Minutes-PC 1978/08/28
~
~ ~
CI ty Hal 1
AnAhelm, Ceilforn~a
August 2R, 197~
REGULAR MEET I MG OF THk ANAHE I M C I TY PLANt~ I NG COMM I SS 1 c-N
RF"ULAR - Th~ regular mePtlnc~ of the Anaheim City Plan9ing Commissl~~i~athceCouncll
MEETING tn ordcr by ChairmAn Harbst st 1:3~ p.m. Au ust 28 1978~
Chamber, a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CIIA 1 RMAN : Iles rbs t
COMNISSIUNERS: Bar~es~ Johnson~ Kiny
Commissiancr Tolar arrivcd A~ 1:35 p.m.
Comr~~issianer David errived at 1:4~ p.m.
ABSENT: - COh1MISSIO~~C.RS; Linn
ALSO PRESCNT - Jaek White
Maleolm Slauyhter
Paul Sln~er
Jay ' tus
Annika Santalahtl
Ed Gundy
EdI th Harris
Deputy Clty Attorney
Deputy Clcy Attorn~y
Traffic F.nc~in~~er
Office Engincer
Assi=',~~t Dtrector for Zoninq
P t an~, ,~,c~ 11( de
Planning Commissian Secretary
PLECGE OF - The Pledge uf Allegi~nce to the Flay waa led by Commissioner Johnson.
AILEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Comrnissi~ner Kfng offered a matlon~ secanded by CainllSSlOflef Jah~~~~~ and
THE MINUTES NOTION CARRIEU (Commissioners David~ Linn an~f Tolar being ebsent),
th a t the minutes of the ne~tin~s of Juty 31 and August 14~ 1976 be
app roved as submi tted.
ITEM N0. 2 READ~'ERTISEJ PUBLIC HEARING. 041NERS: ALBAN
~'~~VE DECLARATION AND BERNADINE t10LTZ~ 1451 East Irvine Elouleverd,
~, ( CA ON N0. 7•75~8 Tustin~ CA 9265~ end FRED W. AND PATRICIA B.
ND I ONAL USE E RM I T N0. ~85 MORGI1NTIiAL ER ~ 2245 Wes t B ~oadway ~ Anahe i m, CA
92304. AGEtIT: Tt~E ROgERT P. WARMINGTON COMPANY,
1G;~2 Nale Avenue~ Irv(ne, CA 92714. Property
described as an i~regularly-shaped parccl of land consisti~g of approximetely 4.7 acres
located south and west of the southwest c~ rner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street~
having approximate fronCages of 48P feet on the south side of Llncoln Avenue and 'J3 fGet
on tFie west ~ide of Rio Vista Stre~t~ being located ap~roxir,ately 195 feet west of the
centerline of Rio Yista Street and I~0 feet sauth of the centerline of Ltncoln Avenue.
Prope-•ty presently class'f~ed RS-A-43~OOC (~ESIDE!~TIALIAGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIF{CATlOtJ: CL (COMMEh iAL, liMlTED) ZONE.
REQUESTCU CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT A DRiVE-TNROUGH RESTAURA~:T.
S~~bJect petition was contin~ed from the meetings of July 31 and August 14~ 1q78~ at the
requ:st of the pe Litioner.
78-680
8/28/18
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITV PLANNING COMM15510N~ AUGUST 28, 197~
7&-681
EIR NEGATIVE DEGLAMTION~ RECLASSIFIGATION No. 78-79•S AND CoNDIT10~A1 U5E PERMIT Nn, 1885
(co~tinu~d) --
It was noted the petitloner had re~:ues~-J a four-week cantlnuence.
ACTION: Commissloner King offered a rr~tiun~ seconded by Cammissioner Johnsun and M~TION
~D (Commis~loners David~ Lin~ And T-~lar being absent). that consider~tlon of the
afore~entlonfd~etLembnrG25ti197~,tatttherrequGStyofcthcupetitloner~ °f the. Plrnning
Commisslon o p
iTEN N0. 1~ PilIsLIC NkAr~~~G. oWt~Crs: ELAINE B. LnwRr, WILLIAM
NEGA IVC D~(.IAkATION J. STEINa0Q.1~ AND JOHN C. STEINBORN~ JF~.~ 100E3 East
RCCl.AS51FICATION ^10. 7-7~ ~3 6roadway~ <~naheim~ cn 92905. AGENT: JAMES L.
RIANCE Nb. 3A ~3 ~ARISIC, ~i25 South Western Avenue, Anahetm~ CA
- ~2f3~Q, Prnperty descrlbe~l as a ~ectengularly•
s~ap~d parcel of land conslstl~g of approxlmatcly
0.3 acre having ~ fronta~~e of ~ppraximately i~~~ fcet an the south slde of Droadwey~
hAVing a maximum depth of approxlm~+tely 134 feEr.~ ~cinc~ lacated approx(mately E~0 fect
east of the centerline ~f Bush Strc~et, and further dM51TIPLF'-FAM~LY) ZONE,~roadway.
Property presently classified RM-240~ (P,CSIDENTIAL~
REQUESTEQ CLASSIFICATIOI~: Rh-12n~ (R~SIUENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
aEQUE~TED VARII~NCE~ BUILnI~IGS~(ANO (C!'iMMr~INUMTPEUL57R1A~I~ACCESSWAY~, TnSCONSTRUCTwA~N
10-UNIT APARTME~~T C(1MPLCX.
It was not~d the pe:tlt(aner had r~quested a two-wee4 continuance on this item.
ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offrred a r,~otion. seconded by Commissia~er Darnes and M4T1011
CAR IED (Cflmmissioners David~ Linn onc: lolar beiny absent)~ thnt consideration of the
aforementto~ed itern be conefnu~-~~ t~ the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Cortanission on Septembcr 11, 1'~i7~, at the request of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. PUIsL I C t~EARI NG. (1~INERS : 5 I D ANU C~~AR~.ENE CROSSLEY ~
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 1055 Rose Aven~~e~ Palm Springs, CA 92262. AGENTS:
~D SPATRIS~tiNU, 13169-T Brcokhurst Street, Garden
ODE EQUIREMEN
CONDITIONAL USE PER~iIT N0. 1a77 Grove, CA 92b--3 ancf JANICE FU4LCRTON~ 2339 ~es!
Rhodes~ Anahe(m, CA ~2R01. Peticioner requests
permiss~on to E57ABL1511 A BEER BAR WITf1 WAIVER UF
MINIMUM NUMI3ER OF PARY.ING SPACE on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres locateci at the n~rthwesr corner of Rawland
Avenue and Magnalia Avenue~ havi~g approxim~te fronta,yes oF 147 feet on the north stde of
Rowland Avenur. and s!2 feet on the west side of Ma~~nolia Avenue. and further described as
319'3Z1 South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL. ltMI7FD)
ZONE.
It was ~~ted the petitioner had requested that subJect petition bc withdrawn.
ACTION: Comml$siuner King offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner 9arnes and MOTIQN
s. D(C~ nnissloners ~~ ~i~atednat~the~requestnofathenp~tltione~etition for Conditlonal
Use Pe rtnit No. 1877 be t
COMMIS510NER TQLAR ARRitii:D AT 1:35 P•M• g~28~~g
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHfIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 28~ 1~7~ 78-682
ITEM N~O~ 1 CONTI`IUCf1 PUE3LIC HEARI~~~. OWNERS: RUTH AND ARNOLO
EIR CATEfOftICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 FLUERSTEI~1 and JAMCS M. AND NCLENE G. FCUERSTEIN~
~~i~ p "-- 2293 West aal) (w,d. 11nAheim~ CA ~2~0~~. A~ENT:
'~""'""~ INTCRNATIONAL PLAtJT GROWERS ~ 286~ East Coast
Nighway, M3~9~ Corona Del Mar~ CA ~2G2r. Petit(oner
raquests WAIVER OF (A) RCQUIREMf.NT Tf1~1T ALL USES S11ALL sC CO~~DUCTEp WIIOLLY WITti!N A t3UILD-
I~~G~ (6) MI~~IMUM STRUCTURAL SETBl1CK, ANQ (C) MINIMUM SET(3ACK I.~NOSCAPItIG~ TO PERMIT OUTDOAR
DIS~LAY OF PLANT MA7ERIALS on property described as A rectangularly-shapeci p~resl of land
c~nsistin~ of approxlrn~~tely O.~i acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Raad and
Brook~~urst St~eet~ having epprox(mata frontages ~f 12$ f~ec on the narr.l~ slde of Ball Roed
and 1~^ feet on the west stde of Erookhurst StreFt~ and further dascribe~ as 9~~9 0 rookhurst
Street. Property presently clnssifled CL (COMMEftCIAL~ LIMITEU) ZO~IE.
Sub,Jc:t petitlon was contin~~e~l fr~,rn tl~e m~etin~t of llue~ust 11i~ 1^7~i ar th~ r•ry~~~sr, nf thP
petiktoner.
There was no one inJlcatiny LhPir opposition to suhJect rcquest~ A~r1 Alrh~~uqh the st~ff
report to the Planning Commissl~n dated Auqust 2L', 1978 was nat read at the publtc
hearing~ it is referred to ancl made a part of the minutes.
It was noted the applic~nt was not prr_sent anci thc Planntn~~ Dep~~rtment staff would atic:mpt
to contact thc pet1C(oner.
After cunsidaratlon af ltem 3~ it was noted the pc~titloner's c:ffice had been not(fied and
they hoci reported thc petitioner was out of town. hut that he would be wtiling to
stipulate to whatever cond(tlons the Planning Commisslon wish~d t~ place on the approval.
Comnissioner Toter polnted out t`-ere are guldelTnes establishcd for the converalon of
servlce stations, and he ~ii~i not feel this proJect even c~., es close to conforming. Ne
indicated he would be opposed to all of tf~e variances.
Commissioner King po(nted out the loc~tion looks as chough lt has been vacated and the
business has bee~ abandoned st~~...e tl~e petltloner cannot display hts plsnts and there I5
nothing there but concrete and blacktop.
Commissloner Tolar pointc:d out converstons of service stations in the past have been
requTred to remove the canoples and pump islands~ close off drtveways~ a~~d put in
landscapin_y~ and this petltioner h~s not complied with any of these conditions.
Commtssioner King suggested that the petltinner be reyuired to remove the cano~'es and
that the outdoor ciisplay of planxs be permitted~ ancl Commissloner Tolar replied that he
did not know what the petitloner propose4 for outdoor display and could not vote witl~out
further information.
Th~ Commission dtscussed the service station conver;ion reyuireR~ents, clos(ng of the
driveways, flower displays allawed at Conroy's, which are t~ken in at night~ etc.~ with
the general feeling being that there ars questions which need tc be answered by the
peti*.toner.
AGTION; Commis;ioner 6arn~s offered a nr.tion, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
~D (Commissioner Linn beiny absent), that consideration of the above-mentioned item
be contlnued to the regularly scheciuled meeting of the Planning Cammission on September
11, 1978, in order for the petitioner to be present.
8/28I7a
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 2~, 19'18 18-b83
ITEM N0. PUall; NC^"ING. OWIICRs FURCST LI1WN C[:ME_TERY
EIR NE VE DECLARATION ASSOGI,ITI,~N~ 171? South Glendele Avenue~ Glend~le,
E S FIC ION N0. ~- 9-10 CA 912~~1. AGENTS: EiCARD DEVFL~PMEt~T COMPANY~
~ 4121 Westrrly Place, hl~i. Newport Beech, CA
'~j '~'~['~ ~ ~, ~1 '~ 92Gf,~ and SANTA ANITH DEVrI.OPME~IT CORP. ~ P. 0. Box
R AN E N0. 3 3 ~+ 1L'80~ New~~ort Beech, CA 926~~~, Praperty descrtbed
es Portlon A~ a rect~nyularly-sl~aped parce! of
Icnd c~nsistin~l at epproxtmately 3.3 ecres loceted
at the southwest corner ~f Romneye Drive and Eucltd Street~ havfng ap-,roximate frontAges
of 312 feet on tl~e souCli side ut Romncya Drtve snd 4J2 feet on tr,e wc•st side of Euclid
Street; And Portion t3 -~ rectonc~~~l~rly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ of rpproximately
5.0 acres hav(ny a frontac~e of approxir-ately 1+5; feet on the south slcle of Romneya Drive,
havin~~ a maximum depth of 47? feet, and bein~ located ap~roxim~tely 36~ fest west of r,he
ca~te~,~line of Euclld Street. Property presently classlFle~f RM-1'1~0 (RCSIDENT111L~
MULTIPLE~FANILY) ZOill'.
Ri ESTED CLASSIFICATif,'~r: CL (C0~1f1CRC1AL~ LIM17Ef)) ZONE (PORTION A~.
REV,UESTEU COIIDITIONAL ~SE: TO PERMIT It ORIVE-T11ROU~~1~ RESTAUP,A~~T (PORTI(1N A).
REQUESTCp VARI'NCE: WAIVER OF (Aj MI~~IMUFI FLOOR AREA ANO (1!) REQUIRF.D E~ICLOSURE
OF CARPORTS TO COt~STRUCT A 12~-UNIT APARTMEI~T COMPLEX
(PORTI()N B).
There was no one indicati~~ the(r presence in ~pposition to subJect request~ a~~~i althaugh
the staff report to the PlAnninc~ Commission dated August 2s~~ l~if' wa5 not rced at the
~ublic hearing~ it is referred to and made a part ~f the minutes.
James C. aear~~ ~gent~ indict+te~i thc petlttoner is in a~reement wich thc staff report and
polnted out [he com~>any has developea a sirntler 3~-E'uni~. proJect -n 8uena Park (McCumber
Creek at Beach E3aulevard and Malvern) with slmflar arcl~itectural s~yles and Floor plans;
that the smaller unlts dernand z~ lower rent of approximately S30 to 535~ ~+'~~~h i3 the
reason for the requGSt for snAller units. Cancernin~~ the enclosed carports ~~~ storage
located in the carports, he explained their experlence in maintaininy approxima~ely 1~C00
units scatterecJ throughout Southcrn Califo~ni.i~ rastly in Orange County~ has shcwn ihat
theft and vandalism problems are hiyher With thc storage arcas in carports, and they have
deleted those from tlieir units. lie st.~ted storage areas are proposeci in each of the
units, either on the pAt(o or balcony~ wl~ich casts tt,p developers mare to place hPm with
the ind(v(c:ual units. but they are easier usecl by the ~es~~'ents. Concerntng the open
carp~rts, I~e stated tt~ey had found enclosed carports also invite vandalism and theft and
they felt it would b~ more architectural~y pleasing and provide a more open fe~ling ~~r
the pro)ect if thc carports are opPn and accented with walls and landscaping as propose~.
He stated he had had a meetiny with the Traffic Enginee~~, Paui Singer~ and on his
suggestions concernin:~ the driveway approaches~ an alterr.ate plan has been prepared
incorporating this recanmendat(on and although they liked the ori91na1 plan better~ they
would be willing to develop the alternate plan,
COMMISSIONER DAVIU ARRIVED AT 1:40 P.M.
THE PUBLlC i1EARING WAS CLOSED.
Chalrman Herbst stated the pians do not specifically show a wall between the commercial
portion and the res+dential portfon af thP proJect, and asked if a wall is Qroposed.
siza»a
~ ~ ~
M I NUTES, A~JA-~E i M C 1 TY p LANN 1 NG COMM I 55 I ON, AU ;UST 2~! ~ 19753 78-hA~~
EIR NkG/1TIV~ DECLARATIQN~ RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 78-79-10~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1869
~ND VARIANCE N0. 30}6 continuad _._._..~__._.._.~
Emll lle~es. arch(tect~ ~~121 Weste~rly Place~ Sutte 105~ New~ort Beach~ st~ted there will be
a cont' uous wal) betwean Portlo~s A and B of the proJect.
Cortmissloner King askod tf the wall will be on the ultir~te property line in tlie event ane
~f the parcels ls sold~ enci Mr. 9enes replied that th; wnll wauld be on the prap~rty tine.
Comnisslonrr Johnson polntr.d out thc Commisslo~ norm~lly nllows A Cl!Ptaln p~rcentAge ~f
undersixed units~ and Asked if the demand for th~ smAller units is Incr ased by the lower
rent~ and Mr. Beard replle~~ thes~: small units do scrv~ a nceci; th~t _onsiderablp portion
of today's population (s very mohtle ~nd thc dcmand (s greAt. He s'~[ed that they. as
developers~ ~i~ ~ot benefit too nuch one wey or the other~ but the ;~aller units providc a
needed type of hougtn9.
Cortm'ss(aner Johnson state~i thc Cornmissic,n looks at a lot of ~ ans ~and h~s A lot of
dlscussion ancl tie felt input ls needecl concerniny the demand or the varlous stzed units.
Ne stated the Commission must n~ec:t the dernands nf th~~ ci tlzc ~s and pro~~ide neces5ary
hou~tng~ and thely decisions cannot be arbitrary.
Mr. Deard stated Plan ~ is designed for a special market, those peopic who wish to sp11t
rents s(nce r~nts are so high, and these units hove twn bedrooms separatc~~ by a livlnc~
room and the downstairs units h.ivc a two-car, attached garaqe- with direct entry.
Chatrman Herbst asG~.ed Mr. Sinqr.r if hc h~~i r~viewe~l the alternate plAn submitted~ and Mr.
Stnger rEplled that he had seen a marke~-up plan whir_h he had marked up~ but he had ~at
seen the final plan.
Mr. Beard passed out the a 1 ternate p 1 on ~ rev i s i ng tl~e dr I ve~~ay app roacf~es ~ to the
Commission and Mr. Singcr.
Mr. Benes explal~ed the maJor concern on the origtnal plan was the one access off Euclid
lo~ated as far south as possible to rclleve any conflicts ~rlth left-turn action ac the
corner of Euclid and Romneya, but unknown to ther,~~ an access for an apartment proJect had
been approved on the east side nf Romneya wt~ich conflicted with their location. He stated
there was also concern regArdinq tl~e two accesses on Romneya~ one located at the
commercial site (Revision ~~o. 4), creating another left-turn conflict due to the existing
planted median which has been relocated f~irther to the east~ and alsa an access on Romneya
at the apartment site with an existing planted m~dlan. B~c~use oF the restrictions of
thelr bullding and where they could locat~ these ac:cess:s. Mr. Singer felt therc would be
problems with tr~ffic making turns around the islands in and out ~f the proJect and
traffic would end up in the wron~ lane. He stateci they prefer the oriqinal plan submitted
a~d felk the revised plan would be introducing "U" turr~s around the isla~d at the
aparrment site~ bu~ thcy could live with the revised plan. He stated the effect of the
revis~;~ plar on the proJect would be the loss of 15 parking spaces at the commerctal
development, but they had had an excess number of spaces ori~~tnal~y.
Chalrcnan Herbst pointed out that even though they have relocatpd the one access nn Euclid,
another access had been added.
Mr. Singer stated that one access was ~dded and one acce5s on Euclid was shifted ~o the
extreme south po~tion of the lot and will align wir.h the privatc street goiny in, thereby
eliminating conflicting turns and adding an~ther driveway (~ight-tu~n or,ly) whtch would be
screened by a ratsed median over 1;(1 feet from the corner.
Chairman Herbse felt that evcn though the proJect has less o~r'ki~g spaces, b^tter tnterior
circulation wlll be provided with the char~ges.
8/28/78
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C11Y PLANNIt~G GOMMISSION~ AUGUST 2P~ 1978 78-685
t ~ CONUITI~NAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1869
EIR NEGATIVF. DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION i~0. 71^79'1 ~
AND VARI ANCE N0. 3~36 (cont i nuccl) ,__________.__~. •-
Commlasloner Kinq asked t~ a stgnal is bci~n tnstalled at Euclid and Romneya~ and Mr.
Si~ger repl(ed thet ane ts currently being tnstalled,
Mr. Singer stated he v~ould add th~t entrAnce No. ~~ shc~uld t,~~ mocl~fiP~1 t~ permit ca~s tc~
steck~ wtth Mr. Beac•ci replyin~a that the mecil~n would be modlfled to ~~eate a left-turn
stacking area.
Conmissioner Johnsan ask~d Mr. Slnqer to Inc,iGate whicii of the plans before the C~mmission
shows the suggestlons made by hlr,~ in~llcating their plan daes not shrn+ a proposecl street
as discussed~ ond Mr. Sln~~er er.plainPd It Is a new street wl~(ch was recently a~proved for
a condominium pro1C~t and the petltiuner could not have known abou[ t4~at street.
ACTION: Commissloner Johnson uffcred ~~ motfon~ secon~~P~~ by Corxnisslancr ICIng and MOTION
GA"- RR~EU (Commissloner Linn bcin~ ~bsent)~ that che Ar.ahcim Clty Planning Commissi~,n has
revfewed the proposal to reclassify Portlon A of subJect property from RM-1200
(ftesldEnr!~~1, Multiple-Fainily) to Cl (CorxncrclAl, Limitcd) Zone to psrmit a drive-through
resteuran; .:,,i a rectanyul~~rly-shaped p.~rcel of land consisttnq uf ap~roxlmatel~oX~~~eres
located o: the southwest carner of Romneya Drive and Euclt~i Street~ having app
frontages of 31z feet on tiie south side of Rom~eya Drive and 472 feet ~n the west side ~f
EucI1J Street; and to construct a'i2~-unit apartnent complex wlth wa(vers of mi~~imum floor
area and reyuired enclc~sure of carports on Portlon D~ consistin~~ of a rectangularly~shaped
parcel of land consistin~~ of api~roxirnately 5.~ acres havinc~ ~ frontac~e of approximatelY
i~„ feet or~ thc south si~ic of Romncya Drive, haviny a maximum depth of 472 feet, and belny
located approxirnatcly 3G; feet west of thc centerline of Euclid Street; and does hereby
approve the Negative Ueclaration from tl~e requi;ement to prPp~rr an environmenta) Irnpact
report on the basis th~~t th~:r~~ would be no slc~nifican~ individual or c~.imulative adverse
environmental impact due to tl~e onnroval ~f this Nenative Declaration sincc the Anaheir~
General Plan designates the subjecl ;~ro{~erty for coinnerci~~+l professional land uses
comrt~ensurate with the proposal; that no s~~nsi[ive environr~ent~,l ir~pacts are Involved in
the prop~sal; that the initi:;l Stucly submitt~•d by the petitlonPr indic.~tes no siqnlflcant
individual or c~mulativ~ ad~Pfin~ilnvsris ontfiler~inCthe CttyCoftAnahe'(m~JPlanning~~aratlon
subStantiating thc forc~oin3 ~
Gepartn~ent .
Cor~rnisstoner Johnson offere~ Resolution ~~o. PC78-196 and moved for its passage nnd
adoptior•itet~onht~ An7Ec79•~~~ys~.lectnto ~ntcrdepartment~alrCannittee rec'ortmendations.
Reclassif c
On roli call, the foregoing resalution was ~assed by the folloaring vote:
AYCS: COMMISSIOFJERS: E31~Rt~CS~ QAVIO~ t1CRt15T, JOI~I~SCtl, KIl~G~ TOL~R
NOES: COP1M~ SS I ONERS : NONE
A6SENT : GOMM! SS I 0l~ERS : t_ i~~1!
Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution No. PG7~'197 ~nJ moved for its ~ass~ge and
adoption, that the AnaheEr~ City P~anning Cortmission does hereby grant Peti~ion for
Condicional Use Permit IJo. 1869~ subJc:.t to the stipulation of the petltioner that a
continuous wall wil) be constructecf between Portians A and B, and subject to
Interdepartmental Commfttee recommendaCions.
On roll call, the foregoing resolukion was passed by the foilawing vote;
AYES: COMMI SS I ONERS : BARNES, DAVI D~ HERBST, JOHNSON ~ KI PJG ~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABS~NT: C(1MMiSS10NERS: LINi~ 8/28~78
~ ~i ~
M I NUTkS ~ ANlWE I M C 1 TY PLANN I NG COMMI SS 10~~ ~ AUGUST 28 ~ 1978 7~-686
EIR NECATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION ~IQ. 78-7q-10~ CONpITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 1869
~ND VI~RIANCE N0, 3036 (conttnued~_
C.xnmtsstonar Johnsan ofPored Resolutinn No. PC73-19f~ and moved for tts passAge and
adoptlon~ that the Anaheirti Ctty Plennin~ Commtss(on does he~~by qr++n~ Petitlo~ for
Vartance No. 3036~ g~bnting walver (a) on the basis that tt has been the Plrnning
Cammisston's pollcy to alla.~ approximetely 2a$ of thc total numb~r of units to bc
undersixe~ bachelor units; ~rAnting waiver (b) on the basis that enclosed cerpurts lnvlte
theft and vanda;ism and the open carp~rts would roduce the criminal aspects end ~~low a
more aestheticat ly pleasing desl~n; and sub,ject to Intc~ciepartn~entAl Comm(ttee
recommendatlons.
Chairran Herbst questla~e~l whether or not a stipulation should be added concernin4 the
Indtv;dual sto~ag~ areas~ and Anntk:s Santalahtt~ Assist~nt Dircctnr for 2onin-;~ explainsd
the conditlon wf 11 h~ nRpnri~~l t~ indic.Ate the skorage spACes w) 11 b~ provideci in each
indlvidual unit.
Qn roll call, the foreq~tnq r~solution wds passed by thc following vote:
~YtS; COMMISSIONERS; BAkNES~ DAVIO~ HERBST~ JOIINSON~ KING~ TOLAR
NUES; COt•IMISSIONEkS; ~ UNE
ADSENT; COMMIS510NERS: LIP~~;
ITEM N0. 5 PUaLIC HEARING. bWNCPS: YOUNG F. AND LUCINDA J.
EI NE A!Vc DEGLARATION F1AMM~~TT, 154a West Or~ngewood Avenue~ Annheim~ CA
RECL SSI ICATIOt~ N0. 7-79-20 9~~~2. AGENT; JON~! F. S~~IIrIT~ 707 West N~rth
~ p Street. Anaheim~ CA 9280~. Property desc~ib~d as
I OUNCIL an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistt~g
POLICY N0. 538 of approximately 1.G acres having a frontage of
approximetely 22G feet on the south side of Orangc-
wood Avenue~ having a maximurn depth of approxifiately
303 feet. beiny lacated approximately 52~ feet west of the centerline of Nli7th Street~ and
further descrlbed as 15~-5 West Orangewood Avenue. Property prescntly classifled
RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRI~CUI.TUR~L) ZONE.
REQUESTEO CI,ASSiFICATION: RS-7200 (RESIUENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTEO VARIAP~CE: WAIVER (A) REQUIREMENT TNAT ALL LOTS ADUT A PUBIIC S1REC7
ANU (` RcQUIREMENT THAT SINGLE-~AMILY RESIDENCES REAR-ON
ARTCRIAL HIGN1lAYS, TO COP~S7RUCT A 7-LOT~ RS-72~0 SUdDIV1S~01r.
Theru were three persons tndicating thetr presence in oF~osition to subJect req~~est~ and
although the staff ~tNort to the Planning Commission dated August 28~ tgJB was not read at
the public hearine~~ it is refe~red to anci made a part of tl~e mtnutes.
John Swint~ agent, questioned the reference in the staft repa~t to 5 on-site ~arkin~
spaces, and Chalrman Herbst pointed out that included the vehicl~s whlch c~ i he parked
on the drlveway.
Chuck Chendler, 1582 Sim Place~ Anaheim~ stetc:d hr i~ speaking fAr h~~self and hts
neighbors; that chey are not opposed to single-fri,~ily residentia! development in this
area, but in looking at xhe plans felt it is questi~nable whetF~er the proJect is for R-1
o~ R-.'. deveiopmcnt. Ile stated the plans show seven untts with a private road and fe~t
this wouid creatc severa) diffcrent prablems~ the first being that a~ 28-fc~ot str~et ti+ill
not carry the tr~`fic ar~d would create a congested condltion for emergency squipment. He
stated no siaewalks are beln~ provided ar~d sldewalks are installed in th~ surroundino
a~za/ra
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 28~ 197a ~a'68~
~IR NEGAT'IVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFIC11710H N0. 78-19'2~ AND VARIIINCE No. 3044 (continued)
~~aa; Chet tliera are nice rnslcienti~+l structures to the nor~h~ e~st and west of th(s
proJect; that e p'an was ad~pted in 19G~1 t~ pcrml; 19~ F''~-720~ lots which includcd
developme~t of the p~operty direr.tly to thP wPst; that t~iP staff report tndtcates there
wil) be e homeowncrs assoclatlon to take care af the st~eet~ hut he dld not think a
hameawners associatlon would accomplish It becr~use If s~meone is to be respons(ble for the
street~ the awnersht{a st~ould extc~d ta the center of Chat street so th~~ each owner Is
respc~nsible for lA feet of the private street; that covenants~ candltlans and restrictlons
mlght bc the way to handle the probl~m~ but felt thP reque~t would bc mede for tf~e Clty ta
rt-atntain the street In tha future. Ne ~inted out binckto~ drtveways and pt~rking areas
ere not properly maintelned throughout the clty. Ne fPlt if single-family residentiAl
development is ,yolnq to take plece on thls p,.perty~ the vacant property should be
tncluded~ but if tt,~s proJ~ct ts ap~roved as submltted, he would request~ an b~half of his
nel,hbo~s~ th.~t thiti parcel be surrounded on all ics outside perimeters with a(+-foot high
block wall. II~ E~ol~ted out. ye~~eraity spe~king. thcre are reasonable setbacks of more
than 17 or liS feet~oi,~th~ fectGasrrcqulredcby~codr~,gthls~wt lltmeanta(devi~tlon f'imor^t ~f
thes~ houses are t
th~n 5~~ f rom tl~e setback requl ren~ents .
Mr. Swint stAted tl~e lots do go to tt~e middle of the street and e~+ch owner c~wns the
property to the mid.ile of t`~e street~ and CCGRs havc yeFn submitted to thc Ct~y for revlcw
wtiich spell ~~~t all thc awners are responsible and wilt pay into a fund Annually So that
if there are any repalrs~ tney all pay equally. tle stated as far as the setbacks are
concerned~ it wac their intent t~.; mak~ all the lots enual in sizp. He stated tf sidewalks
are d,. ired~ h~ wauld stipuiate to providinq thero.
Tt{E PU~LlG Ni;AR1~aG WAS C~QSEf~•
Chalrman iierbst pointed o~~t his concerr~ regarding the setb~~+ck for lots adJacent to
arterial highways (Cauncil Palicy 53 ) and stated the lots shauld he 2~ feet fn depth~ and
ttiis pro}ect fs stding-on rather than backin~a-up to an arterial highw~y.
Mr, Swint stated he wa~ ~~inq the Conmission would allcyw f~im Lo do this, othc~v+ise the
lats would be substanc:,~~ ~.
Commissioner Johnson stated ~ubstandard lots is not thc only alternative; that less lots
could be provided. Ile stated he was concerned about the side-on frontage anHefstated28he
foot street Is inadequ~te and agreeJ with mose of Mr. Chandler's comments.
driveways are narrow and there are no sidewalks. lie potnted out that when the dedication
is subtractea and decent setbacks are provided from Orang~wood, all the lots would be
substandard~ especially if the strF~Pt is widened~ and he felt the street should be widened
and sldewalks shoutd be provided. He stated people w(il park on ±hfs 2~~foot street
whether they are supposed to or not~ and it wo 'd be inaoequate for the neighborhood.
Mr. Chandler pointed out ; parkin~ spaces are provtded for each home.
Commissianer Johnson stated he realized it is not easy to make a street wider because some
parking i^ f~intorderhto~aive~theacliencpthe sevenrl tsihe desired,hthbsCwasathe bestdplan
smaller, and 9
he cou' come up with.
