~fore the Planntng Cortmtssion
in opnosttion anci statPd his only concern was that the required bloclc walls be
constructeri.
Mr. Leonard Faneto, a rssident on dluebell Drive, appeared before th~ Planninn Conenission
and stated thAt Che proposed buildlnns were being considered as two-story but wlth the
subterranean parking they should be cnnsidered as three-story buiidings.
Mr. Wllliam Rader~ 2136 Nautica) Street~ Anahelm, appeared before the P~anning Commission
(n oppositton and stated that the sxisting block wali on the west slde ~f the property
belonged to the church; that he obJected to the proposed infringement on the privacy of
rhe extstln~ residents tn the area and was obJecting to the tnc~eased density in the area
since there was already a t~rge number of apar~ments which fiad resulted In ~ significant
increase In the crtme rate of the are~~; that the residents ~nd chtldren in the area were
unable to enJoy the neiqhborhood parks because of the trA~sSents who moved into apartments
in the area and did not care about the netghborhood; that there were enough apartments tn
the rreb al~ng the north side of Orangewood Avenue and thi~ type of development had to
stop somewhere; that the proposeci apartment proJect w~uld Just be using the existing wall
on the west side of the pruperty whtch belonged to the church; and that he had two walls
at his own property line which was adJacent to the churr.h property and tF~ught It was a
good idoa,
Mrs. Gene Albtn~ 35~~ East Oranaewood Avenue~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning
Commiss?o~ in opposttlon and stated that three-story constructton on the subJect property
was too much and that she was concerned about the setbacks.
In rebuttai~ Mr. Phelps stated that the proposed setbacks withtn 150 feet of ad)acent
residential uses were allowable in the City; that the proposed butldings were considered
iwo-sto ry and not three-st~ry; that they were proposing a bank of trees in the 10-foot
buffer strip; and that the proposed units would actually be lower than the ad]acent
Rroperty.
Tf~E PUBLIC HEARING W.~S CL~SED.
~
~
MINUTF.5~ CI1V PLANNI`I~ COMNISSION~ Septembar 13~ 197~
a~~-437
RF.CLASSIFICHTION N0. 76-77"1~~ h~ID VARIANGC NOs 2841 (Cantlnuedj
C:.mmissl~ner Kinq ~oted that he dicl not agrec r.hac a second wall w~s requtred elong tha
westerly properky llne, Mr. Phelps st.ipui~rerl that an ~pproxtmately A-foot htgh Wel)
would be p~ovided along the wcst rrop~rrty 11nQ~ as ~+ butfer wrll for the prrking area,
In res~nse t~ questl~nln~ by Mr. Racier, Mr, Phelps inrficated that tho overell hetgh~ of
tF~e prop~sed bulldings wuuld bc 3~ fett or iess,
In re~sp~~nse to guestt~ninc~, Assistant Planner J~el Fick advisecf that the subterran~en
pArking spaces were consldered "tuck-under" parki~g and were permitted ~y Code.
Commlesloner King offr,reci a motlon~ seconded by Commiasloner Morley an~i MOTION CARRI[D
(Commissi~ners Farano an~l HCrhst being absent). that the A~aheYm City Ptas~ning Commts~fc,n
does hernby rccomme+ic' to the CI ty Councl l of the Ct ty of Anrhelm t.hr~t lhe subJect pro)~ct
be excmpt from the requlrement to prep:~re ~n envlronmental impact ~eport~ pursuant to khe
provlslons of the C311fornia Fnvironmr.ntal Quality Act.
Gomml!ssi~r+er King of'Pered Resolutlon No. PC76-173 and moved for Its passaqe and adoptlon~
that the Anaheim City Planning Cammisston does hereby recomnend to the City Gouncll of the
Cicy of llnahelm that Petlti~n }or Reclas~tftcatior~ No, 76-77-14 be npprov~d~ sub.Ject to
the Interdep~rtmental Committee recommendatlons. (Soe Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foreg~tnq resoiution was passad by the f~llowir~g vote~
AYES; C~MMISSI~NFRS; BARNES~ KING~ MQR~~Y~ T~LAR~ JOHNS~)N
NQES s C~)MMI SS I ~Ni:'RS ; N~~~E
ABS[:NT: rnMMISSI~MERS: FARANCI~ HERBS7
Commisstoner King ~ffercd Resolution No. Pf,76-174 and moved for its passage ancl adoptlor~,
that the Anaheim Clty Plannlr.g Commission does hereby gr~nt Petittan for Varlance No.
2b•-~~ granttng the requested waiver of thc maxlmum butldtn~ height on the basis that the
proposecl two-sto ry bulldtngs are rtx~re than 150 feet from ti~e existlnq single-family
residentlal development to Clie south and the residentially-zoned property to the east is
uncleveloped an~i zoned agriculturally and similar Naivers have praviously been granto!~ by
the Planninq Commtssion; and, Purthermc~re, the prop~sai will not be detrtmental to the
area; granting the requested waiver of the mintmum aldayard setback on the basls that
similar watvers ha~ie previously been grrnted by the Pla~ning Commission; and denytreg the
requested waiver of the required block wall on the basis that the petlttoner stlpulated ta
consCructing a o~TffUL 'nign rtia3u~iiy wall adJacent L'o the south and east property 1(nes anci
a stmilar wall is presently exlsting along 'the west property ltne; provided~ hr~wever~ that
the petitioner stipulated t~ constructing an addltiunal masonry wall approxlmately 4 feet
In hei4ht along the west praperty line ad)acent to the exEsting w~ll, to serve as a buPt`er
for tl~e parking area; and subJect to th~ InterdeQartmental Committee recnmmendattons.
(See Resolution 3ook)
On roll call~ the fore~oing resolut(on was passed by the following ~~te:
A`!FS : COMM t SS ! OME RS : BARNES ~ K 1 NG ~ MORI.EY ~ TOLAR ~ JOfiNSON
N~ESt COMMtSSI~PIFRS: NONE
ABSENI': COMMt SS i ONERS : FARAPIn ~ HERBST
kECLASSIFlCATION - PUBLIC hIEARINC. W. B. HART~ 1825 Beryl lanc~ Newport Beaeh, Ca. 92660
NA. 76-77-15 (Owner); BILL P'NELP~~ iQ95 North Main Street~ utte S~ Orange~ Ca.
92~67 (Agent). Rropert~~ described as an irre~ularly-shaped parcel of
VARIANCE N0. ?.3~~3 land consistina of apprcxirt~ately 0.7 acre havtng a frontage ~f 242
'~"-'-'~ feet on the west slde of Magnolia Avenueo haviny a maximum depth of
approxtmately 200 feet~ and beinq located approximately 525 feet
north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presentl~~ classtflecl RS-A-43~000
(PESIDENTlAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFiCATION; RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAi., MUL'fIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUES7ED VARtANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMl1M DISTANCE BETWEEN BUIIDiNGS~ TO CONSTRUC7 A~i
1S-UNIT APARTMENT COMPIEX~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 13~ 197~ 76-438
RECLASSIFICATIdN ~l0, ?~-7%~15 AND VARIIINCF N0. 2843 (Contlnued)
One person was present In appositfon an~i walvcd the fu~l re~dlnG of the StAff Repo~t to
the Plannln~ C~mmission ~~at~~t Sent~mber 13~ 19%6~ on the basis that salci report hac t,nen
review~d.
Mr. Willlam S. Fhelps, the aqent fnr the petltloner~ ap{~aared before thc Plnnning
Commissi~~n and st~te<I the subJe~ct proprrtY w~s a rather ~{Ifficult p~rcel to develop due to
Its size an~1 shape anri beina adJacent to a church ~nd school; thrt they had made every
effort tn the prop~sa) te~ ~+rotRCt the envl ronme:nt oP thr: ci~urch pl+is the schaol ; And th:~t
the requested watver was alrn~st mandatc~ry f~r thls type oP prc~~crty.
Dlscussion pursued ree~ardfnq th~ deslqn l~y~ut and ;1r, Phelps Indlca:::~ that to get the
number of units pr~pos~~1~ Ar~y c~ian~es wo~ild result in t~~e same concli~lons,
Mr. Paul Llefeld~ representinn the Central Baptist Church of Orsnge Caunty, appe~red
b~fore the Plannin~ Commisslon In opposltton an~i revl~:wed his lettcr dateci ~epCember 1~~
ty76, whtch had been submltted in r~opogitlon. Mr. Liefeld statecl the church school had
iyPen In operatl~n for 19 years At this locatlon ancl they were cuncerned about what wtrs to
be construcked ln the AreA; that it w~s their underst~ndin~ that the C-1 zoning on the
prapetty coul~ have been rruae efFective ax any time; an~i that the proposal was In
vlolatlon nf the deed restricllons on the prapr.rty and would not be AS cornpatible as G 1
which h~d been propo~ed over the years.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Phelps statied that the idJacent church was located o~ily 6 feet from the
property line a~d wds, therefore~ in vlolatl~n oP Code stanclards; that the proposal was
for open parkinq; that the owncr eP tha t'roperty had advised that there were no deed
re~atrlctions for the use oP the subJect property and he did not know what would be
ental 1 ed to prohl b 1 t ~•es t dent 1 al uses of 1 r.; that i t was st range tt~at tl~e churr.h was
acceRtable but the proposecl residential developmant was nat; th~t an apartment hause
existed across the street and this was a prims residentlal area because oP the golf course
which was alsa located across the street.
THE PUBL.IC IIEARING WAS CLOSED.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry ctartfied that the City of Anaheim was fn no way
concernecl with existing deed restrlcttons on the sublect property, and that would be a
clvil matter; anci that the adJacent church was established pursuant to a con~litional use
permit~ etc.
