PC 72-32~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-32
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNZNG COMMZSSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIN.
RECOMMENDZNG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THE
ADOPTION OF AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAI: N0. 109 THF.RETO
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission direated ths staff to prepare a
study to resolve circulation problems associated w?.tt~ the area located in the
Santa Ana Canyon Scenic Corridor bordered by Imper.ial Highway to the west,
Santa Ana Canyon Road to the south, the extension of Solomon Drive to the
east and by California Division of Highways properties along the Riverside
Freeway to the north; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commissian did hold a public hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on February 23, 1972, at 2:00 o'clock P.M.,
notice of said public hearinq having been duly given as required t~y law and
in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim blunicipal Code, to hear and
consider evidence for and against said proposed Area Development Plan and to
investigste and make findings and recommei:dations in connec?:ion therewith;
and
WHEREAS, said C~mmission, after due inspection, investigation, and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence
and reports offered at said hearing, does £ind and determine the following
facts:
1. The study area depicted in Exhibit A is comprised of three major
properties totaling about 39 acres. The westerly property, I(8
acres) is a portion of California Division of Highways property
which the developer of the central property has an option to buy.
The center property, II (12 acres) has been proposed for develop-
ment as a shopping center under Reclassi.fication No. 71-72-21
presently being considered by the Commiesion. The easterly
property,IlI (19 acres) is currently i~i residenti3l-agricultural
use.
2. To the east, adjacent to the stuciy area ia a proposal for a 143-
lot, R-2-5000 resid~ntial development for which a tentative tract
map has been approvEd.
To the south acsoss Santa Ana Canyon Road are a small property
with a resolution of intent to develop commercialj a future site
for an Orange Unified Schooi District high schools and a property
in agr~.cultural use which will probably develop residentially.
To the north, some or all the California Division of Highway
properties between the study area and the Riverside Freeway may
become surpl.us and available for development. The State indicates
that they have no immediate plana to declare them excess, however.
3. The Santa Ana Canyon Road Access P~int Study presently limits
access to Santa Ana Canyon Road to 11 points. This study was
prepared by ihe City and adopted by the City, County, and State.
As San~a Ana Canyon Road is desigr.ated as an expressway on the
Anaheim General P2an, it is deairable to maintain a minimum number
of access points along it.
The study area is between adopted San~a Ana Canyon Road Access
Pointa 6 and 7. Access Point 6 at Imperial Highway cannot be used
as access tu the atudy area because of the alignment of the east-
bound on-ramp to the Riverside Freeway. Access Point 7 at Solomon
Drive is located just east of the easterly boundary of the study
area. This acceDS point could be used :s access to the study area
but it is about 800 feet from the easterly boundary of the propoaed
shopping center location.
~ ~
5. A current proposal for a comiaercial center on the central property
(II) has resulted in the request for two additional access points
between Access Points 6 and 7. The plans for the p::oposed center
indi~ate an acces~ point agprovi^atelp 18n f.eet west of the easterly
boundary of the central property (II) which aligns itself with the
easterly property line of the proposed high school. The Orange
U'nified School Distsict states that they have no plans to use an
additional access point, howev~r. The second access point is
located approximately 260 feet east cf the westerly propert/ line
of the central property.
6. it would appear that a.1 additional nccess point, centrally located
to serve the study area, may be appropriate because of the pro
posed shopping center land uas. This land use would be handi-
capped by the lack of any access from Zmperial Highway and by the
lack of convenient access along the lengthy frontage on Santa Ana
Canyon Road.
The additional centrally located single access goint would be
especially valid if within the study area the easterly property
were also to develop as a shopping center equsl in scale to and
complimentary in character with the shopping center propoaed for
the central propezty.
7. Staff has received a tract map for a proposed subdivision on the
property adjacent and to the east of ti7e high school site. The
map indicates an entry street from Santa Ana Canyon Road that
would align itself with the easterly property line of the central
property (II).
8. Such a single additional access point should be located so as to
serve the affected properties equitably at full develapment.
Further, circulation from this access point should be designed to
maximize flexibility f.or future study area development. This could
be accomplished by locating the access point at existing property
lines.
9. The interdepartmental Committee determined the westerly access
point as delineated on the current commercial proposal was in-
appropriate as an additional point of access.
Genera2ly, it was determined that additional access to Santa Ana
Canyon Road should only be considered at praperty lines in order
to serve the maximum number of oroperties as vrell as provide for
the greatest amount of development flexibility.
10. Access to the westerl}~ property (I) and the State property to the
north of the study area should be provided via a public atreet
extending northerly and tnen westerly from tne propose~: Access
Point 6 (a).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF.SOLVED that the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim adoption of Area
Development Plan No. 109, ~xhibit A.
1. That an additional access point to S3nta Ana Canyon Road be provided
between adopted Access Points 6 und 7; an3 that this access poi.nt be
located along the easterly boundary of the central property to better
serve the entire study area, as well ns provide access to the pro-
posed tract on the south ~ide of Santc ~,na Canyon Road. Said access
point to be known a~ Access Point 6(a).
2. That a 54-foot street with a 1-foot holding strip ad.jacent to the
adjoining property line should be extended in a straiyht line from
this ac~:ess point northerly then westerly along the northerly property
li.nes of the easterly property and the centr.al property and terminat-
ing at the westerly property. (See Exhibit A) The additional right-
of-way for a 64-foot street would he acquired at such time as the
adjacent east~rly and northerly properties develop.
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-32 -Z'
~ ~ ~
3. That in the event i.hat one developer develops a unified project on
21.1 oE the properties in the study area, the street •would only be
extended to serve the State property to the north and the ad;jacent
properties tci the eas~.
THE FOREGOTNG RESOLUTION is siyned and approveu by m~~ this 2nd day
of March, 1972. )
~~ _ ~.~~-~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANN3NG COMM~SSION
ATTEST:
SE RETARY PRbP'~iA .-
AN,AHEIM CITY NNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
Z, Lee Burgess, Secretary pro tem of t.he City Planning Commission of
the City of Anaheim, do hereby certif.y that the foregoing resolution was
passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City
of Anaheim held on February 23, 1972, at 2:00 o'clock P.Ni.. by the following
vote of the members theraof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NUES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
pBSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of March,
1972.
SECR TARY Pk ANAHEIM CITf PLANNING
COMMISSI~JN
RE°OLUTIOtJ NO. PC72-32 -j~