Commissioner Tolar felt ther~ is a lot af inerit to the street being widen~d and ~e
personally felt the beck yards have to either be smeller or the density reduced. He felt
the mertts of creating a private strpet were wonderful to talk about, but it does not
negate in h:s mind whai has happened with a lot of ~+rivate streets, and referred to alleys
and streets which have been more ~r less abandoned~ and these streets and all~ys become
8/28178
,~'
~~
~
~
MINUTCS ANANEIM CITY PLAN~~ING COMMISSION, AUGUST 28~ 1978
~
7e-G~ia
Fi,l R NEGAT I VE UECLARA7) QN,.._RECLAS~ I F I CAT I OM_ N0. ]8-7~-20 ANO VAR I I1NCE N0. }044 (con t lnued)
burdens ta the Clty. Ne stated he did not hAVe anyn~~sh~eCt~~~hthcy dilenot wantfae
st~eet wer~ adequate. Hc poinCed out lf the haneow
hometiwnars assoclAtlon~ the City wauld end up wlth the problem of rru~(ntalning the street
since th~ CC~Rs cannot be enforced. He steted he wes not golnct to supM~rt the praJect
with thc 28-foot wlde street and he was in agreeme+nt with the use end whAt the petltloner
wishes to do with the property~ but felt they are pr~posing t.c~o much development on this
property with one or twa lot~ too many. He Indicated he woulcl 11l:c lo see a 3~~"foot wide
st~eat~ curb-to-curb, with a~~-fo~t sldewalk.
Mr. Swint tndtcated he wc~uld like ta request a continuonce.
Chel rmen Nerbst referre~~ to the r~~quest for waiver oP Counci l Pol icy 53P an~ dsked w~~aK
staps would be taken to assure tfic homech+ners AdCf~UOLP. sound attenuatlnn frcxn the a~terlal
f~ighwey~ and poln~ed out thc reason for that pn~i~y is th~~t side-on lots have been created
which do no: conform a~:! there were compl:~ints~ and Indicated a 6-foot high wall w~uld n~t
provtda the prop~r saunc~ attenuation.
Cor ~issioner King p~lnted out tl~is propcrty is hiyher thar~ the street~ and Commissioner
Tolar polnted out it would probably not be highcr when it is graded.
Commissione~ Tolar suggested the possibillty of moving the cul-de-sac and providing a f1Ag
lot aff the cul-de-sa~ or a pie-shapea lot.
Mr. SwInC askeb_to~curbhewith~ac~+Mlfoot~sidewAlk,randcltiwastnotedt~sidewalkssa~c,allvwcd to
Feet wide, cur ,
the curb without the parkway in 5ome instances.
Chalrrtw~ Nerbst pointed aut he did not helieve the minimum lot slze would mett the a5-720~
r~q~;?;~mcnts and suggested that Mr. Swint look at the RS-~O~h requirements and consider ~
~~~blic street.
ACTION: Commissionc~r Tolar offered a moti~n~ seconJed ~y Commtssioner Johnson a~d MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Linn bein~ absent), thac consideration of the aforementioned ltem be
continued f~r four weeks~ to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Gommission on
September 2~, 197a~ at the request of tt~e petitioner.
ITEM t~0. 6 READVEP,TISED PU~'LIC HEARING. OWNERS: i.0U15 F.
E~R~ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOPJ-C_ LASS 1 AND PHYLLIS A. SELL~ 37 Monarch Day. taquna
If, I/~NCE N0. 2 75 i~ Niyuei , CA 92fi77. AGENt: TERRY BERZEMYE, 107>
- North Narbor Boulevard~ Anaheim~ CA 92801.
Per.itioner ~equests (A) AMENDMENT OF COt~DITI0N5
OF APPROVAL AND (D) 41AIVEi; QF PCRMITTFD USES~ 70 PERMIT OUt00(1R STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILES
on preperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist~ng of approxi-
mately 0.7 acre haviny a frontage at approximately 90 feet on the west side of Harbor
aoulevard. f~aving a maxim~m depth of approximately 33~ feet~ being located approximately
65 feet south of the cent~~rltne of An~heim Boulevard~ and further descrlbed as 1Q75
No~th Harbor Boulevard. Prnperty presently classifted CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENER~.L) ZONE.
There was no one indicati~g their presence in opposition to subJect request~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Auqust 2a~ 1978 was not read at the
public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part nf the minutes.
aizar~s
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ AN~INEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24. 1978 78-669
EIR CATEGORlCAL EXEMPTION~•CLASS 1 AND VARIANCC _N_~)_..~ (c~n:inupd)
Dan Ness, 2500 E~at Chapn~.n Avenue~ ~'u{le~ton, steto.i he ho~i revi~weJ th~ stAff ropore ~nd
ag reed w I tl~ t t except tlie re f~rence tl~et th i s i s an nu torrx~b I' e repa 1 r f~c t 1 1 ty; thet I t ( s
actuetly a facility for autanobllP customizing or restnring ~f a~itique autorr~biles. f~e
ststed thn problem tri meettng the conditlon requtrl the eesement being granted to the
Ctty Is that the prc~perty Is awned by one party encl the bui' :in!~ is aw~ed by another party
and loassd to the pr.,tlClo~iel'~ and the owner af the pr~~,erty ts not tntNrested In qranting
the easemcnt to tf~e City an~i is not c4ncerned about tlie ten~nts. He stt~ted the petltloner
would be willin~~ to comply a~•'th th~ other condltlo~~s rec~arding the oucdoor sto~age. Ne
stated tI~Q storaye area has a chainlin~, fence wlth Fib~:rales screening, which is solid~
~nd pictures were subne(tted prevtously and the area wouici not be vtsihle f~om Narbor
Douleverd. He stated thc petitloncr had In~icst(qated the possil~ility of Installl~g
redwood slats ond had founcl the cost proi~iulttve as~d they were ve ry difflcult t~ IocntP.
THL I'UkiLIC IIIARII~G r1AS CLOSC!).
Commissioner Ua~id asked lf codc alluwed any alternative other ch;~n rNdwood slats~ and
A~~nika Santalai~c(~ Assistant Di~eccor for Zoning~ expl~inr.d in ;r~e industrlal zone
chairlink fencing with re~lwood slats i; required~ but that outcioor storaqe (n this
l~catlon is not alloweci Eecaus~ It is a commcrclel zone and the walver req~ested is to
permit outdoor storagP.
Cortwnissioner Davtd StrteJ rr_dw.~od s!ats are very expenstve and he felt the code should
statc~ "or ~qual."
Annika Santalaf~tl polntc~ out al) r~quests for substitutes f~ive bnen brought befare the
Cortmisslon and they tiave g-anted variances for this typc of fencin~ in the industrial
area.
Mr. tless statr.d the petitianer had t~1keJ with vt+rlous me~bers of [he Planntng staff and
the exTsting screeniny is no problem.
~ommissianer King stateJ this use ts not harming the neighbors and [he outdoor storage fs
not visible from the street~ and the only problem here is thnt thr City needs the 45-foot
dedication from the property ~vner, and Mr. Hess replieJ there appears to be no way the
owner wtll grant the easen~ent, and if the easement ts r~qulred, this tenant will bc forced
out of business and the owner of tt~e land is not concerned wt~ether or not this facillty is
occupied.
Commissioner Johnson stated he did n~t think the Commission should be concer-ed about any
a~rangements betw~~n the lessor and lessee and should stick with the pc~liciES and not
changG them.
Ghairman Herbst stateci this matter has been ~eforc the Planning Cortmission before and was
allowed on a temporary basis, and sin~e the bustness Is established, he felt tt cauld hF
conttnued on a year•to-year basis.
Commissioner aarnes stated the previous varlanc.e was yranted Navember 8~ 197b, sub,ject to
the stipulation that the property owner dedicate the property. and it has not been done.
Chairman Herbst stated the own~r probably has a long-term leASe and does not care, and if
this petitioner vacates the property~ ft will stan~ empty or anoLl~e~ bustness could go in
which would 'oe allowed by code and the City still would not have the easement.
Commissioner Ba~nes asked the d~ratfon of the lease~ and ther~e was a reply from the
audtence that the lease is for approximately 50 years.
8/28/78
~ ~ ~
ti,
MINUTES~ AtU1HElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 28, 197E 7(~-G~0
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS ~ AND VARI NCF N0, 2fl75 (continued)
~.._
Cortmissloner Tol~r did rot f~cs) this use would be harmful to thc Clty since elthcr tho
petitiunnr wil) operate the businoss froir, this tocation or the butldinc~ will be empty~ or
another tcnant woulcJ he allowed to operate anoth~r business c+nd thc City still would not
heve the ~+5-foot deJl~.atlon~ and he did not feel this use (s hAVtng any il) effect on the
nurrounding Area.
It was ~oted thnt t~ie Flanniny 0lrector or hls authuri2ed ~epresentative has ciete~mined
that tha proposed p~oJect folls witf~li~ the definition ot Cat~,gorical Cxemptlons~ Cless 1~
as defined (n paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Envtronmen.a) Impact Raport Guldelfncs
and is, therefore~ catec~orlcally exempt fram the requlrernent to prepare an ~IR.
Jack White~ Dc~puty Ctty Attorney, explained if C~mmfssic~ner Tolar wlshed to offer a
resolution to approvc s~bJect reques:~ the resolutlon should delete Conditions Nos. 1 and
6 from aporoval of Varlance No. z~75. and adci a candition tl~at the verl~nce shall be
subject to revie~~ witf~in o~~e yea~ for thc out~oor storagc ~f autumobiles only to be
al lowed w: thin the enclosec! area.
Commissloner Barnes felt thc variarce shuuld be allvwed only for the time remaining on the
petitioner's lease in order to c~ive the peti~ioner som~ Indtcation of the Curmii~slon's
fe~l(ng and help him deterrnine whether or not he wlshcs to renew th~ ~CASP. or to relocat~~
and Mr. Hess explained the le~~se c~~:pi res on December 31, 1~7~~ and suggested approval for
one year would bc ap~ropriate.
Comm(ssloner Tolar offcreJ a resolution that the Anaheim Ctty Planntng Gommission does
hereby amend approval uf Variance No. 2~375~ deletirtg Condi[ion Nos. 1 and 8; adding a
condition that the variancs is granted far a one-year period only allowing the storage of
automobfles in the area c:nclosad with a cha(nlink fenr,e with Fiberglas screening; and
subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatlons.
Prior to voting on the above resolut~on, Commissioner Johnson asl.ed staff haw this matter
had been b rouyht up, ancl Annika ~antalahti expiained there had bcen a complatnt when the
project had originally been considered and the current item came up because the last ttme
the riatter was before the Pianning Commission this matter had been discussed and it had
been hoped the petitfoner would be able to acquire the dedication for the City.
M~. Ness stated neyotiatlons are cantinulny for the pur~hase of the building and the land
by the tenants.
Commissloner Y.tng indicated 'ne had seen vehlcles parked outsi~!e the fGnte. and askcd tha
petitione~ to stipulate that all vehicles would be stored inside the enclosed area.
Mr. Hess asked if vehicles could be parked outside the fence during operating hours, 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., ard th~n brouyht in~ and Gorm~~sstoner Tolar replied that autdoor
sto~age to hlm meant all vehicles must be on the property inside the fenc~ at all times.
Commissioner K(ng sta[ed vehicles to be work.ed on probably would be parkPd in the par~tng
spaces on the north side of the garage~ and the fencc comes out from the• south of the
bulldtng and around west, and the doors to the garage are on the north side and cars are
parke~ zhere ta oe wcrk~d on, and he felt that would be acceptable.
Cha3rmsn Herbst inquired normally hav many cars wnuld be parked outstde to be worked on~
and TCrry Berzenye, agent, replied that the cars outside are usuAlly those vehicles
dropped off to be s~orked on or those whi~h have been finished and are to be picked up~ and
there would be maybe o~e or two vehicles.
8/26/78
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMNIS510N~ AUCUS7 Za~ 1'~78 76_6q1
EIR CATEGORICAL FXEMPTION-CLASS 1 qNU VARIANCE t10. 2875 (contlnucd)
Commissianer Johnson ~tnted out hn was cancerned b~tAUSe th~:rr. h~d heen e ~omplalnt~ and
Commissloner King state<1 thc cars perkeJ outside cannot be seen from the street.
Comntssio~er TolAr indtcat~d outdoc~r storagr uses can becomc a bllght on thc nelghbonc~~od~
espec(ally (f vehtcles are rarkeri outstcJe on week~nJs~ clurinr~ the day ancl after hours.
Commissioner ~tarnes ask~;d if al) the vehic.les could be st~re~1 Insl~Se the fence~ and Nr~
Be~2enye explelned he hAS some Bentley's and Rolls Royce's which are ta t,e worked on over
a long peri~d of tlir-e whlch ore completed cars, anci he ~arks tl~c~m ~~at bar.k; that he has~
on occasion~ e vehicle on e trail~r for A min(mum anx~unt of work .~nci he woul-i leav~ (t on
the traller out front by the cioqr and work on it there~ and it would he almost Impnssible
to c~eL thr. trailer insi~e t1~r_ g~~raye t~ w~rk .,n the vehicle along w(th th~ othcr cars;
thAi he h~s six antic~uc cars of hi; avr„ which hc ~ar~;s inslJe ai night on~l thc Rulls
Royce's and Eientley's are parke~ out back~ and the only ttme a disrtx~ntled car is l~ft out
front is when ~ customcr drops tt off or is pickinc~ it up,
Commfss(oner Barnes suge~estpcl the petitloner sti~ulate that ~~ll vchiclc~s wlll be stored or
worked on tnside the f~ncc, an~i Comniss(oner Tolar (ndicateJ he was more concerned now
than before because t~ie petitloner ha~ stated he works on sorne vehicles outslde~
Mr. Uerzenye explalncd ti.~re are biy garagc: doors on the renr and~ ~n rare ~ccastona, he
backs the biy t~ailer with a vehicle on it into the qaraqe doors and works there if it is
golnq to take A st~ort tinx~~ but that ~st of his worl.~ f~r exAmple~ Is A customer wll l
drop uff a 192q Model A and wil) leave it until it (s finishcci, and i' goes Inside and is
left inside until ic is rlone,
Commtssioner Tolar askc~f persons in the audiPnc~ if chey lived in the area~ and Chairman
Herbst asked iF those pc.~pie present ~~ere in opposition~ and a lady responded that she had
been in aCtanclance preutously and when shc had spnken in oppos~tion, sh~ had been down-
rroouthe:d and refused to arc~ue~ but would answer any quest(ons the Commission had.
Corrm(ssioner Tola~~ asked the iady {f st~e had seen the petitioner working o~ vchicles
outside the buliciing and if there is any outdoor storage~ and thr_ lady ~eplied she had
seen them workiny outsiJe the buiiJing and the storage 1~, on the eASt side of the butlding
and has a chatnlink fence wit'., woven plastic covering~ and hG stores things lnside th~t.
but prlor to that fence belna Insralled, he parked the cars outside; thet her horne faces
directly into the parking lot an~ there are twa or three houses which ac;ual~y look into
this property, and it was an eyesore before the fence was installed; that the fence is on
the east side (not the north as indicated); and that you could go down there any day and
see them working on cars outside an~i he does not close at the huurs specifted because they
have drlven by in khe alley after 7:00 p.rn. and thcy are still svorking.
Chairtnan liPrbst asked if the unsightlY situation has been improved now that the enclosure
has been installed~ and she replied 1t had improved, but prior ko that ,t was an eyes~re.
Commtssioner Tolar asked the lady if she had any complaints abo~t the noise~ and she
repllea that there had been a pump on the west stde of the butlding and apparently someone
had complatned about the ~oise and he had m4ved it to the east side~ but before the fence
was installed~ they had had noise from that pump until 7;00 or 8:00 p.m., and she had even
called th~ police a couple of times~ but since the fence (s up, she does not hear the pump
anymore.
Chairman Nerbsl stated it appears since the previaus hearinq the situatlon has ~een
improved~ and the lady replied that she felt as fa~ as •he cars being inside~ that has
imp roved, bui working on ca~s aUtside sti11 continues.
8/28/78
~
MINUTES, ANAt1E1M CITY PLANNING GOMMISS ION~ AUGUST 26, 1'~78 78-692
EIR CATEGORICAL 'c'XEMPTION-CLA55 1 ANO VARIANCC N0. 2fl75 (continued)
Commissioner Tolar esked tl~e p~lltf~ner why work is being cione outstde the bul ldinh, and
Mr. ~erzcnye repliad he works autside bacause tl~at Is wlicr~ tils h~(st (s lo~atr.d.
Commissloner Tole~ stated he is famlltar with tl-is type oP w~rk and hes somc dlscomfort
becauae he feels it sh~uld be lotr~ted in an ML Zane. Ne state~ he woulcl wi thdrew hIj
resoluti~^ for approval since this fs abutting a resi~fer~tial arc~a and be euse the
petltioner ts doing work aut~ i de tlic bul lding.
Cortxnlssioner Harnes felt since tl~e petlttoner has made ettempts to correct th~ sttuatlon
by screen i ny of f the s torage a ~eA ancl re 1 ocat i n~ the pump , tha t the use cou 1 d br. a 1 1 owed
for a one-year period~ mak.in~ it perfectly clear tht-t durin~ that rerfod he- shc~uld find a
mo~e~ sultablc loeatton~ polntt ng out rents In a eornmercta~l ZAn~ Ar~ h(nh~r thnn tn an
InciustrlAl a.~n~.
Chalrm~+n lierbst felt the hours of nperation should dr.finitely he clerifiecl, and Mr.
Berzenye stated general ly the i r hours are fram ~:QO a.m. ta 1:~~ or ~;00 p.m. because
people come to see their cars (n tlie eventng, and Cha(rman Nerbst Asked if it {s nc~essary
to work on the ca~rs at n( c~ht ~ rn~ Mr , De rzenye s tated tf~e re i s not too much work c2c~ 1 ng on
at night; that ane of his en,~,loyces might worl. n~ his ow~ ve-~ir.le et nlght~ but ther~
would not be much noise after G;O(1 p.m,. th~t hc closes the doors~ ancl Mr, Hess polnt~d
out approval of the ori<~inal varlance was grantecl wtth the stlpulatlon thr~t work could be
done aftcr hours if the bay doors ~rc closed,
Chalrman Herbst stated he could support Hpproval on the bas(s that thr. hours of opcratlon
would bc from 9:U0 a.m, to 6:00 p,m, fcr a~nc-yeer period~ wf th minlmum work [o be done
uutside on thc holst from ~3:On a.m, to 5:00 p,m. ~ and C~mmiss(oner Davld stated he agreGd.
ACTION: Commisstc~ner Barnes offereJ Resolution ~lo. PC73-1~9 and mcved for its passa~~e and
adoptlon~ that tfie Anahcim Ci ty Plannin~ Commission does hereby am~nci Resolution Na. PC76-
229 approving Variance No. 2~75, deleting Condition No. 1 requirin~ the o~rne~(s) of
subJect pro~crty to deed b!+$-foot wide strip of iand to the City of Anaheim Por s*.reet
widening purposes; deletln<~ Cond(tinn No. ~5 requ(ring that no outdoor storage shAll t-e
permltted; addino a conditton that n~~ work is to be perfoe-med on any vel~lcie afte~ 6:0~
p.m. and m(nlmum work shal) be donc using Lhc~ hoist outside the butldin~ between the hours
~f 9:00 a.m. and ~:00 p.m, an ly for a pr.riod af one ycar; and sub)ect to tnterdepartrr~ntal
Commtttee recommendations.
On rol l cell ~ thp foregotng resolutlon was passed by the fal la+ing vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARMES~ DAVIp~ HERBST~ JOFftJSON, KINf,, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSiONERS: ~~ONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN
Jack Nhite~ Ueputy City Attorney, expl~ined Lhc petiti~ner would have the right to ask for
a nr~w condl t tonal use permi t at the end of the one-y~ar period.
Commlssioner Juhnson stated thc Commisslcx~ is not against this type nf operat(on~ but felt
i t i s i n tf~e wrony 1 ocat i on and encouraged the oet i t i one~ to s tay I n bus i ness and f i nd a
better location.
ai2ei7s
~
. ~
~
MINUTES~ 11tJANEIM CITY PLANNII~G C~MMISSION~ AUGUST Z~~ 19'7~ 78-G~3
I TE~1 N0. PUOI 1 C N EAP,1!lf,, 0!dtlEaS ; DAV I D 5 AND MAR I t1N
~7~VE DECLARATION GRAFF COLLINS~ 1077 West Ball Road~ Anahelm~ CA
. 92 3~ 1 2. A f, E N T; W. E A R L G A R R~ J R. ~ 1 f,5 ~ S o u t h
Ilerbur Roulevar~l~ Anohelm~ CA ?2`IO?. P~llttonPr
requrs ts W~IVER OF MI NI MuM NuMt~ER OF PARKIrIG
SF'ACCS TO COtISTRULT A 110-UNIT MOTCL on property descr(bed ds ~n irregularly-sha~,~ed
pa~ccl of land cons(sting of ap~roximr~t.ly i.3 acres IiAVinc~ e fronc~~lc c~f eppr~ximatcly
302 feet on the southwest sl:i~ of West 5treec, hAVinn A maximum dcpth ~f opp~oxlmately
24g feet~ being locateci opproxirnt~tcly 3`~~ fcet northw~st of the centerl inc of Bell Road~
end further describeci as `~15 South West Street. Property presently classifted
RS-A-~+3.0~0 (RESIDE-ITIl1L/AGRICULTURAl.) ZOI~E with a resol~~~ion of intent to thc C-R
(C011MERC1l1L-REGRGAT101~) ZO~~E.
Th~re was no one Indic~tin~~ thelr presence in oppositlon to subJ~ct request, and althou~h
the st~ff report to thc Planniny Conmisslon dated Aunust 2n~ 191t~ W3s n~t rcad at the
publlc I~earing~ it is referred [a and made a part oF thc~ i~inutrs.
Earl Gerr~ agent, state~l he operates two separate mat~~ls with over lJy units ~n Harbor
Boulevard and expertence has proven tliat, especially this year wltfi the lawer air fares~
etc. ~ more p~ople arc ftying into t~~e area and less parking Is neede~i for rratels. He
stated their actua) expFrience has proven they need Iess parking than applieci f~r at their
exlsting motels~ and e~en cJuring tf~c past thre~~ montlis when the raotels nave besn
completely full every nl~ht~ thc~y liave expe~~ anced no parkin~ pr~blems and bel(eve the
requested parking watver is valid; that the Plannin~ Cammission hAS granted waivers of
requirtd park:lny meny times in the past and the ~roposed rr~tcl will be a befliac(ful and
we11-malntained ;aroJect and will r.nhancc the area,
Ne stated they were cor•~cernecl abaut thc sound kufferarea for the(r ncighbors at the rear~
but there wili be a building 32 fert higt, that wil) buffer thc wliole residenti~l area to
the west of Wes[ Street~ wt~ich Is the only portlon wf~(r_h is reslcJential ~ and any nolse
from West Street currently sliould be less because of the 32'foot hir~h builcling with no
windows toward the fesidences.
THE PUBLIC NEARI~IG 41~5 CLOSEU.
Chal~•man He~bst stated his ~onccrn is not the noise from the street, but with the vGt~icles
being parked abuttin~ thc fences.
Mr. Garr stoted all the cars wauld not be in the back portion abutting tl~e wall; th~t they
intend to plant beautiful trees tn the area, 17-foot on-cencer~ and felt this would be
even better than a 2Q-fcwt wide landscaped arPa because the neares*. building abutting the
back wali of the homes is o5 feet away and there wtll be some psrking~ but it will nat be
a great nolse problem to thc neigl~bor;.
C~mnissione~ Tolar stated one of the things the Planning Commission had adhered to is tht
requi rement of the 20-foot wi de landscaped buffer on commercial p~operty, and one oF ths
falacies of the Ctty of Anaheim code is that under th~~ RM-12Q(~ zoning~ tw~-story
structures are noi ~llawed within 150 feet o.` resider~tial~ but commercial structures are
allawed to abut residenttal where the setback is twice the height oP the building~ and he
felt a rr~tel Is mc~re transient or in-and-out at all hours of the night and day than
apartments. He felt there ts a need for anothe~ motet in this area, and he did not have
any problem with the land use~ but Jtd not like the density which forees the parking to be
in that area ~nd did not tt~ink trees on 17-foot centers wouid provide adequate buffering
and protect ton for the res i dents . ~le asked about the res i dent ( a) dupl ex on the north wi th
8/28/78
1
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMNIS510N, AUCUST28 ~ 1~78 7C-fi~?4
EIR NEGATIVE_DE_CIARATION AND VARIl1NCE N0. 3042 (continued)
a bulldtng abutting the property line~ and fe lt even wit~h n~ wtndows~ a 32-foot hlgh wall
would be qulta a berrier.
Mr. Gerr stated hc hed contacted Mr. Gei~es, thc owner or thc pro~err.y to the north, and
had shown hlm the plans and he had indicated no ob)ecttons to the proJPCt.
Cammissior~pr King statcd the rasiJentiAl structure is qul':e a disr.c~nc~ from the property
linc and a garage abuts the property ilne.
CommissianQr T~lar ~tatecl the prorerty to the north ts not h(s mAtn concern, but the
property to the wett with thF p.~rk.in~ Ahuttin~~ the wrll ls, ord he ~ii~ nc~t thlnk thc tress
would be adequate buffer(nq. lie stated he d i d not have any di s~qreem~nt wt th sc~mc~ sl t~ht
variance ln the park(nq and understooct not all people will fae ar~iviny by car~ but fe1C
tlie pro,ject Is beln~ overbui 1 t.
Comrnissloner King aske~! Mr. Garr (f he h~d co~tacted the nelc~hbors to the west~ and he
replied that he I»d tniked w(th some of them and thcre seemecl ta be no concerns. Fle
indicated DavIJ Collins, owner of the subJect property, Is also a resiclent ta the west.
Mr. pavid Co11Ins~ owner, pointed out the pr~perty to the north is zone~ C-R~ Commerclal-
Recr~Ation~ t~nd pointed aut he h~d vwned al l the h4uses to tfe wcst excent for the
nort~..rly onc, and that when he had sold t.hem, hh polnteci out to the buyers there w~uld be
a motel or something s imt lar on Chis property and fcl t Yhe pe~~plc were prepared, He
stated h~ llves across the wall to ct~e s~uth from the existin:~ motel wtth blacktop right
up to the wall~ with somc smatl shrubbery~ and there Just is not tt~at much nofsc ema~eting
from the mote) parking lot.
Mr. Ga~r stated the motel adJacent to the subJect property do~s not have a 2Q-foot
landscaped buffer and hc did not bel ieve there haJ been any complain[s from the neighbors
concerning that~ and felt there wo~alJ not be a great amount of noise from the proposed
motel parklny lot. Ile stated the o~ly times those particular parkinc~ plACes would be use~
is when the units are mc-ire than (~0~, occupied~ and the rest of the time (t would be more
natura) for the yuests t~ park i~ the front parking lot,
Cortimissioner King asked if the Trafftc Enyin eer's reconmend~tion that the entrance
driveway be a m(nimum of 2~i feet in width an d the curb cut should be ailey-typ~ curb
radlus returns would crcate any parcicular harashfps~ and Mr. G~arr replied that would be
no problcm.
Chairman Herbst felt the Planning Cornnission has s~t a pol icy ps•otecting the exlsting
homes with a buffer, and felt abuttiny cars to the wall was not acceptable. Compartny
thls motel with an apartment complex, he ~el t t;~ts proJect would have rr~re car movement
nightly with late-rr~ving trafftc than an ~partment complex and during the swmrier the motel
would be fitled, and he would not vot~ for th e pro.ject wtthout the buffer. He stated the
hancuwners are ent 1 tl ed to the protect ion because tl~ey were there f i rst and thl s 1 s
encroaching wlth a commercial use~ and h~ felt the p~tltioner was aware of the Planntng
Comnlssion pollcy when he dcsigned the plans and had deleted it. He stated the people (n
the rrote) sametimes have parties and talk in the parking lot until early morning hours and
could cause disturbanees.
Commissione~ Tolar stated the problem comes back to the matter of density; that if a 20-
foot wide landscaped buffer is provided~ some parking may be lost and he would go alonc7
with that~ but did not see how other commereial developments cnuld be required to provide
a 20-foot w(dc buffer If this proJect is ap ~ roved without the buffer. He stated wh~tevcr
decisions are made by the Planning Commission, other developers refer to them. He stated
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY P LANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 28, 197~ 7~•G95
EIR NCGATIVE DCCLARATION AND VARIANCC P10. 3Q42 (co~tinucd)
tf the density ts roduced and the~lanJscopecf buffer ts provlded~ he wil) ~o r~lang wlth
some v~riance in the parkinq~ but felt thc devel~~per is trytnq to get tno much nn the
l~nd.
Gomm(ssloner Klny clarti"ied t~iat tha lanciscaped buffer ts b~tnq dtscussed for the we~st
property Ilne only.
Mr. Garr pointGd aut they ht-d desiynPd tFie pro_ject In this mAnner h~c~use th~ adJecent
motel was developed wi thc~ut tl~r, buffer,
Commissloner TolAr stated thr existlnq motel was probably devr.laped pr(or to thc; Planning
Commisslan pc-1 tcy.
Chairmen Nerbst steted thc policy was adopted becausa of complAlnts from res(cientlal areAs
adJetent to proJects cle velopcd wi~h~ut the buffers~ anci the problem is ellminated wh~n a
landscaped buffer is provi dec1.
Commissloner Barnes asl:ed hnw far from the propertv Iine the untts would have to be built
if they were one story~ and A~nikn Sa~tolaht(~ Assistant Dircctor for Zoninq~ stated
conceivebly they could be ; feet~ but nrc t~~pically 1; to 2~ feet for ane-st~ry
apartme~ts.
Chairman Nerbst sugyested the proJec:t coutd be built in an "L" cor~fiq~~r~+tlon with single
stories across the back,
Cummisslc.~~er Barnes Sugg~~ted the pArkinq coulcf bc located in the c~nter of the proJec~,
whlch would have less imp~ct on the resid~:n[lal areA~ ~nd referred to a rec~nt eppraval ~f
a proJect with parkinq to the inside,
Mr. Garr asked if one-sio ry units c~uld be built wixhin 5 feet of the west aroperty line~
and Chairman I~erbst stated th~ 20-foot wide la~dscaped buffer would be reouircd~ and
Annika Santalahti explainPd the sctback for comrnerctal property is two times the hetght of
the building,
M~. Garr indlcated he understands the Commissian is not Against the waiver for reduced
parking, but would Ilke to see the 2U-foot wide l~ndscaped buffer.
Chairman Nerbst stated hr_ felt tf the plans are reviseci to provide the landscaped buffer~
the parking ratlo wil) be hetter~ end the Commission has allowed reductions in the parking
after stud(es and do agre~• with the concept that less parking is requtred because of lower
air fares~ etc.
M~. Garr requested a continuance for four weeks.
ACTION: Ccxnmisstoner Toiar uffered a motion~ second~d by Comnissio~er Barnes and MOTION
CAR~t'~D (Cornmtssioner Llnn bfing absent)~ that consideratlon of Variance No. 30~~2 be
conttnued to the reyularly scheduled meettng of the Planntng Commission on Septembe~ 25,
1978, at the request of the petttioner.
RECESS Th~re was a ten-minute recess at 3:20 p.m.
RECONVENE The meeting was ~econvened at 3:30 p.m.~ all C~mmissianers present excapt
-~ Commissioner Linn ~eing absent and Canmissiane~ To18r being tardy.