Commisstoner King made ar. ohservation that it appeared a commercial proJect on the subJect
property woul~ be more harmful tl~an an apartm~nt proJect. In response~eMa~~Lstores vouldd
their operation was baslcally a day school and Sunciay schoal~ and that
have very little niqht ancl weeken~l lnvolvement; that they had felt over the years ttiat
commerctal was the most compatible with their usa; that they had a lot of problems with
~eople Jumping over their walls and using their lawns, etc., and their property was us~J
ltke a local park withouC any consid~ratton as to whether church servlcea were being
cor.~fucted; and that an apartment house on the north would serve as a perfect screen for
burglaries~ enterinq their property through Che auditorium.
Commissioner Tolar made an observation that a commercial use such as a liquor store rniyht
be considered as a c~mr ~rclal use of the property; that, tn his opl~lor~~ a residentlal use
was more compattble than a commei'cial department store or 1(quor st~re~ etc.; and that he
failed to see how the Rroposal would hurt the church and schoo) operations,
The Planntng Commissi~n entered Into discusslon regarding the usual compiaint that
res(dential uses did not want a church next to them.
Commisstoner 7olar offere~l a rsx~tion, seconded by Commisstoner Kin~ and MOTION CARRIED
City Planning Commission
(Commissioners Farano and Herhst beinq absent), th~t the Anaheln
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anahelm that the subJect proJect
be exempt from the requlrement to prepare an environmental (mpact r~port~ pursuant to the
provisions of the California Fnvironmental Quality Act.
Commissi~ner Tolar offePed Resolutton No. PC7F-175 and mave~ i'or its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planntng Commission does hereby recommen~l to the City Council of the
City of Anaheim that Petitl n for Reclasstfication No. 7~-77-15 be approvecf~ subJec2 to
~he Interdepartr~ental C~:~imittee recomme~dations. (See Resolution Boc~k)
..~„
~
~
~
MINI;TES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Septcmb~r 13~ 197~~
RECLASSIFICAT1f1h1 N0. 76-77-IS AND VI1RIf1NCE N0, 2Ah3 (Contlnued)
~n rc~ll c:+tl~ the fbro~~in~ resolutl~n wa~ p~~se~l hy the f~llc+winq vc~te:
I1YFS ; C~11M1 SS I ~~~FRS : BAR~JES ~
NOF.S; C014MISSI~NF•.RS; WONF
I1NSF-I1't C~P1M1 S51 ~NFRS : F/1RA~1~ ~
~;! NG ~ M~RLt'Y ~ TOLAR ~ J~NNSOM
H[RI~S7
7G-4 39
Commiss (oner 1'0l ~r of fere~l Resol ut lon ~~o, PC76-17fi flncl m~ve~i for 1 ts passa~c and adopt ton ~
that the 11nAhe(m Cl~y Planninq Comm(sston ~1oes herohy ~rAnt Petitton for Varlancc No.
2A~i~, c~r~~ntlnn tht requested walver of the minimum dfstancc hetween builcifngs on the b~sis
thAt the p~titioner ~leimnstrated that ~+ hardshlp would be createcl if saicl walver was n<,t
clranteri~ s~l~ hardship betn~~ the siz~ nn~l yh~~e af the sub]ect property; and subJect to
the Inter~lep~rti~~ent~il Commlttce rPCOmnendatlons, (SeF Rceolul•ion Book)
(1n r~il call~ the fore~t~~fn~l r~:solution was passed by the following votc:
AYFS: CnMMI SS I n~~E~S ; QAR~lES ~ KI Nr ~ M~RLEY ~ T~LAR ~ JOH~JS~~I
NilES: CnM~11SSI~NFRS; N01lF
ADSCNT; CnM-il ~S I ~t1ER5 ; F11P,nN~~ H[P,RST
CnNDITI~Hl1L USE'. - PUHLIC HF.ARI-JG, R. C. 130A7MA4 CONSTRUCTION C011PANY~ 21.6~i2 Lamhert Strset,
PERf41T N~. 1f,4~ E1 Toro~ Ca. 91.(i30 (Owner); P~ATI~N/1l. COLOR GLA7_E OF AMERiCA~ INC.~ 1275
Pl~rth Grove Street, Maheim~ Ca. 92ti06 (Agent); requesting permission for
the MIXINf AND PACKA~IN~~ OF PoLISH ANO COATtrlr,S on property descrlbQd as
a rectan~ularly-shapecl parcel of ian~l conststtn~ of approximatc~iy ~,5 acre havlnn a fr•ontage
of 145 fcet ~~n thc w•ast si~1e of Grove Street, having a maxtmum depth of apprc~ximately 15~
feet~ beinr~ locatecl approximately 1~7.2 feet south of the centerline of Mirdloma Avenue~ an~l
further ~lescribeci as 1275 Plorth f,rave Street, Property presently classified ML (INDUSTR111L~
LIMITf~) ZOtIF.
PI~ one incllcated thelr presen<:e tn oppc:iti~n tn suhJect petitlon,
Althouqh the 5taff Report to the Plannin~ Commisslan dated September 13, 197fi~ was not
read at the public hearin~~ said St~f~ Rcport Is referrc~d rn an~l made a part of the
minutes,
Mr. Rruce 5ewertnick.~ the owner of Nationa) C.olo (;laze of Amerlca, inc.~ appeared befare
thP Planninn Commission and stated that the al~ze was wa±er-sol~ble plastic and was
nonflammable; tl~~t the ~perati~n w~uld be conducted all indoors with no outside storage of
equipment or material since~ if the polyethylene ever got raineci on~ it would not be
usable; that there would be no notse or fumes emanatinct from the proposed use; and that he
had previously sharerf one••half of a huildinc~ wtth a machine shop and there were na
ob~ections ta his operatton.
THF PI~E~LIC HkARINf WAS CLOSE~.
In response to questionincl by Commiss(oner King, Mr. Sewertnick stat~d that the only nolse
woul ~i be f rom the mi xi nc~ r+x~tor wh i ch was abo~~t as not sy as a fan ,
Chairnian Johnson questioned the dust that m(~,ht he qeneratecl by the use~ ancl Mr.
Sewertnick st~ted that the color glaze was made from flakes whicl~ were heavy and were not
a dust that would spread over the nelghhorhood.
Mr. Sewertntck inrticate~i that he was purchasinc~ the subJect property; whereupon~
Commissioner Nbrley noted Chat a time iimit would not be appropriate on that basis.
COmfntsst~nPr 'k~~ley inclicatecl that he was a neiahbor to the subJect pr~perty and,
]okPn~ly~ made cemments about tracling off hi- s~rvices for services of Mr. Sewertnick.~
followiny which :.ommtssioner Morley noted for the Chairman thaC he would abstatn from
votln~ becaus~ of the byplay between himself and the applicant Chairman Johnson
clarified th~t Commissioner Morley anri htmsel~ both had busin~sses in the sub]ect area but
were not immedi~te neiqhbors of the property in question; and that the term "r+eighbor" had
been usecl loosely.
It was nnteci Chat the Director of the Planninc~ Dep~rtment haci determfned th2t the proaosed
activity Pell withtn the definition of Section 3,~1, C1a5s 1, of the City of Anahelm
~
~
PIINUTf!t, f.ITY PI_I1N~11~lr, f,OMMISSION, Sertemher 13, 1976 1~~'~i4~
C~NDITI~NIIL IISE PFRMIT M0, 164R (Continued)
~,~~tdel Incs tn the Renul rerr+~nts P~r an Envt ronme~tAl Impacl iteport ~yncl was ~ theref~rc,
cate+norlcally exempt frnm the requtrement to file an EIR.
Commissl~~ncr K(nn off~r~r~l Resolutlun No. PC7~-177 ~n~i mnvcrl f~r ~t~, passagc ~n~i acloptton~
that the ~~~~ehelm Clty Plann(nn Commisslon d~es htrehy qrant Petltlon for Condit(on~l Use
PQrml[ No. 1~~~~', suh~r,ct to thc stl~ulations of thc petitloner th;~t thr.rc would bc no
out~lonr wtnr~~c~n of ineterlals or r.qul~ment an~l the ~~roposed use shall be conrlucte~l wholly
Indoors; ancl suhlect to the Interdepnrtr~ental Cornmlttee recommen~~Atlon, (See Resolution
Book)
~n roll cr+ll, the foreg~lnq resolutfon w~s p~~ssed by thc f~llowinq vote:
AYES: r~11MtSSI~tIFRS: BhRNF.S, Kl~lr,~ TOLhR~ JnHwSn~i
IJp~S : CnMM) ss inriFr,s ; rinrir
ABS[N'f ; COMMI SS I ~~!['RS : FARA~I(1 ~ HERI~ST
ABSTAIN7 CQMMI.°iSlnlIF.RS; MnRLEY
C~Nl11Tl~~l~L USE - PUDLIC IiEARI~I(;, 4ANK OF AMERICl1, I•lTF,SA~ 555 Sourh Flowcr Strset~ Los
PEP,1117 N~. 1hb9 {lnqeles~ Ca, 90~71 (Own~r}; R~~CRT D. JOHI~STON~ 3n0 North Rampart Strcet,
1,~13~ Orange~ Ca. 92;GP (Agent); requestfng permission to ESTl1Ill_ISH A
DA~ICE NAI_L on property described as ~n Irrec~ularly-shapeci parcel of land
c~~nststinn of aprroxtmately G.3 acres located on the south an~1 we:st s1~1es of Sequota Avenue,
havlnn approxii~,ete fr~nt~~es of 525 feet on the sauth side an~! 4~13 fc:et o~ the west side of
Saquola Avenue~ an~l further describe~f as 22t1B Sequ~ii Avenue, Property presently classifled
CL (fnMM~RCIAL~ LIMITE~) 7.ONE.
It was n~ted thAt the petitioner or a representaCtve was not present in connection w(th
the sub~ect proposal ~ an~l tht~t ~ two-week contlnuance shoul~l be consldere~l.