8/28/78
MINUTE~~ ANAIIEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, ~UGUST 2~~ 1~7~ y8-b96
1 T~N N0. 3 PUBL I C HEAR I Nf,. OWNER: MENlIE:tl 1!iDUS7R I E S~ I FIC. ~
€rR ~'1E~RICAL l~CHPTION-CLASS 1 230; Cherry Industri~l Circle~ Long Beach, CA
~ ~080a. AGENT: KF:IT11 WESaELS~ 1201 Eost R(versldo
Drlve, Fullcrton~ CA 92631. Petttianer rRqucsts
ON•SALE ALCOIiOLIC BEVER~G~S I~~ A IODf;E on p~operty
described as a rectangularly-shapeci pArcel of lend consisttng of approxlmately 3.~ acres
hav(ng a fronkagn of ~pproximetely ~5~ feet on thc~ north siJe of Ball Road~ having a
maximum depth of approximately 23t~ feet, bcin~ 1~cAte~t approxlmetcly ~+1~) fect east of tt~e
centerline of State Colleye Boulevarcf~ and further descrtbed os ?.13~ EasC fiall Road.
Property presently cisssiflc~l CL (COHMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONC.
There was no ane indicatin~~ their preseni,c In opposltion to subJect request, and elthough
ttic stAff report tA the Planniny Comrnis~lon ~rtP~I AUtal14L ?.H~ 197H was not read at the
public hearing, it Is refcrre~ to and madc a part ~f the minutes.
Stanford Shaw, 12Q0 North Mafn Street~ Santa Ana~ statr.cl this conciittonA) use permit was
issued two years ago subJr.ct to revte~w at the end of two years to determine wl~ether or not
the use wc~uld create a nuisance~ and reported he knows of no complaints; tha[
unfortun~tely the notice cor,c:erning the two-yeAr rev(ew wAS sent to sam~one who has left
the lodge and they h~d nat receivecl notice. N~ stated they had revlewed the staff report
and are (n agrecment with it; thAt they have a lf1-year lease (8 years remafning) and ~~~e
requesting thAt the use be c~rante~i for that lsnqth ~~f zime.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSE~.
Chairman Herbst indicatecl he s3w nothinq w ronn with th(s use and pofnted aut if a nuisance
is created in the future, the conditional use perrnit cAn be rescind~d.
Lommissioner David state~•~ he agreeci, but the fact. that the nattce wes mailed to the wrong
person dl~i not relieve the Lo~iqe of the responsibility of keeping up with thelr
commitmr.nts~ and he was taking excep[lon to that statement.
Mr. Shaw stated he was not incltcatinq the fault was wlth any~ne but themselves and the
notices are still beinq sent to the wronc; person and they are takinr~ the necessary steps
to correct thbt situation nuw.
It was noted that the Planniny Director or his authorized representative has determir~ed
that the proposed ~+roJect falls within the cfefinition of Categorical Exemptions~ Class 1,
as defined in paragraph 2 of thc City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidelines
and is, therefore~ categorically exempt from tt~e requirement to prepare an EIR,
ACTION: Cammissioner David offered Resolution No. PC7"-2~0 and moved for -ts passage and
acTap-tTon~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby gran[ Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1~7~~ for a period of eight years, tu expire December 31, t~t;6~
since ttte exisCing use has had no adverse impact o~ the ~urrounding area; and subject to
Interdepartmental CommittE~e recommer~dations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutinn was p~ssed by the following vate:
AYCS: CQMMISSIONfRS; BARNES~ DFIVIU, HERtiST~ JOHNSON. Y.Ih~G
NOES: COMMI 5510~lERS: NQ~JE
ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: LIrJN~ TOLAR
8I28/78
~8-6y7
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY HLANNING CQMMISSION~ AUGUST 28~ 1978
(TEM N0. 1U PUBLIC NEARING. 01JNFR; KLN~iETI~ KALLMAII~ 17~+~
'~~ICAL EXEMPTI~N-CI.ASS 1 uest Lfncoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA ~2t~1. Petitior.or
~~~~-~ ,,, ~ reyucsts pc~misslon t~ GSTABl.1511 A MOTf1RCYClf SALES
ANU ItLP~\IR FACILITY an prnperty describ~d ~+s a
r~ctangularly-shapeci percel of I~nd cQnsisting of
a~proximately 0.9 ecrc t~aving a frunt~~e of spproxlmet~ly 13Z fcet on th~ north sidc of
Llncoln Av~~un~ havin,y a meximum derth of approxima+tely 2~~ feet~ !~eing l~ceted approxl-
metely 522 feet west of the canterline~ ofresentlysclasslfled CLr(COMMEP,CIALbE'LIMITCD))
and 1743 west Lincoln Avenue. Property p
ZQNE..
7her~ was no one indicating th~~ir presence in opposition to sub.)ect request. and althouyh
the steff ~eport to the Planning Commisslon dated August 2C~ 19'J8 wos not rcad at the
publit het~rlnq, it Is referre~i to and made ~ part of 11~N minutc~.
The eppllcant was not present.
Commisstoner Kfng u,~Ceet~o tl~e~hcurs,ofeapcr~tionAhand pointed'outrthcspetitianer ~5 thr.
applicant had stip
relocating becAUSe of re~~evelopment.
THE PUBLIC IIEARING WAS CLOSE:U.
It was noted that the Planr~inq Dinc~tor ~r his authorizcd representative has deteClassdi
that the proposed project falls within the deflnltlon of Categorical Exemptlo~s, .
as defined ~~fore~9cate~oriG81~Y ex~mPtffror~hthe requi~emen~~tolp et~areeanrF~puid~lines
and is~ th~ e ~
ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resoiution No. PC7Fi-2~1 ar~d rr~ved for its passaqe and
a apt on~ that the Anaheim Cliy Planning Comnission does hcreby grant Petitlon for
Cnnditional Use Perm(c No. 1f37f3~ subject to the conditl~n that the hours of operation
shall be 10:00 a.m. to 5:0~ p.rn., Monday through Frtday~ witl~ four or five employees, and
subJect to Interdcpartmenta) Committ~e recommendations.
On rot) call, the foreyoing resolucion was passed by th~ following vote:
AYES: GOMMISSI~~:%R5: BARNES, UAVID~ HERElST~ JONNSON, Y,ItIG
-iQ~S: COMMI55IGNEP~S: NONE
ABSENT: COMMtSSIONERS: LINt~~ 70LAF
ITEM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEAa1N~. OWNEP~: CLAREPJCE MEDOOCK, 1428
~'R~~GORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 East Katella Avenue, Anahef~~ ~Oran~e2~CA 92669.
ODE E U MENT MICHAEL VA.LEN, 7331 G~ov~wood~ 9~
CONDl~'IOt~AL USE PERMIT N0. 18:0 Petttioner requesCS permission to ESTASLISI~
OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BUSES WITt~ WAIVER OF NINIMUM
NUMBER OF PAP.K{NG SPACES on property describcd
as a rectangularly-st~aped parcel af land ~consisttng of appraximately 0.5 acre having a
frontege of approximately 56 feet o~ the west side of Mountain Vlew Avenue, having a
maximum depth of approximately 360 feet~ being loc~ted approximately 360 feet south of
the centerltne of Katella Way~ and further described as 1a29 South Mountain Vtew Avenuc.
Property presently classified RS-A-1~3,00~ (RESIDENTIAL!AGRICULTURAL) ZO~IE.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request, ahd although
the staff rcport to the Planning Commtssion dated August 2~. 1978 was not read at the
public hearing. it is referred to and made ~ part of the minutes.
~./28/78
MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANt~IN~G COMMIS510~1~ AUGUST 28~ 197~ 7A-6~a
E~lR ~ATCGORICAL EXENPTIUN-CLA~S 1_ AND CONDITIQNA4 USL PCRMIT N0. 1A8~) (continucd)
It wes noted the applicant was n~t present, and Annikr- Se~ntalAhti. Assl~~tant Qirector f~r
Xonl~g, explained the appltcAnt probebly felt the proJPCt had been suffictently dlscussed
by the Plennlnq Commissi~n ~~rcvlously.
THE PUBLIC NCAitIIJG W~S CL~rC~.
It wes nated that che P1ennlny Dlrector or his aUtt,ort,.e<i represcnletive has determtned
Chat the proposed proJect fslis wlthin the definltlon of Catego~~ice) Excmpttons~ Clt~as 1~
as deflned tn pa~agr~ph 2 ~f the C(ty nf Anahelm Environmental Impact Report Gutdeltnes
and (s~ therefore, cate~taricAlly exempt from th~ requtremc~nt t~~ ~repare an EII'.
ACTION; Canmissicm er Ktnq offcrcd n motf~n, secon~ed by Cortxhissloncr D~vld and MOTI~N
CAt~t ED (Car~nlsstoners Llnn and Tolar beinc~ absent)~ th~t thc Anahelm City Planninq
Commission does hereby grAnt thc request for waiver of minirn~~m numbcr of pnrkin~ spaces
due to the sizP and irre<~ular sltinpe uf the property ~ind duc to the nature of the u4e for
storaye of buses with ltttle In-nn~l-~ut trAffic.
Commiss(oner King offere~i ReSOlution No. PC78-202 ~nd moved for its ~ass~qe and adoptlon~
that the Anahelm C(ty Plan~ing Commission Jaes hereby grant Pctition far Condlt(onal Use
Permtt No. t$II0~ subJect to Int~:rdepartmental Committee recoimrx~nciation~,.
Commissioner David asked staff if Councl) Folicy :tt~~ renardinn l•rAffic si~na) assessment
would apply in th(s case~ anci Annika Sa~talahti replted that apparently it dtd not apply.
On roll cali~ the fore~~otng resolut(~n was p~ssed by r~ie follc~w(nq v~te:
AY~S: CONMISSION~RS: 8/1RNE5~ DAV10~ HER~ST~ JOHNSJ'!~ Y,ING
NQES: COMMI SS I ONERS : NOt~E
ABSCNT: COMM I SS I O~~ERS t L I I~N ~ TQLAR
COMMISSIOt~ER TOLAR ENTERED THE GOUNCIL G-iAMBER.
ITEM N0. 12 PUHLIC HEAR~NG. OWNEP,S: ALLE-~ J. AND DONI~A L.
EIR CATEGORiCAI EX£NPTION-CLASS 1 L~I~G, ~2g ~~uth State Collene Boulevard~ Anahetm~
41AIVER COQE REQUIREMENT CA 92t',n6. AGENT: TNEO FARIS~ 131 Jamaita Circle~
~ . 1L'81 Placentia, CA 92f~70. P~titioner rr.quests permtssion
to ESTI,BL~SM At~ AUTOM091LE DETAII SHOP WITH WAIVER
OF MININI"~ Nl1M8ER OF PARKItdG SPACES on praperty
described as a rectan,yularly-shapeJ parcel of laend consistiny of a~pnroxirnately 0.2 acres
havtng a frontage of approximately y0 feet on tne east sidc of Anaheim Boulevard~ havtng
a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet~ betng located appraximAtely 2+i3 feet north of
thc centerli~c of North Street~ and further described as ~~16 North Anaheim Boulevard.
Property presently classifted CG (COMMERCIAI, GEI~C~'AL) ZONE.
There were four persons indicating their prewence in opposition ta subJect request~ and
Annika Santalahtt. Assistant Oirector for Zoning~ reacf the staff report dated Auc~ust 28~
1~78r to the Planning Commission.
Theo Faris~ agent. statecl he agreed with the staff report. He stated his dauc~hter had
drawn th~ sketches of the property and she fafled to shav all Che parking In the rear for
five automobiles on the lot iCself~ wtth paralle) parking for two to the side, plus
parking for six or seven vehicles inside; that there will be no ~~etail buslness, ar~d he
will be pickirty up and delivering the cars himself,
8/28/78
M I NUTE S~ ANAIlE i M C! TY PI.ANN I N(; COMM I 5S I UN ~ IIUGUST 28 , 1'~')~i 7~-(,q~
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-Cl.A5S 1 AND CONUITIOIUIL USC P:.RMIT "10, 18~1 (continued)
GhAirman Ilerbst pc~lnted aut tl~~~re would ne no pnr6:inc~ on thc strects and ASkr.d the h~urs
of npcretton~ ~rid Mr. Farls rPpl li~d tl~ac thc hours of c>perAtic~n wi l l bc t~:0~ A.m, to 6:00
p.m. ~ f i ve days d~Ner.k,
Jlm Palmer(, I1~ Mllls Drlve, Anahcim~ stnted he ht+s heen An Nnahr.im resid~nt fUr 3~ years
~n~i at this acidress for 2~i years, lie ~c~inted aut a variAnce hid bePn sougf~t for a repelr
faclllty some years beck ana was d~~nled by bc~[h the Planninc~ Commisslon and Lhe Clty
Councll after the environirxntal inK~~~ct studtes indicatr..d t~dverse effects on tl7r.
neighboring community. He st~itecl tl~at n~~~ ns In the prev(ous si;uation, thetr s~le
obJeetion was to this business not br..in~1 able to prr.~vldr_ fidequ~te parklny far business
purpases. lie stateJ after thc Expert Autc~ RepAly d+:ni~l~ they h~ve gotten Frazir.r
Automobile U~holstery with strec~t ~~~rkinq and a loY of alley parkiny~ resulting in damage
to the f r adJ acen t res i clen t i a 1 p ron~• r ty . Ne s ta te~ th~~y have hod to ca 1 1 thc Anahe i m
Police Department on threr ~cwsi~~ns br.cau,e of th~ ~lley parkfng; thAt there is another
bus i nes s~ a bnr ad; acen t to thr. E n~~ l i sh b~l,e ry ~ wf, i cM w~~s rrcen t l y den t ed expans l on
because of thc lack of p~rkin~~. ~Ic stater.l ~n~hcl~n ls tn the mi~ist ef a larc~e improvcment
program wh(r.h inciud~s t~~is are~~ ~~nd this business is s~eking a parkin~ varlance. Ne
stated some of the rc~~~nts ~n~ buslncsses have 5pent considereb~e money rnd labor to
impr~ve thcir propert~ s anci f.•)c tt was ~ot fair for Lhose who have trled to adhere to
Anehe(m's improver~~~t rq~~f~n~ to be asked ta bcar ths brunt of the extra strect parking~
when even nc~w it i~ -1 tr~ !,;,ve curnpany without ~~ parkin~ prohlem. He stated there are
residents whr~ SC1~ ~~`~ f~r strect s~rcepinc~, but who havc t~ go out and hose and sweep the
cu~bs and gulter~ u,~~i~ because thr. Thurs~iay street swecper cannot reach them.
Wllbur Farnell, a~ ~+csrth Street~ Anaheim~ state~l the reason hc was opposed to this
detail shop is -~ :~+,.: ~•.-e is an exictinu detail shop about 100 feet from his door, and
they run four ~-~rs i~,ring the cfay and he cannot hear his [elevisi~n, and thcy work
unti 1 G;00 p ;~:•• r and the: smel 1 fron~ the steam cleaner is very obnoxi~us. He
stated the bia- ~~~y dus~t from the c~rinders Is a) l over t!he sidewalks anJ they h-{ve
contacted th,: . ~•, iution Control Board,and the Anaheim Zonfng Enforcement Ctfficer has
bee~ out se~e~~ ~-~•t:s~ anJ when he comes down, they t~ke their buffers inside~ out in a
few days they •=fi•F ~h,.m out again; that they do nc-t have adcnuate ventf lation and tF~cy
have promfge:: ~~ ~~, cbre of these prnblems~ but never do. He stated he hias this
operatton with~T ~ feet of his front door ~nd now subJect rPquest would be for a stmilar
opsration ~~t ~4< ~ack door,
Chairman Nerbs. ~c-ced if work bcing dnne inside bothered him~ and Mr. Parnell replied that
it dees unl~« r~++ry close the door. Ht referred to h{s neighbor'~ house which is within
3y feet of the ~.~ject property an~i the noisn level at his property. Ne invited che
Commission to c~e to ~is house and spend one hour during the dAy and determine whether or
not they r.o.t~ ;oler< e the noise.
Paul Hallidy, 114 Mills Drive~ Anah~eim, state~ the applicant had indicated he could put
five or six c,ars lnside the building and chat I~e had been working on automobiles on Sunday
anu the best he could do wes one Volkswagen. Ne po(nted Aut one-third of the building is
being occupied fo~- stortnq Antiyue furniture; that ihe petitioner had beer workiny on
Sundays and the door was lef[ apen ~nd tl~e dust and noise wer•e terrible. Ne asked why
tfi ey ar•e dainq business already at tfiis location with the metal grinders, and pointed out
he did not think metal grind~rs were a part of det~ilin~,.
Virginia Palmeri, 11i, Mills Orive~ Anaheim, indicated she had taught in Anaheim for many
years, but is contemplattn,y selling their property and lnvit~~d the Commissioners to come
out and take a look at the area. She stated she has asked thc: st~eet sweepers to sweep
the alley and they tell her they cannot do it because they have to aet to the A~aheim
5tadium. She felt this arca has been fnrgotten and felt is there are any rnore businesses ~
8/2~/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 28~ 19;18 78-100
EIR CATEGORICAL EX~MPTION-CLASS 1 ANb CONDITiONAI USE PEftMIT ~~U. 1881 (continued)
with furt-es and e~tra trafflc~ she will defini~~ly scll. She Indicated she exp~cted to be
able to livc in Anahafm when shc roti~ed~ but not at 11~ Mtlls Dr(va; that there ar~s a lot
mora ambulances and enxsrgency vel~icles in the arer~ t-~an previ~usly and they w~ulcl not be
abl~ to get by the cars on Mtlls Ur1ve. She IndicAtPd many t(mPS shr. hAS not be~n able to
get aut of her drlveway becruse someone has poo~ly parked.
Mr. Far15 replled to the refer~ance concernl~q steam cleanir~g and stated h~ dtci not plan to
do any steam cleanin~ at t~~is location; thst hc plens to fiave on~ prrson with a buffe~ and
two people using suap and water~ and there wlll be ve ry Ilttlc n~ise or dust fron ane
buffer. lie indlceted he felt the lucation was ldeal far whAt t~e~ wanted t~ do and wc~s
surprtsed to see the opposition and did not sec tx~w this use would dls~upt the restdents.
THF. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL~SED.
Chairman Herbst asked about the yrinder referred to~ and Mr. Faris repitr.d his snn-in-law
had worked on h(s ~wn vehicle lnside the bu(ldinc~ usin~ a qrinder. I~e st~ted there is a
place boarded ~ff in thP bullding a~h~:re the lancilord's son stares antic~ues, but he wtil be
moving and tlie whole butldinc~ will be occupled by hlm. He stateJ he had been at this
1 ocak i on s t nce the 1 1 th of June and the,re had been no outs t<fe work othcr than pa I nt i nc~ ~ ~nd he
has worked on his own cars.
Commissioner Davlc! askeci ebout the fumes reFerred to~ and Mr. Faris replied the fumcs
mentloned were not from his operation but were fum~s caused by the steaxn cleaner at the
exlsting detail ope~ation.
Mr. Palmeri explained tl~at in thc detail business they put somethtng solublG on thp engine
and then steam clean and paint it~ and tfiere are paint fumes because tt~cy do this wlth tf~e
da~r open 15~ feet fram his front doo~, and now thcy r~re proposing another one 150 feet
from hts back door. Nc stated concerning the buffers, there Is ta high-squeal pitch to any
buffer~ and again inviCed the Commissi~n to ccxne and observe.
Mr. Faris explained he plan5 to use the carwash at Lo Palma and Ilarhor which has a high-
pressure hose to clean the engines an-J there will be no me~ss or odo~s at thts locatta~n.
Commissioner David askcd Nr. Faris to explain what type of detailing work he wil~ be doing
at this locatlon,
Mr. Faris explained that first chey wi11 be using an electrical buffer with a pad with
compound on the entire car to cle~~n the ~aint and th~y wash the interior and the trunk
wlth soap and water ancf other clesners; that the chrome is cleaned wlth comp~und or
san~paper~ anJ~ finally, they use a liquid wax on tf~e entire car and then tt ls wiped off
with a cloth~ an~ that the char~e is approximat~ly S35 per car and the wark is done insld~
the building.
Commissioner Uavld asked about che ventilation~ and Mr. Farts replied t~~ac there are
ventilators in the building~ and someone from the audience asked if there will be fi~ters,
and Mr. Faris replied that there will be no filters but there are winclows for air and also
two large doors.
Commissioner Tolar asked if the u~ncerns and problems these residents are having are from
his operaCion~ and Mr. Faris replied that they are not from h~s operatlon becmuse he has
not done any work other than pain°inq~ cleaning~ layiny *.ile, etc.
Cummis:;ioner Johnson stated most of the complaints appear '.~ be from the other operatton
and asked Mr. "arnell where he lived and he explained he tived at 115 East North Street~
8/28/78
a
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION~ AUGUST ZA, 1y78 7A-701
EIR CATEGOiiICAL EXCMPTION•CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N4. 1a81 (cont(nucd)
across the street frain thc convo~ted service station behtnd the liquor stor~ t+t the corner
of Narth Stre~t and Anel~cim aoulev~tird. He staled the dtrt referred to Is cominq from th~
other detail shap, but thot tf appraved~ tl~ry wauld hav~ two bus(nes~es~ an~l he dld not
feel they could talerete ~ny m4re nulsanc~s and thc In~pecta~ cennot serr, to uet the othe~
bus (ness stra ( ghtened aut, and he was cance ~necl the sAme th i ng wc~ul d heppa!n wl th th 1 s
operatlon. He stet~~f the dust is from thc buffer and they are suppos*d to have filters at
the other locatton.
ChAI rman Herbst state~i i t appe~~rs the other hus i ness must be doing body repai r~ t~nd Mr.
Parnell repfded tliat thcy are strictly doinq detail work.
Ghal rman Herbst aske~ staff to check tnto the corrq~leints re~~arciing the other detat 1
operatlon. He st~ted hr_ woulci not want to penalixe this gentlemen tor thc wrongdoinc~s of
enother man's operatlon. Ne stt+ied if this c~nditin~~l use permit Is ~pprovod~ thcrc
would b~ certain con~itions he must livr. up cc.
Commissloner Uavid explained the petilioner has ~~Iven testirrony that there will be no
steam cieaning~ and asked if he would cansldcr that reASOnablc~ arsd Mr. Parnell stated
that wauld be reasonable if the gentleman would Iive up to his word an~ put ln filtered
vents to catch the dust ancl chanye the filte~s regularly an~i do all the work with the shop
elose:d.
Commissioner David asl:c~1 if filteriny wss a cade rec~uirement and (t wes noted there are
certain alr pollut(on regulations involved,
Cortmisstoner Johnson asl.e~ (f the buildiny h~s do~blc doors in the back~ and Mr. Far(s
repliecl (t does~ and Cortmtssioner Johnson stated it is reasonable to ~ssume with double
doo~s that they wauld probably work, with the doors open~ espectally in werm weather.
Chairman Herbst asked about the possibillty of filtering the vents~ anci Mr. Farls replied
he thought th~t would be Impossible unless the rear dour is closed. Ne st~ted ic wc~uld oe
Impossible to buff a car and woul~l he too warm inslde witii the door closed,
Chairman Herbst referred to the possibility of an tnterlor booth simllar to a patnt booth,
an~i Mr. Faris feit it would be too prohtbitive; he did not think anyone could work in a
~oom bufftng a car because ic is strenuaus work, tle stated he could have some fans (~side
end close the back door when they buff cars and eliminate the dust that way~ and Cha1r•m,an
Nerbst ~sked if the vents c:ould be filtered wlth some type screenins, such as FiberglAS on
a heater~ and Mr. Fatis replied that might be a possibility.
Comnlssioner Qarnes stated she felt the res~dents were also concerned about the noise
emenattny from the buffers since apparently the other detail shop has four buffers.
Mr. Faris stated the o~her shop details approxima•.:ly 20 cars a day and he will probably
flnish f(ve cars per day, if he is lucky.
Commissioner Tolar as~eJ if the o[her shop does painting, and Comnisstoner Barnes asked if
the petittoner ptanned to paint engines after they have been steam cleancd~ and Mr. Faris
indicated he plans to use a black lacquer paint~ probabty from a spray can~ on the l~te
model cars and would not be paintinq valve covers, etc.~ since he plans to do mostly lat~
model cars. Ne stated he would be detailing new automobiles from various car dealerships.
Commissioner Barnes asked if an air compr~ssor wauld be used~ ~nd he replied there is an
alr compressor at the location n~w~ but it does not belong to him and he will not E~e usinq
it.
8/28/78
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMIS510N, AUGUSY 28~ ~978 78-702
EIR CATEGORICAL ~XEHPTiQN-CLASS 1 ANQ CONDITIOMAL USE PERMIT N0, 1881 (continued)
Commlsslonor Tolsr asl:ed thc h~urs of operatlon~ and Mr. Faris re~lied thry would br from
8:00 a.m. to 6;OU p.m.~ five d~ys a wcek.
Commlssioner Johnson st~nted this are~ is c~ transitlonal araa wlth mixed uses, both
cc~rxixrcfal and reai~lential ~ and fr.lt tt~is Is a queStion~ble use in this zone.
Mr. Faris stated h~ dlci not thln~: thls uR~ would crr.ate tl,ls much ~nxlety. or he would not
have applted for it, but he hes already r~~nted the butldinq .~nd thought It would be a good
locatlon. He stated hc dtd not pl~n to go Into a n~w locatlon and ceusP the nelyhbors eny
unrest.
Comnisalaner Barnes stated she couid yo alony with this request if the doors are closcd
and the vents ere filtered t~ eliminate the dust an~l if he useci spray cans for pa(ntiny,
and ls only do(n~~ five or six cars a Jav,
Cammissioner Tolar asked the len~~th of the leasc~ ~~nd Mr. Far(s repiied It is a month-to-
month lease currently, hu[ he ptans on ,~ two-ye,ir leasc with on optton..
Comm(ssioner Y.iny d(d not feel the petitionnr cauld work wlth the doors closed~ and
Commlssloner aarnes stated ht would only have t~ closr, the doors ftvc or s(~: timts a day
when he buffs a car.
Mr. Farls Indtcatecl tie would try to opernte with the doors closed and if It does not work,
then he wlll have to look for another location.
Chairman Herbst pointed out Mr. Faris has made ~ commitrn~nt to get alona wlth the
neighbors And if tlie use bc,thers th~~ neiqhbor~~ the pcrmit c~~uld be r~scinded at any time.
Commlssioners David~ Bernes and Tolar askecf st.3ff to check int~~ the ocher deteil shop's
operatlons as suon as ~USSI~IE.
Commissioner Barnes felt tf the. petltioner st(pulates to all the :ondittons and there are
no fumes, dust ar noisc~ tt~en it will not harm anyone. anci Commissioner Jof-~nson agreed and
felt w(th thc amount of citizens' fear~ a tirr~ limit should he incl~~ded~ mnd Commissioner
Barnes felt a six-month tirr~e Iimtt woulci be appropriate.
Chatrman Nerbst suggestc~ the neiyhbors should dtscuss any problems with the petitloner.
Mr. Ilalli~y (ndicated he had livecf at 114 Mills Drive for 14 years and t'~is one building
t~as had rr~ny probferns because ~f the uses allawed, and any noise in the baaildi~g is heard
since the prcvailiny winJs are always sauthwest to north~ast and any spray(ng or noises
come across the alley. He stated tl~ey w;~uld like to sre a pet store or sompthing simtiar
go ln. but that the uses allowed have always sremed to be a~stomotive oriented. fie stated
even the individuals who ran the antiqu~ shop had tepalrp: buse, in the back.
Commissloner Tolar stated the Commission is tryiny to put -estricttons o,~ the use to
prevent these problems and if thcre are problems~ th~ netghbors should let tne City staff
knav.
Mr. Hallidy stated he did not thinR the petitloner coutd operate his business w(th the
doors ciosed.
Cormniasioner Johnson discussed the wall and pointed out it is 6G feet f~om the b~ilding to
the alley and 22 feet acress the alley, and another 20 feet to the house (over 100 feet)
from tt~e house to the building. Ne felt this is a dtfficult situation with the petitioner
8/28I78
MINUTES, ANAl1EIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSI(1N~ AUGUST 28, 1978 7~-703
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEI~PTION•CIASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0. 1$81 (continued)
trying to make a Iiving~ and with all the clairr~ thAt the Ctty stops people from bufiding
or maktng A ltvlrig ~nd yet making the citizens ha~~,y, Ne fe:it tf the petitloner bends and
the cittzens are cooperative ond hrln~ thetr c~xnplatnts to hin, first~ it ts w~rth ~ trl~nl.
Commissloner Barnes stated she belteved the {~Atitioncr wc-uld do eve rythinq possible to
kecp the nolsc and dust down and if hc does nat, she suggested the neiqhbors should talk
w(th him~ and polnt~d out the matt^..r wouid be revlewe~l In stx months.
It wes noted thnt the Plannin~ Director or hfs authorized representAtive h~s d~terminsd
that the ~~roposed proJr.ct falls wtthin tl~~: definition of l:atcyorlcel Exemptlons~ Class t,
as deflncd In paragraph 2 of the City of llnahcim Envlronrt-e+nta) Impact Report Guidelines
and Is~ thcrefore~ cateqorically exen~t fro~n the requirement t~ prepare rn EIR,
AGTION: Commisstoner k~ernes ~ffcre~ a mutlc~n~ sr~onJr_d ~y Conrnissloner DavIJ ~nd MOTIOt~
CA R ED (Commissloner Linn b~in~~ ~~hsent and CommisslonPr Y."rng votinc~ no), that the Anaheim
Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby grent the r~quest f~r watver of minirrwm number of
parking spaces, s(nce the use does not q~nerate the nced for the requtrc:d spaces and the
petitloner w(1) be detail(nr~ only five or slx automnbiles p~pr day and w(11 pick up and
deliver them.
Commissioner Tol~r referre<i t~+ c~mments concerntng somec+ne working at the l~cation durin~a
the weekend and statecJ hc h~-~s a problem if tI~P owner of the buliding 1s ~Ilawin~ his
family to work on weekends~ an~i ~iid not f~el that should be the Intent of thr approval of
the cond(t~ona) use permit; tf~at husiness is to be conducted fr~m 8:~~ A.m. to 6:0~ p.m.~
five days A weck~ ard the intent is that ~11 work sh~uld be d~~n~ inside the building
during those hours.
Mr. Farts indicated he would he doing clcan-up work nn Saturda~/s~ but there wiil be no
automobile detailing cione on weekends.
Commissloner Barnes offered Resolution Na. PC7'~-203 and moveci for tts passage ana
~doptlo~~ that thc Anaheim Ci[y Pianninq Conmission dnes herc:hy grant Petition for
Conditional Use P~rmit No. 1881 for d six-month period~ subJect to the petitioncr's
sCipulatio~s that all work will be danc inside the butldinc~ and the hours oF operation
will bc 8:OU a.m. to G:00 p.rn.~ Mond~y throuhh Friday. and that no automobile detail(ng or
autemotlve wark w111 t,e done at any other timr:; that the doors ~shall he closed du~ing
buff~ng of all vehicles and filters wil) be installed on the venting ~ystem if feasible;
and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recammendatlans.
On roll call~ the fore~olny resolution was passed by the follc,wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BRR-1ES~ DA1liD, HERDST~ JOH~~SOrI, TOLAR
NOES: CQhWI5SI0NER5: KING
ABSENT: COMMtSSIONERS: LINN
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ presentec: the right to appeal the Planntng Commtssion's
dstiston to anyone unhappy wlth the Planning Commtsston's deciSion within 22 days.
The Commission discussed the deta(1 operation across the sr.reet fron~ subject property and
(t was noted Annika Santalahti would discuss this with the Zoriin9 Enfarcement Officer and
bring a report back to the Commtssion at the next meet(na.
aiza~~e
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSiON~ AUr,uST 28~ 197t~
78-70ti
I TEM N~w0~.' ~i pU51. I r, HEnN I NG. OWNER ~ ALA1~A-REY HOMES ,
~~IITECORICAL CXENPTIO~~-CLl155ES 2 6 11 I'~G.~ P. p. gox ~~00, LagunA Hilis~ CA q26;3.
QNDI ONAL US~ E M N0. ~2 AfENT; J-~MES F. ApB~TT, P. 0. 6ax 2131~
Anahe 1 i~~ CA 97f?~1~ ~ pQt I t I oner reques ts
permt ss lon to I Nf.REASf. TfIE D I5Pl.AY AREA OF A
HILLBOARD ~n property descrlbed As s rr.r,tengulerly-sheped parce) of lend c~nststing nf
epproxlmately tl.!; acre locAtecl ot .~~: sAUthK~st cc~rne~ of Llncoln Avenue end Euclid
Street~ having epproximate front~ges ~f 1!;~ feet ~n tt~e south s(de of Lincotn Avenue a~d
153 faet ~n the east si~ie of Eucltd Strec~~ and Purther descrtbed es 1f1?. South EuGlid
SCrcet. Property pres~ntly classlflc~l Cl (COMHERCIAL~ I.IMITE.D) And Ctl (CQMl~ERCIAL~ HEAVY)
T.ONES.
There was no one incllr.etlnq their presr.nce in opposltlon t~ s~ihJect request~ and alchough
t~e staff report to thP Planning Commisslon dotcd Auqust 2~~ 197t? wAS not read at tha
public heartng~ !t (s referred to and mudc A p~rt ~f thP minutes.
It was nutea the ap~~llcAnt was not present.
TtiE PUSLIC ~'~.ARINf, WA5 CLOSEf).
Commissloner Tolar indict~t~rJ hc felt this request was unreason~blc rnd he was ready to
offcr a rrsolutfon for denial.
It was noted that thc Planntng ~irector or Fiit authorized ~epresentative hAS determtned
that the propo~cd praJe~t falls wlthin the definition of Categorica) Exempt(ons~ Classes 2
and il~ as deftned in paragraph 2 of thc C(ty af Anaheim Environmentnl Impact Repart
Guidelines and fs~ therefore~ cateqc~rically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION; Crnrmisslonrr Tolar offered Resoluttan t~o, PC78-2~4 nnd rt~vec~ for its pasSa~e and
a~optTon~ that xhe A~ahetm Ctty Plann(ng Commisslan daes hereby deny Petition for
Condttional Use Perrnit P~a. 15~2 on the basis tf~at tl~e size ~~f the prop~stci sign ts
unreasonable.
On roli call~ the fore~~ofng resolution was passc~ by the follc~wtn~ vate:
AYES: COM~11SS10NEP~S: SARiJCS~ DAVIU~ HEROST~ JONNSOtI, KINf~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMiSS1QNERS: PIQNE
ABSEtiT: COMM I SS I ONERS : L I N1~
Jack White~ Deputy Cfty Attorncy, read the ri9ht tn appenl the Planning Cammisslon's
decision wtthin Z2 doys to anyone unhappy with the Planning Commission's decision.
ITEFt N0. 11~ PUBLIC NEARIri~~ p1~/NER: COLLINS LIMIT~D PARTNER-
~1~E~~ICAL EXE:MPTION-CLASS 1 SIiIP~ 1QJ% West Efall Road, An~heim~ CA 92$02.
C~NUITIONAL USE PERMI7 N0~1 3 AGENT: L015 M. RAHO~JT~ 2516 Ames Avenue, Anahc:m,
CA 9280G. ~eti tionPr rE:quests Gtl-SALE 6EER AND
WINC IN a~. EXISTING RESTAUR/1riT an prr,perty described
as an Irre,yulerly-shapeJ parc~-1 of land conslsting of approximately 1.1 acre located at the
southwest corner of Broadway and Adams Street~ having approximate frantages c~f 4(? feet on
the south side af Broadway ~ncl 220 feet on the west side of Adams Strcet~ and further
described as 151k West Broadway. Property presently classified Ml (I~JDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED)
ZONE.
8/28/78
~ ,.
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ At1GUST ~8~ 197~
7a•7o~
EIR f,ATF.CORICAL EXEMPTIOM-ClASS 1 11ND CONOITIO~dA~ USC PCRMlT t~0. 188~ (conttnucd)
There was no one Indlcating thelr pr~sence tn op~ositlon to sub{r.ct request, and althaugh
the staff report to thc PlanniingULa ~~~~!^~~~~~L of~the minutes~ W~~ ^ot roed at the
public heariny~ it ts refcrre t
Lols Remonc~ agent, IndlcAted their desirc to zell bcer and win.r, at the exlsti~~g
restaura~t; thot Ct~cy a~reed with thc stAff report and they woulcf lt~:e permisston t~
~emein opon unCil ~tQ~ p.m on occestnn.
THE PU9LIC fItARING WAS CLOSCD.
Commtssioner Tol~r askecl the lenyth af tlie lease~ anci Ms. Rdmont replleci twa years.
It was notod thnc thc Pl.innin~~ Dirr.ctor or tiis autf~orized raprescntot(ve h~s determin~d
that the prop~sed proJec.t fal ls wl thin thc dcf (ni tl~n of G+-t~n~rtcnl Exernptions, Class 1.
as dofined ln para~ra~,l~ 2 of th~ City of Anehelm Environmcntal ImpAtt Re~ort Guidellnes
and Is~ thercfore~ cat~r~mrlc~-lty ex~mpt from the requlrement t~ ~+reparc an EIR.
ACTION: Canmiss(oncr Tolar offerccl Resolutlon No. PC7u-2~~ and movcd for its passage and
a'c~op[ron~ that the Annhelm City Planniny Comnission Jocs herehy grant PetlZlan for
Gondttianal Use Permlt No. 1~'~3 for two yeArs~ subJect t~ revlew; suhject to the
petitioner's sttpulAtl~n thnt th~ hours of op~ratlon sh.~ll be from l0:0~; A.m. t~ ~:OA
p.m.; and sub)ect to Interdepartmental COmmiktr.e reconmendrtions.
On roll call~ the foregolnq resolution was pessect by th~ follawin~~ vote:
AYFS: COMMISSION!'RS: BARr~E.a~ DAV10~ IIERHST~ JOF~rI5011~ KINf,, 70LAR
NOES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: NOIIE
ABSEIJT: Ct1MMl55IONCZS: LINN
Commissloner Tolar pain[c~~ o~~t fi(s concern for these. typc operatior, serving heer and wine
adJace~t to resi~ientiat areas.
ITEH N0, ly PUOLIC fIEA~'ING. OWNf.R: EQUITEC°77 REAL ESTATE
Elit NE I E DELLARATIbN I~~VESTQRS, 3732 Mt. Olablo Bouleva~•d~ Lafayette~
D 0 USE M 0. 1f3u4 CA 94~49. AGENT: MARK~ E. BOTICN. i426 East
Katclla Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928Q5• Petltfoner
requests permission to ESTABLISN A SEMI-ENC~OSED
SANDWiCH SIIOP on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisting
of approximately 11.8 acres having a frontage of approximately 1022 feet on the south
side of Katella Avenue~ havinq a maximum depth of appruximately 507 feet~ being located
approximately GGd fect west of thc centerline ot Statc College Boulevard~ end fur~her
described as 12E6 East Katella Avenue. Property prese~tly classifie' `1L (INDUSTaIAL~
L I MI TED) ZQtJE.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppositlo~ to subJsct request, and although
th~ staff report to the Planning Cortxnlssion dated Auyust 2~, 19')8 was ~ot read at the
public henring~ it is referreJ ta and made a part of the minutes.
Marko Botich, agent, sCated their desire Is to open a sandwich shop and they have reviewe d
the condttlons in the staff report and aqree with them; that rPgatding the referance in
the staff report to the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.~ Monday tr~rough
Friday~ he indicated this was the information given to the staff, but asked the procedur~
if th~y wlshed to cha~ga their hours in the Puture.
8/28/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC CQMMISSION~ AUGUST 29~ 1978 78-7~b
EIR NEGIiYIYE OECLARATION AND CONp1710NAL USE PERMI T NO.. 1884 (continued)
Anntka Sontalahtl~ As~,istant Dircctor for Zonin,q~ axplained thet generr~lly the hours of
ope~atlon are included in tho resolutlon es a ati ~ul~tton of the petitiuncr unless ther~
1s some maJor concern~ and thr.n It 1.; (ncluc~ed as e condltlun, If It Is (nclu~ied As e
finding~ the proce~iurG would be consideration by cha Planning Commisstan throunh reports
and racorm-~ndatl~ns; hnwever~ lf tl~c hours of ope~atian ~rc (ncluded es a con~itton~ then
a pub 1( c hcar I ng wou) c1 be re~u 1 re~: to changp the hours .
Mr. Dot I ch i ndi cated hc on I y wan tecl [a kncyw the p roce~ss i n cnsr they dec i ded to ch~nye
their hours in the future; h~~ did not fecl xhis u sc wnuld be harmful to thG fndustrlal
complex and will be a yuallty operation (actuaily o street-slde~ cafe-ty~e restaurant)~
ond presented a pctition from a~~roximatcly 9~'G o f th~ surr~un~1(nq ten.incs Indicat(ng they
arc agreeable with this I'Cq~1~5t.
THE PUaLIC HEARIN!; WAS CLOSCD.
ACTION: Cormiissioner Devld offcreJ a motion~ se c onded by Commissloner Kinq and MOTIQN
CARRIED (Commissioner Linn orin~ absent)~ that th e Anahcln, Clty Planning Commisslon hPs
revicwved the request to permit a semi-enclosed sAndwich sho~+ on a rect~ngularly-sh~~ped
parce) of land conststlnq uf ap~roximat~ly ll.t acres having a frontage of appraxlmatcly
1022 feet an the south slde of Katcll~ Avr.,nue~ h a vinq a mar,imum depth of approximately S~7
feet~ being 1~caCed approximately G6(1 fect we~t of Lhe rent~rlinr_ of State College
Boulcvard; and docs hereby Ap~rove the Wegative D eclaratlon from thP requircment to
prepare an c:nvironrtx ntal lmpact re~urt on the basts that there would be no si~ntftcant
individual or cumulat(ve adverse envtrnnmental i mpact due t~ the approval of this Ncgative
Declaration since the Anaheim Gene~al Plan ~iesig nates the subJect property f~r general
(ndustrla) land uses comme:nsurat~~ w(th the pr~posal; tl~at no sensitive envfronmental
impacts are involved in tl~c proposal; [hac the Inlttal Study submittecl by the petitione:r
Indicates no si~3nfficant in~Jividual or cwnulativ~ adverse envlronment~) tmpacts; and Lhat
the Negattve QeclarAcion substanr(atin~ the fore go(ng find(ngs (s on file tn the City of
Anahelm Planninc~ Depart^~ent.
Cc~nmissioner Dav(rJ offered Res~lution No. PC7$-2~E• an~i ~noved for (ts passagc and adoptian~
that the Anahein, City Plannin~ Com-nisslo~~ ~ioes herehy ~.~rant Petition for Conditiona) Use
Permit ~10. li;~~+~ subject to Interdepartnental Cor+~mittee recorrmendations.
On roll call~ the foreyoin~~ r~solution was passe d by thP following vote:
AYES : COMMI SS I ONE RS : 8ARNE5 , DAV I U~ HERRST ~ JOfINSCN ~ K l llf,, TOLAH
NOES : COMMI 551 OI~ERS : HOt~E
AaSENT: COPIMI SS IUNERS : L 1:1~~
ITEM N4. 16
RECOM'1ENDAT IQNS
A. DEVELOPMENT OF PERALTA CANYON PARK - Re quest for determinati~n of compllance with
t e ty o na e m enera an.
The staff report to the Planning Commission date d August 28, 1978 Was presented~ noting
the Department of Parka. Recreation and th~ Ares proposes ta develop Peralta Canyon Park
by proviGtng night-tighted ball ftelds~ a small community building, play areas and picnic
areas~ and that part of the furtding for this pro ~ect is provided by the County; that in
compliance wtth Sectian 65402 ~f the Government Code~ the Or~nge County Environmental
Management Agency has requested the Anahetm Clt y Planning Commisslon to determtne if the
proposed proJect Is in confarmance wlth the City of Anahelm Ceneral Plan; and that the
8/28178
~ ~
MINUTES~ ANI1f1EIM CITY PLANN1tIG COMMISSION~ AUGUST 28, ~978 78•7~7
17EM A (continued)
Ca Aree General plen incllcetes a locel p~rk sita in tha aree of Per~lta Canyon Park
and ona of thc ~o~ls of the plan Ig to p rov(dQ a full ~anqe! of park end recraationel
faciltttes which mre accessible tn oll ~f the people ~f Anaheim.
ACTIONs Cortmisslo~er Davlcl affered ^esolutton No. PC7Q-2~7 ~nd maved far its passage and
a~op~tTon ~ tfiAt the Anahe 1 m C i ty P I ann t ~y Commt ss i on does hereby f 1 ~d thet thc proposed
development af PerAlta Conyon Park Is in canformence wlth thc City of Anahelm Ge~~~ral
Plen.
On rol) call~ the fore~aotnc~ resolutton was passe<f by the follawiny votet
AY~.r,: CONMISSIONERS: aARIJES~ QAVIO~ HER[iST, JOIIN50-~~ Y.iNG~ TOIAR
.~ES: GOMHI SS I~tJE:RS : NOWE
AUSCt~T: COt1M155tOHERS; LItlP!
RECESS Thc meetlnc~ recessec: for dinner at ~~:3i p•m.
RECONVENE Th~ rnectinq reconvenNd at 7~1~ ~.m., all Commissioners be(ng present except
!~ Commissloner Ltnn bein~ absent.
iTEM N0. 11 CO~ITIt~UCQ RCADVEFTISED PU4LIC HkARING~ t~!JNERS:
EIR NEGATIVC DECLIIRATION CARL L. AtlD MILDREO E. RAU, Classic Development
0. -73-uf, Corp., i27U~ Knott Avenue, Suitc R~ Garden Grove~
, j~, CA 92~~41. AGENT; SIiALLER ~ LOf~R ASSOClATES~ INC.~
TENTATIVE MAP OF T W1CT 366 Sa~ Miguel Drive~ Newport Beach~ CA 92660.
NO 102~4 (REVISION N0. 1) Property described as en irregularly-shaped parcel
IJrTC- of land conststing of approximaLcly ~.2 acres h~vi~g
POLICY N0. 53c", a frontage of approximately 334 fect o~ ihe narth-
""'"-'-"~" west sidc of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ having A rlbxlmuln
depth nf approximately A40 feet, and being located
app~oxlmately I8i,~ fcet northeast c~f ttie centerline ~f Mohler Drive. Property presently
classiFied RS-A-4j~0i)U(SC) (RESIUENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIG CORRIDOR AVERLAY) and CQUNTY
A1 (GEI~ERAL AGRII:ULTURAL) ZOIICS.
REQUESTEU CLAS~IFICATION: RS-72~0(SC) (RESIDEhTIAI~ SINGLE:-FAMILY-SCEKIC CORRIDOR
dVERIAY ) 2Q~~E.
VARiANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF (A) MII:IHUM LOT WIDTIi AND FRONTAGE At:D (B) RE^'~IREMEIJT
THAT SINGLE-FANILY ST'RUCTURES REAR-ON ARTERIAL NIGNWAYS.
TENTATIV[ TRACT REQUCST: 16-LOT~ ks-77.~n(SC) SU9DIVISIOt~.
Sub,jecl: petition wa5 continucd from the meeting of July 31~ 1973 at thc request of the
petiti~ner.
It w~s noted the petiti~ner has requested a two-week cont(nuance.
ACTION; Commissioner Tolar offPred a motion, secondecl by Cortniissioner King and MOTION
CA- RRIED (Commissloner Linn bcin~ absent)~ that consideration of the aforementioned Item be
continued to the reyularly scheduled meeting of the Flanning Commission on September 11,
1978~ at the r~quest of the petftioner.
8l28/78
:
.
~ ,.
MINUTES~ ANAWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14, 1978
ITEM I~O. 1~
ENV R NMEt~ AL I HPACT REPORT N0. 21~'3
C 0~\ • ~ w
~ ~ r .
1A407~ 1o40b~ 1Q~~09 AND IOh1o
( RE V I S l ON N 0. Z) ~,.,r,
Q
REMOVAL OF SPECIMCN TR~ES
LO 111~E EQUI EMENTS
OF THE i11LLSIUE GRADiNG ORUINAI~CE
~a-~os
GONT~INUEO PUaLIC II[p,Rt~~r. DEVCLOPER: ANlW[IM NILLS,
1 NC~~ 3~ Aneheim Nllls Roed~ Anehetm. CA 92807.
ENGIt~Ef.R: JENtJItICS-IIALUf.RNA~~-NOOD, 5k~ -lorth Golden
Circlc Dr(ve~ Sult~ 111~ Santa Ane~ Ci~ 9270>.
Pro~erty described as en Irragulerly-shoped perce) of
land conslsting of approximet~ly 33.8 ~cres having a
frontage of Appr~~xlmA~ely ;~3 feet on the south side
of Willvwick D~ive~ hAVing a maximum depth of appraxi-
n-ately 15P,0 feet~ encl beln~ located epproximetely
86~ fect gouth oP the centerllne af Nohl Ranch Road.
Property presently classifi~d RS-A-W3.Q(t~(SC)
( ftCS I DEt~Ti AL/AGRI CU~TiiRAI.-SCEN I t: CARR t O~R OVERLAY)
ZONE.
REQUESTED CLA5SIFICATION; RS^NS-10~00n(SC) (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY NILL51' •SC~~JIf.
CORRIUt1R OVkRLAY) ZONE.
TENTA7IVE TRACT REQUEST: 1;1-LQT~ lh3-UIJIT RS-HS-1~~0~~(SC) SU[lDIVISiQN.
SubJact petitlon was continucd from thP meetings of July 3 end )10 197i~ at *.he request of
the petftioner.
Thera were approximately 65 persons ind icating their presence in opposition to the suuJect
request and although the steff report ta the Planning Commission dated August 2$~ 19~8,
was not read et tho public hoaring, it is reFerred to and made a pert of the minutes.
I t was noted the H i 1 1 and Canyo~ Mun i c~ pal Adv i sory Gomm i t tee (HACMAC) ra i vewed Lhe proposAl
on August 15~ 197$~ as an added agonda item without prior review by Staff or Committae
membe~s; that the appl icant discussad several changes incorporated into the revised plan,
including the cul-de-sac off Willowick Orive was removed and a 2~ acre mini-perk (homeowner
essociation maintained) was created as an alternative to homes facing the Westridge Tract
in the proposed 7entativo Tract No. 10409 and the elimination of two r~sidentiel lots with
the subst i tut fon of e cor~mon lot in Tentative Tract Wo. 10408; that some concerns were
indicated as safety and trsfftc and fi 11ing of the canyons; ard Committee members voted
unanimously to continue to support the Westridge opposltion to Tantative Tract No:-. 10407,
10408, 10~+09, and 10410--spec i f i cal i y f i I 1 i ng oF canyons. tre` f i ~ ~;.,n~er~~s , cant i 1 e~ver homes ,
in addition to other concerns expressed.
Philip Bettencourt, Uice President of Public Aff;.irs, Anaheim Hills, In~:., 360 Anaheim
Hills Roed, Anaheim, CA. 92$07; made the following presentation~
8/28/78
m
~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSIOM, August 28. 1978
0
~~~~, anahEim hi~is, inc.
August 28, 1.9'l8
Ylanntny Commissi~n
City of An~heim
Post OfCice~ 8or, 32?.2
nnahe~.m, ~r.~l:ifornia 92803
ite: ;;IR 218, Raclassif~icatian No. 78-?9-~i, and Ten~.ative Tract.
Ma~~ 1~407, 1~408, _10409, and_ 1 C1q10 (Third_Eiearinc3}__M_
I•:~dies & Gent:l.emen ~~f ~he Commiss.ion & Staf f:
78-709
Toniq,~t, we are aqaa.n ask.ing for. your_ approval of revised tentative
tract map:~ (ExhS.bit- "A" ) whir.h were redesigi~ed based ~i~on conc~rns
from your ,]uly 3 and July 31 publ.i.c heat-in,:~s on our. residenLia.l
develepment proqcam f.or the ~3,8 acre Unit. XV7II planninc7 arca.
In additi.on ta the maps, we are submi.ttiric~ a comprehansivc traffic
analys: ~ of the circulzt:ion systF~m (Fxhibit "B") by tra~fi.c and
transpor.t~zti~n engineering consult~nts, b7eston Prinyle t~ Assoriat.es;
and, arldit.ioiial ~uppor~_ i.ng comm~ntar}• based upon ~~arlic~r C.ommi:~siran
hearinqs an~' i,~~~e se~arate rr_view sessions bef.orc th~ Iiill and ~an-
yon c~x. .i~~ r~dv.i.sory Comrriittee (Fiti~:M1~C) .
Yc have pr.. .y reccivecl f.at~r (4 ) sep~irat.e l;ITI acld~~ndu:ns. We
cc ar wit.i tne EIR r.evicw cammittee recommendatiott that th~ EIR
t~:i.ng is now complete and ready tor Gertification. `Phe staff
report concludes that, "Potential project-generakr~d cnvironmental
impacts have been reduced to an acceptabl.e ic~vel by conformarce
with City plans, policies and ordinances."
'"he project has now b~en bc~fore the City for almost four months
since May 10, 1978, when oc~r first tentative tract maps were sub-
rnitted. Our f~lings have also .included hydrology and hvdrauZics
calc~:lations, a backbone storm drain system plan, a comprehensive
geotechnical report, and an as-built topographic m~del. Al1 of
th~ese doc!~ments are matters af public record available for your
rEView ~-~no c:ritiyue.
The development ~~lans meet all City standards and 'nave the approval
of your City st~;tf contingent u~on stanclard con~itions ot ac-proval.
In terms of_ those standards, we of £er the following :
1. Canyon Area General Plan. The pr.opased tract design and
improvements are in conforrt~as:r.~ with the blarch 1977 Canyon
Area General Plan (Exhibit ""). The General Plan desig-
nates the project area as Hi ~; sicie Low Density with a
permitted density ran~e of "~~ to five d~velling units pcr
gross acre."
8/28/78
~BO ANAHf.IM /IILLS ROAO, ANAl1EIM, CAl1cONYlA 9'~801, V~~ONE ~/ ~A1 998 2~~(iU
y
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL~ ING COMMISSION . Au ust 28~ 19;
EIR 218, Reclam~ L78-79-5, TT 10407, io408, 10~0 i 10410 cont_inued~„~
~lanning Commission -2- Au,yust.
,
~8-71~
2a, 1978
It is also intarQS~ing to note ~ht~t the ~.~r.o~ect is consistent
with the ear.lier Nav~mber. 1969, Anaheim General ~lan (Exhibit
"D") - the nlan in Effect when Westridge was f.i.rst developed -
which desi.gnated the entire project Area as Residential I~aw
nensity. SQ for almu:~t ten ycars the proper.ty has be~.~n desiq-
nated on the of.ficial Anaheim Genernl. rlan f.or residential
dev~lopm~nt.
2. DensiLy. Tlie gross project dcn~ity ;~ 1.71 da~~~l.ling u~lits
per qross acre, a 32~ density r~~>>~ti~~n Fr~m c~xi~t.ing West-
ridge tracts to the nor.th, which have a gross proj~ct density
of 2.5 dwell.ing ur~its ~er ac.re. Only 34~ of the maximum
].~g~71 ~3r-.n~ity cap.acity i~ utili.zed. That's 419 ~xnits, but
only 143 hom~s are pr.o~osed.
3. Lot Siz~. The av~rage residential. buildina site cnc~t~i.ns
mor.e t~ian 18,000 square fect ancl the aver.aqc~ pad area i.s
8,750 squ~zr.e f.ec~t. The averag~ res.idential. building site
is more than 80~, larc~er than the code ir~inim-.~m of 10, 000
square feet.
4. ?,onin. Standards. Aa with thc~ two earlier siibmittals, tlle
__`.L,______.__._._._ ,
. ot d~~~.gns are ~n £u11 confarmance with current RS-fiS-10,00Q
(SC) subdi.vision ~t.andards, and are also (anci we think this
is a very import~nt point) in conformance wikh the i~pdated
hillsid~ ~ubdivision standards, which you h~zve rec~m*~ended
to t}ie C ity Counc i 1 f or appr. ova l. .
5. Earthwork. Thc p ~~>osc-~d grading plan is sti11 balznced and
no import or export o£ soil is necessary.
6. Circulation 5ystem. The pr.oposed street sec~ions meet all
o~ tFe C~ky ~tar~ards for hillside collect~r streets, and
no interior putalic street grade exceeds l.0$. The findings
oF the Weston Pr.i.ne~le inv stigation are that, "None of the
critical intc~~~• t ions operate at or near caF~acity today,
and they will ~£ter completion of the praject (£xhibit
"B", Page 2). ..~e traffic investigation also found that,
"Comparing the residential street volumcs at location D
(Willowick Circle) to the standardn adopted by the County
Envi.ronmental Managem~nt Agency (,~''~ , it is seen tha c this
street operates at 32 percent of tt~e 1,200 vehicles j~er day,
and will operate at 47 percent after completion of the pro-
posed develonment. Thus the traffic volumes t.hrougr ;'est-
ridge after the proposed development is completed ~rE• well
be.low the Environmental Management Agency's accPptable vol-
umes.
The EMA 1,200 vehicle per day policy is equal to or l~~wer
than any City's volume policy in Orange County and it is low-
er than the volume policy of Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside,
or San Bernardino Coiinties (Exhihit "B", P~~~" 8-9) •"
8/28/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAM~ING COMMISSION ~'u~u:t 28 1978
EIR 218,MRecla~s. 78- -~ rT to4o7, 1040r~_~1t~40~ ~_~0410 ~ntinued)
Pl.anning Commission
_~_
78-711
Augusr. 28, 1978
7. G~r~adin~ P].an. The grading plan is in c;anform~sncQ with the
La-nc~. Devel~opment ~tes~~urres Title Seventcen Municinal Code
pr~visian~, a~nd Cuuncil Policy No. 211 (En~7inecring & Land
Righ~-~f-Way), p~rtaining to hillside grndin,y.
Of pPrha~s more immecliate interest to ~djacF:nt Westridge residenCs,
th~ rFVised plan F~rovideg the follawing feat_tires:
1. Vehi.cular Acce~s. Th~re is noca na vehicular acce~s to West-
ridge at W llawick t)r.ive from '1'ract 10409, the most we~terly
of the foux prupased tentative ~r.acts. Inste~~d, an interior
cul-de-sac has been provided for. Aig Sky Lane, and a 2.4
dcrc park si~r (Lo Le buill ancl paid for by the pro:ject's c~ev-
e'lapers) h~~s bec~n provi.ded adjacent to Willowick Cir.cle.
2. Safc.'tY Lane. An emer.gency acces~ larie fc,r the b~nefit of
homes on-bot.h si.des of the ~~ark site has been pr~vid ', connec-
ting existiing Willowi.ck Drive with thc~ project at Aiy Sky
Iaa ne .
3. Canyon Fill. In the westerly canyon r~rea, the minimum amount
o~ fill has becn propased, which would still permit homesites,
allow us to meet sFwcr and storm arain z~equircments with con-
ventional facilities, and re~tain sti-~et yradc~s at 10~ or. l~ss.
We L-hink existing views are given p~irticular conside.rat.ion.
4. Blanket Fill, Tract 10408. t9e sti.ll propose a landscaped fill
in the int~rmediate can}~on within this track. iiowevr_r, two
building sites have been removECl. Of. the r.emaining two build-
iny sites, none of thc new houses proposed, usinq conventional
setback stanciards, would be any closer. than 200 fe~t to the
nearest ~aestridg~ horne. The intervening area is to be land-
scape~ to City shaw slope standards.
5. Tract 10409 Traf£ic Interceptor. This plan returns the traf£ic
elypse alor~g ~ig Sky Lane at the riage crest to provide for
more effective traffic control at th~ request of the City's
traffi.c engineer.
Now, returning to othe~r issues th<1t have been raised at prior Planning
Commission hearings (wr'.ch have consumed same 1C5 pages of hearing
record) we would first li.ke ta address the special question of the
cany~n or gully fills:
1. C_anyans Filled Alr~ady. First of all, both remaining partions
o~ t~ie gullys, or natu~dl water c~urses, are already about
two thirds filled to rreate the existing Westridge homesites.
There is al.ready eighty feet of fi11 in th` canyon for Willo-
wick at Biq Sky.
8/28/78
MINU1'ES, ANAH~IM CITY PlA-"~INC COMMISSION u~utt 28~ 1978
E I R 2) a__~__~_Recl esa . 78-79-~ i T 10407. 1 Q4Q~., `1040.~L,¢ 10 1 G. ~ont i nued)
Ylanninq Commissian
The moxc: west~erly af
8~-, 000 yurcas of. f i.l l
during the W~str.idg~
approved grading pc*ri
im~tely b0,b00 yardg
i~s nat iiral st~~t.~.
August 28, 1978
-4-
78-712
~ho canyons al.ready c~ntains about
iri the open portiUn plaacd thcre
gra-1 i.ng oper~ztion pursuant to an
nit. The r.e~itral qul.ly contai.ns approx-
o~ F.i.~..l.. Obviougly neither area is in
2. Na Lnvi.zorirnc~ntal Val~ir:;. Nc i thrr c~lnyon l~cation is identi-
ii :c~a's Genc~ra~ O~eii~~.S{~ace an the Canyon 11rea General Plan,
sincc n~ithc~r mect~ an~ of thc~ te:sts of rea~~onablenc~ss as
beiny worthy of op~n~spac~ ~~rc~aer~at:i.on, pursu~~nt to S~cti.on
65560(b) of the C~li.farnia Gavernm~nt Gode. No significant
vegetakion oX envir~nmant.a.l f.~~~t.uras ar.e rxistent in either
o£ khe gulJ.y areas (t~here is anl.y one ~~nacimen tree in the
inh.~rmediate canyon) . On ~he rather har-d, when the prc~~ect
is com~leted more than 1,250,000 square Eeet of irrigated
shrubs and gr.ouncl cover wi].~ b~ plarited and more than 1,7~0
irees will cover the community slopes and apen s-~ar.e are~~s.
3. rJo Pub.lic I~enef.it. Nr.ithrr of thr_~ sites has been worthy of
dE~nt~it icat_ian f.or pul~lic ~-~cquisit.ion as park or open spacc
lancls, ~n even thr. ma:ct~. far-r:eaching of. thr City's park plan
~cqi~i sit.i~r- ~ro~~x~ms. The r.ea ~ons f.or. those determinatiung
shoiild t~e~ obvious. Neith~r sitE~ is even visiblc~ fr~um Nohl
Ranch Kaad. Th~r.e is no ~~afr_ access to the mor.e westerly
~,ite. Th~r only nc~r. thern ~~c.cess Go the c:entral area 4rould
br b~,~ er~~~siny thc ~ropc~r.ty of an ex.ist.ing Westridc~e owner,
h~r.d.ly re,llistic. And, of. course, th~re ar.e no unique environ-
mc~nt.al f.eatures or public usc~s available on k}ie site.
4. O~en_S~ace U~si~.~nati.ans. I would ay~in lilce to direct your
att~ention to Exhibit"C", the Canyon Area General Plan which
does d~sie~nat~ "General Open Space" in speci.fic locations.