?hereup~n~ Commissioner Tolar offered a riotlon~ seconded by Commissione~• Morl~~y and MOTI~N
CARRIED (Commissioners Farano anci lierbst being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Commisston does hereby continue the puhlic hearinc~ and con~icleration ~f Conditional Use
Permit No, 1649 t~ the Plannin~ Commission meetin4 of 5eptember 27, 1Q76~ fo*' the
petltloner to be present.
COP~DITIONAL USE - PURLOC HEAP,IPIG. BARaARA M. FITZPATR.ICI:~ 515 South Harbor euulevard,
PFRMIT N~. 1G5~ Anaheim~ Ca, ~2~Q5 (~wner) ; WI~. f1. AP~D JU~JE M, MC INTYRE~ 917 1Jest
'~ -` Sycamore Street~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92~~5 (Agent); requestinq perriission to
ESTIIBLISH AN OFFICE IM AM E.XIS'TINf RESIDEtlT1/1L STRU~:7URF 1.~1"N WAIVF.R
OF (A) NIP11MUrt ~~UMBER oF PARY.IfJG SPACES AND (B) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL SE7R/1CK on property
describecl as an trrepularly-shanecl parcel of land consistinn of ap~roximately ~),3 acre
h~vin~ a frontaqe of approximat2ly 70 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard~ having
a maxlmum ciepth of approxtniately 153 feet~ bein~ located approximately 21Q feet south oF
tf~e centeriine of Santi An~ Street, and further descrihed as ~15 South Harbor Boulev~-~rd,
Property presently classlfied Rt1-120(J (RESIDEIlTIAL~ MULTIPL~-FA~11LY) ZOPlE.
No one indic~tecf their presence ir oppasition to the sub_j~ct petition.
Althou~h the Staff Report to the Plannin~ Commission date<1 September 13~ 1976~ was not
read at the public hearin,y~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part. of the
minutes.
Mr. Randy Bosch~ representing the agent for the petttioner~ appeared befor~ the Planning
Commission and describecl the proposal~ statina that lt was essential to h~ve the
additlonal buildlnq at the rear of the subJect property t~ make the front use economically
successful; that f~ of the proposed parking sp~ces wouid takc~ care. nf the office suite ln
the rear ancl the remaln~ier would be for the propased photography studio; and that the
proposed photo~raphy studl~ was not for a retail use wlth walk-(n or off-the-street type
traffic.
'fNE PIIRLIC NF.ARI~!~ WAS CLCSED,
~
~^w
~
MINIITES~ CIYY PLANIJING COMMISSION~ September 13~ 1976
C1INAITIONf1L USE PERMIT N~, 1~+5~ lContinued)
___..__.-__
76~4 ~i 1
In response to questinninq by Chalrm~n Johnson~ Mr. Ro~ch resp~nded that ~an Rowland G
A~ssociates Archltec.ts hacl use~l Che srrvicr.s of Mr, Nclntyre~ the flppllc~~nt~ for a perlad
of tlme an~i sal~1 ApplicAnt was strtctly an in<IusCrial and commerc~al ph~to~rapher~ was
absolut~~~y roputable~ and d1d a lot of wvrk for llnal~eim Me:mori~l Hospit:+l, etc.
In response to qiiPSfloninc~ by Commissloner Morloy, I~r, Busch stete~i they we~e stlll
uncertaln wh+~t the general offtce; uses would be for th~ butlding on thn rear of the
p ropP r~ ty ,
Commtssloner Talar ~~ote~l that he dtd not intenci t~ qu~~sr.l~,n the lntegrity oP the
repres~entation~ however~ lf the pronerty shc~uld be sold or trans~'erre~l In the Puture~
certaln prec~utl~ns sl~ould be Lake;n since. several properties along 1larbor Boulevard had
caused the City a great de,q) of problems with moclelin~ st~idlos~ eCc.~ that~ as long as Mr.
Mclntyre was ~oin~ to nperate at the subJect lo~~tlon, he did not forr.see any pr~blems~
howe.~er~ A t~me llmlt should he Irr~ose~1 For thr_ rev(ew an<1 c~ntrol of the use an~l sald
llmlt ,~oiilcl bc three ar f:+ur years; and th~t he was not ca~stin~ any reflections on the
appllcA~~t (n any way.
Commissioner Y.tng note~l that thc applicant would have no fP~r of a tlmr. llmlt an~1 Mr,
B~sch SCACP.C~ the only prohlem w~i~~1~1 he cc:;+~~q to thc f,ity for revir_w.
Cornmtssloner Tolar then suanpsted that a five-year tlme limit be lmposeci~ and Nr. [3osch
lndtcatecJ th;~t ~uch ~ timr. Ilmlt would be satisfactory.
It w.~s note~l that the Direc.tar of the Planninn Department ha~l determinecl that the pmposed
ac:tivity fell withfn the definltion of Section 3.01~ Class 3~ of the City c,f AnAheim
Guldelines to tf~e Requirements for an Environmental Impict Report and was, therefore~
cate~orically e;~empt from the requirPment to file an EIR.
Com~issinner Mo~•ley nfferec~ Resolution No, PC7G-17S and moved for Its p~ssaqe and
adoptton~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for
Cond(tionAl Use Permtt No. 1~~5!1 for a period of five years, subJect to revtew; granting
the reqiiested walver of mtnimum number of p~rking spaces on the basis that the 6 sp:~ces
that would be utilized fnr Khc photography studiu would be adequate s(nce sald use was
unique; grantin~ the requesCed watver of the minimum sr.ructural setback on the basis that
tt~e builrfincl is exlstinn and a hardship v~~~uld be creat.ed if ~See ResolutioneBook)9ranted;
subJect to the Interdepartmental Committe~°_ recommendation.
nn ro11 cail~ the foregoing resol.ution we~~ passed by the fnitowina vote;
AYES ; COMMI SS I ~~~ERS : DARNES ~ Y,1 tIG ~ MOItLEY ~ TOLAR ~ JOHNSOPI
NOES : Cr1MMl SS I(1-•IERS t ta~~lE
ABSF~IT: Cf1MMiSSi~NERS; FARANn~ HEP,RST
C~NDITIONAL USF. - PUdLlC NE~RINC,. CEIJTURY PROPERTIES, 1620b Ventura Boulevard~ Sufte
PERt~IT N~. 1651 2~1 ~ Encfna, C~, 9131F ~~~er); ARMAPI~ SdANG~ 8011 Loulse Lane~ La Pa1ma~
Ca, 9~~~2~ ~~4ent); requestin~ permission to ESfABLISII A 41-UNIT MbTEL
on pr~perty described as a rectangularly-shapecl parcel of land consisC-
ina of approximately 0,~ acre having a frontage of apprc~xim~~i:ely 1~2 feet on the east
st;le of Beach Boulevard, havin~ a maximum depth of approxlmately 'i02 fee.t, being located
approxir~ately 11'i5 feet n~rth of the centeriine of Lincoln Avenue, an<I further described
as 32~ ~~orth Beach Boulevar~l, Property presently classifie~i CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMi7E~)
ZQNE.
No one indicatPd their presence (n opposltton t~ the subJect petitton.
Mr. Armand Wan~~ the ac~ent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commission to
answer yuestions reqardln~ the proposal.
THE PtIBLIC HEARIr~G wAS CI.oSED.
CommiSSl~ner Morley noted that nn watvers were being requestc~ anci the plans appeared to
be acc~eptable,
~
~
~
~
MItIl1Tf.S, CITY PLANIJIN~ C0~4MISS1~~1~ Ssptember 13~ 197~ J~-I~1i2
C~NDITIONAL USF PFRMIT N0, 1651 (Continucd)
Commiss(oner Klnq not~rl thAt he wns c~ncerne~l th~t only two-burner st~ves w~:r~ being
pr~posed; ~nd Mr, Wan~ Inc~IcAte~i ln the ~fftrmr~ttve,
In resp~nse t~ fu~rher comment by Commissloner Ktng~ Mr, Wang s~ipular.ed th comrly wlCh
the City requlrenN~nts pert~inln~~ t~ trr~sh cn~ losure areas.
Commtssl~ner Mc~rley offerect a n~otl~n~ secoRded by Commissloner 7olar an~i ;inTloN CARRIFn
(Commissl~ners Farano and Nerhst belnc, absent)~ thAt the llnaheim Clty Planntnn Commisslon
does hereby recommen~l to the Ctty f.ouncil of the t;ity af Anahieirn tf~ar the subJect proJect
be exempt from the re~u~rement to ~repare an ~nvl mnmental lmt~act r^p~rr.~ pursu.ant to thc
provisions nf thc Callfarnla Environmentfll Qualtty l1ct.
Mr. W~an~ incilcated that therc may he a necessity to revise the plans ~n~l th~t he had an
alt~rnative plan for review by the Plannin~ Comm~sslon, Y"preup~n~ Mr. Rtchard E.
~.ongshore, 7h~i7 So~_.h La Palma Drlve, Buena Park~ appeare~l before the P1<~nnfn~ Corrnntsstan
to further coMment concerninq possible revlse~l plans~ and statsd th~~t there were pi~blems
relatln~ to two eastrPnt~ In connection wlth tl~a Sub)ecC prepe~ty wl~lch mt~ht affect thP
lAyout of the proJect; howevr.r, if an exchange of easements Gould he worked out with the
adJacent property owner~ there would be no neecf fc~r revisecl plans,
Cnmmiss(~.mer ~lorley o~Fere~f a motion~ seconded by f.ammisslhner Ktnq and MOTI~P! CARRIED
(Commissioners Farano ancl Herbst being absent)~ that the Anrheim City Plann!ng Commisston
d~es hereby re~pen the pu6lic hearinn and contlnues consideratlor~ cf Petition for
Condltfon~l Use Permit No, 1651 to the Plannin~ Commission meetin~ of September 27~ 197(i~
for the reasons ~iiscussed.