A~ you cari sec~, subst~ntial portion~ of the Anaheim Hills
h~~e already recc~ived this open space designation.
Based up~on your staf.f'~ ~wn calculations, of ~he 2,928 acres
of Anarei.rn Eii ~ls ~~roperty within the Canyon ArP~ General Flan,
582 acres or 20$ of tlie ranc2i is designated as General O~en
SFace.
Other requirc~ments f_or public pro~.~erty needs (see Exhibit "E")
have also exa~:trc3 a substantial toll on the developable acre-
age within the ranch. Again, lookinq at this total of 2,928
acres, 549 ac:rr~: or an additional 19$ of the property is
desiynated for major and sec~ndary highways and collector
streets, the golf course, ttic reservoir, public parks, and
school ~i.tes. Nearly 40~ of the property is already designa-
tecl for puhlic us~s.
EIRU216; Reciss~.~79Y79~;~,../i~1040~!~~~5~: ,;~~~s6 T841~9Ie :inued
Planning Commission
-5-
August 28, 1978
7~-713
Addittona~.ly, the Anaheim ttills Planned C~mmunity Associa-
t~ori has responsibil.ity for car~ of an additi.onal 73 .~cres
of common area. W~ ~ven paid 85~ of the c.ost for thP new
landsc~lpinn alonc~ Santa 11na Canyon R~ad adjacent to Canyan
}ligh Schaol. ~'hat's not cven our property and never was.
5. Altexnat.ive D~si~ns. We dicl prescnt, to th~ Flil.l and Cany~n
ri~~n;:~it~~;~i"~i~t~isor.y Committee, ~zncl t:11'J`~~' ~•.~~_~tric:ye r:esia:,nts
i~~ attendancr a~ th~ Commiltee's AucJust 15 mcet.ir~g, an alter.-
nat~.ve lanci plan that would have. had posibi.lities for pre~er-
vation of tha wc:,tcrl.y canyon ~zl.though somr_ slope stabal.iza-
tion would st:~ll have been rec7uired. But in order to makr.
llie: Yr.c~ject e~c.:onc~mically reali.~t.ic, ~'11~~P1E'L (at:I1N.4~.y LownhumF~s
wer.e p:r.c~p~~n~i which would havc~ provided about 100 mor.e uni.ts
wi~tiin rhr pro-jc~cc: r~rea (wit:h corr.aspondi.ng envir_onmental
impacts). IIowevcr, the residu~il canyon ar.ea would have had
onl.y the most .lim.it.c~d uL.il i.ty for the residGnts of t.his pro-
jecY.
It is our considr.r.ecl bu_~.inc~ss opini.on that no public agency,
or the Westridge ilc~meownE~i- , ~\s~~ociation for that matter,
would be int~reGL-cad in pur~hasiny an,l assuming the responsi-
bilities for mainten~ancr. c~f ~hc cany~n. The plan, whi.le
interesting, gener~ated na partic~_ilar c~rithus.i~3~m.
To lcavc both canyon are~s uni^~~~:ov~~d, to serve o~rel}~ local
inLerests, woulc~i r.esult in a 38 acre rcduction in ather.wise
legally permi~sible development areas in the pr~ject or a
los~ of 49 hamesites. We think to dem~~nd such an action would
be of the most dubious l.egality and clearly punitive.
6. Soi1s b Geologic C~nsiderations. There was commentary at both
th~ July 3 and July 31 h~arings that the general geologic
circumstances of the proposed develooment are open to ques-
tion. As oF this date there has not been one shred of factual
evidence submitted t.a s~rpport this allegation. There h~s
been reference to a U. S. Coast and Geod~tic Survey, wt~ich
has not been entered int~ thc record, and upon which no
ver.ifiable conclusions can be drawn. In any event, such a
survey would pale by comparison to the substantial evidence
included within the Converse, Davis, Dixon Comprehensive
Sails & Geologic Investigation, which I would like to submit
for the record as Exhibit "F". Cetainly your. own engineerin~
staff tias not questionPd the validity ol our ir~vestigations.
The slope failures +aithin ~~lestridge have obviously been trouble-
some. They occured during the second heaviest rainfail season
ever recorcled in the City's his~ory. But the o£fi-•ial City
in~estiyation which was unanimously received by the City Coun-
cil, pinpoints inconsistent maintenance practices as the
primary cause of th~se failures. And again, there is not
one shred cf evidence on the record to indicate that there
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLA'"ING COMMISSION; ,aqust 28. 197A ~ 78-714
EIR 218. Reclaass 78-79~~~fT 1040 1040~5. ~10409 b IQ410 „antinued)
Planning Commission -6- August 28, 1978
we.re any othPr contributing causes from the project desic~n
tha~ relate to our pr.oject.
Our enaineering investigation has concluded thdt, "Planning
Area XVIII i.s grossly atab~e trom a geologic and soil engi-
neering viewpnint and is siaitable for development if stan-
dard geolayic and engin~~rinc~ practices ar~ xncorpor.ated i.nto
de;:ic~n anci const~ructian." The proposecl project mnet~ all
rPyuirements of the City's grading oxdinance in ttiat rc~yarcl.
7. View Protectian. Under th~ law, the City of Anahc~im, of
course, may nat: regulatc subdivisions or graciing solely for.
the enhancement of ~omconc cl.sc's view. However, thc+re have
bec~n a numL-~r of refFr.ences in earlier he~rings to ~tlleged
asaurances which some h~~mebuyers received from salrs ae~ents
involv~d in their home purchase reyazc3in~ committments ta
view preserv~tion and futurt~ utili7ati~n of our. property.
I~ has been utif.nrt~anate for us that there has been no serious
inquiry into the validity of. any of these claims. There has
nat b~en on~ ~ait of document~tion submitted to the Commi..sion
to support any a£ the ~conver.satinns ~r transactian~ which
alleclgedly accured. ~r'e have no evic3ence of any recorded
restY'1Ctlpi'15 oi- any compen~~ation which horr.eowners may have
paid for viaws and the legal docum~ntation to ~~ipport just
what the purchase of that view or op~n s~~ace en~ailed. As
a matter of fact, those e~;isting h~meo~~~ners adjacent to th~~
m~ze central. gully have ac~mitt:ed that they d.id not pay any
premium for the l.ot locatian wh.ich ~oas in their ds~scretion
to select.
We again maintai.n that any
has been denied substantia
of a contractual. violation
transaction, should seek a
the part.l- makinc~ the cl.aim
i_n these chamber.s.
ho~reowner w'rao believes that he
1 praperty rights or is a victim
as a result of a real estate
rPdress of thase grievances with
or through a court ~f law - not
8. Canyon Fill Areas. The fOll11CI3tlO:l for the nroposition that
the rema n~er of ~the two canyon areas should not be fill.ed
was the alleged committments made by Anaheim Hills, Tnc.
in the June 1972 dra£t Environmental Impact Statement. We
have conducted a page by page review of this 115 page docu-
ment and have found the foll~wing statements that probably
bear on this alledged committment•
- Very few r.elatively .level are.~s exi:;t on the property
(Page 2 ) .
- Any mode of development involving the construct~on of
homes wi11 involve varying degrees of grading, provisions
for the autamobile, and provisions for the safety of the
inhabi.tar;ts (P~ge 84) .
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY p~p ~NG COMMISSION., ,~gust 28, 197P ~ 78-~15
~IR 21$. Re~l~~s~ 78-79-5. fT 10407. 1040g. 1040 ~ 10410 ,,~v,_ntinuedL
Planninq Commiasion -7- Auc~nqt 28, 1979
- Pre~~enk~~ ~lans (t.hat was six years aqa) cal.l f'or qradi.ng
opera ons on approximately 1/2 of thc~ tok~al r~rea of the
z•anch (Pag~ 8 6 ) .
- Mass grading w~ll b~ limited ta appruximately 500 acres,
less ti~un 13 p~r.cent ot the total ar.~a (I~agE~ 8F) .
- Th^ :~~~~jor c~~nyon~ w{11 rc~mnin ,.~nt~i~ch~~~1, ~r will ~i ~igni-
ticant ~c~x•cent.age ol' the yr.ec~nb~lt: ~reaas bc:twcen canyons
~iid the Eciison Com~a~~ny greenbelt easement (Paye 89) .
- Wherc m~ ~e: yrad.i.ny i~ d~nc thr. tei rain of: the praject ~ite
consists, general.ly of inacces~ible canyons znd nar.r.o-v
x~ic3y~~~~,:; cluvoicl of m~+jo~. vcryc~ta~a011 (Pac1e 9;) .
The canyoris with stands of_ oaks wi11 bc preservt~d (Page 95) .
Thc major canyons will be 1etG unt~uched (Pagr. 99).
An additianal F~xhibit is fc~und at I'igur.e 10, which is entitl~d L~~nd
Developmr_rit Approach Thr.~~iqh M~~ss (;racliny. It identifies a minor.
canyon devoid of siynifir.~nt vegetaLion ~~s~ b~iny fil.icd and, "l~
major canyon with siynificant veqe~tatian and tr.ee stancls ~reserved
as open space and/or park." Thc:~sr_ areas s.im~ly da n~t mc~et those
tests.
Given the casts of earth movement we~ obviousl.y r_onsid~r. cut ~nd fill
requiremc~nts vc~ry carc.~fully. Pleas~ r.eme;r,hc~r tho~~gh tha~ the Tmper-
ial fiighway embarkment involvc~s a~~nr.oximately 1, OQO, 000 yard~c of
earth. That tiighw~ly is on the ap~rovc~d mastrr pl~an of b~th the
Cita.es of An~~heim and Or~~ng~ and the offic_a1 t~~rthcast Orange County
transportation ~lan. The value of our cor,trib~ition for thc~ projec`.
just for. these tr.acts - 5805,000.
Conclusion. This project will provic~e construction emplayment and
the purchase or yoods and servi~es :.n exceas of $28 million, increase
local consumer purc:hasiny power, and provi.de an additional 143 lux-
ury single-family homes compatiblc with the residential ~'Zaracter of
the surrounding area. In addition, ~~~e a.:e proposing to improve a
2.S acre park site and have F~rovid~d far a program of cnmmon area
landscaping care insurzng presE-rved apen space and providing public
faci'lities well in excess o.f tlte project's needs (Imperial Highway).
The crucial test• f~r the project ot~ght to be the degree of canformity
to established city st.andards and the state subdivision map act.
Here we meek every reasonable test. The proposed maps, designs,
and improvements are consistent with applicable general and specific
plahs; no public easement rights are compromised; the site is physi~
cally suitable £or the proposed type of development and d~nsity of
development; and, there are no environmentzl resources unique to
the Santa Ana Canyan jeopar.dized as a result of ~he new neighborhood
being created.
8/28/78
. ~. ,
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~< ING COMMISSION.i. ~~st 28, 1g7F ,1 78-716
E,JR 218 . Rec l~,~},r,7Q-79^. 5. TT 10407. 1040l3 ~~Qy49 ~ 10~] o~~on t i nued)
F1Anning Commia~zion -8- Auqust 28, 1976
While we are obvi.ously disappointed t.~lr~t we have not received morF
sup~ort and re~pect for the proposed new homea by the exi~ting ad-
jacent residents, we have made every reasonable effort t.o accamodate
th~ir sometimes changing and often unrealistic ~xpectations. We
think the time has now come for considerxtion based upan rhe project's
mexits in terms of t.he hear.ing recor.d and your own laws regulating
land use and development.
Sincerely,
ANAHEIM NILLS, INC.
~~~~ '""~},-..-,,... .,.
'-~\
Philip F. Bettencourt
Vice Fresident
Public Affairs
P~''II: jms
cc: Planning Dirt~cL•or
City Attorney
City Engineer
EXNIBITS PRESENTED BY ANAHEIM HILLS, INC.
A. Second Revised Tentative Tract Map
B. Weston Pringle Traffic Analysis
C. Canyon Area General Plan (~larrh 1977)
D. Anaheim General Plan (November 1969)
E. Public Pr~perty Needs (Open Space)
F. Converse, Davis, Dixon Comprehensive Soils b Geologic
Investigation
G. Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan
H. Topographic Map of the Existing Westridge Tracts
I. Map of Existing Westridge Tracts Shawing Lot Pads and
Slope Areas
J. Anaheim Hills Western Sector Map
S/28/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,~ ~ugust 28, 197~ 78-717
EIR 218, RECLASSIFIGATION 7~-79-5, TENTATIVC TRACT NOS, 1U407, 10408, IO~f09 ~ 10410
con t.i nue 1,__
Manuel Don, $4Q) Willowick, Andhelm, steted a few of his stetements minht seem to entic~-
pate a few things because the opposition does not have the oppc~rtunity for rebutcal; that
the slope enalysis and gealogical conditions repart submitted and accepted was done by the+
company which had done the original soils enalysis and stated in tha beginninq thet it was
a cesual observetion ~nd that no s~i) enalysis or e+nalysis of the incline of the slopes, etc.
was donp, Ne indicatcd e number of the horneov,~ners have done separate surveys and pres~nted
an aoriel survey which he felt suqyests tliet extens~vr: mass misyradinc~ in terms of property
lines,slope angles, etc. was dane which are oth~er lec~al issues which he did not went to
bring up, but wa~~tad the C~~mmission ta know that he questioned the validity ot' the report.
Mr, Don did not feel the traff'ic and sAtety problems have bner~ yalved f~y this proposed
development and that ~he argumei,ts aro old because the "nev/' plens are hasically old;
that the oppositio~ haci ser-iously q~iestioned the r~esults of [he traffic study at the meeeiny
of JuIY 31, 1978, and feic the estin,ate for inr_rebsed troffic wAS luw I~ecause of some in-
appropriate lraffi~ sampling procedures and fclt i~ should be obvious without any study
th~t there will be a large putential traffic increase because every house in the neri develop -
ment will have access to Willow~ck Drive ehrough Los Coyotes and that ic is not known
whetlier any or all the homes would ~isf~ that particular roadwav exclusively because the
working, driving and shoppirig habits ot thos~ residents are not known, but the potential is
known and ev~n a fraction of that p~tential has the residents of Westridge concerned and
scared.
He stated the residen[s of Westridge are not only disconcerted but sanewhat appalled with
the attitude of the developers t'~.::t the traftic prablaR~s are generated by the existing
rdsidents and sinc;e those residents cannot be controlled that th.•y should be ellowed to
add a little more traffic. He ccxnpared this attitude with seeing a man pinned by a rock and
deciding to sit on the rock since his probleR+ is the weiqht of thc rock and you r~n't move
it anyway and telling him since his r•eal problem is Cl~e weight of the rock, it won't matter
if you sit on it; that the thoughts going through that man's mind could bc cort,pared with
th~e thoughts going throuyh the Westridge residents~ minds when you Leli them that a problem
they already have will not be compounded by addiny R~ore traffic. He stated a problem is
not normaily solvad by comp~unding it.
Mr, Don stated the opposition's ultimate stand aqainst the develoRn,ent project in ics
various forms presented thus fer has led the developers to conclude that the residents of
Westridge are uhcompromising and that they, the developers, have met them more than halfw~y.
He indicated the residents have accepted thae this ar•ea is going to be developed and the
hills will ~e dotted with homes~and accordiny to the EIR they have acc;epted that their sct~ools
will be overcrowded and they are not sure how that wi11 be resolved tinancially, but knuw
il will be an increase in c:~~st; t:hat they have eccepted the costs of wa[er, eloccricity
and sewage which the EIR claims will increase because new facilities wili have to be built
to accommodate these new humes; that they have accepted that there will be an increase
in traffic along major tf~orought`ares of Nohl Ranch Road and Imper•ial Highway. N~ stated
all that the residents are asking in return is; 1)don't circulate the traffic from that
development through their tract, and 2) tr-y to preserve the canyons arc! some of the amenit~es
that are left in the hills.
Mr. Don indicated that in addition to the residents accepting the increases in costs for
schooli~g, services, etc., the developers want to c.irculate tho traffic through their
development and compound their traffic problerns and they want to cut the hills and fill the
canyons and essentiall~ destroy all the amenities and in return for all that, they will
remove one of the two access~~ from their tract, but all the plans proposed the traffic
circulating through their tract and the canyons are to be filled; that the one plan where
the canyons would not be filled, the develapers mentioned sanething about the residents or
the City of Anaheim buying the property; that there have been no concessions in any of the
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANA~iEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28. 1978
78-718
E IR 218,_. RECLASS,, _7$-]~-1,._ TENTAT IVC TRA~T NOS.,,._1040j, 1040~311040~..b 10410__~c,ont I nued .
plans regarding ehe numbor of homes to ba built or• the amaunt of land lo be devoloped; thet
there heve been no attempts to preserve the ~anyons and no provlsion for en edditionel access
from Imperie) Hlghway and did not feel this couid be consido~od as meeting the residents
halfway. He felt Chis is an old game of presanting a b~d plan, knowing it will ba rejected,
then making inconsequantial irr~provements and saying, "Hey, wo are trying to meet yau I~alfway,"
yet the plon is still bAd and ~~n~ccoptable.
Ho seatad thare hnve been references that the opposition'e m~tives are selfish end indicated
th~ir concern for the sofecy of thcir children and familios i~ terms of trofFic and preser•-
valion of sane of tha amenities of living in Anahe(m tlills could possibly be con~ide~ed
as sell~ish, but felt the developer's motives to develop land which will ir,crease traffic
problems and which will lavel hills and fill in can yons in order to p rovide homas in the
$170,000 Co $200,000 range could be considered as eco~omic and lhat the issue of the economic
benefits of t.he developer versus the safety problems and sacrificinq of amenities by the
residonts should bp considerod.
Mr. Don pointed ~7u1 it is their feelir~ ;hat the developcr's reasoning in not providing
another access fran Imperial Highwoy because ie is goinc~ to casc too rnuch is wrong and the
only reason far not closiny off both of the ac,cesses is economics, yet the residenrs n,usr.
suffcr the conSequences.
He thought a laryer issue is the canyon f~lling and referre~ to previous references by the
dovefoper that this areo is not a me_jor cer-~yon and a lat of argument hed been presented
ta indicate this point of view, but even by the developer's own edmi55ion, the erea to be
filled is only a small part of a much larger car~yon which exisled be(~are. Mr. Dan ('elt
the problem is setting a precedent for whet he called piecemeal Filling and scated thbt
filling a major canyon a little bit at a cime will soon turn a maior cenyon into a minor
canyon ancl felt 'this is a dang~rous thing for Anaheim Hills dev~~lopment. He stated the
opposition is fighti-~g for• their s~fety and f~or some of lhe amenities, but they fe el this
is what Anaheim Hills is all abouc; that the cost of developmnnt is related to s~lling
of tho homes, but the fact you can sellY~~ur home is related lo the fact thar !:I~is area is
desirable and that it is d~sirable because of the hills a~~d canyons and stated for example
a$300,000 house constructed next to a railroad track would be hard to sell for ;?00,000,
so felt the real issue is preservation of the amenities so the value of their homes woulu
not be affected and also the worry that this piacemeal filling is going to take over and be
a practice utilized throughout the whule Anaheim Hills development.
Clifton Garrett, 5374 Willowick Drive, indicated Mr. Don had assentially covered all ;he
opposition's points but that he wished to poirt out the earl'oer EIR report indicated that
major canyons would not be filled and at tl~e time he bought his home that was alsa repre-
sented to him and he had paid a$2000 premium for :hat particular view; that additionally
Robert Grant Corporation had offered to sall him the property ir. back of his property
extending 117 feet all the way down into the r_anyon floor anc3 that this is currently the
subject matter for the law courts to decide end he was not mentioning this fo~ the Cc~mmission
t~ decide their particular lawsuit, but wanted them to be aware of what was represented to
tl~em at the time they purchased their homes and what they had rel~ed on, He stated -noney
in lieu of thQir view is nut what they are seeking, th~t they had paid for that particular
property which is unique and it was bought under those partic~lar representations. He
pointed out that Anaheim Hills. lnc, had represented recently on a television show that they
are nor in the canyon preservation bus~ness. He stated they are in business to make money
and wanted to ask the Commission to c~~~:~der that the homeowners will be chere long after
Anaheim Hills, Inc. is gone.
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANANE.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28, 1978
78-7-9
E I It ~9, RE~LA55 ~,_jR~7~_~,,~TFNTAT I VE_, Tki~~T NOS , 10~r0~ , 10~~08.~_ _1040~._,~_ ~ 0~~ 10 (rnn t i nued~
La~ry Mdtthews,543u wi~towick Circ{e, steted he hed ettended the (ull meetiny on July 3r
197~, end hed hoard ~ryumentS hy I>oth Anaheim H''15 Inc.. and lhe Iiomeowner~ er~d hed F~~-erd
ppii7lons fram the Ccxnml5sion itsel( end thet whb. ~~e th~u~~ht he hed hoerd wos direction
from four of thd six Canmiss'~~ners cleerly end preciscly ~f~rec.t(r~y Anaheim Nills, Inc,
to go beck lo the drawiny boti d end eddress the ce~nyons nnd treffic issues; that he he~1
elso ettended [he NE,CM~>C ment(nq on llugust IS end hed seen t.his presentelion (Exhibit A)~
in additior, to one other presentotion made by Mr. Bettcncourt which included 250 homes which
wes clearly unaccop~.able and that NA(:Ml~C had va~.ed unenimously to r~eject Uoth prr~posals. He
indic.oted his real concern is that he choucjht he had h~ard ihe f,onmission state thet Anaheim
Nllls, Inc. should ga back to lhe drowinq board and como uF with a more ecceptable plan and
he folt vcry littlc chanqo had heen mede in t.he plen and only onr. or two hours of draf'tinq
tlme wns inv~~lv~d ~nd felt the presentotio~~ mede toi~iql~t was simpl~ rc-f~rm~~tt~d ancl r~-
presented wiCh additional proof soi~rc.os, but we~ essanti~lly tF~o s~ ~e informacio+~ which wt+s
oric~inally pl'e5er,ted and besed on I~is undarsear,diny and ir~terpretnlion af lh~ Cu~uuiibsiun'5
comments, t.hUUght lhoy were 4learly not in f,~vor of it.
Mr.Metthews indic.ated a:.econd concern is the tratfi~ whi~h is designed to com~ thr~u~ah on
Willowick Circlc; that lhc oriyinal prop~~sal subrnitteci July 3 c.illed for cvro access points
and in an attempt to appe~se ~ majority of the F,on,e~wner~ in Westridge, Exhib~c !- with a
culde sAC was presented reroutiny all the tra(f'ic cithor ~u mperial o~ Willowick Urivo
and felt thore ~,re several r.oncerns with this plsn one Ueiny th~c the or~yinal plan and
concopt and engineerinq drawir~gs were desiyned spee.iiically for two accesses and the developer
has compromisod his positior, and th~ enqineering rccommor~daticns by this redesign a~d
he was not sure thst this plan wauld be totnlly acceptahle. Ne stated the opposition has
ptosented ta Anaheim Hills, Inc, an alternate entrar~ce Irom their tract to Imperial and
Anaheim Nills, Inc. has indicaled thet wou1~ be too much of ar. enyinderinq project and would
cost too much money; and thet their concerns were that if an oryanit.etio~~ ~an mo~.~e 2.8 million
cubic yards of dirt, they do not unders*and why lhey cennot came p with a~~ sllerr,ate entrance
to Imper~al. tle thought thaC would siynifica~tly IHSSEn the traffic. burden on Willowick Circla.
Ne felt the traffic study submitled k~y Anaheim Nills, Inc, was suUj~ect to a cartain deg~•ee
of suspect wi,h the up to 1440 additional trips per day th~ey claim wo~~ld be cominy through
either Imperial or Willuwick Drive and fell the difficultv with thet. is that Imperial Highway
as it approaches the freeway qoing soutt~ narrows into one lane and the alternative course
is that 144o addition~l trip5 per day would then come directly down Willowick Circle and
they are not sure whai the impact would be since t.hey do ~~ot know the traffic patterns
of the existing homeowner5 or the new proposed ho-neowners. He indicated that currently he
travels the Nswpor[ ~reeway daily ond rather than taking Imperial dnwn to the frceway..
he travels Nohl Ranch Road end felt eny other individ~ial would do [he same t.hing, or a~yone
traveling t~ the Oren9e Mall for shoppinq would either take Westridge Circle or Nohl Ranch
Road as opposed to Imperial Highway.
He felt since Anaheim Nills, Inc, has shown tF~at there is an opportunity to cul de sec the
one road, why not cul de sec the other road; that he had heard Mr. [iettencourt indicate
at the HACMAC moeting concern5 wilh fire and police prot.ection, b~t that Exhibit A shows
a break away gate on the cul de sac ar.d indicated that might be vary similar to what thoy
could do where Los Coyotes and Willowick Orive merge.
Ne referred to the averages discussed by Anaheirn Hills, Inc, indicating a traffic increase
from 32'%, to 47`%,and indicated :~ evaluate averages if you have one foot on the fire and one
foot on tha ice, on the average you feel prottv good, but felt in reality every streat
should be evaluated. He presenYed an exhibit of five photographs on each side of
Willowick and Los Coy~t~s where the two merge to show the views going down illustrating
the blind curve and a~lso the difficulty turning right into the cul de sac; ~nd also showing
the views coming up. He indicated their concern is very obvious; that there is a significant
number of children on the street; that the~e is a blind cur~e and a s~gnificant drop in
clevation, Fle pointed out the photographs were tak.3n in the afternoon and early morning
hourS and shadows are cast across the street which m~-.~s it significantly 8~78~78
more difficult for motorists to sae children.
MINUTES, ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28, 197A 78-720
FIR 91R,_k~CIASS~_ZR;Jq-~TFNTATIVF TRACT NOS~IOkn Ic74n~_ In4~~ r. _tn41n_(r•nntlnii~~ll
P1r.M~tthews stated hfs mein concerns ac~ein wera the Planning Commission hed given d(rectiur~
to Anaholm Hllls, Inc, concerniny the conyons e~nd also the traff~ic. He staled he had not
planned to discuss the filling of' the cenyons, but he ia opposed to it anc! one poinc he
had had a great deal of difficulty with wes Mr. 8ettencourt's def)nition of a mejor c.anyan
being whether or not there is significent vayetatian end crees and indicated thet t~e would
like ~~,ubmit thet the Grand Canyon is a significa,ik cenyon and recently he hed raftod
through it and there is not sic~nificar~t foliayQ ar vegetat~on and trees and he woul~d have
difficulty acceptiny lhet as orie ~f the rQCOrn~nondations reqar-dinq A niejor cer,yon.
Ron Peptn, Su56 willawi~k Circle, stated tiis home is dire:.tly north of the canyon thet
(s propased co ba fllled a~~d he is oppuso~i to thc~ ~~vcrall plan es presented; that rhe
presenY plan is vcry littlc changed frorn the oriyinAl pian; that it 5till involves filling
the canyons and the Con~nissian had sugyested at the pravious h~~ring that the de~vr.lop~r
take another look at the c~verall project end see if the~~e wasn't a way to leave the canyons
alone; that these ar~ major ca~yons and are sc~nic and add something to the ertitire communlty;
that [he canyons are visible f'ran other areas such as t.he Riversido Freewey, Santa Ara
Canyon Roed, etc. ar,d hr, requested the Cornmission t~ deny permission to complete the project
in its present form.
Georg~ Kershaw, 5416 Willowick Circle, indi~ated he wouid like to take exception to one
point made by Mr. BettencAUrt r.oncerning the (ill wherei~~ he hed indicated rhe City's report
relati~~e to the damage done iz~ the storrns durin~~ Marc.h was becausP uf~ poor maintenance by
the homeawners. He pointed out that i, not I~ow he had r•e,~d the report, but the report
clearly said tha; tha prirnary problem w;.; poor cirainage from the top level whi~h is an
indicetion to hirn of bad grading to beyin with.
Philip aettencourC stated he would like to clear up any confusion regarding results of the
Weston Pringle traffic forec~st and felt sam~ numbers whic,h were ii~ forecasts of an earlier
tract deslgned ~efore the cul de sar. was crebted got roiled inro this wlthout realizing
±hat they wauld obviously b~ changing ~riving habits, based on chenging the ac.cess to the
*_ract. he read the followi~,g from page 8 of the Prinyle traffic informatinn submitted~
"~ar the Westridge traffic volumes which will exist after the proposcd development is
constructed, Table 3 sl~ows the expected traffic volumes. It can be seen t.hat acccss point
~ is the only pc~int which wil) rective additional project traffir, and its volume wil) reach
only 57Q vehicles per day. Access point D will have iess traff'ic [han access C has today."
He pointed to the access pc~ints on the exhibit and indicated there is the assumption th~t
somehow a local street is going to be more canvenient than ',~erial I~ighway ar~d stated that
neither Mr, Pringie nor the City Traffic Engineer see thinqs quite that way; that there is
high probability of a signalizatio,, interssction upon the continuation of In,perial Highway
and the driver ccxning out there i~orthbou~~d on Imperial will meet a signalized intersection
at Nohl Ranch Raad,but doesn't have the same expectation of ~nt~rsection movements and
convenience at the other location and whether Nohl Ranch Road is as convenier.t he was not
certain, ancl wh~ther the fiyure is 570 vehicles, or 670, [he poin[ is, it is lcss than
50'% of what would be the acceptable ~~olume for residential streets; that despite all the
r.once~ns about traffic safety, the Anaheim Folice [~epartment reports chat in t.he past three
years, there have been two reported :--affic z-ccidents, both involving vehiclos striking
parked cars.
He referred to Mr. Garrett's remarks concerning the merits of the design and the canyon
fill s*.ating Anaheim Nills, Inc. does not want the Commission to take their s~de in this
lawsuit, but neither do they want the Commission to take Mr. Garrett's side; that his
concerns belong in a court of law an.i the Commission should not get involved in that trans-
action on behalf of either party.
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28, 197H
78-721
E IR._213~_ RECLASS_,_ 7a'29-~; TC~~~I`.TI'JC TR/`,CT ~JOS, 1Q~~07, 1040$.104~j in41~ (rnnt (nii~~ll
hle stai~d they are asking the C~~rtmission to look at the validity of the oarlier clalrns
regerding cenyon preservation a~d pointed to the largor ~xhibit e,nd some of' the contri~,~~t :ons
in the canyon preservetion area that have elreAdy t:aken place. He stated the laryer exhi bil
include~s proparty both in the Cit; of Anaheim and Orange, thet every area shown in ~;reen
is opcn spece; that there is ieo5 acres within the open space ease~nent deed requiren~ents
of the Co~~nty of Orange; that they have proposed for preservet ion edd i t ional acreage at
Deer Cenypn, a S5 Acre park si~e, wich significant environmer•tel fertures to preserve, un ique
stands of tr'ees, large rock outcroppings, siqnif'icenf environmental habitat, etc.; thet t he
C i ty e 1 ready owns the 55 acre Oek Canyon Peric s i te wh i ch they ae.qu i red F r~m linghe im H i 1 1 5.
I nc. ; that they own the Oak Park S i te, t he Fal rmont Park s i te, l ake Park s i te and 23 ec~c5
of the Imperial Park ~~te; and that all of those perk siles ~_eme from Anaheim Nills, Inc.
as a r_onsideration for the park servic,e area e_yieenrene for t.he residc~ts of this area.
He stated Anah~im Hills, In~., f'inds the talk of overcrowdinc~ the schools annoyinq and
pointed out various schoo~ sltes which csme from t.her,~ which sprve residei~ts outside the
Anaheim Hills area; ~~in~inq out the site donated to th~ Orange Unified School District
in a thrae p~rty eyreernenl involving the C~ty ~f Aneheim; Ansheim Hills El~mentary School
which is on Nraheirn !i i lls, Inc, pr'opc~r[y; ond indicated he knew of no other developer in
the Diatrict who I~as contrib~iled a s~hool site; ond also enother schoc+l sitc which will be
dona trd i f t he D i s t r i c t w i I 1 have i t. .