Cl)N~ITI~N/1L USE - PURLIf. HF.ARING, PICK RAt1C11ES, 1t333 South State C~Ilege Boulevard~
PERMIT t~~, 1(51. Anaheim~ Ca, 92~1~6 (Owner); SUtdRISF MOTE~S, LTD., 777 South Main Street,
~ Suite 5~~ Orange~ Ca, q2GG~? (Agent); requesting permisston to ES1"AP,LISFI
!1 '1(1TCL WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM ~IUNBFR bF PARKING SPACES on property
descrlhed as a rc:tang~ilariy^shapecl parcel oP land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres
having a frontage of approximately 1`30 feet on the s~uth side ~f Kat~~ila Avenue~ havinq a
maximum depth of approximately 250 feet~ and being locateci appr~ximatcly h~~7 feet ~~est of
the centerline of Stite Colle~e Boulevard, Property presently classified 11L (IP![)USTRI!1L,
LIhIITED) 7_OtJE,
P~o one incllcated their presence (n opposition to the subJect petition,
~ithough thc Staff Report to the Plannin~ Commission dated September 13~ 1976~ was not
read at the public hearinc~, saici Staff ReporL is referred to and made a part of ihe
minutes,
Mr. John Cox~ representin~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared hefore the Planninq
Commission and stated the proposal was to build (i~ motel units~ including a manager's
unit, in accordance with City codes; tha~: the pr~perty line was immedlately ad.Jac4nt to
the Sandman Mc~tel on Katella Avenue; anci thiat they had been in contact with the Sanitation
Division and woulcl Gomply with the City requirements.
THE PUBLIC HF.ARItIG bIAS CL~SED.
Gommiss(nner Flarley questicm ed whether the proposeci number of parking sp~ces would create
a problP«; t~r the new motel, Mr, Cox answcred in the negative, stipulatinq that they
deftnitely did nc,t nee~1 more than 62 parkln~l spaces sin.:e they were also proposing to have
a shuttiebus service to the Orange County Airport~ as we11 as to other maJor (nterest
areas of the City,
I~ response to questioninct by Commissioner Tolar~ Mr. Cox stateci the only kitchen uniks
proposed would be in the mana~er's aparir-ent; and that the Sandman Motel next door had a
shuttle service anc1~ therefore~ the location was suita5le for the proposal.
Commtssioner Darres reviewed the pl~ins co determine whether there was raom to add kttchen
units in the rooms at a later -.tme~ anci Mr~ Cox in~iicatecl there was not.
Citairman Johnson noted thHt a7~houqh it appeared that any shortaqe ~4 parkin~ would be the
operator's problPm, it usu~~lly wc~und up being the City's probiem.
~
u
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS51f1N~ Septemt~er 13. 1976
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4Q~ 1f+52 (Continuod)
76~443
'fhereupon~ Mr. Cox tncllc~ted tliat they were cloing to revise th~ plnn~ to reduce th~ number
of rooms an~1 a~Jd a conference raom~ thereby also reduc~nq the parking requlremdn•
Commissloner King of1'erecl ~ mntlon~ seconded hy Cor~misstoner Tolar rn<~ MOTI~PI CARRIfD
(Gommissioner~ Frreno nn~ Herbst heing absnnt)~ that the Anahelm Clty Plannl~n Comm(sslon
does liereby recommand te th~ Gity Counc(1 nP the City of Anah~lm that tho sub)~sct pro]ect
ba exor~pt from the requirern~nt tu prepare +~n environmontAl Imppct report~ pursuent to the
pruvistons aP th~ Califernie fn~~;ronmental Quallty Acc.
C~mmisstaner Kin~ offere<I Rdsolutlon Nc. PC76-179 nnd moved ~or (t5 pdssaqa ancl adoptlon~
that the Anahelm Clty Plannlnq Conanlsslon does h~ereby qrant Petitlon for Conditlona) Use
Permtt No. 1652~ qranting thc r~qunsted walver of Che requira~l number nf pArktng spaces on
the hasis that sa1~1 parlcing spacas arc deemed adequate basc~i on the propost~l as submlttcd~
including the stlpulation by the petittoner that a shuttle service will be provided to the
Aran~e County Airport und maJor tnL~rest arPas of the City; that trash e~r.l~sure areas
shall be prov(ded in conformance wlth the City r~qutremc.nts~ as stlpulat~d to by thc
petltloner; and sub)ect to the Intnrdapartmantal Cnmmittne recommencl~tl~ns. (S~e
Itasal ut 1 on C~oak)
Qn roll call~ the for~go~ng resolution was passed hy the 1`ollawing vote:
AYES: CQMMISSIONERSt BAitf1ES~ KING~ MORI.EY, 70LAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMhtISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENTi COMM1SSlONERS: FARANO~ HERDST
COPlDI'1'IO~fAI USE - PUBLIC HEARIPl~. R. JOSEPH MMG~ 1761 Ladera Vlstr Drive, Fullerton~
PERMIT N0, 16~3 Ca~ 9263T (Owner); ASMJILL-DURKC 6 COMPaNY~ 1~33 South State Collsge
Boulevar~i~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92E306 (Agent); requesting pe~misslan to
ESTABLISFI A PRIV/1TE CLUB on property described as an tr~~gularly-
shaped parcel of land conslstinc~ of a~p,aximgtely 0.9 acre having a Frontrge of apprcxi-
matsly 225 feet at the westerly end of Wrtght Circle~ having a maximum depth oP approxi-
matety 222 feet, being locatrd approximately 535 fcet west o` the centerltne of State
Cnllege Boulovard~ and further described as 1910-1911 W~i9ht Circle. Proporty presently
ctassified ML (INOUSTR111l., LIMITED) ZONE.
No one indtcated thei; presence in opposttion to the subJect petition.
Although the Staffi Report to the Planning Commission ~ated September 13~ 7976, was not
reacl at the public F.;arln~~ said S~afF Report is re~erred to and made a part of the
mtnutes,
Mr. Andrew TaEt, repres~nting Che Anaheim Drum and Bugle Corps. appeared befora the
Planning Commission and stated the subJect location would be a meeting and practlce site
for the Corps; that~ regardinc~ autside practtce, the subJect locatlon was nor, practtcal o~
suftaGle for th~ outside practtcing and maneuvering and they had used the Anaheim Stedlum
parkin~ lot over the years for that purpose and hopecl to be able to cuntinue to do so~ or
else they would go to other suitable sltes to mcet their outdoor req~~trementst that the
other use they planned to have In the subJect b~ilding would be an assembiy hall for
playing btng~ as a fund-ralsing operatia~ for the Corps, and an appltcation had been Piled
for a bingo ltcense; that they o~ly planned to use one-fourth of the 1F,000-square foot
buildin~ as their assembly halt and it was brought up by the Planning Department that the
parking requtreme:nt would be about 400 for an assembly hall with 16~000 squarc feet; that~
on tha basts oP tho assembty hAl) wfth approximatety 4z00 square feet~ as proposed, thetr
parktn~ requtrement shauld hapefully fal) cl~~er to 100 parking spaces; that there were
some 35 p~rl:ing spac~s thet wznt wtth the property and was conttn~~ous to it, and there w~s
an additlonal 275 or rmre parking sp~ces in a iarqe rectangular area beliin~i tht afftce
buildtnn and t::e rest~t~rr~nt that was Pxtsting on the contiguous pro~erties; a~c1 that the
proposed usane af the subJect property wouid be prlmarily on the weekends and in the
eveninqs and weuld no lnterfere with the other apPrations at the subJect locatton.
THE PUBLIC HE~R1Nf, WAS CLOSED.
In response to questinning by Commiss(oner 7ola~, Hr. Tait state~ they hac! ber,n utlltzln~g
property in Stanton to the present time which they had to gTve up and were pl~nning to
have a temporary facility on Ltri:olr Avenue behi~d the o!d Grounci Round Restaurant u~ttl
~
~
~
MI~IUT~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septcmbcr 1'~~ 1~7~~
CONDITIONAL USE P~RMI7 N0, 1653 (,Continued)
_._._..._~.~..
76-444
the pr~po~ ~f fa~:illttes were ready; that they were chanc~ing locatlons beca~ise in Stnntc,n
they haci facilitle~ whlch Includecl ~utdo~r p~acticln~ rn~1 wAS on e very large indus~rial
property whlch was thc size nf a Pootball Pinld~ a~7~1 thny hnd dl~turtod the reeldentlAl
netnhbars across ttie strFet,
Mr. Tolar note~l that he dtcl not teel ther~ was anyon~: tn the Sautharn Cellfarnin aren thot
was not famillar witli thc accomplishments oP the Kinc~smen; I~~!.,~ver~ he wn~ concerned nbout
the noise anci how the fun.i-ralstng nctivitl~s would be controlied~ etc.t end Chat~ As a
funcl ratser~ hingo coulel be okay~ but it could hecome somethin~ nlse nl~o.
In response, Mr. Tait statec~ rec~ardinc~ rehe~rsals Inslde thn ~~ibject bulldl,iq~ that It
would he ~~coustic~lly Imposslhle; that it would he necessary for them t~ construct sm.iller
rooms lnside for group pr~ctlce; th~t when they were tnsldc thn Pecll(tias at the 5tanton
locatton, they were f(ne but became a prob~r.m when they were outslcle: an~1 that at the
subJect location thcy would have to do their outside practtctn4 anc~ m++nauverin~ alsr.where.
Mr. Talt further st~ted he did not thinlc there woul~l be e gr~a~ deA1 of e~~und reechin~ tha
outside of the builciin~ since it was a concreke tilt-u~ structure wltF~ no wlndows~ etc,;
and~ f~.irthermc~re~ to pr~~ctice inside they would neecl ~~ ~reat deal of acnustic erentment to
the bulldtn~,
In res~onse to questioning hy Commissioner 7o13r~ D~puty Clty Attorncy FrAnk Lowry advlsed
that ~ound readings ha~t been requlr~d referrinct to nalse generAted f'rom rt~ch7nlcaf
equlpment~ etc. ~ adJacent to resldential propertlr.s; h~~iever, he cil~f nnt recal) that
readin~s had been taken for musical Instruments; th~t the Penal Code proviston pertaining
to d(sturbance of tl~e peace would ap~ly to the subJect ~ppl~cation; and that a cond(tlon
to control the Suun~l level could he Irr~osed upon the grantinc~ of the subJect conditionAl
use permit.