Hg referred to the signlficanC open spece areas wf~ich thei-' planned conmunitv associateor~
will mointain; that ar~ea already maintained at rrivate expense; that thay have provided
recreational amenities nnd where the terrain a~d environment justifies preservation,
have attempted to presarve tI~F area. He point: ' • another exhibit, the original topographic
map of the Westridge area, pointing out the oxist~ ,+ostridge homes to the nurth and th~
proposed proJect to the south and the canyon arGas in yuest ion and the ~ idgel ines ot CF~e area.
He stetad it moy have been piecemeal f i 11 ing to f i 11 that canyon, but f~ad therc nr~t br.en
piecr.r~ieal fllliny, there wauld be no Westridge; that this is a continuation of the area
a~,d that about 60/ of the surface ar•da of these canyons was fille~i oric~inally. Regarding
whether or not the filling should or should not have teken place, he felt realistically
there R~ust be scxne tradeoff between the permissible developments and if peoplR are t~ have
housing ar~d a place to II'JA. He esked the Conxnission to look at thcir past records t~
determine whether or not thny have cc,mpromised or whether they have compromised enouqh.
He stated the~~ want tc~ know what the rules ot the game are going in and they haven't be~n
before the Carmission that tl~e rules haven't. changed; that the last 181 ~nit project on
the west half of the Burrell are~ nnw being graded was presented and the Commission had
dissatisfection with those and Anaheim Hills, Inc.. had participaied in a six-month majo r
look at the city subd ivision standards and those standards were amended and they had
conformed w i th them; that they part. i c i pated i n the Car~yon Area Genera 1 P 1 an so that t hey wou 1 d
have an iden;ification of areas they could expect development to occur and areas that we re
worthy of preservation, but in term~ of the publ ic int~rest in •`~e property, they have to
look at v i abl e mecha~ i sms af ma i nta i n i ng th i s park anc! open space a~d env i ronmental co r idors
and thus far there i, limited enthusi~sm in this City government or any other City yo~~ern-
ment right now for taking on additional open space maintenance burdens, they don'r tidve
the funds to do i t and they have not been abl e to i dent i fy a mechan i sm to do i t outs i de
the government other than their own community association, but they can only make that
burden real i st i c to the hame s i tes that are prov i de~, He i nd i ceted that i s what they h ave
created in this instan:e, a two and one-half acre park site, over 1,100,000 square feet of
open space maintenance area within the tract meintained at the expense of their future
homeowners, the area has 12 specimen trees now and they will plant 1,700 should tha project
take place, all Accurring al their expense while they fac~ the question of the Imperial
Highwa~~ participation which really doesn't benefit this project.
8/28/78
•
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, flugust 28, 1978 78-722
EIR 218, RECLASS. 7a-~-1L TC~~T~TIVE TRACT MO,~ 10~~0~, 1040~, 1040~, tn41n ~r~~nt in~t~t~~
Mr, Bettenco~~rt ref'erred t.o thm street in questlon and pointed out. it is a st~~~bed out
9troet end it could nat bo anynore abvious whara it. is yaing, excepc to serve the propercy
to the south or it could heve been cul-de-seced e t the ~ime, but even if thac were not che
case, they would ask the Commission to enalyze the ressonableness ot the st.reet connecting
to the pro.ject. now and ~~sk if there is statistical date ta s~~pport thd lraffic pro.jected
end is it an overburden ~n the existing developrnent7 No felt in the view of the residents,
one additional car wc~uld be ~n overburden, bul they Fe ~~~ Gonformed with Ci cy standerds efter
e traffic investigation which they presurne tho City Traffic Lngineer concurs with,
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
Commissioner barnes esked Mr, Garrett. tu pui~~t uut li~e lo~ation of his I~oR,o, which hc did,
ar~d he also poinled out iha propcrt.y of fcred to h im by the Rabert Gr~nt Cc-rpc~rAt ion whic.h
would extond down to t.he buttom of~ the canyon and up, but not to [he side.
Commissioner Barnes asked Mr. G.~rrPtt what he see s direcclv o~t his back doar or patio arda
and Mr. Garrett explained he looks across tho can yur~ and pointed to a hillside which
goes up considerably higher than his proparty, an d indicated he hed no objection to h.uilding
on that p~rticular hillside; that it was tf~e ope~~ area in between for which he had paid the
premium. Commissioner Barnes pointed out he would have r~otl,~ng abstructing his view when
he looked out his back door• or stood on his patio ~ince there is no hill between his property
and the canyon and Mr. Garretc repl ied that was cori•ect and fron, his backyard i; drops down
117 feet to the bottor~ af the cany on on a slope, and goes across to t~e hillside which is
probably 500 feet acr~ss. Conunissioner E3arnes asked if the same was true of other properties
and he replied it was true of his home and proba bly six other homes and pointed out: the areas
on the exhibit. He stated his property 11A5 a level lot that extcn.ls to tF~e canyon edge and
gc~PS dc~wn and the other homes, as they yo up, slope up to various degrees befart they reach
that open view.
CoRmissioner Eiarnes esked if there was anyone else pr•esent who lives in those homes and
Mary McKinne, 5364 E, Willc-wick, indicated hen c~xne is two houses up from Mr. Garrett,
end that they look out their backyard to z~n up-slope and then to che down-slope. across
tha canyon and then up; that they have a beautif~l view out the back and there ~s nothiny
behind then- except cows and a wild area. Camiissioner Barnes asked liow far the slope is
up in back of her• house and it was replied approximately 20 Feet and Conmission er Barncs
indicated she understood that if Ms. McKinna was standing thAre she would be looking at
e slope First and then laoking at the hills behind that on the other canyon and Ms. McKinnA
replied thet to the left toward M r. Garrett's th ey have a clear view to Big Be:ar Mountains
and Corm~issioner Bar•nes clarified that the McKinna's view is across Mr. Garrett's property.
(Ms. McKinna stated they werc als o ~ffered tha property by the Grant Corporation.)
Commissioner Barnes asked if there was anyone pr esent from the adjacent canyon area and
Ron Pep~n pointed out his property and stated th ey have a totally ur~obstructed view the
full length of the canyon about 1300 feet, which also applies to neighbors on both sides;
that they are looking at the canyon floor, t:ho t,illsides and the peak where there is a
stand of trees and exposad ~ock, etc.
Commissioner Barnes asked if those canyons were lef*_ natural and homes were built on top
of the slopes what the view would be and Mr, Pepin replied they would probably see the rear
of the homes. He stated they understood whan they bought thair hanes that ultimately
this area on top of the hills would be develope d, but that the canyons would remain, He
stated this project would change the complete op en canyon view ta a 100 foot high hill and
pointed out that all tf~e homes ar9 constructed so that the living areas are in the rear
and that they had purchased their home for that setting,
8I28/78
MINUTES, i
ANl1HEIM
CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28, 19r8 '
78-723
EtR 218. RECLASS, 7$-7 ~-~~Y~NTATIVF TRACT Nu, 't)4U], 1040~3, 10409~,10410 (conlinued)
Commissioner Bernes esked Mr. Don ta clerify hls comments regerding fiho EIR tn cerms of
the slope enalysia and Mr, Uon replied thet his comments wero not re9arding the EIR in terms
of tl~e slope analysis, but were concern~ng the actual slope roport glven by Pacific Sofls
which statad in the beginning thot it is A C8Sll8~ observation and~watching the person doing
the analysis you could helieve it bACause they simply walked +along the back yards ar~d looked
at t•he property, and that the grading analysis he had d~ne with an aerial s~irvoy shawed that
nearly every home hed revarse drainege ar very iittle drainage (approxirnately 1'%,). so there
is massive grading problems. Ho stakecl ali the lok lines were off end that he hed deeded
property to three, neighbors above him because where the top of the slope ceme down wes st~ll
his property; that he had owned 13 feet of one proparty, 6 faet AF anor'~er pr~~perly and 9
feet af another property and hed fuund tl~is out when his neighbors tr~ed to build A pool.
He stated [his is not only true for hirn, but olmost ali of Westridge.
Chalrman Her•bst: stoted Westridye was onr ~f the first tra~-ts in the ares end was de~~eloped
prior to current grading ordin~nce, and asked how tl~is informacion p~crtained to this
particule~r projecl. Mi. ~un r~ep;ied that was given in terms vf the slope angles end dre~nr!~e
of 1'Y, which~ was establ ished then.
Choirman Herk~st stated since Wostridye was built lhere have been changes ir, tha grading
or•din3nces and indicated h~e recognized some mistakos were made~ in the yredin~ of 'destridge,
but felt this particular trect would, hopefullv, overcon,e tliosa problems because of the
new grading ordinancn.
Mr. Don stated the prescribed grading plans when Westridge was developed c~ll~d for• a 1'/,
drop in grade towards the front so you wuuld have drainage forward, but basically what
they ha va is flat land or reverse drainage and the char,ce fnr pooling,
Jay 7itus, Office Engineer, pointed aut the aradiny ordinance a~ that time did require all
lots to drain to the street and the ~xistinq ordinanco requires the same tfiing, and this
has not been char,gdd in the proposed revision to tha grading ordina~ce, He stated the
proposed change will roquire the engineer to cartify the lot drainage after the huuse is
coristr~ctesd prior to occupancy by the buyer. He stated the change has not become effective,
but is in the procoss and will definitely help the lot drainage problam.
Commissioner 6arnes stated by the audience's respo,ise when drainage was mentioned that there
has to -+e a lot of p~oblems, but that the Commission is aware of them; that a lot uf study
has gone into each individual lot and the cause of the problems being suffered, and the
Commissinn has looked at the new plans and think they have come in with sor~ethinq which is
"foolproafl', She asked Mr. Bettencourt if the area proposed for development is all in the
C i ty of Anahe~ i m.
Mr. Bettencourt referred to Exhibit "J" with Westridge to the north and noted the c~rculation
is incprrect. but that tha project boundaries are still indicated and stated there are 34
acres which is the subject of an annexation which has been approved For filing by the City
Cauncil wt~fch crosses generally the backs of some home sites, but he did not think there was
one full hcxne site affected, and that the annexation would be before 2he Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission for hearing shortly. He pointed out the City of Urar~ge boundary to the
north and eventually the CiCy of Anaheim end Orang~ boundary where they will join. Ne
st~ted the property has not been officially annexed, bu* the City Council unanimously
epproved the ennexation filing and it is procedurally u.~derway, and will next 4o to the
LAFCO forapproval, without notice and hearing because it is 100'~o property owner approved,
and then if approved by LAFQ~,will return to the City Council for final adopti~n. He felt
it would be fair to say the annexation area includes predominantly the embankmant and right
of way for Imperial Nighway.
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N, August 28, 1978
78-724
EIR ~,~,8, RECLAS5~,Z8-79-5; fEN1ATIVE TRAC1' NO 10407, 1U408,_10409,.10410 con~inued)
Commissioner Tolar asked Mr. Bette~caurt to address the commonts in relationship to closing
off this tract ca+npletely ta the existtng Westridgo 7rect with another access somewhet
south of the current access un Imperiel Nighway.
Mr. Bettencourt stetod technically this could bo done, but you would have 144 lots alreedy
partictpAting in their disproportionate share of an arterial highway rcyuircd to build an
orterial f~ighway for access when they have alraady taken an access pofnt and in offect
deny themselves the use of an existing public street thet was planned and comes to ti-eir
prope~ty boundaries. He stated if they were faced with that sorC oi alternative, another
possibility would be to cul de sac ti~e street with the sPme s~rt of hreak-Away d~sign
which they havo propv~~d so thcr~ would bc an aiternate access, but 144 homes hr,ve edequate
traffic service from the ~ne locatian; cher che pr~porry w~uld certainly ha~:c some penelty
tu Che axtent that those Westridgo residents would banefit by not having any a~ditional
traffic on t~heir technicelly under-capacity streets. He pointed out an aren which would
probebly beAr a disproportionate amaunt of traffic compered to what they migl~t bear under
normal circumstances, but t:h~c it could be done.
Chairmen Nerbst asked why Anaheim Hills is putting in a section of Imperiel Hiyhway that
actually goes no p~ace and has no usabilicy until it is ccxnpleted.
Mr, Bettencourt staled he was not sure they hed a chaice ur~der the City's exisling capital
improvement policy and referred co Exhibit "G" which is th~ CiCy's approved Arleriel Straets
and Highways Element of the Genaral Plan which shows Imperial Highway on the tract boundaries
going through and oventuelly connecting with the City of Orenge. He stated a plan show+ng
Imperial Nighway cannecting hes been approved and is the ~fficial trensportetion plan dpcu~
ment for both Anaheim to the north and Orange lo thc south, and rnore importantly, ic is
on the Northeastern Orange County Circulation Scudy whicl~ has been adopted.
Chairman Herbst stated he knew imperial H~ghway is going to go tl~rough; that it is on the
Anaheim, Orange and County of Or~nge master plan of roads, ar~d asked why they did not
utilize another access since thoy are guine, to put it on their property.
Mr. Bettencourt explained their preparation involves only the embankment and painted out
the area which they will improve ancS the aroa that will be graded for the embankment and
pointed out the dramatic Cerrain differences and the fact that Imperial will be at a 12%,
grade. The Cammission discussed the different elevations and grad~ differences with Mr,
Bettencourt pointing out different areas on the exhibtt. Mr. Bettoncourt staled thera are
other considerations such as not enough area between to make the grade , eCc.
Commissioner Barnes indicated the Commission is pointing out that all the grades are nat
that steep and there are some things that could be done if the project were redesigned.
Mr. Bettencourt stated that Imperial is not a loc.al street; that their engineeriny costs
hstimate indicates that this partion of the road whic:h does not sorve them and those home
buyers who are going to pay for it is $800,000 because it is obviously planned as bn
arterial and must meet thos~ specifications, He indicated if they were faced with that
alternative that they wauld dcal with sar~e other uption before they would ever undertake
that; ' is clearly not practical; that Imperiel is supposed to be a limited access
arterir ,ay and will not work with many access points.
Chairmen Herust asked what Anaheim Hills, Inc. plans for their proparty above tizis site
on Imperial Highway and Mr. Bettencourt stated they have sane yrading studies underway
and referred to tha exhibit pointing out the project area ana indicated a good portion
of that area has been designated for opnn space because of utilities and they do have plans.
but they are not substantial to where Imperial finally goes ~hrough because they are
legally committad to open space.
8/28/78
MINI.ITF..S, ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28, 197$ 7~-725
E IR 218~ RECLASS ;.~_ f~q_-~;_ TENTAT I VE TRACT _NO.,_ l OGOj_,_ 1040~3~104~L_10410__(r.on t i nued)
Chairmen Nerbst asked Mr. Hettencourt about the open spec.o end whether r~r not the fut.u.e
widening ot' Imperiel to its ultimate width would teke any of tl,e opon spece and Mr.
Bettencourt poinled o~.it the entrance to Tract 9749 and the portion of Imperial to be
improved from Noh) Ranch Roed by the War•mington Caripany and the port~on ta bc improved
by Anaheim Ni11s, Inc, to the tract antrance,
Chairmen Herbsl tndicated ha was intarested in the area fi.~rther down wF~ich is designated
for open space and wfiether or not che widening of Imp~rial wuuld alfect that opei~ space~
and asked if AnAheim Nills, Iri~, owned th~at property. Mr. [~etcenc;ourt pointed out the
area referred to and indicat~d Anaheim Hills does own thet property and stated that some of
thn open space will be laken with the wideniny of~ Imperial and that the remaining acreaye
batweon tha prpject aroa boundary and lhe ulimato riyhl of way fur Imperial Hiyhway And
the ~dison easement area is vory limited and pointed out the offsite cut and fill areas
and tho Edison easement ~rea which effeceively controls it and stateci there are no uses
of ronsequencP pl~nnrd f~r thr~t ~rea,
Cliairm-n Herbst asked if thal property were developed where the access would be located
and Mr. Bettencourt replied thore is noi that much developable acroage t:o begin with
and reviewed the Prca pointing out the projeci area, the a~~ea betwoer~ the easements
and a preser~~ation area subject to easement deeds, indicating there is not significant
additiona) property in question,
Chairman Hesrbst stated sinc~~ Anaheim Hills, Inc, owns the property on boch sides where
Imperial is going through~he thought it would bef~oove t1,en, to meke the ultimate cuc and
fill naw rather than later since it is going ri~ht throuqh t.heir property.
Mr. Bettencourt stated they vrould look to the couney and city and their arterial highway
financinq progr~am in ordPr Lo accomplisl~ that; that lhey are providiny what they feel is a
disproportionate share vf concribution based on thc proximity o1~ this partic~~lar property
to the highway, bui. it is the county and city's arterial highwav financ.iny prograrn . aut
of/~~~ funds, that would f~n8hce the campletion and tf,e builder or developer would typic~lly
pro~iide the right of way.
Chairman Herbst stated that since they plan to grade th~e road and not pave it and since
they plan on developing the other side, they should be obliyated to grade both sides and
Mr. Bettencourt stated if that rationdle was followed the Warmington Company which owns
the property at Imperial and is developing at Imperial and Nohl Ranch Road would have to
build the whole portian of Imperial Highway because they came first, but the way it
iiappens is thal they were obli~ated to build and provide right of way for their side and
Anaheim Hills, Inc. is obligated to build ard provide right of way for their side at the
time of development. He stated it would be excessive since you would be b~ilding a road
to nowhere for which the public has identified a need, but has not identified the funding
to put the road through.
Chairman Harbst stated they ~re now building half a road to nowhere on their property and
Mr. Bettencourt stated that is because it appears to be the minimum they are able to
persuade city officials they should be obligated to do at this time. He indicated he had
shown at the last hearing ju5t what th~ cost consequences woutd be and if they were faced
with a matter of that kind of cost which is in excess of three quarters of a million
dotlars for a road that would not serve these residents anymore than it would serve any
other residents, they would survive on ~ne entrancQ to the trect which would penalize future
homROwners to a lesser degree than asking chem to carry that load.
Chairman Herbst asked the cost of grading the slopes and Mr. Bettencourt indicated that would
rnean the rnovement of a lot of dirt and the cast would be prahibitive and would be beyond
what would otherwise bo regarded as a reasonable capital improvement action undar thP Map
8/28/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS;ION, August ?8~ 1978 7~"7?h
~iR 218, RECLAS51,_,]8~ i9-5~ TENTATIVE 1kAGl N~, Iu40/_, 1040y 1040 ~ 101~10_(~.ontinucd)
Act. Ne did rUt think (t could bo ~upported a~d ~ompared it with requiring Aneheim Hills,
Inc, to liuild all of Nohl Ranch Rood which has a brosder spectr~ini of drivers. He ~tated
they hava given school sites, but there are~ a lot. of children from Peralta Hills attending
those schools; chat it is o matter of wh~t is reasonable ~nd genGr~lly those costs, ~~~der
the Map Act, have to be rElated t~i the burden that urbenitelion crec~tes un public facilities.
Chairman Herbst stated 't appears ther~ are tw~ n~~~jor problerns, fillinq the canyons and
traffic on W(llowick, and it eppears that tho rot+d which dead ends into that o~~c canyon
wos definitely planned tu go through at some point in time ond the propased cul de sac
would eli~uinale partiaily the opposit~on to traffic onto Wi1lc~wick Circ:lc, but there is
still tl~e pro~lein of the mounds of dirt behind thet one a~'va whirh hP wo~,ld defi~itelv
consider ta bc filling the cany~n An~l rnfllly does chai~qe their vir.w, fle stated he had viewed
the canyon and that this is a con[ir~,ation of fill that has been str~~ted, hut it is goinq
t4 be developed ard will have to be dra~ned. He recoqnized a cer~ain an,c-u~~t ul trafl'ic should
he entitled to go throu~~h the tract ond it is quest~onahle how much is qoinc~ co circulate
througli, bul there could be q~.:~te a!~t. He felt if lhere was an area Wr,~~r~ was c~.~l de sace~,
not necessarily whera it i5, one of the problems miyht be solved.
Mr. Bettencourt. stated technically it cauld be dono ar~d thoy have studied those altarn~tives.
Ne esked the Commission to put themselves in An~heim Hills, Inc,'s position; thot they
returned with what thcy thou~ht was a fair alternative wilf~ the (irsc r~vision of the map
because the 18 lots in the earlier version on what is nov~ the cul de sac that lias reuersed
seemed to them and the traffic ar,alyst to t,e a reasonable accomrnodation for the existing
Westridye street system, so in all inno~ence they walked into a buzz-saw; that when they
presented the plan, [hey kept get:ting lhe cenypn p roblem and as Mr. Pepin has cestified,
he paid nothing for the vicw for whic'~ he feels he is entitled; that they trieu to salve
that problem by reducing the fo~,r home ~~tes to two; that they, in fact, have underteke~
A view analysis and based on the gradin_y plan, believe the two remair,ing home sites could
not even be seen frorn WEStridge, c~iven the intrusion of trees end landscaping into the
view plains. They thouqht the revision was fair and wo~~ld da the job and that che
homa sites were legal, b~~~ that wasn't enough. He stated if they knew tf~at chere was a
consensus or if they were negotiating with the aoard of Oirecturs or with five homeowners,
but they haven't been able to find that kind of consensus and are gettiny kind of gun shy
because this has been g~ing on for quite awhile.
Chairman Herbst not^d they have eliminatad two home sites in that area, but haven't changed
the grading at ali fra~~~~ what he understood, and it is still the same grade and the same
mountain of dirt is behind those homes. He staCed the qutstion he has is since that area
will be open space, why not 1et it remain as a p~rtion of the cany~n, In other w:~rds, if
it is going to have tn be regraded, grade it so ihe appearance for the back of those homes
will be of a canyon up through there.
Mr. Bettencourt stated a portion of the area could be dono that way and indicated the
blanket fill. Ne statecl they have another study and there is some of the area that could
be left undisturbed if the street pattern was revised, but the mountain of dirt is a
problem, but that it ~Nill be all landscaped and they have made it a common lot so there
would be no doubt whether the area couid be built on. He pointed out the pad areas for
their home sites are set back and the toe o'' the blanket fill is secback 15 feet from the
pruporty line than climbs, althaugh it. is not as gentle perhaps as those peopie might like,
but that it affec•ts ano her objective which is to maintain a balanced cut and fill operati~n,
so they can't cut from the ridges without filliny in some of the canyuns, depressions,
gulleys, or whateve~- you call thert~,
8/28/7~
4
t~
M I Nl1TES , ANAHE I M C I T~ PLANN I NG COMM 1 SS ~ QN . Aug~~s t 2~3, 197R 7~-72 J
E IR 218, REClASS L_j8 j~Q~,i TENTAT IVE TRACT y0~1040.,~_1040SL 1040~ 6 10410 .( ~ ont i nued)
Chalrman Herbst asked if the cantilever design hanes wouid still b~ necess~ry fc,r those
cwo s(tes left and Mr. 6ettencourt repl~ed they would be ne~.essary.
Chairman Herbst suggested eliminatirig thosa two home sites and meintaininq that portion
as naCurel as possible.
Mr. Bettencourt pointed aut again il 1s the matter of the fill that is fnvolvecf in lowering
the ridge; that there has to bo an embankment for the roadway and he was not sure as he
undorst~od tho opposition's posi[ion thnt that wo~~ld be secisfactar~ to them.
Che:~~n~an Herbst statod it would yive them more flaxibilitv in designinq the qrade so there
wo~.ild not havc~ to be that mountain of dirt riyht behind them and the slope could be more
or less manulactured os a gulley.
Mr. Bcttencourt presented another stu~y, noting the raadway which was there has to be lost
if that erea is not to be disturbed; and noced that generally the deaper green (pointing to
Exhibit A with thc overla,~s) reprosents undisturt~ed aroas and pointed out the blanket fill
goes f~+rther up thc canyon end is further away frun those home sites; that the ~traet is
removed and a cul de sac inte l.os Coyotes with a broak-away gate is proposed; ~~,nd this is yet
another option that could be con~idered.
Chairman Harbst. stated by cannecting onA cul de sac into Los Cuyotes with fewer homes would
not create a traffic problem and w'~h a break-away gate for fire purposes that this plan
is similar to whet has been discussed.
Mr.Bettencourt stated their difficulty is that these sketches unfortunetely cannoc br;
knocked out in a couple of hours as somesone had Said, and are not. tur•ned out in a couple
of hours or they would not have had a 30-day continuance to get to where they are now
to meet the legal required filing fnr tentaeive maps; that chey have thausands of dollars
into engineering, but thaL this one has bcen engi;ieered and +.hey know it works.
Commissioner Tolar asked the total number of lots witti this change ar~d Mr. Bettencourt
replied the total is l~ab, that they have lost four lots fron, the original 14~+ because
of the loss of the ~treet system.
Chairm+an Horbst asked how many houses w~uld go into Los Coyotes, with Mr. 6ettencourt
noting tF~ere will be eight. Chairma~ Herbst indicated he did no. think 8 would impact
the street and Mr. Bettencourt stated they did not think 18 would impact it either, bul
had guessed wrong.
Mr. Bettencourt reviewed the orio~nal pian and Revision No. 1 with a cul de sac stating they
had thought with 18 lots the si :et system was Adequata, but tlien the people who had objected
to traffic switched to agruments about the canvnns once that problem was solved and com-
pounded it.
Chairman Herbst steted it appears tha mount~in of dirt has been removed and the cantilever
hanes from behind at least those homes in the centAr and I~e though[ that solves one of the
problems. (Mr. Bettencourt stated there is still fil) and pointed out the area on the
exhiGit.) Chairman Horbst stated it looks like it has been moved back quite a bit with
a gent'er slo{~e.
Mr. gottencourt poin[ed out the area that would be left natural, subiect to some
stabilization,
8/2817$
~ ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLi1NNING COMMISSION, August 28, 1978 7R-7~8
E I R 218, RECLASS , 78-j~,-5 ~ TFNTAT IVE TRACT N05 ~ 1040T1_ 10408, 1040 6 10410 (c:ont i nuod)
Comm(ssioner Bernes steted tFiore is still tlie problAm of' Mr. Garret.r.'s and hi~ neiyhbors'
vlews straight out the back and Cothe northeost with the proposed park site end a ked if
their viow of the mountAins toward Baldy or the view they now have will be obstructed.
Mr. Bettencourt stated he wes not sure they would conc~~r with Mr. Garrett's analysis of
the views because of the inter•vening slopo area. He noted +he pad elevet.~on of Mr. Gariett's
horne and explained yau would -•oally ba looking down e slopc across tho wey end stated tliey
have movod it dcwm as far as they could because ~lhor city requi~~ements come ~ntA play
concerninq sewors and stor•m drains and tl,e Fire Department would like to avoid grades
exceeding 10'%~within the tract. Ne point.ed out ell the properties arc~und Mr. Garrett are
clearly lowcr by at least 25 to 30 fc:el. (Some~ne in the eudience askcd if two-stary
homes would be built and Mr. Dettencourc indicnled tu ll~c C1~11Mi~iS5lUli thac th~re is the
problem.)
Conanissioner Tular st.ated he felt this plan is bcyinning to mGet sc~me of the incent of
what was wanted in the beginniny; that he could live with tliose eight houses g~ing into
the existing tract; that he is concerned chat the Ca~xnission and ell chose people present
heve beat this pro.ject to death ond pre;.r.y soon the developer will have a lcgal right to
take it to the City Council and he was not sure the Counci) could legelly turn the pruject
down because it does meet the resolutian of i,~tont of the ZOninq tor that area; ch~at he still
would like to see another irgres5 and egress out of the tr•act s~me:where down Impcrial, but
was not concerned abo~.~e that; that he had luoked intu the developme~~t of Imperial Highwa~~
and it is going to go through and while he may not agree with everythiny Annheim Hill~, Inc.
has done, he would share thet as a developer with expertise in the rea) eStace field, he has
never found anothor developcr who wa~ld develo~ an a-terial highway and pay for it; thet he
is concerned bocause if~ che grading is not gotten fran ;he developer ac this time, the
burden of improving Imperial Highway will be on the City of Anaheim and the taxpayers;
that he had discussed th~is ~vith thr.. NEOCCS representat.ives and it is in the plans.
He felt it must be recognized that Anaheim Hills, Inc. has made concessions and they
have obviously made money which is fair and indicated he was not saying this in defense
af them, but thought lhe interit of this particular plan is beginning to get to where
it could be accepted,
Cammissioner Tolar stated anothar unpopular thing he could ~say is that he has a house
soon to be completed in Anah2im Hills and as a member of that ccxnn~unity would liice to
see no more devclopment, but realized that is not going to hap~en and che fact ~nust be
accepted that son~ething is going Co built there and this p1,3n is getting close to what
w~uld be acceptable to him.
Commissioner Johnson addressed his remarks ta Mr. Bettencourt f~rst stating he thouyht the
prosentation was overwhelming and eloquent and he had done a tremendous job showing the
Commission where all the chips lie; that it is their business to develop these arguments.
He stated he thouyht the oppusition had made some very good presentations also. He wanted
to state his position yuite clearly; that he was going to be complimenting Mr. Bettencourt
but didn't want him to be misled; that hc was going to be as impartial and fair as he could.
He referred to the presentation, irdicating he had taken the project p~int by point and had
talked about density noting the project is within the Code on density s~ he could not argue
or stop the project on derisity; and is al~o within the General Plan confines; that he had
talked about lot sizes and how these lot sizes are much larger than it was ever hoped they
would be in those hills because of the extreme fine planning done and that he cauld not
argue with that; that his position is a little different than some concerning the traffic
pattern; that he honestly believed t!,~ citizens are being very hard on the traffic pattern
because the studies he has seen by City staff indicate t4~e project iy within tfie limits
of what the ~raffiG can stand; that this is his opinion, but he has to vote on what he
thinks;and that the sacne was true of the first plan brought in, so he wanted to make it very
clear that his vote has never been against the project on the basis of the traffic pattern.
8/28/78
~
~ ,
MIP~UTCS, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, August 2$, 1y78
7~-729
~,I R~19 RC_~LASS,~._Z~~;_ TENTA r I VE TRAC'~ _N05~ 104~~_104U8_,__104A~ ~ 10410., (ton t 1 nued)
loi site, open space, etc, po(nting out they heve contributed hugh smouncs af ~pen spece.
He statbd Mr. Bettencourt tends to build the erqument that t.hey stili didn't givc ~n~uc~l~
apen space, but that has nover beer~ said by him.
Commiss(oner Johnson refcrred to the hill and canyon gradiny ordinance, poini~in~ out he
thought it hed been mentioned several times end it doesn't hurt to repeet it; thek Anaf~eim
Nllls, Inc, i, one step ahead of a~~r•yone elae end is usiny e greding ordinance that isn't
even on the books ,et which they had pnrticipat.ed in (orming, a~d are trying to anticipate
wl~+et the City Counci) and tha Planning Commission are yo~ny to do. He stat~d the same is
truo with tho Cnvironmental Impact Report; thal lh~y a~e 3u technicel he cen hardiy even
discuss tl~e,rn, hut h~ helieved this E:IR would probebly be found wichout foult.