Chatrm~n Johnson noted that he was ~oncerned about the private cluh application, and Mr~
Low ry advlse~i that prtvate cl~~bs were permltted by co;idltlonal use permit In zonss such as
the '~!; that~ reqardtn~ parkin~, Mr. Tait had indtc~~ted th~t addttional parking spaces
~~uld be made avallable to this use on n(ghts anc! weekends and~ if approve~, st~lnecl
reciprocal parkin~ aqreements (leases) would have to be submitted prlor to commencemPnt of
*.he activity requesteci ~n~ satd agreements wou1~1 have to be effective durtng the en:ire
length of the conciitional ~~se permit; an~ the applicant would etther have to 1(mit ti~e
number of people who would be allowed to play bin~o or fall back on providing the parking
requtrPment throuclh the leases. Mr. Tait stipuiated to provlding parking ahreements~ as
discussed,
In response to questionin~ by Ccmnissioner Tolar, Mr, Tait incltcated he was not familiar
with dbA ratinqs~ however, h~ h~d been to the Phoenix C1uN ancf would ~ake no i~re noise
th~n ti~ey did with their anplified sound, and he stressed the point that they would be
constructing practice rooms insiclc~ tlie subJect facillty. Commis~loner Tolar then noted
that if the subJect appl(catlon was looked upor favorably by the Planning Commission, a
time limit should be Imposed. Commissioncr Tolar questl~ned whether the adJacent
restaurant~ i~e.~ CFiarlie Brown's~ Red Onlon, etc,, had been notified of the subJec~
proposal~ and Assistant Flanner Joel Fick advised that notices were sent to the lanclowners
only and not the lessees.
Commtssioner Morley then nateci that a tt~e limit shoulci ~efinitely be imposed far no more
than one year and that a condltion requiring 65 dbA at the pr~perty ifne woutd also be in
order. Thereupon~ Mr, Tait stipulated to the sound requirement~ as ~iscussed.
Commissioner Barnes noted that sound was generally rated whlch was produceci more than 10~
of the day.
Commissioner Kinc~ inquired if the appllc.a~ts had considered the cost for fnsurance and the
llability involved for the usac~e of p~operty for parktng purposes; and Mr. Tait stated
they had not considered that aspect,
Mr. Tait further stated that the s~~ject property was conttguous to th~ Anahefm Stadium
and that was wny they had selected it.
Chalrman Johnson notecl that he clid not favor the subJect pruposai on the basis that khis
was an improper locatton for it.
~
~
MINU1'ES, C11'Y PLANNING COMMIS5I~N~ Septcmber 13~ 197G
CONDITIONAL IISE °ERMIT M0, 1653 (Continu~sd)
7G-44S
It was ~ioted thxt the Director of the Planning DepflrtnMnt hed Jetermined thak the proposed
activlty fell withln the deflrsitlon ni' Sectlon 3.01~ Clrss 1~ oP the f.tCy o1' Anbl~eim
Gui d~~ tnes to the Requi r~ment~ Por en Envl ronrrr~nta i Impact Report ar~cl wes ~ therePore~
catcgoricnlly exempt t'rom the requlrement to flle an EIR.
Commissloner hlc~rley offAred Rcsolutlon No. FC7G-160 anct movc+d for Its passago and
adoptl , that Che Anahcim ~ity Plnnn(ng Commisslon does hcrvhy c~r~nt PetiCion Por
^.~i~dltlonal Use Permit No, I(~53~ subJect ta th~ :,~nrlttlon thAt the soun~i gor.erateci From
the proposed use shal) not nxceed G5 dbA at tl: praaerty Iln~s~ as stlpulated to by the
potitioner; that sl~ne<1 reclprccal perklnr~ agreements~ to prov(de a~iequrto parkln~ for tiie
dur~tton oP thls conditlonAl usc permlt for the eciivttles of th~ private club, shall be
submlttcd to and appr~ved by thcs Clty Attorney's Off(ce and thcn be flled ~•~d racordnd In
the offlce oP the Orange County Ftnr.order prlor to eomrt~encen;ent af thc activittas
author;xe~ by this conclltie~nA) ~ase perrrit~ as stipulated t~ i+y thc petitiontr; that all
the ectiv~tl~s of thc proposed use shA'I be conclucted lnside tlie bui~~+tng anci any outdoor
actlvj*-1eSShallbo conducte~d awaY fr~m the subJect locatlon~ as sCipulated to by the
petltlon~r; that thls con~iltlonal use permtc sh~tY be granteci for a one-year pertod af
r,im~t, follc~wlnq whtcl~ tlme mnd u~on wrltten rcquost by the petltianer~ an addltlonal
period of tlme may bc granted hy the Planning Commisslon; and subJect to the
Interd~parcme+nt+~l Committ4e recom~nendations. (Sne Resolutlon Boak)
On roll r.all, the faregolnq resolutlon was passed by the following vate:
AY£S; CQMHISSI~NEriS: Dl~RNES~ KI~I(;~ MORI.FY~ 76LAR
N~ES: C011MISSIf1PlERS: JONNSUN
ABSENT: CQMMISSI(1NFRSt FAMNO~ NERFIST
~
~ ~
MINUTES, C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Septr.mk,cr 13, 1916 7~~~~~<<~
EIJVIR(1NMENTAL IMHACT - PUHLIC NEARIPIt;. T~X11C0 ANANEIM 111L1_S. INC. ~ 3~~ AnAhairr~ Nll ls
R[PQltT NQ, 18? Roed~ Anaheim, Ca, 92A~7 (a+ner); ANAHEIM HIL15~ INC,~ 3A~ Anahelm
" Ili l ls Road~ Ari~hcim~ f.e, 97.A~7 (Agent), Property described aa ~n
VAR111NCE NQ. 2t~29 Irte~ularly-shiped parcol of land consisting of ~p~roximately 12,0
acres heving approxlmete frontaqes nf ~2A feet on the east side, of
TENTATIVE MAP AF Noh! Rar~ch R~r~i Anc1 y37 feet on the weet stde of Camino Grende~ and
A1-~2
T Nn
TRAf being locateci approxlmately $15 feet south of the centartlne of
,
,
~tEVI510N N0, 1) Welnut Canyon Roed, Froperty presently cl~ss~fied RS-A-~i3.00A(SC)
, ( RES I DF.NT 1 Al./AGR I CI1l.TURAL-SC[tl I C CORR I DOR OVE RLAY) ZANE,
VARIANCE REQIIFST: W~lVER QF REQU I REMENT TH11T AI.:. LOTS (tfAP,-ON APTER ~ AI. h I f,HWAYS.
TENTATIVE TRAf.T REQUES' ': DEVFL~PER: 7FIF TOMIIN Cf1MPl1NY~ 17~W~ Skyp.irk Circle, Irvlnc~
Ca, 9?.F~~i~-. ENGINF.F.R; WILLDA~I ASSOf,IATF:S ~ 12S Soutli Claudina
Strect, Anah~fm~ Ca, 92~~5. SubJPCt pro~rrty is proposed for
si~bdl vl s lon ( nto 33 RS~50~)0(SC) (RESI DF~~T I AL, S INf.,LE-FAMI LY-
5CENIC CORRIO~R OVFRLAY) zone<1 lots,
N~ one I i~~11 cateci the i r presence t n uppos i t i on t~ the sub)ect I tems .
Althou~~h the Staff Report to Che Planning Commission d~ted Septmber 13, 1976, was not read
at the publlc he~rlnc~~ sald St~ff Report is refcrred to ~ncl ma~1e ~ part of the minut~s.
Mr. Phi'ilip Bettencourt~ represent~ng Anaheim Hills, Inc.~ appeared t~efore the Planning
Commissl~n and stated the pr~pos~l representcd a reductlon ln the denslty from a previous
proposal on the property; that thry had satisfled thr. concerns of the surroundfng tract
property owner~; that~ cuncerninq ~he environmental impact report reference to large
s lopes, the property was al reaJy mass gr.~ded~ that ChPy hacl blencied the slopes because of
problems that ha~1 developed; and that they wuuld 1 ike to request that the condltion
pertalning to Final speciftc plot plans rec~utre tl~at sald plans be su~mlttecl prlor to thc
i ssuance of bui l~tng permi ts rather than priar to the approval of the final tract map.
TFiE Pl1Rl~~ HEaRINr, WAS CLUSEU.
Commisslon~r Bar~~es tnqulred if the gr:~,ding of the subJec: pr<~perty would substantially
meet the contour gr~ding policy. Depui•y City Attorney Frank Lowry advtsed that the
subJect propertywas graded prior to the adnptton of the Hillside Grading Ordinance; and
was qraded acco;ding to the ordinance in eFfect at that time.
Mr, HeCtencaurt stated th~re was 1 ittle that could be done to adJust the grades except far
enc~lneerfng requirements and pad elevations, etc.; that tliere would be some fine grading
of the site to adJust the pads ta meet th~ design conflguratlons an~1 for the streets,
etc.; however, the pads r~ere relatively flat and lay between c:wo sloped areas; that, in
his opinion~ the proJect wouid require an additional 13~~~~ cubic yarcls of fill; and that
all of the slopes would be maintalned by the he~meowners association.
COMMIS~I~NER KINC I.EFT T11E CQUNCIL CHAMRER TEMPORARILY A7 6:15 P.M.
Commissloner 9arnes offared a m~tion~ seconcled by Commiss(oner Morley and MOTI(1N CARRIED
(Commissioner Kin~ being temporari iy absent; and Commissioners Farano and Herbst being
absent), thak Environ;nental Imp:~ct Report No. 1~32 (suprlen+enting Mastier Envfrcmmer.tal
Impact Repart No. RO), having been consldered this date by the Anaheim Gity Planniny
Commission and evidence, both written and oral ~ hav(ng been presented to supplement said
draft [IR P~o. 181, the Planning Conxnission believes that sald draft EIR No. 102 d~es
conform to the City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality
Act and, based upon such information, does hereLy recommend to the City Councl) of che
City of llnaheim that they certify said EIR is in compliance with s~id Environmer~tal
Quality Act.
COMMISSIONER KING RETURNED TO T11E COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 6:17 P.M.
Commissioner Darnes offered Resolution No. PC76-1$1 and mo+red for tts passage a~~d
adoptlon~ Chat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for•
Variance No. 2$29~ 9ranting the waiver of the requirerrtint Lhat al l lats rear-on arierial
hl~hwa~~s on the basls that a hardship exists due to the topog~aphy and size and snape af
the subJect proper*_y and~ furthermore, that similar waivers have been previously granted~
subJect to the Interdepartme~tal Committee rece~nmendati~ns. (See Resolution Book.)
--~
~
~
~
MINIITES~ CITY PIANNING CQMMI~SIf1~~~ September 13~ 197~~ 7~''~~~~7
FN~~IRONMENTAL .MPACT REPQRT N~. Ifi2~ VARI~fICF. N0. ?.029, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NQ.
81h2 (REVISION N0. 1) ~Conttnued) _
On roll r.flll, the ,arec~olnq resolutlon was pASSecI -y the fullayl~g vote;
AYES : C~MMI SS I nIaFZS : f~ARNES ~ KI NG ~ MoRLEY ~ ToLAk. !^~' ~~)~!
NOES : G~1MMt SS I ~Nf: RS : NON~
AQSENT: C~IMMISSIQNERS; FAf.l1t~0~ NERBS'T
CommissionQr Barnes offered a motlon~ secrmdcd by Commissioner M~rley and MOTION CARRIF~
(Comniissloncrs Fareno and Harbst being absent), tiiat thc An~heim Clty Pl.~nning Commisslon
does heroby finrl that the proposed subdlvlslon, to~~ether with it ~ desinn and i-nprovemcnC~
ts consistent with the f,ity of Anahelm General Plan, pursu~~nt t~ f,overnm~nt Code Sectfon
~~~~73•5 ~n< d~es, therefore~ ~~pprove Tant~tf•ee Map cf 7ract Ilo. ~1~~7. ((tevtsion No. 1) for
33 RS-5~~~1~~) lots, sub_ject to the followinq conditt~~ns:
1. That the approv.~l of Tentatlve Map uF Tract No. 81~i2 ~Revls fon No. 1) l~s gr~ntecl
subJect t~~ the approval of Varlance No, 2~??.9.
2, That should this subdlvislon be cii~veloped a5 rmrn th~n onc subdivlsion, eacn
subdl vl s lon thereof shal 1 be subm( tted In tcntat i ve form for ~pprova 1.
3. That i,~ accord:~nce with City Councll pc~lic.y~ ~+ 6-foot, open, decoratlve wall
shal) be constructed on ths west property Ifne separat.nU lot Nos, 1 and 32 ~from Nohl
Ranch P,o~d, Rcasonable landsr.apinc~, lncludin~ i rrf ~~ntion fac) l i tles ~ shal l be tnst~l led
(n the uncemented portlon of the arterial highway parkwiy the f ull diseance uf said wall;
plans for sald landscaping to he submitted to and 3ubJect to the approval nf the
Supertntenclent of Parkwiy Malntenance. Followinc~ (nstallatlon and acceptance~ the City of
Anahefm shall assume the ~espnnsibility for m~aint~nance of said landsc~ping.
4. That sub.Ject property shall be served by underground utllitles.
5, That a final tract map of subJect proDerty shall be su bmitted to anci aprrnved by
tha City Counctl and then be recorded in the Offlce of the Oran qe C nty Recorder.
6. That the cavenants, conditions~ and restrictlons shall be s„bmitted to and
approved by the City Att~r~~e:y's Offic~ prior to Clty Councll approval of the final Lrat:t:
map and, further~ that the apprcved cove~ants~ conditions~ and restricttons shail be
recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
7, That prior to filing the final tract map~ the applican t sh all submit to the City
Attori~ay for approval or denial ~ ccxnpler.e synopsis of the propoBed functlor'ng of the
operatin9 corporation including, but not llmited to, the articles o f Incorpc-~ation,
bylaws. proposed rr°thods of managernent, bondin~ to insure maintenance of common property
and buildlnc~s, and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the
City~ its ctttzens, and the purchasers of the proJect.
$. That street names shall be appraved by the City Plan~ =ng Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
y. That the owner of subject property sh~il ~ay to the C ity of I!naheim the
~pproprlate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determinei to be appropriate by the Clty
Council, said fees to be paid at the time tf» butlding permit is Issued.
10. That drainage of said p perty shall be dispased of i ~ a manner s~tisFact~ry t~
the City Engineer. If~ in the preparation of the site, suffic 3ent grading is required to
necessitate a grading permit~ no work on gradiny will be permi tted between October 15th
and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been inst~lleci and
are operattve. Positive assurance shall be provided the City thaC such drainage
fazilities wil) be completecl prlor to October 15th, Necessary ric7ht-of-way for aff-site
drainaar, ~~cilities shall be dedicated to the City~ or the Cit y Co uncil shall haNe
initlated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of wnie h sh all be borne by thE
developer) prlor to the commencement of grading operatlons. The r~ qut red ~rain~~ge
facllltles shall be of a size and type sufft~lent to carry run off waters orl~l~~ating from
higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as ap proved by t!ie City
Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first (tem o f construction and shall be
completed and be functlonal throughout the tract a~id from the downstream boundary of the
property to the »ltimate po~nt af disposal prior to the issua nce of any final building
inspections or occupancy permlts. Drainage district reimburs e ment agreements may be made
avallable to the developers of said property upon *.hetr reque st.
11, That grading~ excavation~ and all other construction activities shall be
conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possfbility af any silt ori~7tnating from
this proJect beinq carrled into c.he Santa Ana Rlver by storm wate r originating from or
flowing through this praJect.
12. If permanent street name signs have not ueen installed, eemporary str~at name
sfgns shall be installPd prior to any occupancy.
13, That the dPveloper of subJect tract shall enter into a sFeclal facilities
ac~reement ~~~ith the Clty for water facllities in the Hlgh Elev~--tlon System~ as requlred by
0
~
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY P1.11NNING CQMMISSION~ Soptember 13, 1974 7f,-~~~~A
ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT ttFPORT N0. 1A2~ VARIANCE N0, 2829~ AND TENTATIVE MAP QF TRACT N0,
8142 REVISION NQLI) (Cantlnuad) _ __ -
.,..,... _._..r......,..
Rule 1SB of the W~ter lltllity Ratas~ Rule~~ and Regulatlon+ prior to approval of a flnal
tract mep~ as sei~~iACa~i to by the petltlonnr.
1-+. That alt cangtructlon In subJect tract shal) be In accordance witl~ thc
roqui remonts af F 1 re Zone ~~ as ap~rove<~ by the C I ty of Anahe i m F i re Department.
1S. In ~ccorclanc:e witl~ the requlrements of Sectlon 1b.02.Q~+7 pertalnln~~ to the
Initial sale of resldential homea in the Clty of Anaheim Plan~ing Area "A". the seller
sh~l l provida each buyer wi th wrltten tnforrt-~tlon concerning the Anrhelin Genera) Plan an~i
the exlstlnq zoning withtn 3~0 feet of tl~e bounderles of sub}ect tnc~t.
16. That pi'lor to the issu~nce of building permlts~ thn pet~tioner sh~ll submit finAl
specific plot plans to the Planning Commission for ~pproval showing canformance with all
RS-50~~(SC) stte development strndards,
TRACT N0, al-~ ° Request far walver of H(ll:idc Gradiny Ord(nance requirement
that lot lines be locatPd 1. to 3 fcet from top of slopcs.
The Asslstant City Engineer's memorandum dated Septembcr 8~ 197~e Was presented. Sald
memorandum Incllcated tha't the subJect requirement was placed In the Hillside Gradi~g
Ordlnance so that the ent(re face of slnpe~ would be the responstbtllty of the owner of
the lower lot in the belief that sald owner would be more apt to malntain the slope than
the ow~er of a lot at the top of tha slope; however~ in the subJect tract. ali of the
slopes In questicn would be matnCained by a homcowners assocTatfon and~ therefore~ the
reque.st for walver of the requirement should bc granted,
Commi sslaner Tolar offercd a motlon~ seconded by Commissloner KinU ~nd MOTION CAP.RIFD
(Commissioners Farano and Herbst being absent), that the Anahetm City Planning Commission
doas hereby recommend t~ the City Council of the City of Anahetm that the request for
walver nf the Hillside Gradinc~ Ordinance requlrement thal lot lines be l~cated 2 to 3 feet
from the top of slopes be granted for the slapes within Tract No. 8142~ as recortxnen~Jecf by
the Assistant f,f ty Engineer,
VARI nP~CF N0. 28~E0 - PUBLI C HEARI NG. EIIGENE pND NORMA E. WH I TCOHE ~?_714 East ~~rn t va)
Avenue~ f\naheim, f.a, 92806 (Avners); WILLIAM D, EHRLE, 83~ South
Staee College Boulevard~ Anahelm, Ca. 92806 (Agent); requesting
WAIVER UF PERMlTTED ENCR~ACNMENTS IN70 REQUIRF.D YARDS, TO CONSTPUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
an property descrlbed as an i rregularly-shaped parcel of land cor~~isttng oF approximately
0.2 acre having a frontage of approximately 68 feet on the south slde of Carnivat Avenue~
having a m~xtmum depth of approximately 134 feet, being loc.~ted approximately 276 feet
west of the centerltne of Rio Vtsta Street, and further described as 27i4 east Carntval
Ave~ue. Property presently classified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
It was no~ed thar, the petikioner was requestln~ that the sub.ject Rublic tiearing be
continued two weeks, sinr..e he would be on vacation and unab'e to attend the meeting.