Me statod he w~nted to make it. very clear that he disagreed in unc area only and fclt it
would be impossible for them to niake a casf~ on it ber.AUSP it hAS f~eP~1 told to them on cach
project step by step, and that is -"you are moving t~ much dirt," bnd that it has been
said in his presence no less than 50 times, yet each p ro.ject cumes b,~ck with more dirt io
be moved; lhat he knpws the aryument concerning Imperisl Hiyhway is f~irly 5ound; that it
is going to go through there, but. would submit that those dotted projcc.ted lines are the
gene~•al locations for Imperial Highway and iilustrated that if there wes a 700 foot cliff
there, thc line would be drawn iust the same end it would be up to the developer of the
highway and their engire ers to design around end up that cliff and [hey wc~uld not just take a
slant right up a 700 ¢oot cliff end grade a hugli grada with slopes on h~th sides 700 fect
high. He stated he was saying that perhaps Imperial is designed iroproperly to meet the
contours of the land and the devF~lc~per says if they are yoinr to rnatch Imperial they heve to
move millions of yards of dirt. f~e pointed o~~t agair, this has been his only argum~nt.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out to Commissioner Tolar that aach o; Anaheim Hills, Inc,'s
projects has followed exactly this same pattern; that they suanit i~ with plans to mo~;e
first one million, then two million, then three million yards of dirt which causes some
real sore spots and if there is opposition, the Planning Commission ~vhi~:tles it down and
gets the corners shaved off a little bit to make those people who are most outspoken happy,
or the oncs who perhaps ar•e the most perceiving of the situation, but there are other people
who rnaybe haven't analyzed the situation and where their lots are g~in9 to be or how they
wili fit into the plan. He stated he could no[ supp~rt this projec[ with tha: much dirc
being moved in those hills and feit Anoheim H~lls, inc. should ~ave respondtd to the repeated
pleadings ~f the Planning Commission and the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee
and the special task force; that he could quote Commissioner Herbst saying, "we have the
technology to remove the whole mountain area and all the lots could be square just like
they are in downtown Anaheim", but that he had aiso followed that and said, "but that is
not the wey it is going to be done; we are gaing to wind up with some hills up there."
Commissioner Johnson Stated he cnuld not argue that the dPVeloper owes these people a view; ~
that he woulcl argue with the citizens on that point; that s~he deveioper does not or.~ them ~
a vi~w unless he sells it t~ them in the first place with a contract stating that this is '
their view. Ne indicated he had livnd in the paths of progress all his life and has been
disappointed many times; that he would move out into the cnuntry with nothing around bu[
cows, etc., and then pretty soon it is all roofs; that he moved into the canyons of Hollywood
with beautiful mesquite brush and trees and then pretty soon it was all roots; but hc 6
thought he had found the only way to beat that and that is to buy all the property and ~
told the opposition if they wanted the view up there, they could buy it from Anaheim Hills, Inc. -'
He stated again he could not vote for this project until thty propose moving less dirt
and felt al) the problems ,.~e from that one cause; that the subject had been very lightly
touched upon during the presentation and he did not know whether o~ not the developer was
attempting bo build a case or not with all the good things they have done, but felt the
8/28/78
~.
~ '~ "~
MINUTCS, ANANElM CITY ?!ANN!Nr, rnMMISSION Auaust 28, 1978
78-730
EIR 218 RECLASS 78-79-5: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10407, 10A08,y104Q~ 6 1041(t continued
if they had built with the land contours with houses in tlie hills and maybe houses in the
canyons even though they would nut be qulte as desirable as ~he ones on the hifltops (pointinq
aut they are all over CFIP, rest ~f Californla like that) then we would not have to be ~aring
dawn a little corner here and smoothEng auk a valley or cutt(ng tw~~~, thre~: or four lots to
lec somebody have a view. He was satisfied the changes will help that one prublem, but was
worried about all the other millions of yar•ds of dirt to be moved. He indicated these
comments should give an indication of where his vote is going to be on this pra}F+ct; that
he is with the developer, but against this proJect if it canes to a voee.
Jay Titus, Office Enginecr, poin[ed o~~t ro Comnissioner Johnson that he thought Imperiat
Highway has bePn designed quite preperly, both horizontnl anci verticel allqnments~ ~~fter
extensive studies havc been made a~d It has been approved by the Clty af Orange, the City
of Anaheim, and the County ut Urange.
Corr~nissioner Johnson felt if Imperial Highway has been Je~igned so that Anaheim Hills, Inc.
has to move 3 milli~on yards of dirt to use it, then he would have to say maybe it wasn't
desic~ned praperly.
Mr. Titus stated he was not sayiiig they have ta move 3 rnillion y.:~rds of dirt to construct
their development; that their development i5 something s~parate from the design of Imperial.
Chairman Herbst pointed out lhey have tc~ move approximately 1 millic~n yards of dirt to put
in Imperial, so they have to have a hole to put the dirt in and that is why the canyons are
being filled.
Commissioner Barnes stated she did not know how to follow Commissioner Johnson's comments,
but agreed that one of t!~e ~roblems is the movement of dirt or obviausly no one would be
here because everyone ~~xpe~ts homes on the hills; that she likes this plan a lot better and
thinks it answers some ot the prohlems; that the real problem is some sort of compromise in
trying to get everybody what they want; that sane aren't yoing to get what they want; that
Anaheim Nills, Inc. has already not gotten what th~y wanted~ but if they are willing to go
with this plan, she felt that at least some of the canyon areas wi11 be preserved for those
people and they won't be impacted like they would have been before; that it does answer the
traffic problem, maybe not to ev~rybody's satisfaction, but it is a lot bette, than having
all that traffic dumped out eventually onto willowick; that after having viewed that property
many times, even from the air, [hat the canyon on the left with the 2} acre park should
preserve the visw to the east for Mr. Garrett and his neighbors to the west, and that is
really where the primary view is for c,veryon~ except Mr. Garrett and he has a view out the
back; that he stitl will have a viPw out the back~ perhaps not a~ 3oad as before and sfie did
not know exactly haw to answer that, except that perhaps there may be some way sti11 by con-
strucling a one-story house so he could see over it and asked Mr. 8ettencourt if he had con-
sidered that possibility.
Mr. Bettenco~rt replied they had thought of that, but in view of the fact that parcicularly
Mr. Ga~rett's situation is in litigation, their first objective is to present a development
in that area which meets all legal City requirements which does not compromise rights
Mr. Gari-ett may t~ave from the prior transaction and that hs was sure that would be first
among his propositions for dealing with that situatian, but that it could be done. He
pointed out even with a two-story house, by today's pricing practices, there would clearly
be v~ew premiums charged on hQmes which would not enjoy any better view separation than that
because it has t~ be irtmediatety in y~ur• plane of view at 25 feet to block it and in this
instance, yuu would be talking obo~~t the intrusion of a roofline into the view that is
intrudtng into the view of yet another h~use in the canyon across the way and that would be
getting into a very scientific analysis. He stated Mr. Garrett has admitted he paid $2,000
for che view and he did not know what it is worth today; that view is one thing, but a 1800
8i 28/7$
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, Auqust 28~ 1978
~a-73~
EIR 218, RECLASS. 78-79-5 ~ TENTATIVE TRACT NOS, 10447, 10408,104U9~ 10410 (conlinu~d)
panorama of the whole area is anacher thing, ail on thc basls of representations in which
they were not involved, He felt anyone would look at this and say it ls reasonable,
Commissioner Barnes stated that argument is fine lcgally, but she was interested in these
people and Lheir views and the developer getting what he wents,
Mr. 8ettencourt stated tliis is re~sonable to both parties; that they~ the developer, paid a
price in that they otherwise would have two legal building sites in ihe park site and they
paid yct ~inother price in tliai they had four legal home sites tn the earlier Westt'idge~ but
on the other hand, the hcxnenwners do not have the view they might have enJoyed if there was
no homesite in there at all; that ir that sense he supposed they liavr met each othcr or are
in the process of i~~e~~ting ~~ach other halfway,
Chairman Herbst stated he would like to declare a 10 minute recess and give tlie peapie tn
the audience an oNpurtuiiity to discuss thc revised plan a~~~1 PxprnSS their c~pinions on this
project and would reopen the public hearing after the break.
RECESS - 9:15 p.m.
RECONVENE - 9;30 p.m,
Chairman Herbst reopened the puolic hearing.
Commissioner David asked whether or not these are to be considered as revised plans and
Chairman Herbst explained Anaheim Hills, Inc, has presented [his as a revised p1an and nune
of the audience has had the oppo rt unity to ccxnment on it.
Mr. Bette~court asked the City Attorney to c.cxnment so everyone will know where everybocly
stands; that he r.hought there would be a question if this is a design which meets all the
City's subdivision and design standards, whettier it is within the power of the Planning
Commission to still deny, overrule or redesign the praject.
Max Siaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained it is his cunsidered opinion that merely because
the trac~s meet the minimum standards of the City's General f~lan and City Zoning Ordinances
that does not nPCessarily mean tha~ the Planning Corrxnission must approve it; that the City
yenerally does have the power and the control over the design and subdivision of properCy
within the city, within a number of limitations, but he could see cirt.umstances where all
the minimum code and plan requirements are met, but the City couid still make the findings
and supp4rt them with substantial evidence which would require a denial of the proposed
subdivisian, so hp did not think the Planning Commission was necessarily mandated and the
question he was discussing with Mr. 9~ettencaurt was wheth~r the Planning Cummission, assuming
they wanted ro do so and assuming the applicant were opposed tu it would have any additional
time in which to consider the matter at a later hearing. Ne stated the Planning Commission
may well be in the position wher~ they must act by either conditionally approving or dis-
approving t.he pruject at this point or it will be deemed approved by their failure to act.
He stated this was his concern from the legal standpoint,
Commissioner Barnes asked if this w~uld be true eve~ though the continuances before were
requested by the develaper and Mr. Slaughter replied it is an interesting question as to
whether the 50 days referred to in the statute and the local City Ordinance refers to those
periods of time iF the 50 days is extended by the period of time which the developer stipu-
lates to; that frankly, he had not rEViewed the cases and did not knaw if there are any on
that point, bu: his reading of the statute indicates it is 50 days from the daee of filing
of the tract map, or the tentative map tney are considering, so without some cases in front
of him, he would have to say in his opinian, based on this language, you have 50 days in
which to act from the filing date.
8/18/78
~
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY f'I.~NNING COMMISSION, August 28, 1y78 78-732
EIR 218. RECLASS. 78-79-5; TENTA'TIVE TRnCY NOS. 10407,10408,1QA09 b 10410 (continued)
Chairman Tolar asked if that partic:ular plan could hr_ accepted as the revised plans and
voted on tonight with Chalrman Herbst pointiny out the staff has noC hed an opportunity
to review the grading, etc. of the last plece uf the puzzle which was added r.o the pl;~n
or Revislon No. 3•
Mr. Slaughter replied that (f thc pian is (n su5.,tan[ial conformance with that which was
considered in the Environmental impacl Reporl praposal, thR~ Commissian would be in a positian
ta conditionaily approve thc project~ subjec.t to thc~ ch~tinges ~is shovm r~n thc
map on the wall. He pointed out that any actic7n of the Planning Commissian is subject cn
appeal ar~d the question is whether or nol the Planning Ccx~xnissian has the power to ~ontinuc
the m~~ttcr.
Chairman Herbst sla[ed it is evident since Anaheim Hills, Inc, has presenl~~~1 this~ c~ption~
they have given it some thought as to whether or not it would bc an option of ar_r,e~t~nce to
them an~f Mr. Bettencourt stat~d thc ~lans have no[ be~n reviewed by the City's Engineering
staff, etc., but this particul2r plan has been engineercd and meets with the same st~ndards
and conditions as the tracts before the Commission and it they are inclined ta apProve it,
it would st(11 be subject to the City Enqineer's approval. He~stated this should be consider-
ed as Revision No. 3.
Manuel Dan indic~ted he had canvassed the neighbors presen[ and beforc giving their comments
would like to ask a couple of questions: 1) he asked Mr. Bettencourt if he any other altPrna-
tives to present. (Mr. Bettencourc replied he did r~ot h~vc anything else to present); 2) Mr.
Don ~tated realizing they do have the right to appeal, ihe homeowners were a bit concerned
that what they sPe represented here will not be thP ~inal ~~ersion that goes into action and
asked how they would know if the dev~l~~per deviates from t~~e plans?
Annika 5antalahti, Assistant Planniny Director for Zoniny, explained the developer will be
required to file exhibits that are exactly like the revise~f plan submitted before [he matter
goes to Council in 22 days and those exhibit5 would be in the file and could be reviewed by
any~ne interestPd. She exFlained ar~y deviations ~rom the plan as ~:ubmitted would be very
minor and the developer has indica[ed these lots have been calcul~t~d so whatever dimensians
shown on the plan woul~ be on the exhibi[s in the file. She stated the number of lots would
definitely be fixed.
Mr. Don stated he understood th~t what he is hearing is that they want to be reasonable and
would like to find a solution tonight and the question is. if they find s~mething which i5
agreeable and drop their objections, but then it turns out that what is finally filed is
at variance with what they see, the~ a~ould like to know so they could again evaluate it
based on the impacts. He stated they see no mecl~anism at this point to prevent Anaheim Nills,
Inc. from changing the plan when they f~rmalize it.
Annika Santa'ahti explained she did r-ot know of any instances where the plans had not
matched and Commissioner Bar~ies explained ttiat any varianr.es wou)d have to be considsred
by the Planning Commission and the City Attorney confirmed this statement and further
explained that if the Plannir~g Commission chose to approv~ this plan as submittzd, they would
be approving it conditianally, subject to the changes sePn ~nd Staff wauld analyze the final
tentative tract map to make certain that those changes have been included.
Canmissioner Barnes stated there has never been any problems in the 3~ years she has been on
the CAmnission and Chairman Herbst further explained that there have been final tract maps
which have come back with minor changes which were for the better such as wider l~ts, etc.,
but no drastic changes.
8/t8/78
~
M
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT1' PLANNiNG CO~IMISSION, A~igust 28~ 197A
18-73~
EIR 218, RECIASS.78-79-y; TENTA7IVE TRAC7 NOS. IA407, 10406, ia4oy s 10410 (continued)
Mr. Do~ stated obvi~usly~ the traFfic questlnn has been g~eaily a!;e~uated and is much better;
that it ir, obviaus the traffic is reduced and 8 hcxnes will not irnpact that street. He
added he was Just thrnwing out the thought and asked why they dicfn't Just make it a cui de sac.
He indicated there is a~oint ~f informat(on he would like frc~m the City Attorney; that at
one time the homeowners were concerned ab~ut burglary ~nd they had considered hirir~g guard
5ervice5 and having guards at their entrance and asked if he was correct ir- assuming from
these discu~sions that they were out of bounds to even consider this.
Mr. Sl,~ughter stated he b~lieved th~~t if they attempted to clos~ .i public street they would
be con5idered a public nuisance and he did not believe they coul~. ~ia [hat.
Mr. Don stated th~t after pol ~ inq the homeowners, frc~n ~ tr.tiff ic: st~ndpc~int che pl~n would
be acceptable, but they still h~~e a little concern for their neighU~r, Mr. Garrett~ pointing
uut he has about a 90° view and acked if it would be possible to remov~ about tour more lots
fr~m th~t ~re~; rh~r he th~ught the c~tit could be distributed across the ~est oF th~ tract
and would yive tliern clearly less obstruction.
Mr. aettencourt replied they w~uld find that cloarly unreasonablc; that thcy would really
then be ciealing with confiscating or otherwise cienyin<i property right.s; that if i[ were
a matter ~f them requestiny variances nr presenting a marginal tract ar compromisinr~ with
the City~ but. two lots have gone already for the creation of the park s~te and the elimination
of four mo~e loi~ v~ould be clearly unreasonable.
Mr. Don indicated he was just probing and tryinq to cor,i~ to some solutiun and trying to
preserve as much of the canyon as they could, and perh~ps the amount of dirt to be moved,
but other than that, the general consensus of the homeowners, unless he is out of line and
they hope i~r the rest of neighbors, that basic~lly this plan is cert~inly a liveable one.
Ron Pepin stated obviously Anaheim Hilis, Inc. has had an opportunity to yive this revised
plan a great deal of [hough[, but unfortunately, Lhe homecnvners haven't had a chance to 5ee
it before and he t~ad sevcral questians he would like answered before rendering an opinior~:
1) he wanted to knoai the elevakion or grade level of the area that is scheduled to be
fi lled i~, the can~,on directly back of his home. H~~ n~,inted out the area and asked, 2) l~ow steep
the slope is going to be, 3)i~ow far back from fiis pi ,~erty line it is going to be and 4) how
far away the ultimate top of the hill is yoing to be; and 5) how they plan t~ drain this
area. He stated currently ehe praperty is zaned argricultrual and as it has to be rezoned
to residential, he would like to know how they propose draining the hills of residential
property and not having it impact their homes by ~aving water sirain onto [heir lots.
Hugh Holderman, Civil Engineer, 458 Golden Circle Drive~ Santa Ana pointed to the map and
indicated the area of a present ravine that is tributary to the existing storm drain.
He stated when this d`velopment is complete, the lots which are shown in the light color will,
by City standards, dr~in to the public streets and be conveyed into a starm drain system
and away from the property; that the area shown in green will continue to drain in its
present slope or cc~nfiguratian, stating it is a natural slope and the water will reach the
storm drain in the same manner, but there will be substantially IeSC water by v,rtue of the
fact that a substantial portio~~ of the drainage area has been removed by the grading of the
lots. He guessed th~ey are reducing the tributary area to ab~~ut 6~~ of its existing
configuration. He pointed out the City sterm drain which goes between the lots and into
the public storm drain system. He stated the olive green area represents natura) ground
with only minor remedial grading anc+ the lighter green are~- represents a man-made s~ope and
its configura[ion would be a little finer than 3:1 overall. f~P referred to F': ~~n th~ upper
area of the slope area set at 637-640 and the elevation down at rhe bottom of the slope at
abaut 500 feet~ indicating there will be 130 to 140 f~ot differential from the storm drain
inlet to the lot elevations.
8/28/78
I~.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIVG COMMISSION~ August 28, 1978 18' 731~
EIR ~14~ RECIASS.7~-7 • LTENTAT~VE TRACT NOS. 10407, 1040$, 1040~, 10410 (continued)
Chairman Herbst asked Mr. Pepin If his question had be~n answered and he replied that it
was not an•awi.red t~ his satisfaction. Mr. Pepin stated hs wos not nn engincer~ hut felt
even though less are~ is draining,itwill be draining on a much steeper slope; that he know s
the dr~~in exists and there Is a 15 foot wide e~sement; that he has had discussion wtth
Anaheim Hills~ Inc. on what kind of ~ guarantee they could give him that any drainage
off the hills would stay within the canfines of the 15 ft. easemenk; and they can'l givc him
a guarantee and he did not believe the Commission should grant permission to them to construct
homes, changing the zone fr~xn agricultural to residential and placing him in a posltion to be
possibly receivinq runoff water from other residentl~l pr~perty and have to accept it coming
across his prciperty. Ne st~~ted the drain is underg round on his property and lhe bottom of the
drafn is level with thc floor of the c.+nyon.
Chairman HerbSt lndicaled he would fiave to disagree with Mr. Pepin; that he felt there is
qoing to be a lot less water and the Planning Ccxnmission has to rely on the City Engincer
to be sure that the drainage Anaheim Hills, inc, puts in is not going to dr~~in onta his
property.
Commissioner Barnes asked Jay licus, Office Enyineer, if the size uf the drain that takes
the water t~ its ultimate source is adequate ~~ it was designed to take care pf possible
development and Mr. Titus replied it is adequate to handle the wat~r that will get Co it
and it ~s desiyned to take the whole canycm as it is developed.
Commissioner Kir~g asked Mr. Slaughter if drainagr concerns are within the jurisdiction of
the Planning Commission and Mr. Slaughter replied he ~755Umed the Engineering Departmenc
analyze~i the pr~posed drainge to make sure it is at least in their apinion adeyuate to
handle tl~e runoff frorn th~ subdivison and indicated Mr. Titus has inciicated thPy have don e
that and are satisfied. He stated if a proposal comes in and ihe Engineer tells the Plan ning
Commission is is yoing to cause 500~000 cubic Feet per second to run down a guy's propert y.
the n they would have the ability to disapprove tt~c subdivision.
CanmisSioner Barnes felt it is the Planning C anr~~ission's duty to lc-ok at these things an d
since they are not experts, have to rely on expert testimony, but having been on that sid e
of a drainage issue several years ago, she understood his concern. She pointed out the
water has been running throuyh that drain all these years and asked Mr. Pepin if fie had
ever had a problem before.
M~. Pepin replied they have had water running a~ross the bottcxn of their lot and there is
evidence of it sti11 there with dirt that was washed anta li~s land inside the fence area.
Commissioner Tolar felt the project would solve some of Mr. Pepin problem,~ or relieve
60~ of it.
Mr. Pepin stated he would like to have the City Engineer's opinion on this matter after
actual looking at this plan with the proper amount of cime which t.hey would normally hav e
if this plan had been submitted under the normal procedures at 'east a week or 1Q days.
Commissioner Tolar pointed out if this plan is approved, it would be subject to the City
Engineer's approval.
that
Commissianer Barnes replied to Mr. Pepin's question/if the City Engineer's says water is
going to drain onto his property,pointing out the City Eng3neer takes a very close look at
a~ll thesP ProJ~cts and she was sure he would not approve anything unless it were des+g ned
to carry all the runoff water andnot wash away Mr. Pepin's praperty and felt he would
be pretty well protected.
ai2ai~a
~ ~ .
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI?Y P~ANhIMG COMMISS~ON, August 28, 1978 78-135
EIR 218 RfCLASS ')8-1g-5; TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 1040j~10408, 10409~ 10410 (continued)
Indicating from
Mr. Pepin asked hcriv much dirt is going to be moved with this revised plan,
his rec~llection of ~~revious hearings before the Ccxnmission that was a maJor obJection,
and Chairman Herbst, in par[iu~lar~ had made the points concerning moving that amount of
dlrt~ the mass grading and filling of th~~ canyons , and the Commission w,~s npbOS~d to that
and he thought if the matter had gc~ne for a vote. it would have becn reJecte , and he sees
very little change in thc ~amount c~f dirt being moved here and he sces both canyons 9Q~~a,,enst111
he would Ilke to know what has suddcniy changed trie Commission s thinking; that t.hey
moving almost 3 million cubic yards af dirt and are still wiping out twa canyons. He stated
there are very few canyons left in Anaheim Hills and he is still opposed to this project in
its present f~rm because of filling the canyons ar,i felt if his neighbors h~id a chance to
think about it~ they would be oppo~~~d, hut ihis has bcen Sprung on them in the last few minutes
and he did not think it w~s f:-ir t~ a5k them tc~ mr~ke a quick judgement or de~cic,ion with this
impact.
Chai rman Herbst pointed out the Pl.,~ining C~mi:.sion is under• pressure to Riake a decislon;
that the matter is going to go to the City Council and there will be public he~~rings ind the
opposition can ~xpress their opinions or desire~ at that timc, but that th~* Pl:~nning Lcxnmission
i, mandated hy limited timF~ frc~» [he date of fili~g and the matter can go to the City Council
v~ithout iheir input. (Mr. Pepin stated he had heard the atto rney's stat~mer~t and did not
think he had said the Planning Convnission had to make a dc~cision. Chairman Nerbst stated
if the Plannin~ Commission does nat make a decisian, then it will go to Council as if they
had appr~ved the plan.
M~. Slaughter explained it was his ~pinion that if thc~ Pl~~nning Commission did not ar.t within
!he 50 days required hy the statute and there is no stipulation to a further continuance by
the applicant, the ten[ative map is quite frankly deemed to be approved as a matter of law
and unless that approval were appealed ta the City Counr,~l, the final ten[ative map would
be approved, so it does taken an action by the Planning ~:~ission and a subsequent appea)
if there is going t~ be a further hearing before the City Cc~~ncil.
Chairman Herbst referred [o the original tract map with ih~> traffic problems and thc original
a com
design~ stating the Planning Commissian is trying to come up with promise as c ose as
possible to satisfy as many p«~p1e as possible and to yet the best possible plan out of the
development and he thought thcy had come a long way, even though everybady cannot be satisfied,
and thought this revised aian even though he didn't like sane of the developmant such a; the
filling o` the canyons, appears to be the best and it is going to go to the Council and he
did not want to see it go to C~uncil without .~ Plannin~a Commission recarmendation.
Mr. Pepin statcd ~_ would like to ask th~ Planning Ca~xnission to return to tl~eir earlier
positic~n and stick with not letting them fil~ the canyons and reject their application for
the project as it stands in its present form.
Clifton Garrett in~'icated there was one comment he would like to make which has been brought
up numerous times before and this is filling of the canyons; that even with the parkway
proposed in the canyon next to him, they are still fil~iny the canyon. He stated he believed
the plan calls for the house next to him to be within 6 feet of the top so, in effect, they
are filling up that particular canyon and he did not think a little area of a 40foot parkway
constitutes leaving tl° canyon in its natural state and asked the Commission to reject the
plan on that basis and to at least lo~k into the matter.
Mr. Garrett stated [here is one other ~oint in that Mr. Bettencourt has s~id he has a 180 degree
view which is not true; that it amounts to about a 90 degree view because of the home nex.
t~ him in the hills going up virtually blocks his view on that side.
8/28/78
~
,!
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ August 2a~ 1978
78-736
EIR 218r_RECLl~SS. 78-79_5;_ TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 1040,J~ 10408, 1040), 10~~10 (continucd)
Chalrman Herb st asked Mr. Bettencoure if he would like an oppartunicy for rebuttal since
the public he aring had been reopened.
Mr. Beftenco:~rt st<~ted chey would stand an what has been presented fc~r the record and
stated he tho ught those who havF taken a morc unr.ompromising position about thc utilization
of the proper ty will nr~t change anh thcre is no ground far any further compranise that [hey
could find.
CHAIRMAN HERBST RECLOSED THE PUBI.IC HEARING.
Commissloner Johnson asked Mr, t~ettencourt if the plan ~is presented wilh lhe third revisl~n
is the plan h~ is yoing wilh ancl Mr. Belle~~wurl ~~xplaine~l they wauld not h.3ve prc~cntcd
this plan if thcy had not engincered it and know tfiat it will work. Ne ft'VIQWPd the ori~in~l
plan and thc: ~evi~i~ns pointing aut the package included a complete and sat.isfactory blueline
ef thc exhibi i and he only wanttd ta shaw the p~~,p~~ whar. the changes werc. He stated based
on a reasonah lr utili~~ti~n ~f the property ~~nd thr_ adjustments they have made, they feel
this ia a fai ~ and equitable plan, and Revision No. 3 includes those ~dditions as presented.
He p~inted a u t khat under the State Mip Act they could not add as rnuch as one lot, so the
conccrns expressed were not real.
Cortxnis ioner Tolar asked if he would stipulate tu ane story houses abutting the Garrett's
property and N,r. dettencourt replied he could not stipulate to that in vi~Y+ af the li~.igation
~hey ~~re invo lved in w;th Mr. Garrett and did not think such a stipulation would be in order;
th.,t if Mr. G arrett's case has merit, hc thought he would have an ample opportunity to perhaps
extract. that from them and if it does nat, then it was perhaps an unwarranted exaction; that
he was ~~tisf ied from wha[ he knew ~f Mr. Garrett's circumstante~~ that he was takinq the right
approacl to s tress his claims; but they d;d nat have enouyh independent inform~tion of the
merits of his claim to ask the City gavernmeni to solve thP problem.
Comm~ssioner Barnes stated she wished to clarify one thing; that we alway5 knew this would
be some sort of compromise a~,d although we all would like to see all the canyons in the.
world kept a s they are, the fact remains that wc live on, in and on top of what used to be
canyons; tha ~ she thought this to be a good compromise and pointed out that the canyon an
the left can not remain as it is because of the sewer•s and drainage.
Chairman Her bst pointed out the public hearing has been closed and felt the Planning
Comnission h as gotten about as much miteage out of these hearings as they coiild get and
the matter i s going to lhe Council and ihaught all tentative t.ract maps have to be approved
by the City C ouncil.
Mr. Slaughte ~ explained depEnding upan what action the Planning Commission takes, their
action will become final 22 days fram the'r action and it would be placed on the City Council
agenda conse nt calendar on the 22nd day u"less an appeai is filed by the applicant, an
aggrieved ad ver5e party or a member of the City Council or the Council itself.
Chairman He r bst stated he has made numerous statements regarding the canyons and gulleys
and that the contours of the land have to be maintained as much as possible; that he
recognized e very portian of these tracts has been done exactly to the City ordinances,
and they ha v e even abidEd by the new proposed ordinances for lot widths, d~pth, Side setbacks,
street width s, etc. and the yrades of thc streets do not exceed 10$; that everything has been
done accordi ~g to ordinance which makes it more difficult to make a decision against it
because acco rding to ordinance they can bu+ld. He stated the fact that the major canyon
under discu s sion has partially been filled and he had gone out and taken another walk through
it, and Wes t rldge is built on half of it already and it has been blocked off by the street;
that with Ch e drainage at the boitom of it which does make sense and does make good planning
ai2ai~8
x
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CtTY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 28, 1978 78-737
EIR, 21$, RECLASS. ]8-79-5~ TENTATIVE TRAGT NOS, 10407, 10408, 10409, 10410 (tc~ntinii~•d)
and makes better circulation; that he thaught ''~e plan prt~s~nted tonight which eliminates
the circ.ulAtion element which most peaple w~:re opposed to and there are actually six
houses which may b~ affected by this property; tlierefor~, he thought mo~~t of ttie problem
has becn climinated with three publlc hearlnys . Ne painted out agair~ che opposition has
the riqht to appeal the Planning Ccxrnnission decislon to thc City Cauncil ancf they are their
repres~~ntatives; that the Planning Convnis~~ion is land planne~rs and are trying to do the
best Job passible and arrive at a compromise; that Anaheim Hills, Inc., as owners of t'~e
property have the right to build on it and they, as property owners acijacent. havP the
right to oppose it and [hr;e decisions are sometimcs prelty tough.
{1CTION: Comnissiancr Tolar offcred a motion, secondcd by Comni,sioner Kiny and MOTION
C~RRIED (Cammissi~ncr Linn bcing ~bsent) thit the Em~irnnmental Impact Rcpor[ Nn. 218
for the pr~pc~Sed d~vel~pmt~nt of T~nt.itive Tract Nnti. 10407, 10408, 10409 ~~nd 1Q41~, c~nsisting
of 140 singl~-f.imily homes, having been considered this datc by fhe Anaheim City Planning
Canmissian and evidence, b~th written ~ind ~ral, havinc~ bern presented tc~ supplement draft
EIR No. 7.16, finds [ha[ potential project-gener~ted environmental impacts have be~n reduced
to ~~n ~icceptnble level by conformance with City ~lans, policies ~nd ordinances; that Draft
EIR No. 218 is in compli~~ncc with the Calif~rni~i Environmental Quali[y ~cc and City and
State Guidelines; therefore, b~••ed upc~n s~~ch information, thc Anahcim Cicy Planning Ccrnmission
does hereby certify EIR No. 21~3.
Commissoner Tolar offered a motic~n, seconded by Carxi~issioner David and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner l.inn being absent and Conniissioncr Johnson voting nc) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commissiori does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its
design and improvement, is consistent with thc Cily c~f Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to
Governmenl Code Section 66473•5; and does, t.herefore, ~~pprovc [entative rnap of Tract No.
1Q40;' ~~,evisivn No. 3) for a 27-I~t , RS-NS-IO,OOC,SC) ~ubdivision, subject to t.he
following condilion,;
1. That the approval of Tentatlve Map of Tract No. lnt+~~ (Revlslon No. 3) ls qranted
sub~ject to the approval of Reclasstflcation No. 7~4-7q-;.
2. That should this 5ubdlvtslon he develoved as mc~rw than one subdlvlslon, each
subdlvislon thereof shall be suhmitted ir tentatlve form for approval.