Commisstoner Kin~ offered a motlon, seconded by Commissioner Morley and h1QTIDN CARRIE~
(Commissioner Farano being absent), that the Anaheim Ctty Pianning Commission does hereby
continue thP public hearing and consideratlon of Variance No. 2R40 to the Planning
Comrr:tsstor. nxeting of September 27~ t976, as requested by the petitioner.
(THE F~REG~IPI(+ ITEM WAS CONSI DF.RED AT THE Bf.GINNING OF THF MEETING.)
~
~.~..
•
MI~IUT~S~ f,iTY PLhNNING CQMMISSI~N, Septemher 1'i~ 197~
)G-hh~
VARIAHCE. N~. 7.R~i?. - PUBLIf, HEARINf,, bl. R. AN[? PATHIClr1 A. MlII.FR, ?.~i~A Pafko Rond,
Nonolulu~ Hawa(I 96H21 (Owners); MIf.H11F.L VAIEM, ~~~~ KatN11A W~v,
A~ahalm, Ca. 92~~2 (Ac~ent); requestin~ ~fA~Vf'R OF MAXIMUM SIr,N NEIGHT
T~ CONSTRUCT I1N ILLUMINATfD R(1~F SI~M on ~roperty descrihed as r~ rectan~ul~r'y-shn~ed
riArcel of land consistin~~ of approxlmately ~,~- acre having a frontAge of ~i~~~roxlmetaly
72 feet an the snuth sicie of Katella Wny~ havinq a m++xlmum dQpth of approxi;nately ?.~+0
feet~ beinn locateci ~pproxtmately 2~~Fi feet west of the centerllne of Mountaln Vlew
Avenue~ ~nd furth+~r clescrlhsd as 'i~4 KAtella Way. Property presentiy classifieci Cf,
(C(1MMF.RCIAI.. fFNFP~.L) i.~NF.
~lo ont in~ilcated their presence In oppositian to the sub~ect petltion.
Althounh th~ Staff Report to thc Plannin~ Cummisslon deted September 1'i, 1976~ was not
rcad ~~t. the puhllc hea~inq, sald St~~ff Report ts referreci to ancl made a p~rt of the
minutes,
Nr. Baker Lee, represent I nc~ Ne i 1 1 Ne~ ~ I nc. ~ the aqent for the pet 1 t loner ~ apre.~red
bef~re the Plannlnc~ Comn,l~~sion an~l stated the subJect sign would bc 3~~ fezt above grade
level for the reason that Mr. Valen~ the owner• of thcs bus depot, neecled the sic~n so that
the customers would be able t~ find the depc~t and the front of it; th:~t Mr, Valen felt he.
shoulcl be able ta have the sl~n~ as proposed since there were other sl~ns nt least 34 feet
high In the area~ i.e.~ Carl's Jr, and the Barclay's Bank; and that the si~re would not be
detrimental to the arca,
TfIE PU(3LIC NEARIMG WI1S CLOSED.
In response to questioning by Commissioncr Morley~ Mr. Lee stated thc present sic~n was
approx(mately 3~ feet~ 4 Inches hl~h; however, he dlcl not knc~w if the proposed s(gn was
simtlar in fascia orcopy t~ the present sic~n; and that the pr~posed si~n wouid be
approxlmately 3~ 4quare f~et larger than the present sigr-. Mr. Lee in~llcated that tFie
si~n area was In conformance with Code requirements.
It was noted th~t the Director oF the Plannin~ Department had determinrd that tl~e proposed
activity fell within the def(nition of 5ectlon 3.~1, Clasti 11, of the City of Anaheim
Guidel(nes to the Requtrements for an EnvironmenCel impact Report and was, therefore,
cate~orically exempr from the requirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Tolar offcred Resolutlun No. PC76-1R2 and movd for its p~ssage and adaption,
that khe Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Variance No.
28~~2~ to permit a 31F-foot high sign (from grade level) whtch is Illuminated and roof-
mounted~ on thc basis that o*_her similar heiaht signs have been approved in the subiect
area and~ ther~fore~ the proposd sign will not he detrtmentAl to the area; and s~bJect to
the Interdepartmental Committee recommendation. (See Resolutlon Book)
On roll call, the fore~oinq resolution was passed by the follow(ng vote:
AYFS : C~MMI SS I(1NERS : BARt~ES ~ KI NG ~ Mf1RLEY ~ TQLAR ~ JOIINSnN
N~ES: COt1MISS ~~IERS: PIOPlE
ABSENT: CnMMlssln-IER~: FARANO, NERRST
TRP,CT N~S. - Request for waiver of ~illlside Gradin~ Ord(nance
9143 I1MD 91~~~+ requi rement that lot l inas be located 2 to i feet
from top of slopes.
The C(ty En~(nPer's memorar~dum dated Auqust 27. 1976~ was presentd. Said memorandum
indicated that the subject requirement was placed in the Nlllside Grading Ordinance so
that the ~ntlre face of slopes would be the responsibility of thr owner of the lower lot
in the beltef that said owner would ~~ more r.pt to mair.tain the slope than the owner of a
lot at the top of the slope; however, in the sub.~ect tracts, all of the slapes in question
would be maintained by a homeowners association and, therefore, the request for waiver uf
the requl rement sh,~>uld be granted.
Commission~r King offered a snotion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar~ and MOTI~N ~ARRIED
(Commisi~ners Farano and Herbst being absent), that the Anahelm City Planning Commission
dees here'~ recommend to tfie City Council of the City of Anaheim thnt the request for
waiver or the Hillside Gradinc~ Ordinance requtrement that lot lines be located 2 to 'i feet
fram the top of slopes bc granted ~~or Lot Nos. 7 and 10 In Tract No. 9143 and Lot No. 18
in Tract No, 9144~ as recommended hy the City Engineer,
--,.'
~
~
MI NUTES ~ C I TY PLANN I NG C~)M11) SS I ON ~ Sept~mber 13 ~ 1976 ~~~~~'~
TRACT N~S, Reque9t f~r welver oP Hillstdc Gradlnq Orciinence
g465 AN~ '!lo6h "~ requtrcment that lot ltnes ba locatod 2 to 3 feet
~rem top of slop~es.
The Ass(atant Cfty Fnq(ne~r's mcmorandum dattd Septembnr 10~ 1~76~ was presente~i, Satd
rr~morandum In~llcaf4d thot the sub.~ect requtrement was pl~ced tn the Hlilsicle Grading
Ordinance so thAt the enttre fece of slopes wo~.~ld be the reaponsih(lity of the owner of
the lower lot (n tha be11eP that satd owner w~uld be more apt to rnrlntaln thc sl~pe thin
tf-e owner ot e lot nt the top of tl~c s lope; hc~wever~ In tf~e sub,~ect tracts, al 1 of the
slopes In quoetlon would ba malntrtned by a homeowi~ers assoclc~tlan and~ there~ore, the
rnqueSt for walver oF the requlrement should be ~~anted,
Crmml~aloncr Klnq offered a motl~n~ seconded by Commissianer Tni~r and M~TION CARRICD
(Commissloners Farar~c~ ~n~i Hnrbst belnh absent)~ khat tnc A~ahalm City Planning Commisslon
does hereby recommend to the City Councll of the City of Annheim ttirt the request for
walver of thc l1111s1de `ra~Aing Ordinance requ(~ement Chat lot lines be locsted 2 to 3 fcet
}rom the top oP slopes be Qranted for the slopes which are cantour graded In 7ract Nos.
9~~fi5 ~nd 9~+(if,, as recdmmended by the Assistant C(ty Enyinrcr.
R~PnRTS ~ri~~ - ITEM N0, 1
RECOMMkMDl1T1(1NS C~!~D~TI(1N~L IiSE PERMIT N0. 13~~ - R~quest Eor
:.pproval of revised plans.
It was noted that the subJe~t (tem had gone before the City Council on 5eptember 7~ 19'h,
and it was not necessary for the Planning Carnmission to consider the request at this
meetlncl.
It was noted that on Auqust 3~- 1976~ Che Planning Cortrnission considereci the subJect
request and continued the matter for two weeks for the submisston df further reviseci
plans; th~t~ subsequently, the applicant had gone before the City Council on Septemt~er 7,
~'~76~ with the plans; and, therefore, tt was not neccssary for the Planning Commission to
consider the request at this meeCinn.
TFIEREUPQN~ TNE SUr1JECT ITF.M WAS REMQVEU FRQM THE A~~ENDA.
ITEh N0, 2
REW CZ S~S~ICATION N0. 74-75-26 - Request for approval of alternate
commerclal uses - Property consisting of appr•oximately 4 acres
located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunk.tst Street.
The Staff Report to tl~e Planning Commission dated September 13~ 1976~ was presented and
made ; part of the minutes.
It was noted that the appllcant, Joseph H. Rabb, Director of Real Estate Operations,
Ralphs f,rocery Campany, was requesting approval of alternate commercial uses for the
northeasterly corner of the subJect property since they had been unabla to obtain a bank
or other financtal I stituti~~n tenant for said corner; that the subJect reclassification
was approve:l subjec~ to ttie site being developed in substarttial ~onformance with the
submitted exhibi~ which (ndicated a financial institutfon on the n~rtheasterly corner and
also suoJect to delivery hours between ~:0~ a.m. and 1~~:40 p.m, ar~i operation hours
between 9:34 a.m, and midnight, etc.; and that there was consider~ble opposition from the
ad.jacent nei~hborhood in connection wlth ihe commertial use of the property.
Commissioner Morley offerr.ci a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTI~N CARRIED
(f,ommtssioners Farano and Herbst being absent), that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commissl~n
does heraby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a public hearing be
required tn connection with the subJect request, on the basis that the proposai is not in
substantial conformance with thG approved exhibits and also in co~sideration of the
opposition tu the ori~~inal proposal.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ Soptember r3~ 197b ~~'-~~~~
1 TEM N0. 3
Z~lUT~(SA~L USF. PERMIT N0, 13~~~~ - Requeit for extension of timc -
Property consist(ng ~-f approxlmate~y 9000 square Pe,et locatecl at the
northwe~t corner of Alberta and Letnon Streets ~~~~~~ beincl further
degcribeci as 6f11 ~~orth L~mnn Straet.
Ttie+ Staff Iteport to the Planning Comm(ssion dated Saptembor 13, 1976~ was presenteci anci
made A part of the minutes.
It was noted thnt the appllcant~ Marie M. W~IIs~ was requcsting an extension of tirr~e far
en Indeftnlte pert~d of tlr~e f~r tl~e St1bJCCL conditlo~-al use permlt which wns c~ranted for
two ~eare on November ?.7~ 1472, to permit thc establlshment of m boarding home for six
sentor citlzens ln an existinn sinryle-fanily residence; And thnt one twn-ye~r extenston of
time had bern prevlously c~rr+nted by the Plannlnq Comm(ssl~n, to explr•e on Novembcr 27~
197~.
C ommissioner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commfsst ~r,r King and MOTI~N CARRIED
(~ommtssicm ers Farano and Herb~t heing absent)~ that the Ant~heim Ctty Planntng Comnlsslon
does hereby grant a two-yaar extenslon of time for CAndlt(onal Usc Permlt No. 131~k, said
extension of ttme to expire November 77~ 1978.
ITEM N0. ~i
REQ 5 OR EIR NECATIVE DECLARATIQN ^ Fur r parc.el map
(~~o, 57`1) for prnperty at 5100 East Crescent Drtve.
It was noted that an applicatlon had been filed for a parcel map for the subJect pro,:rty
to spltt an approximately 4-~,cre parcel into ~+ lots~ approxtmately 1 acre each at the
sub,lect address; that an evalua~ton of the environmental ~mpact of parcels maps was
requircd under the provlsfons of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State
EIR Guldellnes; and that a study of L.he proposed parcel map by the Planning Department an~1
t,h~ knc~ineering Division 1nc11c~ted that there would be no sign~f(car~: envlronmental
impact,
Commissioner King offered a ratton~ seconded ~, ~ommissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissloner Barnes al..:taining on the basis th~t she lives next door to the subJect
property; and Commtssloners Farano and Nerbst being absent)~ that the Anaheim CiCy
Planning Cortmission does hPreby recommend to the City Councii of cl~e City of Anaheim that
the subJect pro)ect be exempt frum the requiremcnt to file an environmental impact report.
pursuant to the provisions of the Callforn!a Environmental Quality Act.
ITEM N0. 5
U. OR EIR NEGATIVE DEI,LAWITION - For a parcel map
(No. 5~3) for property at 2321 East Winston Road,
It was noted that an appticatlon had been filed for a parcel map for the sub,ject property
to split an existing 4,5-acre parcel into 8 parcels and also to create a new public street
at the sub)ect address; that an evaluation of the envlronmental impact of parcel maps was
requlreri under the provisions of the Callfornia Environmental O.uality Act and the State
E1R f,ufdelines; and that a study o~ Lhe prop~~sed parcel map by the Planning Department and
the Ennineering Division indicate.i thai :`~.re would be no significant enviromnental
lmpact.
In response to questioning by t~e P1anning Commisslon~ Deputy City Attarney Frank Lowry
advised that the parcels created by the map appeared to be ar industrial subdivision.
Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cortxnissloner Morley and MOTION f,ARRIEO
(Commissioners Farano and Herbst being absent)~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the subJect proJect
be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmentat impact report~ pur~uant to tht
provisions of the California Envir4nmental O.ualtty l1ct.
~
0
~w.
~
MINUTF.S~ CITY Pi.A~~NINf, COMMISSION, Septemher 13~ 197G ~F' ~~'?
I Tf M PIO. 6
1~F."~S~~R EIR NE~ATIVF OFCl.l1RATI0N - For a grndinq pcrmit
!1T 41;3 Weskridgc Clrcle,
It was notecl th~t rn ~p~,llt<~tlon haci bccn flled for a yradln~ pcrmit t~ const~ur_t a
sinqle-fnmily resld9nce nt the subJect address; that Afl evaluatl~n of the envlronment~l
imp~~ct ~f c~racling at this locatlon was re~utred ur~d~r the provtslons ~g the Californl~
En~ilronrr~nt~+) Quailty /1ct and the State EIR Gutde'Ilnes bec.ause the pr~Jar.t was located in
che Scenic Corrldor ann thr. sl~~pe of the 1anc1 was ~t IG•ASC 1Q$; ~nd th~t a stu~ly of thc
propose~i nr~dln~ by the I'lanninq Depnrtmenr and tihe Engincerinn Dtvision (ndicated that lt
would h.~vc no sf~niflcant environment~il impact.
Commlasl~ner Tolar offered e motion~ seconded by Co~•~~~~tssioner Y.Ing an~i MOTI~N CARRILD
(f,ommtssloners Farano and Flerbst belnq absent)~ that the Anahelm Ci ann(ng Commisslon
does herehy recommend to the City Councll of the Clty of Mahelm tha~ . ~e suhJect proJect
be exempt from the requlrement to pre~are an Pnvtronmentai irr~act rcport, pursuant tn the
provislons of the Callforiila Envlronmental Qualtty J1ct.
I1'FM ~JO. 7
R~~S~~R GEtIERAL PI.AN AMF.NnMENi' - Savanna Strcet Area,
The Staff Rep~rt to the Planniny Commtsslon dated September 13~ 1976~ was presented and
made a part of the minutes.
it was noted that ~ written request had been recelved from owners ~f various parccls In
~hE 5av~~nnA Street area~ west of Y.nott Street, fo~ a General Plan Amendment to char~ge the
General Plan designation from medium-density residenttal uses to low-denslty residentlal
uses; tli~t the existin~ land uses in the area consisted ~r!marily o~ stngle-famlly
resider es on lots ran~in-~ in s(ze from appr•oximately one-half acre to sliqhtly over an
acre. an~1 a 15-unit a~sartnK~nz complex exfsted on l.ot 13; and that Che surrounding land
uses consistecl of multlple-family ~esidential and co~.nerclal to the east fronCin~~ Knott
Street~ mult(ple-family reside:nttal to the south, and the Carbon Creek Channel to the
north.
The Planninn Commission entered into dlscussion concernin~ the subjer.t request~ during
~rhlch Chairman Johitison noted that a General Plan Elmendment might not accomplish the
ob]cct~ves of the restdents in the area; Commissioner hbrley noted that khe request .i~~uld
be postponed until next year; Comniss(oner King noted that the subJect area was in a state
of transition; and Cam;nissioner Tola~ noted that the request should be postponed
tndefinitely,
Planninq Director Ronald Thompson noted that the requested land use designatlon wouid
leave part of the area very rural wlth apartment developments on every other lot; and t~.hat
the subJect area was tending toward multiple-family development.
Commissioner Morley offered a motion, secon~ed by Commissioner Tolar and MOTI~PJ CARRIED
(Commissl~m ers Farano and Nerbst being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Conmisslon
daes hereby determine that the subJect request for a f,enerai Plan Amendment be denied for
inclusion in the next scheduled amendment, with the recommendation thaC the Nl~nning
Department staff consider scheduling said ar~a for amendment toward the end of the ycar
1977~ ~f determined appropriate.
ITEM N~. R
~.I : r~F'~R EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATI~N - For Municipal Fire
Department Training Center - Property consistin~ af approxi-
mately 4.7 acres loeated at the southeast corner of Rampart
Street and Orangewood Hvenue and Is City-owned.
It was no[ed that the City Fire Department vas propos~ng to construct a Niunlcipal Fire
Department Traininct Center on the sub,-ect p~'operty which was presently zoned PR (Public
Recreation) and in use as a sod farm tn con:unction with Anaheim Stadium operations; tliat
an initial stu~iy of envtronmental tmpact, condutted by the Publtc Works and Plar,ning
Departmen[s indicated that tner- would be no significant environmental Impact rasulting
~
~
MINUTES, GITY PLANNING CQMMIS;ION~ September 1~~ 1976
7f,-~i53
IT~M N0. 8 (Continued}
_____.___r-
fr~m thls pro~act; and that the potentinl Impncts rexulting from structural helght~
fumes/smoke~ nolse and ettractlvr nuisHnce h~d~ In the opinion of staPf~ been elther
ellminaied or successfully mitlgated.
Commissfoner King offered a motlon, seconded by Commissloner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Farano and Nerbst bring absent)~ that the Anahr.lm Clty Planning Commissfon
doas fiereby recommend to th~s City Cauncil uf th~e Clty of Anaheim that the subJect proJect
h exempt from the req utrtment to preparc an envlronmeznta) Irtq~act reQort~ pursuant to the
provistons of tl,~ Californla Cnvironmental Quality Act.
ADJOUR~lMfN7 - Thcre beinc~ no further buslness tn disGU~s~ Cortmisstoner King afPered a
motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIF.D
(Commissior~crs Farano dnd Nerbst bntng absent)~ thax Che meeting be
tsdJourned.
The meet~ng adJourncd at h:35 p.m.
R~spectfully submitted~
~ ~ .~,~5.',~~~~.~
Petricla H. Scanlan, Secretary~
Anahelm City ~lanning Commis~sion
P(~S :hm
0 R L' il MICROFi1.MING SERVECE, INC