3. That in accordance with Clty Council policy~ a 6-foot high m~s~nry wall shal) be
constructed on the southeast property llne separating Lot Nos. 1, 2, 4, ancl F th~ough 18
and Imperlal Hlg M~ray. Reasonable landscaping~ including irrl4atlon factlttleg~ shail be
instslled in the uncemented portion of the arterial htghwr~y narkway the full dlstance of
sald walf; plans for said landscaping to be submltted to and subject to the approval of
the Superlntendent of Parkway Mainter.anc~; and foltowing installation and acccptance~ the
Gity of Anahelm shal) assume Yhe responsibillty for mair~tenance of satd landscaping.
4. That all lots within Chis tract shall be serve<i hy underground utilltles.
5. That a flnal tract map of subJect pro^~rty shall be submitted to and approved by
the Clty Council and then he recorded tn the offlce of the Orange County Recorder.
6. That the c~venants~ condltlons~ and restrlctions shatl be su~mitted to and
approved by the Clty Attorney's Office and City Eng(neer ~+r1~r to C(ty Councll approval ~f
the finat tract map and~ further~ that the approved covenants~ condltions~ ~n,1
restrlcttons shall be recorded concurrently with the ftn~l tract map, In addttlon~
covenants, condlttons and restrlctions shall tnclude the perpetual mdintenance agreement
for Lot A.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approvai of a flnal tract map.
8. That the owner(s) af suhject property shall pay to the City of Anahelm ehe
apprApriate park and recreatlon in-Ileu fees as determined to be approprlate by the City
Council~ said fees to be paid a; the time the hulldinq permit is issued.
8/28/78
~
~z~,
MINUTES~ ANl1HEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ A~gust 28~ 1918
1A-138
EIR 218, RECLASS. 78-7,5'S: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 1Q4q7~ 1040~. 104b9. 10410 (cantinued)
g. Th~t dralnay~ of seld pronerty shall he dtsposecl nf in A mannar satlsfectory to
thP City Engineer. If~ In th~ r,rerarAtlon of the sit~~ sufftcl~nt grAdlr~h Is requfred to
necessltate a qrading permlt. na work on gr:~dinq will t~~ ~~rmitted hetwren October 15th
and Aprtl 15th unlcss nll requlred off-site ~Iraln~iq~ f,~cititi~s h~~v~ heen (nstallecl and
are operc~tlve. Positive assurance shal) he -~rovlded the Clty that such dralnage
faclllties wll) be ccxnplrted prior to OGtoher 15th. N~cess~ry rlqht-af-way for off-slte
dralnage facilltles shall he dedlcat~d to the Clty~ ~r th~ City Council shall h~ve
lnltlated condemnatian proceedings therefor (the costi of whicli sh.all be borne by the
developer) prlor t~ tlie comm~ncement c~f g~:~dtnq operations. The requlred dratrtAge
focilitles shal) br. of a stze and type sufFlcl~nc t~ cnrry run~ff waters oric~lnat!ng from
hlgher propertles through sald ~raperty tn ultimate dispasal a5 approvrd by the Ctty
Enc~lneer. Said dralna~e ft~cilities sh.ill he h~ first item ~f constructlon and shall be
cvmplet~d and be functlonAl throughout the tract and from th~ d~wnstream boundary of the
pror~rty to thn ulttm.itp potnt nf t~15pOSdI prior to the issu.~nce ~f any ftnal bullding
inspectlons or occupancy permlts. Dralnage dtstrict reimbursement agreements may be madr
avallable to the developcrs of s.~lci praperty upon their request.
10. That grading~ excavatlon~ ~nd all other constructlon activlties sholi be
conducted ln such a manner so as to m(nlmlte the possibility of any silt oriqlnatln~, from
this project being carried Into the Santa Ana River hy storm water originating +'rom or
flowing through this proJect.
ty. That the alignment and termtnal potnt ~f storm ~iralns shown on thi5 tentattve
tract m~p shnll not be considcred final. Thsse dr.~lns shall be suhJect to prer.tse destqn
considerations and approval of the Clty Enqlneer.
12. If permanent street name signs have not becn InstAtl~d~ temporary street name
slgns sh~ll be Installed prior to any occupancy.
13. That the aam~r(s) of suhJect property shal) pay approRrlate drainage assessmenlt
fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the Clty Enqtneer prior to lssuance of a
building permit.
t~i. That ownership and matntenance responsihility ~~ Lot A shall be retained by the
homeowners associatlon.
15. That the southeasterly half of Imperlal Highway (53 fr.et) shall be trrevocably
offered for dedication to the City of Anahelm for street anci puhiic utiltty purposPS.
Said cfedicatlon shall be accepted by the Clty upon the approval of a future A.F1.F.P.
proJ~ct to extend Imperl,~l tiigh~yay, or upon app~oval of r tract or other develo~xnent whlch
would requtre Imperial Highway for access.
16. That a bond ln an amount and form satisfactory t~ the Cttv of Anahetm shall be
posted with the Clty to guarantee Inse~~liatlon of the ultimate Improvements of Impetlal
Highway ad.jolning Tentative Tract No. 1~4n7 which shall co~stst of 2~+ feet of A.C.
pavement~ curb, gutter~ sidewalk and street lights. This proJect shall be constructed in
conJunctian with and upon the funding of a future A.H.F.P. proJect for the improvement af
Imperia) Nlghway~ o~ upon approval of a Lract or other development which would require
Impertal H(ghway for access.
17. That annexat(on of subJect property to the Clty of Anahetm shall be compl~ted
p~lor to approval of the final tract m~p.
18. That fire hydrants shall be instalied and charged, as requtred and d~termined to
be necessary by the Chief of the Flre Departme~t~ prior to commencement of structural
framing.
19. That all structures constructed within subJect tract shall comply with the
requirements of the Ctty ~f Anahetm F(re 2bne No. 4 as approved by the Fire Department.
a~28~~s
~
-.~
~
~
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 28, 197A
78-739
EIR 218. RECLA55. 7H•7q-5; TENTATIVE TRACt NOS. 1f140~, 144Q8, 1Q449, 10410 (c~ntinued)
20. That fue) I~reaks shall be provlded on the bound.~ iea ~f subJect tract as requlred
bY the Clty of Anahelm Flre Department.
21. That th~ cieveln~ers of suhJect property shall pay the traffic si~nal essessment
fe~ (Councll Policy No. 21u) amounting to S3~~.0~ per eACh new dwelling unit prlor ta the
lssuance of a bullding permlt.
22. That any specimen tree remc+va) shall he subject to tfie requlations pertalning to
tree preservatton in the Scenic Co~ridor Overlay Zone.
2~. In accordance with the re~qu(rements of S~ction 1R,02,f11~7 pertal~ing to the
inttl~) s~le of resident~a) homes tn the Clty of An~h~im Pl~~nntnc~ Area "B"~ thc seller
shall rrnvldP r~ch huy~r wtth wrltt~n tnform~tion concerninq the Anaheim C,~neral Plan and
the cxtstlnq zontnq wlthin 3~0 f~et of the boundaries of sub]ect tract.
Commissloner Tolar offered a mution, seconded by Cammissioner Davld and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissloner Llnn betng absent and Commi~~•ioner Johnson votlnq no) that the AnAhelm Clty
Planning Commisslon does hereby find ~hat the proposed subdivlslon, together with its
design and Improvement. Is consistent wtt` the Ctty of Anah~ir~ ~~eneral Plan, ~ursuant to
Government Cede Section 66473.5; and does~ therr.fore~ approve tentative map of 7ract No.
tOG08 (Revlsion No. 3) for a 35~1ot~ RS-HS-1~~(?Of1(SC) subdivislon, sub)ect to the
fallowing conditlons:
1. That the approval of Tentative '~ap of Tract No. 1~k~6 (Reviston No. 3) ts granted
sub)ect to the approval Gf RCCla551fiGntion ~lo. 79•7Q-5.
2. That shauld this subdlvtslon he devel~ped as m~re than one subdlvlslon~ each
subdiviston thereof shall be submttted in tentative form for ~ipproval.
3. That in accordance with City Council policy~ a F-foot high masonry wal) shall be
constructed on the east property llne separating Lot Nos. 23 and 24 and -mperlal Highway.
aeasonable lanJ~caping, Including irrigaclon faciiltle,~ shall be tnstalled in the
uncementect partlon ~f the artertal highway ~~rkway the full dlstance of sal;i wall; plans
for said Iandscaping to be subm(tted t~~ and suhJect to the approval of the Superintendent
of Parkway MalntPn~~~ce; and following Installatinn and acceptance~ the Ctty nf Anaheim
shall assume Chc re5pr~nsshility for matnten~nce a` xaid land~Gaping.
4. That all IALS within thls tract shati ba serv~d by underground utilities.
5. That ~~ final tract map nf subject pr~perty shall be submitted ta and approved by
the CitY Councll and thcn t~~ recarded In the office of the Orange County Recorder.
6. That the r.ovrnants~ conditions, and rest~•ictions shall be submitted *.o and
approved isy che CiCy kttornr.y's Office and City Engtneer prior to City Co~incll approval of
the final tract m~~ anc1, further, that the approvoci covenants, condittons, and
restrlctic,ns sha11 he recordnd cc~ncurrently orith the final tract map. In addition~
covenants. tonditlong and restrictions shall include the perpetual malnttnance agreement
for lots A~ ~ arxl C.
7. That street names shalt he approved by the City Planning Department prior to
ap~roval of ~ finai tract m~~p.
E3. That t~e orrner(s) of 5uhj~ect property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appr~priate par~ ~nc~ rer.reat~on In-lieu fees as determtned ta be appropriate by thP City
Council, said fres ta be p~id at the tlme the butlding permit is iss~ed.
9. That drainaoC uf sald pr~perty shall he disposed of On a manne~ satlsfactory to
the City Englneer, If~ in tiyr, nreparation of the site. sufficient gradinq is required to
nece3sitate a grading pprrnit~ no wor~. on grading wil) be permitted between October 15th
and April 15th unless all required off-site dratnaqe facilitles h~ve been tnstalled and
are operative. Positivc a~suranc~ sha11 be provided the City that such d~ainage
faeilitles wlll be compieted ~rlor to Octaher i~th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site
drainage faeilities shalt he dedicated to the City~ or the Clty Council shall have
inlttatad condemnation prnteedings therefor (Che costs of which shall be borne by the
$izai~s
. ~ '
,MINUTES~ nNANEIM CITY PLANf11NG CQMMISSION~ Auguqc ?.A~ 1~78 7$-7i~~
EIR 21a, RECLASS. 78-1~-5; TENTATIVE TaACT NO~. 1A407~ 10408~ 1^409. 10A10 (contlnued)
..~..~.---
developer) ~ric-r ta the commencement af grading operatlons. The requlred dralnagu
facllitles shall hr. of a slr.e and type sufficlent to carry runoff waters orlginating from
hlyher properties through said propcrty to ultlmat~ disposal as nppraved by the Clty
Enylneer. Seid dralnage facilltles shall b~ the first Item af construction ~nd shall be
ccxnpleted And he functtonal throughoui thP tr~ct ancl frc~m the downstream boundary of the
property ta the ult(mate potnt of disposal prlor t~ the tssuance of any flnnl bullding
inspectlons or occupancy permlts. DrainAge dlstrict reimbursement dgreements may be mede
available to the devclohers of SAId property upon thelr re4uest.
10. Th~t ~ra~ling~ excAVatlon, and al1 ather constructlon activities sh~ll be
conducted in such a manner so as to mtnimize the posstbility of any sllt origlnatinct from
this prn)ect being carrled lnto the Santa Ana Rlver by storm water oricltnattng from or
flowlnca th~ough this pro}ect.
11. 1'hat the alignment and termina) polnt of storm draln, shawn on tht~ tentattve
tract m~p sha11 not I,r considered itnal. These drains shall he sub,ject ta preclse design
c~n~icleratlons and approval of the Clty En~ineer.
12. If pcrminent strect name s19~~ havr n~t bPen inar.alled, temporary street name
slgns shali be lnstalleci prlor tc- any occupancy.
13. That the owner(s) of subject ~roperty shal) pay appropriate drainage assessment
fees to the City of Anaheim as dstermined by the City F.nqinecr prior [o issuance of a
building permlt.
14. That ownership ancl maintenance responsibility of Lots A, a and C shall be
retalned by the homeowners assoGiation.
15. That fire hydrants shall be Installed and charged as required and determ(ned to
be necessary by the Chief of the Flre Department prlnr to commencement ~' structural
framing.
16. That all structures constructed wtthin sub.ject tract shall ~~omply with the
requlrements of the City of Anihelm Flre Zone fVo. 4 as approved by the Fire Department.
17. That fuel breaks shall be nrovtded on the boundaries of sub)ect tract as required
by the City of Anaheim Fire ~epartment.
18. That the developers of subJect propertY sh.~ll pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Councll Po11Cy No. 21~f) amounting to S3f~.OQ per each new dwPlling unlt prtor to the
Issuance of a bulldtng permit.
19. That any specimsn tree removat shall be subJect to the regulatlons pertaintng to
tree preservation in the Scenic Corrldor Overlay Zone.
2G. In accor~iance with the requirements of Section 18.n2.01~7 pertalning to the
tnitlal sale of residential homes tn the City of Anaheim Plannin~ Area "B", the seller
shall provide each buyer wiih wr(tten tnformation concerning the Anahetm General Plan and
the existing zoning withln 3~0 feet of the boundaries of subJect tract.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motlon~ seconded by Commtssioner David and MOTION CARRIEO
(Commissloner Linn being absent ancl CommiS~l~ne~ Johnson vocing no) that the Anahelm City
Pla~ning Commissian doas hereby find that the propose:d subdivision, together with tts
design and improvement~ is conslstent with the City of Anaheim Genera) Plan~ pursuant to
Gover~ment Code Section 66473.5: and does, therefo~e. apprave tentative map of Tract No.
10409 (Revislon No. 3) for a 40-lot. RS-HS-l0~OQ0(SC) subdivlslon, subJect to the
following conditlons:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 1040Q (Revision No. 3) is granted
subJect to the approval of Reclassification Na. 7~-79-5.
2. That should thls subdiviston be devetoped as more than one subdivision~ each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted In tentative form for approval.
3. That in ~ccordance with City Council policy, a 6•foot high masanry wall shall be
constructed on the southeast property line separating Lot Nos. 2~ through 32 and Lot C.
8/28/78
MIt~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COH~ISSION. August 28. 1974 ~~"~y~
EIR 218. aECLASS. 78-7~-5: 7ENTATIVE TaA~T NAS. 1~4A7 IA40A~ 10409. 1041_0 (continued)
Reasonable landscaping~ Including irrigatlon factlities~ shall be installed In the
uncemented portlon ~f the arterlal highway parkw~y th~e full dlstance ~f s~id wall; ptans
for said landscaping to be submitted ta and subJect to the approvA) of the Superintendent
of Parkway Malntenance; and foll~wtng Installation and Acceptance, the Clty af Anahelm
shall assume th~ responslbtlity fo~ malntenance of sald landscaping.
4. That al) lots withln thls tract shall be served by ~~nclerqround utllitles.
5. Th~t a fin~l tract m~p ~f subJect property sh~ll be submltCed to nnd approved by
the City ~uunctl and then be recurcied in thc office af the Ora~~e Gounty Recorder.
6. Th~it the c~v~nnnts~ conditians~ and restrlctlons shall bc submltted to And
Approved by the City Attorney's Office and Clty Ennineer prlor to City Counctl approvel of
the flnal tract ma~ and~ further, thst th~ ,~~r~~~~i ~nvenants~ cnn~l~inns~ And
restrlctlons shall be recorded conturrently wlth thG flnal [ract map, In addi[lon~
cavenants. condltlons and restrictlons sh~ll tnclude the perp~tual malntenance agreement
f~r lots A~ B~ C and D.
7. That street nnmes shal) be approv~<f by thc Clty P1annlnU Departmcnt pr(or to
apprava) of a final tr~ct map.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property sh.~ll p<~y to the Clty of Anahelm the
appropriate par~. and recreatlon In-1lcu fees as det~rmined to h~ Approprtate by the City
Cuuncil, sald fces t~ be pald at the tlmc the bulldlnq permit is issucd.
9. That dralnage of sal~ propr.rty shall FP disposed of In a manner satlsfactofy tn
the Cl~y Englneer. If, tn the preparatlon of the stt~~ sufficlent qradinq (s requlred to
necessitate a grading permlt~ no work on _ryradinq will be permitted betwpen October 15th
and Aprli 1;tli unless al) requtred off-stte dralna~e facillties have heen installed and
are oper~tlve. Posltive assuranc~ shall he provlde~i thP City that such drainage
facilitles NI1) be completed prior to October 1>th, Necessary rlght-of-way for off-sfte
dratna~e facilities shall be dedlcated to the Ctty~ ~r the City Councll shal) have
in(tlated condemnation proceedinys therefor (tt~e costs of which shall be b~rne by the
developer) prior to the commencernent ~f grading operatlans. The requireJ drainage
facliicles shall be of a size and tYPe sufflclent to carry runoff waters origlnattng from
higher pr~perties through sald prorerty to ultimate disp~sal as approved by the City
En,ylneer. Said drainage facilitles sh~~ll be the fir~t ttem of constructlon and shall be
complete~i and be functional throuqhuut the tract and frc~m the downstream baundery ~f the
property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the (ssuance of any flnal building
inspecttons or occupancy permlts. Drainaqe district relmbursement agreements may be made
avatlable to the developers of said property upon che(r request.
10. That grading~ excav~tion~ and all other construction activities sh 1~ be
conducCed in such a manner so as to minimlze the possibllity of any silt origlnattny from
thls proJett being carried (nto the Santa Ana Rlver by storm water oriqinating from or
flowiny through this project.
11. That the aiignmcnt and terminal point of storm drains sFi~wn an this tentative
tract map shall not be considered f(nal. These drains shali be subJect t~ precisp design
consideratlons and approval of the City Engineer.
12. If permanent street name signs have not been installed~ temporary street name
sians sh~ll be installed prior to any occupancy.
13. 7hat the owner(s) of subJect property shal) pay appropriate d~alna~e assessment
fees to the Lity of Anaheim as d~termined by thc City Engineer prlor to issuance of a
bullding permlt.
14. That owne~•ship and malntenance r~sponsibility af Lots A~ B, C and D shal) be
retained by the homeowners associatton.
8/78/78
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ A~gust 2~~ 1978 ~a'~~~
EIR 218. RECLASS. /8 ~9~; TENTATI-1E TR11CT NOS. 10407 tA~i08. 1040q. 10410 (contlnued)
Reasonable landscaptng~ Including I~rigetlon facilltic~~ shali be installed In the
uncementod portlon ~f the drterlal hlghway parkway the full distance of sald wall; plans
fo~ said landscrping to be submitted to And subJect t~ the epproval of the Superlntendent
of Parkway Maintenance; and following tnstallatlon and ncceptance. the Clty af Anahelm
shall assUma the responsiblllty for maintenance of sald landsceping.
4. That all lots within this cract shall be scrved by underground utiltttos.
y. That a final tract map of subJect property shall be submitted to and approved by
the Clty Council and then be recorded In the office of the Oranqe County Recorder.
6. That the covenants~ conditlons, and restrictinns shall be submltted to A~d
approved by the City Attorney's Office and City Enylnee~ prl~r to City Counet) appr~val of
the ftnal t~act map anJ~ further, that [tie approved covenants~ conditlons, and
restrtctlons sholl be recorded concurrentty with the final tract m~p. In addltlon,
~ove~ants~ conditions and rest~ictlo~s sh~~ll include the perpetual malntenance agreeme~t
f~r Lots A~ S~ C and D.
7. l~hat street names shall be approve~f by the City P1annlnU ~Jepartment prlor to
approval of a fin~l tract mAp.
8. That the owner(s) of subJect property shall ~ay to the City of Anafielm the
approprlate park and recreation fn-lteu fees as detcrmined to be appropr~tate by the f,ity
Councll, sald fees to be paid a2 the time the bull~llnq permtt is issund.
9. That dratnage of sald property shall bc dISPOSP.cI of in a manner satisfactory to
the Clty Engineer. If~ in the preparat(on of the slte. sufficlent grading is requtred to
necessitaie a grading permit~ no work o~ gradinq will be permltted beiween October 15th
and April 15th u~less all re~~ilred off-site dralna~e far,illtles have heen installed and
arc operative. Positive assurance shall h~ provided the City that such dralnage
fac111tles will be completed prior to October 15tf~. Necessary right•of-way for off-slte
dralnage factlitles shall be drdicated to the City, or the City Councll shall h~ave
inittated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of whfch shall be borne by the
developer) prior to the commencement of graciing operations. The required dralnage
facil(ties shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters orlginating from
higher properties through satd property ta ultlm.~te c:isposal as approved L~y the City
Enyineer, Said drAinage facllitles shall be the flrst Item of cons ructlon and shall be
campleted and be functlonai throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary ~f the
property to the ultimate potnt of dtsposal prlor to the tssuance of any flnal building
inspections or occupancy ~e~mft~. D~ainaye district relmbursement agreements may ba made
available to the ~evelopers of said property upon thetr request.
10. That grading~ excavstian~ and alt other constructfon activities shall be
conducted in such a manner so as to minimlze the possibility of any silt origlnat(ng from
this proJect being carried (nto the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from o~
flowing through this proJect.
11. That the alignment and terminal point of storm dralns shown on this tentative
tract map shal) not be considered final. These drains shall be sub.Ject to precise design
considerations and apprnval of the City Engineer.
12. If permanent street name stgns have not been installed~ r~ ~porary strect name
signs sh.~ll be installed prior to any occupancy.
13. That the a~ner(s) of subJect property shall pay appropriate dralnage assessment
fses to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer prlor to tssuancP of a
building p~rmit.
14. That ownership and maintenance responsl'~iltty of Lots A, B~ C and D shall be
r~talned by the homeawners association.
8~2~/78
MINU7E5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ Auyust 28, 191A
7A-742
Elii 218. RECLASS. 78-79-5; TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10407. 1~408, 10409, 10410 (continued)
1$. Th~~ the southeasterly half of Imperla) Htqhway (53 feat) shall be (rrevoc~bly
offered for ~edication to the City of Anahelm for street and publlc utillty purposes.
Sald decilcation shsll be accepted hy the Clty upon thr, approval of A future A.H.F.P.
proJect to extend ~mperlel Nlghway. or upon approva) of e tract or aCh~r developmnnt whlch
would requlre Imperlat Mlghway far access.
16. That a bond In an amount and form satlsfactory to the Clty of Anaheim ahal) be
posted with the City to guarantee Instollation of the ultlmate (mprovements of Im~~eria)
Highway adJolning Tentative Trect No. 1~409 which shal) consist of 24 feet of A.C.
pavament~ curb~ guttPr~ sldewalk and street lights. This proJect shall be constructed in
conJunctlon with and upon the funding of a future A.H.F.P. proJect f~r the Improvemant ~f
Imperl~l Hlghw~~y, or upon approval of a tract ~r other development which wauld reQu(re
Impertal Highway f~r access.
17. That ~nnexatlan of subJect propertY ta thr City of Anaheim shall be ccxnpleted
prlor to approval of the final tract map.
18. That fire hydrants shall be Installed and char9ed as requircd and determined to
be necessary by the Chief of the Flre Department prlor to cc~mencement of structura)
framing,
1~. That all struc:tures constructed 4,1t~iln subJect tracc shall comply with the
requ(rements of the Clty ~f Analieim Fire 2onc No. 4 3s approved by the flre Department.
24. That fuel breaks shall be provtdeci on the houndarles of sub]ect tract as requlred
by the City of Anahelm Ftre Department.
21. That the developers of subJect property shall pay the craffic signal assessment
fee (Council PQlicy NA. 214) arnounttng to S36.00 per aach new dwelling un(t prlor to the
issuance of a bullding permit.
22. That any specimen tree ~emoval shall be sub}ect to the regulations pertaining to
t~ec preservatton ln the Scenlc Corridor Ov~rlay Zone.
23. 1n accordance with the requirements of Section 1P.~7..~47 pertalning to the
initlal sale of restdentlal homes In the C(ty of Anahe(m Planning Area "B"~ the seller
shall provide each buyer with written informatlon concerning the Anah~im GPneral Plan and
the exlsting zoning wlthin 3~0 feet of the boundarfes of subJect tract.
Cartmissloner Tolar offered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED
(Cortimissioner llnn bein3 ~bsent and Commissloner Jahnson voting no) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commtssion does hereby ftnd that the proposed subdivision~ together with its
design and improvement~ Is consistent with lhe City pf Anaheim General Plan~ pursuant to
Government Code Sectlon 66473.5; and does, therefore~ approve tentative map of Tract No.
10410 (Revtsion No. 3) f~r a 3A-lot. RS-NS-10~000(SC) subdivislon~ subJect to the
follawtng condittons:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 1041() (Revision No. 3) Is granted
~ub.i~~ct ta the approval of Reclassificatio~ No. 7A-7q-5.
2. That shuuld this subdivislon be devcloped as more than one sub~livlslon, each
subdivisf~n thereof shal) be submitted in tentative farm for approval.
3. That all lots withln this tract shall be served by underground utiiittes.
4. 7hat a flnal tract map of subJect property shall be submtttpd to and approved by
the Ctty Council and then be recorded ln the office of the Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants~ conditlons. and restricCicns shall be submttted to and
approved by the Gity Attor~ey's Office and Clty Enqlneer prior to City Council approval of
the final tract map and, further~ that the aparoved covenants~ conditions~ and
restrictlons shall be recorded conc~rrently r~tth the final tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract snap.
8/28/18
. ~r
,MINUTES, ANAHEIM C~7Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Auyus~ 28, 1978 7a~743
EIR 214~ RECLASS. 78•79 Si TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10407. 10408~ 10b09. 10410 (continued)
7. Th~t the owner(s) of subJect property shall pay to the City of Aneheim the
apprapriAte park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be ~~pproprlate by the City
Council~ sald fees to be pald at the time the bulldlnc~ permlt Is issued.
8. That dralnage of sald property shall be dtspos~d ut' In a manner satlsfactory to
chc City Englneer. I}~ In the preparatlon oF the site~ sufficient gradine~ is required to
necessitatc a grading permit. no work on gradinq wtll be permitted between October i5th
and Aprfl 15th unless all requlred off-slte dralnage faclllti~s have been Installed and
are operatlve. Posltive assurance shali be provided the Clty th~t such dralnage
facllltles wlll be completed prlor to Octoher 15th. NecessAry rlght-of-way for off-slte
dralnage facilitles shali be ~ledlcatPd to the City~ or the Cfty Councll shall have
ln(tlatecl condemnatlon proceedtngs therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
developer) prlor to the c~xrrnencement of qrading ~peratlons. The requtred dralnage
faclli[les shall be of a slz~ and type sufficlent to carry runoff waters originattng from
higher propertles throu~~l~ sald prnperty to ~iltim~t~ ~1ls~~sa1 ~a apnroved by the Clty
Enginee~. Said dra(n~ge fACilltles shall he the first item ~f consts•uctton and shall be
completed and be functlona) throughout the tract and from the downstre~~m boundary of the
property to the ultimate polnt of dlsposat prior t~ the lssubnce ~f any ftnal building
inspectlons or occupancy permits. Dralnaye distrlct reimhursement agreements may be macle
available to thc developers of satd property upon their requcst.
9. That grading~ excavatlon~ and all okher construction ac[ivlties shall be
conclucted in such a rnanner sa as to minimize the possit~ility af any ~ilt originating from
this pr~Ject being carried into the Santa Ann Rlver by storm w.iter orlglnating from or
flowlny th~ough this pro.)ect.
10. That the allgnment and terminal p~int of storm dr,ilns shawn on this tentative
tract map shal) n~t be considered final. These drains shall he subJect to precise deslgn
consiJeratfons and approval of the City Englncer.
11. If permanent street name signs havc not been Inst~~lleci~ temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
12. That the owner(s) of SubJect property shall pay approprtate drainage assessment
fees to the C(ty of Anahelm as determined by the Clty En~lnecr prlor to issuanct of a
buflding permit.
13. That fire hydrants shall be inst~~lled and char!~ed, as required and determined to
be necessary by the Chtef of the Flre Department, prior to r.ommencement of structura!
framtng.
14. That all structures constructed within subject t~act shall comply with the
requlrements of the City of Anaheim Fire tone ~lo. 4 ac approved by the Fire Depa~tment.
1!;. That fuel breaks shall be provid~ on the bounciarles of subject tract as requtred
by the City of Anaheim Flre Department.
16. That the developers of subJect property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Co:.nct) Policy No. 21h) amounting to 535.0~ per each new dwe111ng unit prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
17. That any specimen tree removal shall be subJect to the regulatlons pertaining to
tree preservatlon in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zane.
18. In accordance with the requirements of Sectton 18.02.f147 pertalning to the
lnttlal sale of restdenttal homes in the City of Anafielm Planning Area "B"~ the seller
shall provide each buyer wtth written inforrnation concerning the Anaheim ~eneral Plan and
the exlsting zorsing within 300 feet nf the boundarles of subJect t~act.
8/28/78
~ ~,
~MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, August ?.8, 1978
18-743
EIR 218~ RECLA5S. 78-79-5; TENTATIVE TKACT NOS. {0407,y 10408, i0409, 10410 (continued)
Prior tn action approving the tracts, Cortmissionc~r Tolnr offcred Resolut(on No, PC78-208
and moved for its passage ~~nd adaption that the Anaheim City Planning Ccxnmission does hereby
grant the petition far Reclassification No. 78-79-5, subJect ta Interdeparimental Committee
Recammendation~..
On roll call, the foregoin~ resulurion was passed by che fallowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID, HFRBST, JOHNSON, KING E: TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Canmissc~ner David and MOTION GPRRIED
(Currn~issioner Linn beinq absent anci Corx^issioner Johnson voting nc~) th<~t the {,~,-~neim City
Plann~~g Commission does hereby approve the submi[ted tree reir~oval plan for Tract Nos. 10407,
10408, i 0409 and 1 Q410, spcc i f y i ny llidt ~i in~ix i niuiu of 12 Spet i men t re~s , as dc f i ncd by thc
Scenic ~orridor Overlay Zone standards pertaining [o Tree Prese rvation, shall be removed
and replaced on a i:l ratio with trees from the tree replacemen[ list.
Jay Titus, Office Engi~eer, explained the grading ordinance requires property lines to be
2 to 3 feet from the top of the slope so the down-sl~~pe property owner will maintain t.he
slope he visws, but. in this cas~ there are property lines that fall within the sl~pe and
these slopes will be maintained by a homeowners association,
Cammissioner Tolar offered a motian,sec~nded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED
(Ccxnmissoner Linn being absent and Commissinner Johnsan voting no) th~at the Ana~ieim City
Planning Commission does hereby reccxrimend co the City Council of [he City of Anaheim that
the request for waiver of lot line requirements of the hillside gracling ordinance requiring
that lot lines be located two to thrPe feet from the top of the slopes be granted for
Tract Nos. 10407, 10408, 10409 and 10410.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
It was noted that subsequent to ~ction of the City Council, effective August 29, 1978,
Robert A. Linn will no longer be a member ~~f [he Planning Commission.
Commissioner Oavid offered a resolution of appreciation to Mr, l.inn for his service to the
citizens of the City of Anaheim as a member of the Anaheim City °lanning Commission. On roll
~a~~~ ail Commissioners voted aye.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner King offered a motion, secondPd
by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIED (Corrimissioner Linn being absent),
that the meeting be adjourred.
The n~eeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ / '~ ~ % ~ '
C, ~tf C L.lc.. .+~ i/c< L t~..L.
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission