Minutes-PC 1970/09/21`
1~ : ~
-, ~ :
~~
'
4
,
:" •
,
, :., .. r~ ,~ . ,.,
~
.~.~.
~ ~
, ,,
~- City, Hall
' r
~
~ ~
~ _
: Anaheim, California i
; F September 21; 1970
. ~~
~ ~
. ~
~ .
~
,~~
,,.. !A REGULAR:MEETING+OF THE:ANAHEIM CITYzPLANNING COMIfISSION
~ "~
~
~
. ~;
} ~REGULAR MEETING A;regulai meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion was-'called;
~ r to order;by Chairman~Herbst`at 2
0
!
l
c
"
:0
o
c
o
k.P.M.',
a,quorum being_,
' ~ - .: ~present -. . . . -: ; - .
° :a
~ ;
V
PRESENT '
CFiAIRMAN: Herbst
'~~ x k _~ .` '.. ,. , ~ ~ :
: ~ , . ' ~.. . : ~ ~ ~~ „y
^L~`~
l
.. . . ~
;
r; COMMISSIONERS ~;Allred, Farano,'Gauer, Kaywood,:Rowland, Seymour. ?~
`ABSENT CO2~iISSIONERS: ~None.
~
~
~
: •
: . ~,
~ :, : .~; ~~.
. . -. . ..
`PRESENT - Assistant Development Services.Director: :Ronald.Thampson
_ rtk~~.
'~
;:; , Deputy;City;Attorney: ` Frank'Lowry s
Office Erigineer: Jay•Titus
Zoning Supervisor ~
Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: -Malcolm Slaughter ,
'
~ K
~
; Planning:Commission Secretary; ~An,n Krebs
_
`2LEDGE '
OF > ~,
, : ,.
.
,
ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to'the Flag. ~
xsk
APPROVAL OF . Approval of the Minutes of the ineeting'of,September 10, 1970, was
THE MINUTES : deferred;until
:the meetin
of O
fob
5
970
' Yn,,,~
rf=
,
g
c
er
;°1
.
. ~ _
. ' .
,
.
~
~ ~
'
~
-
}
. .~ . ;
;
;x~a~~
,
.
_ , ,i.
.i
;
.,
~
:
,~
-
. .. - .... . .. .. ~. . , . ~ ' Yu
' ~iy7
CONDITIONAL USE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CLADA PLETZ, 3302.WesE Ball Road „Anaheim,
PERMIT~NO 1197 .California,.Owner
WESTERN DEVELOPMENT
CO
P
A
'
' '~
,
..
R
. FR
NK E;
..HORPEL
JR.,
" ' 4050 Wilshire.;Boulevard, Suite,507;'.Los Angeles; Califoinia, Agent;, `
- r ` ' '
e
"
~~~
~r
questing permission
to ESTABLISH A CHILD, NtJRSERY WITH WAIVER OF ;(1)" `.~
MINIM1i1M REQUIRED
FRONT yAgD,. SETBACK
(2) ; PROVIS
N
`
`
'
` ' ~;~
~~
,
, ,
ION THAT
O FRONT
.
OR
SIDE YARD :BE USED
FOR.
::PLAY OkfPARKING PUItPOSES, AND (3);`MAXIMUM PERMI~SD~SIGN DZSPLAY;AREA o'n property descriBed
ro~;
-as A`~rectangularly,:shaped parcel of land having a;frontage,•of approximately;200 feet':'on
"the north side of.South Street
h'avin~
a maxiinu
i `.;
,
,
m 3epth of approx
mately 155.feet, being
'located:approximately 120~•f.eet east of-the cente=line of Sur.ki'st Street
and further
" ;;;
,,
described as^2511-and 2521~.East South Street. Property presently classified`R-A ~
,
AGRICULTURAL,`,ZONE. :: - .: ; : ~
Subject'petitiosi w~as,continued:from the.meeting;of August 24, 1970, to allow time.for the
staff to.review`the most recent,revised.pTans
sub
itt
d t
o
r f
:
m
o
e
.late fo
a report to the
Coumission and for_the petitioner to meet with adjoining property owners to explain the
proposal.. ,~;
~.Assistant Zoning Supervisor.Malcolm Slaughter.reviewed the.location o£ subject property,
uses established.in close proximity, and.the reasonsfo
c
ti
a
of
ub
r
on
nu
nce
s
ject petition
for two- meetings, and then.noted that the pefitioner.proposed to develop a,child''nursery
having
picnic`,and
play areas at the north
st
'
.
.
we
,and
northeast.corneis within the required.
aide yards and: arkin
p g-within the front:,
ard
`setb
k
'
`
`
y
,
ac
area :for
nine vehicles:
- ~
Mr Slaughter; in reviewing the evaluation af .the proposal, noted that the proposed use
could prove,objectionable to the
surro
ndi
.
u
ng aingle-family residential land uses due to
the location of the play areas.adjacent to the R-l;.which-could be disruptive to the
surrounding residential ~et~,,that'.the:petitioner proposed to.use,the required front yard
~a
'
'
rea
ss.an asphalt
parking'lot with what'would'appear:to be insufficient lands,ca~ing,,
such as'was.provided
on a~3j
ining;
ro
ti
in
.
o
p
per
es,s
ce only 3 feet was:'proposed.in the front
;' 'of t&e`paiking'area;:`that~.thle.~etitioner.would.also be unable to:meet'Code provisions
~
':regulating the:use
of the required front a~i §ide yards, and even if the use were found`
to be~appropriate,,the site'.was iriadequate for'developmenf in
.cc
rdanc
ith the Cod
.
o
e w
e
standards, and these;;Code sfandards had been established as the'`minimum'necessary to
preclude confl'icts with surrounding residential larid`uses - therefore, the Commisaion
I might.wish~to'consider reviewing Revision N
l
o.
which,propoaed the parking along the
easterly property.line as being":preferabTe since the play areas were located away from
the surrounding residential:structiires. ` ' ,
Mr. Frank Horpel, agent for,`the petitioner and repreaenting the American Institute of
`.Development Corporation,'
appeaied:before
`the
o~
,
,
C
ission and noted:there was,no zoning
within;the State of Califomia ttiat would permit
the t
o
u
e
o
'
.
ype:
f
s
prop
sed:
by right - that
a cond3tional.use permit was always required; Ehat subject property'was an:ideal location
5358
111) - _ _. ~,S"""'s's'L°~~1 .., . J . .,. . ... r,~.
.
; ,.,' : ~ ;
~;
1~ ; _ _ _ _ - -~..~,! -~~3
. i~ ''~ , -.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNlNG COIIIfISSION; September.21, 1970 5359
,CONDITIONAI. USEr- for;the proposed use aince it was locaEed near.schools; thst it wae.not
PER1~fIT•N0: 1197 their intent to establish.a use that would be.,,in.~conflict or an intrusion
(Continued), within,the adjoiriing land,uaeb; and'that they would stipulate to provid-
~ ing,more landscaping except'tlist'the 3-foot strip was proposed in front
''of fhe parking area. -
The Commiesion iaquire3 as to ~the wfdth of'the°lendscaping that`:the pet±tioner proposed
on`South~Street,~;whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commiseion that
a:3-foot:strip,was,proposed in_the,parking,erea:~••,
Mr. Horpel noted that there was an additional 5•feet of landscaping in.the area which wae
required;to be dedicated and improved, and.this.could be considered an additional g=een
belt:. ._ _
Mr,: Roberts adqised theiCommission:that the~petitioner.was seferring to the parkway area -
howeyer.,,etaff•was,.diacussing the landscaping,on the property itself and did riot include
the;parkvtey landscaping;svhich was in;front of the sidewalk, and that there would be a
7-foot atrip between the atreet and the sidewalk - however, only a 3-foot etrip was pro-
osed beh
-p ind the'sidewelk,
Tfiree,peraons indicated,their,presence in apposition to sub~ec.t petition.
Mr. Fred Paulus, 2528,Standish Avenue, appeared before the Commission and indiceted he
owned the single-family home immediately.to;,the east of sub~ect'property; that he did
not;oppoBe,the latest..revision since parking was not propoeed along the entira easterly
wall, proyided, howeper,.thet:the petitioner.stipulated to not providing.eny lighting
adjecent;to the.?east property`line, and that the wsll be a minimum of 6 feet. However,
he`was noE opposed to.the use of:the;property for::a nursery. .
Mr. Horpel noted that:at the previous public hearing the oppoaition gtated she wanted an
8-foot wall on the north property line'if subject petition were approved. However, it
would be.neceasary to.have their cooperation in,granting permisaion to.reconatruct the
exieting.~wall,to:an.8-foot,height,.aince the.eacisting wall'was,not;engineered to handle
the additional;2.feet.'- ' -
A:letter:was read.to the Planning Commiasion from the Sunkist Baptiet Church opposing.
any waiver of,the required:landscaped setback area.-
Chairman Herbst inquired of the remaining opposition whether they were oppoaed to the
use;of subject properfy.for a nuraery and received a negative response.
THE IiEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
Mr. Roberta noted that aince there had been some discuesion.by the petitioner and the
adjoining property ownere regarding an 8-foot wa11, wae it the Commisaion's desire to
requ~re the 8-foot wall insteed of a 6-foot wall. '
The Commission indicated that if the adjoining praperty ownera gave their consent to I
reconetruct the existing walls by.the patitioner, then Che walls ahould be increaeed.to
S feet. Furthermore, the petitioner ahould be made aware of the fact.that the R-A Zone
permitted only a 20-equare foot sign; wheceupon Mr. Horpel indicated he was aware o£
the Sign Ordinance.
_ ,.
Commiesioner Allred offered Reaolution No. PC70-171 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petition for Conditional Use.,Permit;No. 1197, subject,to conditiona_and.the
stipulation by the petitioner that:an 8-foot masonry wall would be constructed along the
north and,east property. linea,provided.permiesion.was grented to the petitioner to re-
conatrucf the existing wall, and,.further, that the petiEioner indicetad his.awareneae
of the fact thet the ordinance covering'signing on aubjecE;property would limit eigning
to a maximum of 20 square feet. ($ee Resolution. Book)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was.pasaed by Ehe following vote:
AYES: COrIIlISSIONERS: Allred, Farano,,Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seqa-aur, Herbst.
NOES: CONASISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTe CO1~fISSIONERS: None.
i
. I
~:: ~:
,
9~ ~
MINUTES, CITY rLANNING COZIlIISSION, September 21, 1970 5360
VARIANCE NO 2204 -.CONTINUED•pUBLIC HEARING ..FRANK:MULLER,-TRUSTEE,'c/o Ed Conroy,
.:Attorney,•1680~North:.Vine.Street,':Los~Angeles,'Califarnia; COVINGTON
~ . ,+~ -rBROS., 2451;East;Orangethorpe Avenue,.Fullerton,•,'California,:_Agent;
, requesting WAIVER OR:(1);,viINIMUM.BUILDING..SITE:AREAcPER:~DWELLING:UNIT'AND (2) MINIMUM
~~ DISTANCE'BETWEEN.;$UILDINGS,rTO.ESTABLZSH A 108-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLE:L on property dea-
cribed ass A rectangularly ahaped parcel of lend`having a fro nEage of approximately
295,.feet,on the,east aide:of_Mu11er:SEreet, having:.a:maximum depth:of approximately
468,;feet,.and:-being.:locaEed:approximately 610~:feet-north-.:ofsthe.centerline'of Lincoln
Avenue.., Property:preaently claseified:_M-1,,iLIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE;
Subject petition wae continued from the meeting of September 10, 1970, to allow time for'
- the designer'-to;consult with the developer,for the aubmisaion of revised plans.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor rialcolm Slaughter reviewed the loaation of subject property,
uses establiahed in close proximiEy,.and;noted.that subject petition was continued from
the last.publ3c.:hearing Eo allow the designer time to coneult with:the developer and for
the eubmiesion of reviaed.plans, bringing,the,development more nearly in conforaiance°with
'Code,requirements for coverage; that the.revised plans.were submitted.which indiceted a
reduction.in units:from.108 to 104; that the coverage per unit was ati11 5 feet below
that req'uired by Code; that the revised plans also indicated the r.eceaeary 20-foot setback
along Muller Street;:and that there still was.a waiver needed..for.distance between main
buildings on the first two tiers of apertments - however, if the second tier of apartmenta
was ahifted;approximately:3 feet to.the',east, then.the project would be only 9 inches
ahort of:Code,requirements; Furthermore, since there.was.exieting industrial:and commer-
cial land'~u"ses to the•easY. and south of subject:property,.the Commiesion•might wish to
require the R-3 developer to provide.the.masonry walle'along the east and south in order
to'reduce the possible undesirable.noisy effect between the two uses since the R-3 use
would be the encroaching factor into aress.thaE had been_zoned for a number of yeare as
industrial and also developed not only to the east but also to the west with industrial
plants,
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Chairman Aerbet noted that the reviaed plans more nearly conformed to what the Commission
requested - therefore, he could see no reason why subject petition should be continued
for.the.petiti'oner to be present.unless the Commiasion hed additional questions that
needed•clarifying: .
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervisor.Charles Roberts indicated to the Commisaion that he wished to emphasize
a atstement made in the Report to the Co~iseion in paragraph 11 of the evaluation in
that numerous complaints had been received by industrisl properties regarding noiaes they
created, and the`Co~iesion could recall the R-3 approved to the north of subject property
which had subsequently developed within an area zoned for a long time for induatrial usea -
however, this residential use encroached into the area and complainte had been received
from the R-3 tenants or owners regarding noiaes made by the existing M-1 usea adjacent to
the property. Therefore, the Coa~ieaion might wiah to give some thought to requiring the
R-3 developers to erect a 6-foot masonrq wall in order to reduce or eliminate.further
compleints from the R-3, particularly as it pertained to the induatrial usea to the east
in the event the industrial developera presented plana for enlarging their fecilitiea.
Furthermore, in reeponae to Commissioner Kaywood's question regarding shifting the build-
inRs to the east, thie would either have to be a requirement or condition of approval, or
the petitioner would have to stipulaze to that - however, the variance would still be
needed because of not meeting the miaimwa lot coverage with 1200 square feet per unit.
Commisaioner Seym~ur offered Reaolution No. PC70-172 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petitiors for Variance No. 2204, subject to conditions, with the added condition
that the petitioner erect a 6-foot mesa~ry wall adjacent to.the east and south.property
lines to form a barrier between the industrial-commerciel uses and the residential uaes
proposed. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO1~IliISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. Seymour, Herbst.
NUES: COhIAtISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO1~fISSIONERS: None.
I , r1
i.
j ..
. . . .) ..._'_ ":.I,i
~.. ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ - .
MINUTES,'CITY PLANNING COt~AfISSION, September 21, 1970 5361
CONDITIONAL USE ."- PUBLIC HEARING. -MACK AND DON H: JENKINS, 184L South San Gabriel
PERMIT,NO: 1204' Boulevard `San`.Gabriel, Cal;.fornia'; Owners;:PAQIFIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
1740 Nar.va.Street,~Los:Angeles, CaTifornie, Agent; requestipg permission
` to ESTABLISH A:BILLBOARD~IN TAE R-A ZONE'EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM PSRMITTED
SIGN AREA;,WITH.WAIVER:OF~(1)~ MAXIMUM PERMIITED SIGN HEIGHT AND '(2)~MINIMUM REQUIRED
~- STRUCTURAL SETBACKS on property'descritied~as: An irregularly shaped-parcel of land~located
north and;east-of'ttie_no~:heast,comer of~~Katella Avenue•and Douglas Street,:coneisting of
approximetely 3~acres,and:havirig-approximete::frontagee of 190'feet on the east side of
Douglas SEreet,and'198~,feet on ;the north aide'of Katella Avenue. Prop.erty preaently clasei-
fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL,.ZONE.-` - ~
Assietant Zoning:;Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the-location of subject~property,
uses establi,ehed;in cloee proximity,,and Ehe proposal to conatruct a 50-foot high, 672-
square,foot.billboard.:only 3`feet.behind.the ultimate right-of-way line of Katella Avenue;
that the:`property was annexed"into_the City of Anaheim on July'.2,'1970 - however, on
July 10; 1970;;the.Orange`County Building Department`granted.a building permit to the
`,p~eEitionere in:error`to erect this' billboard becauae their juriadiction ovea this property
was no,longer'in'force or effect:
Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the evaluation of the proposal, noted that the atructure would
conflict with almost every'criteria established.by`the Billboard Ordinance since it provided
thet'a billboard was permitted only,within-200 feet of the interaection of two arterials
in the commercial,and induetrial zones, and`the propoaed'sign`would be located almost
' 340 feeE from the intersection or two arteriels, or almoat twice as:far;.that although a
conditional use permit might allow'the location and square footage, it was queationable
whether this wae:the-intent of the.ordinance; to permit'a billboard at th'is.intersection,
'since'Katella.Ayenue within the City of Anaheim was designated as.a scenic highway from
DouglascStreet'to the flood con,trol'channel located between Euclid Street and Ninth Street -
Eherefore; it;could,be presumed that permitting a billboard at the entrance to the City
would have a very detrimental impact, and the Cou¢nisaion, as a result, might wiah to
conaider extending this scenic highway designation to the centerline of the Santa Ana
River bed;since this.was now the CiEy's boundary and would, therefore, preclude erection
of,billboards.along anq part of Katella Avenue at the entry into the:City. In addition,
the.',maximum height of a sign permiEted would be 36 feet, wherees the petitioner was pro-
posing a'S0-foot^billboard;"that the billboard was proposed to be located only 3 feet
from the.property line, but given'tIie pending M-1'zoning on the property, a 50-foot
structural aetback would be required = therefore, this billboard would protrude 47 feet
in:the front of industtial buildings that would be developed ultimately in this area and
would, of course, conflict.with the intent of establishing a park-.like atmosphere in the
M-I:Zones; and that it hbd been the Planning Commission and City Council's concern for
ettractiveness of this A~~a as viewed from the Orange Freeway when a frontage road was
adopted as part of~the circulation pattern for the area bounded by Kstella, Cerritos, and
Howe11 Avenues.
No one appeared to repreaent the petitioner.
No one appeared in oppasitian to subject petition.
THE HEARIN~ WAS CLOSED.
Co~maiasioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC70-173 and moved for its passage and adopti?n
to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Na. 1264 on the basis that the height and aio.
of. the structure were twice the size permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code; that it was
almost twice the distence from two arterials; that-it would be harmful to the viaual
appearance to visitora entering the City from the east and from the Orange Freeway; that
it would have a detrimental effect on the potential development of industrial land in this
area since said billboard would be protruding 47 feet in front of the setback required for
industrial buildinga. :
Prior to voting, a discuseion was held by the Co~ission'and at its conclusion, it was
determined that if the petitioner appealed the Plahning Commission's action and presented
additionel information to the City Council, said ldditional information being something
the Conanisaion had no chance to review, then it v~as recoaoaended that the conditional use
permit be.referred back to the Couaaisaion for fu~ther conaideration at a public hearing
to present.any additional evidence, and that i£ the City Council also denied said petition,
the existing pylon be remo~ed immediately.
Co~issionar Kaywood amended her reaolution to include a recommenda~ion to the City Council
that the conditional use permit be referred back to the Planning Coam~ission for further
conaideration if the petitioner appealed hie petition to the City Council, and if the
City Council also,denied subject petition, that Che existing pylon on the property be
removed immediately. (See Resolution Book)
E~
l -
. . . . . ~ . _ _. _ _ _ ".---~~~ . .
~ ~ . ~ . . . ' . . . _ . .
MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COhQiISSION, September 21, 1970 5362
,.
_.. __.,
•- ?'.
CONPITIONAL USE, - On:roll call,the foregoing resolution;'was passed by the followiag vote;
;PERMIT N0;..1204 , ,
~'(Continued) AYES: ~COMMISSIONERS::'Allred, Farano, Gauer,:Kaywood,.Rowland,
` Seyznour, Herbst:
NOES:.. CONatISSIONERS: : None.
:;,., `,- ~ . ABSENT: `;.COTRi15SI0NERS•,:: None:
Commissioner Kaywood'offered a':motion to set for•public`hearing;,on Octaber 19, 1970,
corisideration-o£ ari;amendment.to the Billboard Ordinance to~extend t::a designation of
Katella Avenue'as a scenic highway,to the centerline of the Santa Ana River bed.
Cos~isaioner Gauer.aeconded the motion.:.:MOTION~CARRIED.'
CONDITIONAL~USE _-.PUBLIC HEARING. RQBERT W, ORR,,ET AL, 1931 Port Nelson P1ace, Newport
PERMIT N0;.1205 ` Beack, California; Owners; FRED KAHI.EN, JR., 11692 Steele,Drive,
Garden Grove, California,.Agent; requeating.:permission to ESTABLISH A
CHURC& AND DAY`SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING:STRUCTURE on property described
as:` A rectangularly ehaped.parcel of Iand having a frontage of
; approximately lll.feet on the south.side of'South Street, having.a maximum depth of
approzimately 156 feet,and being located.approximately 250.feet west of the centerline of
State,College Boulevard, and further.deecribed as 1906 East South Street. Property
preseritly ;claseified R-A, AGRICULTURA?.; ZONE: "
Aseistant..Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established'3n;close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the
proposal"to'eatablish a small;church and;scfiool facility in'the chapel on aubject property
whihh was formerly a garage,,and noted that an_on-sale bee= and wine epplication wes
approved for the property to the east only after EY.e use for church and school purposes
was terminated on aubject pioperty;_that the use of:the property was anticipeted for a
period of five ye~rs and would serve at the presenC:time approximately four families;
tliat although the'yard to the iear of the chapel wes quite large,'apparently,the petitioner
proposed,to park`in the:existing driveway;:and that the Commission would have`to determine
wHether the close,proximity between`the on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with e restau-
rant and the proposed church-school facility.was;justified.,, " '
Mr.'Fred Kahlen, agent.for the petiEioner, appeared before the Commiseion end stated that
subject property was ideally suited for their particular.needs, and then in responae to
i Commission..questioning,.;stated that it was:their intent to use the chapel presently, and
when a pastor was obtained, they.would use the home for his residence; that at the present
time there s~ere only three to four families, and.they had lost their pastor - therefore,
the home was not needed at the present Cime; thet if conditions warranted it, they woul.d
purchase the land but wese preaently only leasing it.
Coa~isaioner Gauer expressed concern regarding the size of the parcel since in tha paet
the City had required a minimum of one-acre sites for church facilities.
Zoning Supervisor Cherles Roberta advised the Commission that he did noC know if this
were required by Code, but he knew it had been the policy of both the Commission and City
Council and had made this a requirement of parcele considerably larger than the site
under consideration.
Commisaioner Allred noted that from past history of congregatione, it aeemed they would
~row and although this might be an ideal location at the present time, if this congregation
grew, the site would be inadequate and they would move - t}:en the Commisaion would, again,
be faced with the same problem of a vacant parcel being requeated to be used for a new
church.
Mr. Kahlen replied that his congregation was primarily interested in obtaining a Chriatian
education for their.children, and,this could only be done in small facilitiea, and thet
they did not anticipate s fantastic growth - theiefoYe, the existing facilitiea would
appear to be sufficient for their needa.
Commiasioner Kaywood inquired what.was proposed for the existing home on the premiaes.
Mr. Kahlen replied that the home was equipped for both rooms for teaching as well ae
living facilities for the pastor, and this would auit their needs financially.
Commissiorier Seymour inquired whether or not a pestor could be afforded with only'three
or four familiea; that the staff had indicated the front structure was now rented and
L•hat it would remain rented, or were they intending to use this facility in the event a
new pastor wae obtained.
~p A'~c '~HS~ ~ ~yy~r?~ory'idrr-"~t.~{`~!''v4 ~.i." ...'~w .-~~1-Se' n^i~~..r ~ vincr~a ,+~e.. : ~'".""-~..' 'a ~
.
~'`•~-~: ~ -, ~ „ . . .. ,~,.. ~ i , ~ . '.R .a ~r __ ~. S r,_ .,. ~ ,~
r ~ ~}
. . ~ . ~ ~ ~ .;~~,
~. ~ . ~_ ..~ ~, .. ' ~ . ~ ~ , . .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~4IISSION, September 21, 1970
, , 5363
CONDITIONAL~USE. - Mr. Kahlen replied that~they,would;have a pastor, and it was their
'PERMIT N0, 1205 intent that~he reside in this-house•on the premises; however, it was
(Continued) _ also possible-that;they would never.get.a new pastor.
The Commiesion further expressed;•concern that'~this would remain a`achool rather than a
church;:whereupon Mr, Kahlea replied that.it was their plan to have both, with services
once a week and school five days.a week,.and that it was not their intent to use the
rear portion.of the„property since:adequate area was,available for: parking purposes in
the 'e~iis'ting ~driveway.':
Mr: Kahlen; in response to questioning by the Commission as to whether or not the proposed
nse would,contribute to the betterinent of.'the City of Anaheim or to the proper atmosphere
for classroom and church purposes,:stated that Chey needed some additional landacaping on
the facility and then,:it would be acceptable for their'purposes - however, it was their
intent to provide this additional'landscapingi
The Commission then inquired as to the maximum number of children the petitioner was
contemplating to have'attend'.classea and whether or not they would stipulate to that
number. .
~; _ _
Misa Lirida Knudsen, proposed,inatructor for the school facility, appeared before the
Commission and etated that presently there?were three children.in the firat grade and
the.second grade would be added next year, with new cla$stia each year, and it was antici-
pated thet within five years the nuinber of children would reach ten - however, ahe could
not p=edict the.success of.the achool, and'.that the school would lie run`in accordance
with the State of California regu2etions. .
Chairman Herbat noted that it was evident from atatements made that this would be a awall
church as,well as a achool = however, it was important Chat the City not permit an over-
crowded eituation to occur:
Mr• Kahlen noted.that the size of the property was:~something which limited the capacity
of the church, and the State:of California would.have specific regulations for the amount
of classroom and play area which must be provided`for each child.•
Commisaioner-Kaywood inquired where the entr a p p 9
rear, and would the entry be in the general area ~liere an automobilehwasfparkedeinrthe ~r
driveway:as depicted on a~picture presented by staEf.
Mr:-Kahlen•replied that there was adequate property to the south to have the entrpway
from the rear, but it was their present intent Eo use the entry at the north end of the
building where the automobile was parked.
Mr. Kahlen then inquired what the condition regard~ng development in accordance with
plana meant.
i
Mr. Roberts noted that the plans had been submitted with the Y
required that the development be in accordance with those planstition, and thia condition
Commisaioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the church membership had any objection to
being'located adjacent to a facility that would be aerving beer and wine; whereupon ~
Mr• Kahlen replied they would.have no opposition.
Mr. Kahleu, in reaponae to questioning by Chairman Herbst regarding the play area, after ~
reViewing the plans aubmitted with the petition, atated it was not their intent to develop t
in accord?~ace with theae plans aince this xepresented wh~t the previour. leasee had, and at I
the time the petition was filed, their.finel plans had not been formulated. I
The Commiesion then ~
expresaed concern that the petitioner was proposing ta establiah a day ~
school and the actusl proposed development plans had not been aubmitted as to their intent
for developing`the property. .Therefore, in order tliat the Commiseien would not set a
precedent if aubject_petition were approved without plans or what was contemplated for
this property, subject petition should be continued until theae plans were available for
the Coa7nission's consideration.
Mr: Roberts noted that in order to be considered at the next publir hearing, plans would
have to be in the Development Services Department no later than noon on Friday, September
25, 1970, in order that staff could analyze the plans prior to being reviewed by the
Interdepartmental Co~!ittee on Monday.
Mr. Kahlen replied that plans would not be available by that time.
~
_ ..
~
~, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; September 21, 1970 -
.~ ; _• . . ;, ~
: 5364 ~
CONDITIONAL::USE .- Mr Roberta indicated to the Commisaion thet the•petitioner;should
PERMIT 'N0. ~ 1205 ~ meet viith members of -the staff to,~discuss;; their' exact ;proposal as
(Continued): it pertained::to plaris'. ~
..Commisaioner Seymour;;:expreseed concern,thet thP.,Commiasion•wae aekin the; R~
submit plans of development.when there w.as a ` .8 . petitioner to.
~ poseibility that'.the petition:would.not be:
approved, aad.he,:for oiie,~~was not`in fador of:the proposed~use everi:if-plans~were.: }~
; aubmitted, paiticularly eince the.single=family;;'residence on~,;the property;;would be
. ~creatia a' arkin ~ '~r
6 P, g p=oblem when.church services~or clasaea;were;=held.
~ Courmissioner F.arano concurred with;Co~isaioner;Seymou=!s statement that tHe Commission ; ~,
ahould vote on the merits of the.requeat rather•than~having_the:petitioner:.submit devel-
opment'.plana
, . ~
Cormniasioner Allred,offered•a motion to continue:Petition for~Conditional Use Permit No. ~~
1_205 to~the meeting of~0etober 19, 1970, to 'ellow the.petitioner time to submit;plans of ~~'
devel6pment: proposed?for sub ect ~ sa'
j proper,ty..> ~~issioner,Rayiaood=aeconded!.the;motion. ~~~~
•. MOTION.:CARRIED: r ;~'„?
~a
, ;~
V~IRIANCE N0. 2206 - PUBLIC HFe1RING: FRANK J., r'
STUECI~E, 842 North Zeyn.Street, Anaheim, '"L?~
':` ~' ' Califomia,,Owner, SIGN INDUSTRIES,}INC,; 2632.North;Antario.Street, F~
~ - Burbank,_California, Agerit,•'.requeating:WAIVER OF;:MINIMUM REQUIRED', : ~ "{
3IGN CLEARANCE:TO ESTABLISH.A FREE-STANDING'SIGN on property described.as;':A rectangularly ~M
shaped.parcel.of land consistin 'of.a '"~~
corner of Anaheim Boulevard:and WaEerPStreetethavin~58ecres,;.;located;at the.;southweat
Anaheim`Boulevard and 420 feeC on,Water SE',reet,:andgfurtherideacribedtase611fSouth Anaheim ~
Boulevard Property•presently clasaified~,C 3, HEAVy CO2~fERCIAL, ZONE; . .~~
,. ' ~ ~
Assiatanr 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject,p=operty,
uses esEab2ished~in close proximity, and the proposal ta establish a,free-standing sign '~~
on subject property.with a seperation of only 9 inches between the display surface;and ~~'~~
the~grourid, whereas,Code.would,require a minimum%ot 8 feet;,that the'<proposed•sign would: kf^`
.' be 24 feet by`4;feet;`and that the Cormnisaion,would have to determine;whether• or not " ~~
there was +, ;;;
3ustification for granting the.veriance:in view of Ehe posaible precedent it `r.s~
might eateblish`for aimilar.requesta,~hroughout:.the City.
`, , ~ ; F>`~
Mri Car1 Stokea, repreaent~tig.Sign Industries, the;agent, appea=ed before the Commission ,.;~
and reviewed the proposed ai `~
8A S..
identification si in of the~RamblertauEomobile8dealeref and that~San Diegoewould be ,1
~ the last county,:in which,this'program would be completed, and then in response to. {j~
Commiasion questioning, stated he hed no difficulty in:erecting these signs aince the
signa were eold nationally through American Motors Company, and they were onl
• diatributors and insta the
llers of an emblem sign'identifying a11 Rambler dealersy
Commiseioner Kaywood inquired whether or not iC was the intent of the dealer to remove
.Che two existing signs.
Mr. Gi1 Ke11ey, 601 South Anaheim Soulevard, appeared before the Commiasion and stated
he would stipulate that the existing aigns-would be removed - this wouid include those
plywood eigns which had been "bootlegged" onto the property as a temporary measure.
No one appeared in opposition to aubject pt+.titioni -
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired k•hether the-atipulation made by,Mr. Kelley }
3ncluded all the nonconforming and/or illegal.signa. However, before the Commission took ~
action on aubject petition, he requested a little time while a ataff inember checked a
building permit regarding the facia signs. i
~
After a ehort L•ime Mr;. Roberts reviewed the.plane.submitted for a building perwit and
_ noted that the pictures indicated~some signe`were being,placed.on the top of the building,
making these roof aigna, whereae a building permit was only for facia or wall signs.
Mr. Kelley replied that the facia signs would be on the front of the building and would
not.be on the roof - however,.the signe ae depicted on the colored slides were only
resting,on the roof until the instailera were able to find time to inetall them, but he
would Iike to easure the Commission that there would be only the one free-atanding sign
and the wall signs as indicated on the building permit.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allr.ed offered Resolution No. PC70-174 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant Petitioa for Variance No. 2206, subject to,conditione and the stipulation that
all illegal and aoncanforming aigns.would be removed upon erection of the free-standing ~
- -_ . . . ~,
,.,; .a
~ ~
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 21, 19?0 .- 5365 .
VARIANCE~NO '2206 sign andcthe wall~signs, and that:the,granting•of,zthis-petition.would
(Continued) not be•setting a precedent for similar.requeste~Efiroughout the~City
, ;, sirice^each sign,;request,would.;have to.judged on.its own-merit and'
_ i - tfi:at the,proposed sign'.would not be harmful~:or dangerous to thE,
pedeatriene or motorists at the locaEion only~~9 inchea:~from the,ground::because of:its
narrow width (See Resolution;Book)'~'~
, ..: .. •.:
,._ ~r: : `. ~.: ~ _ ,, -- . ~. . , . .
On.roll call the'foregoing resolution,was pe,ssed by the following yote:"„
AYES CO1~Il~IISSIONERS .; Allred, Farano, Gauer, Keywood,,Seymour; Herb"st.
'~ `NOES ,COMMISSIONERS.'' Rowland. ..~ . -. .,.
ABSENT: '- COMEIISSI~OIvERS:., None;.;:
Commissio~er Rowlend, in voting_"no",'•atated.that aithough the~proposed,aign would be;a.
great improyementcover:the°existing.;nonconforming:,and;.illegal.signs, it:could set'a
precedent which,:couldcbe harmful to'the enti=e:communit
. , ,-- <. ,.•.•
_ •..,: ' , . : ,:.; ..... . . . : Y ~ =-
VARIANCE NO 2208 -,.pUBLIC.HEARING..°BIXBY LAND COMPANY,.444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite
1704, Long.Begch; California; Owner;•HUDffiLE;OIL`& :2EFINING COMPANY,
~ P:.~: Box 125~;,.Orange,:,Califomia,;';Agent; requesting:WAIVER:OF.
PE1tMITTED;Pf-~1 ,USES T0 ESTABLISfI AN' AUTOMOBILE RENTAL 'AGENCY IN>:CONJUNCTION WITIi AN. EXIST-
ING SERVICE STATION~on.property•described as.s A rectangularly;shaped paroel of land
looated:at;the northwesticorner.~.of Hester SEreet and Katella Avenue, fia:~ing approximate
froptages.of 130,'feet'ori'Haster Street and,'140=feef:.on Ratella;Avenue, and.further
described as lO1 West~Katella Avenue.' Property preaently>classified M-1,,LIGHT-INDUSTRIAL,
' ZONE' ~ °.i; , s . , .
Aasistant',Zoning'Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property,
uaes eeta,blished'in.close. roximit '
, ,. . p y,,and the:requeaC to establish an automobile rental;
agency in corijunetion with,an:exiating.service.station aiEe,in:the M-L-Zone;'that-the;
petitioner?proposed:to;havP a;maximum.of 10.;Sehiclea:~stored;on the proper.ty,at~any given
time; that.the main conaideration,before the;Coam~ission•;was whether t~ie•uae of:the service
station site for ,car;rentals was appropriate, and if the Commission.felt.that the second-
.' ary,use of'rthe property:was~appropriaEe, the,`Commi"seSon may-wish to.:require the storage
and pa=king,of aay, of the~rental vehicles to„that;'area.befiind rhe'front aetback line of
the existing'building - this would preclude'the ~arking 1ot a~;pearance which may occur
if cara wer'e parked-to the front.of,ttie property.. Tn addieion, the,Commission may wiah
to diacuss,with-the petitioner the possibiliEy of having.the site,landscsped.in accord-
anae;with.presenf City landacaping requirements for aervice atatione.ain~e,there wss
absolutely no landsceping proVided on the site,.and given the location of the property
~ at the enErance,to tlie.:bommercial-Recreation Area, it would appear-that any stepa taken
to increase the vtsual attractiveness of the:site would be appropriate.
Mr. Dcn Kiefer appeared before the Commiasion and noted that he was fully aware thaC
' conditions of approval would be recommended by staff -:however, since they had not atudied
the conditions, they were noY familiar with the requirement of dedication.
Mr. Slaughter noted that the ultimate right-of-way for-Haster Street was 53 feet as a
primary.atreet,. and only 40 feet wae dedicated - therefore, an additional 13 feet would
have to be dedicated for etreet widening purpoaea.
Mi, Kiefer:then noted that aince they were only the lessee, Ehey would have no way in
which to provide dedication since they were the agent for the lessor only and had no
authority to give this dedication.
The Cosmnission inquired whether or not a continuance would be in order Co allow the agent
for the pefitioner time to diaceus the conditions if sub~ect petition were approT~ed with
the property owner.
; Chairman Herbst inquired where etorage of these rental.-cara would be located.
Mr. A1 Dedenado, 500 Eouth Mein Street, Orange, salesman for the Humble Oil Company,
appeared before the Commission and stated that the parking area would be at the rEar
of.the.property; that they had'apace for 17 vehiclea - howe~+er, they were propoeing
only l0 vehi:clea to be stored to the ra~ar and none would be stored in the front or side.
The Commiasiom inquired whether the petitioner atill intended to remain in the gaso7.ine
aervicing buainess; whereupon Mr. Dedenado replied that they deFinitely still would remain
in ;:,?e aervic•e station businesa, but by having these vehiclea atored where propoaed, this
would eliminate having their property uaed for the temporary 8[orage of vw.hicles that
were being overhauled by the adjoining auto.ahop.
_ ~
,.
~ _.
~
MZ2vJTES,:CITY PLANNING COl~AfISSIGN, September.21, 1970 5366
VAR7.ANCL~ N0 2208 Tlie Commission..further iindicated~.that: since~.they liad• viaited the
(Contin~ed) c property;~it.appeared;itrwould be,impossible~to park more then'three
vehicles;`;whereupon:Mr:; Dedenado~etated;that•the vehicles`would create
- •, a~,'barrier,' keeping the,.overhauling;:operatioa to the rear,` of• their
property,_and~..this baiiie=-would:give them;~:a.cleaner:operation.:than~they presently hadyattd'
since they,wouTd not.know:wiien theae;cara;;would be reat'ed,-it;would be necessary.to K~ep
'' EHe area:;free from the:etorsge of theae vepiclea that were aweiting xepair work: Further-
nioie, when one,drove on Haeter Street, all;.of these wrecked:vehicles:looked-like a'junk
heap, and they were hopeful ;the propoaed use would ieolate that ~rea;'that they.had'con-
aidered~erection"of a:~.6 footi.masonry;wall;,;but.eritry:to:Eheir~=aaility would'be difficult
since the entrance•to.the auto'.renEal would be~from Hasfer,Street.
The Commission furthex.,noted~that a'service'station was deaigned to take people off the
;oad, and;,people did~not juat;,;stop;at~,the;gasoline°pumps, buCr.elso~used the~washrooms -
therefore, they,;felt ttie aite:was=Eotally inadequa;te:to,accomniodate•not only:the:service
atation:after dedication, but.rthe parking,of ten .vehicles ae vie11. Furthermore, if
subject;.petition were'approved, the landscaping:and.aite development staridarda of service
stations:would have to be.met..
Mr. Dedenedo aEated that he did not:£ael.there would•be fen'vehicles on the premiaea at
any given.time.since they would have to;lease the:cara.:- however; the main advantage to
pe;mitting.the propoRed.uae;.was to eliminate the use of the aervice station sitz:-for the
storage.of parEially dismantled or,wrecked yehicles awaiting,repair work..by the auto shop.
.. :, > . ;.; . . . . . ,
Mr:. Milo:Ainaworth, 4065 Germainder:Way, Irvine, appeared before the-Commiasion and noted
he;was°the manager for:Airweys Rent-A-Car.:.for SansDiego:and.Orange.Countiea,`and they.did
not-realize a requirement•,of.dedication would be aeked.of them - therefore, they would
have•to'ask for e continuation, but they Pelt that since there were ofher car rental
agencies.to the'.north,:south':and.east, as;welT.as weat,:and os~e~within the existing Gulf
service-station site,aE Clementine Street.and Katella Avenue:where•.they not oaly had six
to`,seven dune buggies but aix.to.seven motorcyclea.and other automobiles;.the•.proposed
request:would noE seem._to be;out of 1ine, and in all fairneas to.`the p;oposed~operator,
they.should.also have the right.to operate a car rental agency.on:their serdice station
~ site. `
Commiasioner Gauer f.ioted that the Clementine site was larger than aubject property..
~ Coffiiasioner Allred.noted that if the parcel were lerge-enough to accommodate a car rental
F as well as a,service `station,.thie might'cast a different.light on the request, but:after
I dedication was;acquired, sub~ect property would be inadequate. Furthermore, if a service
atation site were:,used p;imarily for a car`rental, that might be different, and he would
be more.in favor of that Chan a,combination of two operationa.
Dir. Aineworth noted that he had been inx"ormed that the service atation at Lewie Street and
Katella Avenue was not permitted to have juet car rentals.
I Chairman Herbst noted that'this site had a request for truck rentals, and each site ahould
etand on 3ts own merita.
Commissi~~ner Farano advised Mr. Ainsworth not to be misled; although Commiseioner Allred
indicated he would haqe:lesa ob~ections to converting a service atation aite into a car
rental operation, he, ae a Commisaioner, had reservations since if the money were spent
to,convert auch a site and it-proved unsatisfactory or unprofitable, then the City would
again•be faced with a closed service station site no•,~ converted into a car rental site,
and he could not aee where Aneheim would be farther at~ead with a boarded-up service
atation or a car renteL operation; that the basic reason why so many service stationa
were boarded up was the fact thaC there was noE enough traffic to patronize tt;e many
aervice station facilities in the city, and it would only be a c.atter of time when the
car reatal operation would be glutted and these facilitiea would also be boarded up.
Mr. Ainsworth indicated that a letter had been aent to the Chairman of the Commission from
the president of the~Airways Rent-A-Car System which explained the reasons for the need
for this facility,in Anaheim (a aearch of the file did not-produce this letter, and
Mr. Aineworth aubmitted a xerox-copy for the file).
Mr.-Kiefer again appeared before the Commisaion and noted that thie particular requeat of
Airways.Rent-A-Car Syatem was not meant to be an endorsement by the Humble 0i1 Company for
the car rental agency - however, the dual uae would enhance and make the operetion more
profitable for the operator who would not have to resort to repair work at the service
station, and that thia was not to imply that their company propoaed car rentals at aervice
station eites per se ~!s an endoraement for all their aervice etationa.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ r j t r; ~a
1,. - ~ 4" . ~
4 ~~
. i ~ ~~7r '1~ '` . .. ,. -.
. ~ ~
; MINUTES; CITY PLANNING,COMMISSION, September 21, 1970
' S367.,
;.r
~,` VARIANCE NO 2208 Commiasioner Kaywood offered Reaolution No ;PC70-175 and moved for its
f (Continued) , ~assage and adoption to deny Petition.:.for.Variance~,No.''2208 on the basis
~ - that the'site ~roposed would be inadequate,for ttie`dual use proposed,
~,i' ~ particularly in,"view of!the fact that':an a3ditioaal 13,`feet of dedica-
~ tion would.be necessary'for the ultimate widening of Ha'ster Street; that the agent_for the
~ peEitioner_indicated he was oaly the:-lessee:'and he iaas unable to provide this`additional:
~ ` dedication-for stzeet pu=posea; thab;no evidence was submitted'Eo show`that-the petitioner
~ was;.denied:'a right en~oyed by`other-.p=operties in~.the same zoae in thts general area; and that
~ approval;of this petition would estalilish an'undeairable precedent for similar requeats.
x
~ (See Resolution Book) ` ~ " ` ` ~
~<
On-'roll.call the `foregoing resolution was passed by the,following vote:
AYES ~~COMMISSIONERS::. Allred, Farano; Gauer;.Kaywood,`Rowland, Seymour, Herbat.
~ NOES ',.COMMISSIONERS:: 'None..." ,-
ABSENT: "COI~Il~fISSIONERS:- None.` ` ,
~` ° ' ` r' ~ , :
~ VARIANCF NO ~2209 PUBLIC HEARING. MARIO AND JEAN MUNIZA, 1364 Sherrill Street, Anaheim,
„ California,:Owners; requesting WAIVER OF MTNIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD
r- ,'. '' SETBACK TO':ESTABLISH A$WIMMING.POOL'AND FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD on
, property'described`es: 'A rectangulerly shaped'pareel of.land located.on the northeast
comer of;'Ohanticleer.Road and'Sherrill Street; having,approximate frontages of 85 feet
on Chanticleer'Road and>102 feet on Sherrill'Street, and'further-deacribed as 1364 Sherrill
Street. Pr~perty presently,classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
Assiatant:Zoning Supervisor'Malcolm Slaughtei reviewed the`location of subject property,
use3 establi~ahed in close proximity,'and the proposal to.develop a swimming pool and a six-
foot.wooden #ence within Ehe.required front yard area -`however; the property was deyeloped
with a rederse building':grontage, with the.building fronting on what~is considered,the side
lot line under the zonin ordinance•:that a six-foot fence and.pool'were,proposed in the
required 25-foot front yard setback, and tlie fence.would extend to.the rear of the sidewalk.
Therefore,:.the Commissiori wouTd:have Eo~determine:whethei Ehere''was justification;for grant-
ing tliis variance, a:1d'consideration ehould:'be given to Ehe possible adverse effects of
having a fence in the front yard area which could detract from or:obstruct the visual open-
ness`.'of the neighborhood'whieh was provided.by the requir_d open setbacks, and if the
Planning Commission felt that 'some intrusion into the setback area was`'appropriate, the
Commiseion might wish to sequire a 5 or 10-foot landscaped aetback ao as.to preserve the
viaual appearance of the:`neighborhood. • '
Mr: Mario Muniza, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the six-
foot:fence'had been in this area for the past'thirteen years - however,:it had fallen down,
and',they were now reconstructing it; that he had'diecuased the proposal to construct a pool
in the area adjace;:t to the neighbor's front yard, and a written letter had been submitted
indicating'no opposition to the pool area.
The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner was aware of the hazards that a wooden
fence would preaent adjacent to a pool, especially since it was immediately ad,jacent to a
publi.c right-of-way.
The petitioner`indicated that the existing wooden fence had not been pulled down - it had
just deteriorated.
The Co~ission'recommended that co~isideration be given to'a aix-foot maeonry wall instead of
the grapestake fence.
The petitioner xeplied that the cost of erecting such a niasonry wall would be $1,500, and in
a11 likelihood the new freeway would go through this area within ten years - therefore, this
$I,500 would be loat. Furthermore, children would climb over the masonry wall juat as they
would a wooden fence.
- The Coannisaion noted thaC it would be easier to climb a wooden fence and tear it down than
it would a six-foot maeonry wa1L
The Commiasion also expresaed consideration of a`one-~oot atrip of landacaping inside of the
sidewalk area.
The petitioner indicated that hia only intent as far as the fence was concerned was to replace'
the fence which had been tom down because it was irrepairable.
The Commission Secretary indicated that a letker vae on file from the property owner to the ~
east of the propos,ed swimming pool site, indicating no opposition to the proposed swiaiming `
pool.
~ ~
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~4IISSION, September~ 21
19~70
~
~ .~
~
~
,
5368
':: _,:.; ;
~ , :; = ;:
' VARIANCE NQ 2209. No 'one a
PPeared in opposition tb aubject petition. "
~ C
tirin ~
"~'~~
~
_
on
ed)
~
H
THE,
EARING WAS CLOSED
-
' "~`
:
: , ; ' .
Discussion`was held by the Commission relative to the need for a~six-foot ma
on
C
a
m ~~~
#
s
ry w
om
ll,•
issioner Farano being of the opinion tnat e.•Fjrapestake'.fence:was::ad'equate.-
~~
+
'
~'`
~~ ~
~ '
'~ .~~
=:~
: ..~~
::
, . .- ~ ..
w .
~.
,
.
~ ` Commissioner1Farano offered~Resolution No Pd70 176-and moved~for its
ae
a
' ~r
.
asge
nd adoption
to grant{Petition';for Va
rianceeNo 2209 to ermit;,the eatablishment of;=a swimmin
~ fence with3
th
~ ~r„~
n
e required front, yard;on
the;basis £hat there were:exceptioriaT:circumstances
relating to the prope~-rv;in that the Code coaside
d thi
'
'
t
7 ..
~,~
re
s
.
por
ion of•the:parcel to be a
y ,
fronty ard^ but-the l~ e was oriented towaid the west and'it was.b'eing':`utilized as the
reai; ard of the prn
riy
th
E'
th
~ ~~, .
~
~
1
p
,
a
.
e;petitioner was>proposing to
`replace;an existing:grape-
;: stake fence ... . , ~.
, ,
, fx
'
,
, '
.,
Co
i .~~1
nt
nued diszussion was held by the Commission prior to a~lvote on the motian, it being the
pinion of 'the ma or
° ity of ~the Coimaission that a"six foot a
9on
~ j
`
l ~~
..
, , . . ..
rq
wal
' ~ ~, " ~. . : .
;sfiould" be -required. ,~~
' . , . .. , .
Commissioner Farano indicated that he.did not want'to persona.Zy,make that part of his motion
but would accept an amendment>
fr
ny 4t
`~'`
;
om.a
.
of the,Cou~issioners - therefore, the`six-foot masonry
..
~ wall,,could;be required as requested by..Chairmasi He=bet
.
~ ,~~~
;
.
.
,,
~ ; : ? : . :" .
Commiasioner Herbst offered a motion to amend Coamiiseioner`Farano.'s offer of`a:,resolutYon.to
include a aix foot masonry wall'encio'sing the?pool
area to'se
a
at
a
~r
'
s`
,
p
r
e the sidewalk fn osder
to prevent easy access to the pool+area from the public right of-way. Commissioner Gauer
seconded tiie motion ~
~
yE'~~
,, ' ..
~
~
' ~
5
~ ... • ',' :
, :.' ,
-. . . . ' .
:.
'. . ..'.
The motion~as amended indicated:that a condition of approval in a3dition
t
the ~
h~
~`
.
o
.condition
set forth in the Report'CO the Commisaion wae; "., provided, however, that a six-£oot
decorative masonry;wall ahall be co
t"i
t
' s}~,~
ns
uc
ed;around
the swimming pool area in lieu of the
proposed grapestake fence" (See Resolution Boak) , ~
~,f?'~
' On roll caLl the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: G~'
AYES: COI~SISSIONERS. Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood; Rowland, Herbst:
.
? NOES.'
COI~SISSIONERS: No
: ~'
~
;
,
, .. . ,, . .
ne
.
; ABSENT C,OMMISSIONERS•• None ~"- t
~
I . , ABSTAIN COf~ISSIONERS: Seym~ur. :~
:
~
' RECLASSIFICATION - PUR*i~ HEARING. M.'SHOOK ET A
L 282
0
, ,. , West Lincol•n Avenue
, Anaheim,
NO . 70=71-16 ~alifornia,.Owners; DALE.:INGRAM
P
'
;
'
,
. 0. Box
229, E1 Monte, California,
' ' ~- Agent; property described aec Portion A- An irregularly shaped parcel
VARI~INCE N~' 1207
a
of l
nd located aouthwest of the southweat corner of Lincoln and Dale
Avenues; having approximate fronteges of 363 f
t
c
ee
on Lin
oln Avenue
~ ..-" and'45 feet on Dale Avenue, naving a maximum depth of approximately
`~ 68~
feet;.•anc4 Portion B
A recta
l
rl
!
,
-
ngu
a
y ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of
approximately 74`feet on the aouth side'of Lincoln Avenue, having e maximum de
th of
` a
r
xi
a
f '
p
pp
o
m
tely 200
eet, aad being located.approximately 660,feet ~test of the centerline
of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2820-2840 W
s
i
e
t L
ncoln Avenue. Property presently
classified R-A,.AGRICULTURAL, AND C-1,.GENERAI. CO1QiERCIAL, ZONES ~(PORTION A) AND g-A
`
AGRICULTURAL
'
,
, ZONE.
(PORTION B).
__ . _
REQUESTED CLASSIEICATION: PORTION A- R-3, MUI.TIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; ,
~:'
PORTIOII B- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE,
REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION A ONLY - WAIVER OF (lj MAXIMUM pERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT
~1ND (2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEE
'
T OF R-A,
TQ ESTABLISH A;THREE-STORY,- 207-UNIT.APARTMENT COMPLER.
~~Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malc~lm Slaughter reviewed the location of eubject
ro
t
st
bl
'
p
per
e
yy uses
a
ished
:in close proximity,-preyious,.tioning action on subject pxonerty, and the proposal
to develop'Portion A with'a two and th
e
t
'
r
e-s
ory;
:207-unit apartment complex and to establish
C-1 zoning on Portion B- however, no plans had been submitt
d f
e
or this parcel.
Mr. Slaughter further uoted that the General Plan indicated that the northerly portion of
the pioperty'was deemed approFriate for hi
h
ay
g
w
-related uaes, but the balance was deemed
appropriate for:multiple-family residential uses; that-Code permitted a maximum hei
ht i
th
m
g
e
n
ultiple-family.residentiaL zone of two stories plus roof structure - however, the
petitioner.was proposing three stories for
p
o
a
pr
ximately one-half of the buildings on the
` site; and;that a problem:could.result with the rather large distance between the o
en
a
in
k
a
'a
p
p
r
-
g sp
ces
long the Orange County Flood Control channel and the units, as well as the
possibility of this area bec
i
t
.nm
ng a s
orage area for boats, trailers, etc, - therefore, the
Commission may wiah to consider appropriate conditions to preclude thi
'
A
s possible unsightly
eppearance.
.~ t-'
h ~ . ~ 'Y . .. ~~ILit~ Y ml . '~ ~ ' Jh _ 1 ~-` C~I F . y"~
k
F y : 1
~ ~'•~ -i ~ i}~~~~
? )
~~
~
~
..
~
1
~
1 5 J .
~~ ; f Y y
~y,. l
. ..Z _.. ,r&Sn..~!^ .. ~' I .~.. ,~"ar
u~ . .. ~..... . . . ~ .. _. '_~~' Y ., .
~ ~
MINUTES,.;CITY PLANNING COI~fISSION, September`21, 1970 <5369
:
~ : r ._ ,
z, RECLASSIFICATION .- Mr.;Dale Ingram, ageat,for the.>petitioner,:appeared before'the Commission
~- N0 >70-71=16 '-' and':noted'that the propos~d developer~:was Mrr-Albert Mayer., who.had-built
~., , ` " ;: a number of moteY;:;complexes'in the.City of~Ariaheim; that the existing C-1
4 VARIANCE`NO 2207- •establiahment woald be'located'one lot'to tfie west;;that'the proposed
'{Continued) development;would:not.be,within..150~feet of..R 1~~property;ithat Ehe
property along~,Lincoln Avenue:should be consideted.;in a:different vein
tk . ~ ' when~applying R 3,=,standards tHan for other ~streete'.in'the.:City b'ecause
of Ehe heavy traffic, that'eleyators would be locatea in the.three.story structure,~.;that in.
~ all.:likelihood ,the vacant R A., arcels' ~'~ ~~ ~ ~
.p, :would not be developed with_single-family homes;-and
,. . _ . ,. „
'~ ~> thaE there`;should'.:be no:traffic created by,,_the proposed':deyelopment aince secondary acceas
~~ was.:;provided to Dale Avenue. ,:' ` ` .
_. . , , _ ,..
The`;Commission in_quired:'whether or not the,petitioner oroposed, to move the exieting commercial
, . . . :
at;ructure.:;to the°west,.as.well.
Mr ';~Ingram;_replied, that; the,.owner of. the present,co~ercial atructure indicated. Ehis would
.. ;
not':be~ done l-.owever,` he was:, also .not sure, that a new.' building would~ be built in `the
immediate-future.`
,,, , , , ._
Mr ;.Ingrasi.continued with.his:presentation'and noted that the~flood control channel was
creating'problems.of developmerit,.and this sfiould also be taken into coneideration; that
the~minimum size`of one-bedroom apartments would be S00 aquare feet, two-bedroom apartments
;1000 square,feet,;and"three-bedroom,apartments 1200:aquare feet, all of which were larger
then Code'minimitta; that.:the.required;parking`was.being.provided; that one of.the best argu-
ments for. this proposal.was the.fact that;the three-story buildinga could:provide greater
opea space:courtyards and recreational facilities; and that they were provtding 90,000 square
feet of open area which'was almost•double tfiat required by.Code.
Commissioner Seymour~inquired as to.where the recreation area was proposed_since the plans
indicated`on].y;a:;20 by:`50-foot 'swimming pool, even though,Ehe agent stated there was con-
siderably more area for recreatianal facilities.
_
Mr: Iagram:replied that the developer generally provided barbecue facilities as well as
many other'outside.game areas.'
Commiseioner,Kaywood inquired whether the three-story buildings only would be provided with
elevator'"service, or would the two-atory buildings also be provided with elevator eervice.
_
Mr.,Ingram replied that elevsEor aervice would be supplied for only the three-atory buildings.
Mr.'Ingrain"further noted that land coverage proposed_was only 106,000 square feet, whereas
~ Code.would permit 136.,000 square feet, and-that approval of subject petition would provide
needed housing along Lincoln Avenue. Furthermore, other apartment de~elopments had been
permitted to develop.along t:~e Lincoln Avenue fr~ntsge - therefore, a precedent had been
established. .
The Commission inquired whether the petitioner was in agreement with the ataff's recommended
conditions,and whether or not an attempt had been made to contact the adjoining property
ownera in an effort to have further land asaerably.
t
Mr. Ingram replied that he concurred with the recommended conditions - however, since he was
only the consultant, he did not know whether the real estate agents had attempted to assemble
more property.
Chairman Herbst noted that a development of this aize, together with the need for an area !
for storage of boats and trailers which might be stored along the flood control channel
could posaib7y present an unaightly-appearance, and inquired whether.the petitioner would
stipulate that where atorage was propoaed adjacent to Dale Ayenue or the flood-control ,
channeL that a six-foot masonry wall together with acreen landscaping would be provided;
whereupon Mr. Ingram stated that the wall and lendacaping would be provided for those areas
where boata, trailers, etc. would be stored.
Comtssf&3ioner Seymour ~xpressed concern that no speci Hc p1FZS were submitted for the open
apac~s and recreational facilities and.inquired whether oi ~~_ the petitioner would stipulate
to aubmitting landscape plane to the ataff for approval prior to developing this landscaped
area; whereupon Mr. Ingram replied that he wuuld atipul~te to submitting landscape plana to
the staff for approval.
:Vo one appeared in oppnaition to subject petitions.
TH£ HEARING WAS CLOS~
i?~"'
,~ : ..
,, '-
~ ~ ~:.~
; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 21, 1970 ~ ~
° , 5370. r ;~
RECLASSIFICATION Co~issionercAllred offered Reaolution'~No PC70 177-and~moved for its
' ~NO ZO 71' 16
ag
~ ~~
° pass
e and,
adoption,to recommend to th`e Cit ~Council`-that'Petition for
' ! ` Recla
~ ~"~ ssification~No;70
71~16~b f:~.~
~
e approved, aubject to,conditions: (See
VARIANCE N0 2207 . Resolution Book) ~
~.
~(Continued) ~ ;= . ; ; , . : : .
> ~ ; ' On roll ca11Ethe foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote;
< , ~
~~~
~.. ; ,.
' AYES,~~` COP4iISSIONERS e111red,<Faraao; Gauer,~Kaywood, Rowland,:Seymour,~Herbst.
; NOES '
O
A
5 ,
~'~
~'
C
1~
iIS
10NERS -;None
'~'AB4SNT CO1~Il~fIS5I0NERS. ~ None :
~
~ `
`~"'
' ' :
-' , ; ~
', Co~issioner',Allred~offered Resolution No PC70 178 and moved for its passage
and adopfion
to
r
nt P
titi
f
ri .`M
,
g
a
e
on
or Va
ance No 2207'; subject to conditions, and the°stipulat.ion that
the petitiorier would proyide a six foot~masonry wall`~and landsca
in
to~sc
-th
r "~'~
"
p
g
reen
e pa
king
area proposed adjacent to;Dale Avenue:and the;:flood control channel from~view
from the ~
j
'°=
_
: street and a;findirig that;the waivers were granted on;the basis.that the;sirigle=family::
`
residential u
in'
i
i ti'
,
ses
all l
kelit
ood would not be established,on_,the.?adj8cent'R-A~;parcels;
'> and ~that thre
o:~
t .
~~;~
_
e at
y apar
ment,complexes had been approved in specific areas:previouslyr
;.- (See;;ReaoluEion Book)
~ ~ '
~ ~'.~,.
~
.' .' % ', ..~ .~.. , ..
. ~: . ~ '~ . T'i
~ On roll call'the foregoing resolution was passed.by the following`vote.;!~
• : ~
,
;
• : , . , t~
AYES ~ CO1~fISSIONERS Allred,:';Farano; Gauer,; Kaywood,.Rowland,;Seymour, Herbst.
NOE
°~ ;
;
S:
•.COI~tISSIONERS •None _ ~r~
- ABSENT , COAAfISSIONERS.. None. . ~•-s
:- ~, ~ '. . ._ ~ .'. ,.. . .
-
~ ~ ~.,
i2,y'9
., ,. .
..,
.. . .
RECESS Cemmissioner'Rowladd moved~for a.ten-minute recesa. Commissioner
All
d
d
~ ti?~
~,'a!'~
:
re
secori
ed the
motion: -MOTION CARitIED. The,meeting:recessed
at 4
05 P M
; .',~-~.
,
.
,. ,
~ ` " •
~' r . ' ~,n
~ Y1 i
., : RECONVENE _
=::Chairman Herb'st reco'nvenFd:the meeting at 4:17 P.M., Commissioner , X~u
;
~
Seymoui being'.abaenE; ~
~
` , '{ ~
RECI.ASSIFICATION PUBLIC HEARING INITIATED:`BY THE.`CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,.204
East
NO 70-71 14'
c I
{- : +~t
: ;~;
.
Lin
oln Avenue, Anaheim,:~alifornia; proposing:that;property
described
' '~^~
.
as:V Portion,A - An';irregularly''shaped percel;of.land'.consisting of
RECLASSIFICATION~ approximately:
18 a
re
h ~~;
;
c
s,
aving a:frontage of approximately 950 feek on
'NO 70=71-15'° the south side of~La Palma"Avenue; having a maximum depth of a
o
i ~~
~'+
ppr
x
mately;730 feet,.and being~located approximately 580 feet:west of the
' ' `
cet-ter.line of Imperial,Highway;`and Portion B= An irregularly shaped
>parceT of lan8`conaiating of approximately 22
acres
hevi °
.
,
ng a frontage;of approximately
<1,250.;:feet on the north eide of La~Palma Avenue, having
a maximum`depth
of a
p
xi
l
`
.
.
p
ro
mate
y
1,050 feet, and being located approximately 580 feet west of the centerline of Imperial
Highway be se'classified fro
xh
A Z`
m
e:COUNTY OF.OR
NGE M1-10,000, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
to the,CITY OF ANAHEIII R-A, AGRI¢ULTURAL, ZONE FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0
. 70-71-14 and to
;the-CITY OF ANAHEIM M-1, LIGHT:INDUSTRIAL,.ZONE FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 70-71-15.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed;the location of subject property,
uaes estabTished in cl
m
oae proxi
ity and'noted that,:this was a:portion of property known ae
the Orangethorpe-I.a:Palma Annexation and was a portion of the No
the
r
ast Industrial Area.
Furthermore,;in~approving Reclassification No;,70 ZT.=14, it-would establiah R-A zoning on
the property'in~keeping with
aet
i ~
i.
.
p
C
ty policiea coricerning annexation of propexty into the
City of anaheim, and.that Reclaesification~No
70-71
1
d
s ~.;
.
-
5 woul
e
tablish:a resolutim of
intent in ni:h rec3assification,of the property would be contingent u
on
ti
o
`
p
mee
ng apecific
c
ndition. t~n.s2t,forth.•
, , ~
,
t_
,
No one;appe~~r~d in opposition to subject petitions. '
f
i
THE HEARING WAS,CLOSED. '
Commisaioner Gauer offered`.Reaolution No., PC70-179 and moved far its paesage and adoption
to.recoamnend
to the,City
Coudcil'th
t P
t ~
.
.
a
e
ition.for Rec2assification No. 70-71-14.be approved
.unconditional~Iy. (See Resolution Book) -
, '
`On roll'call the foregoing resolution was passed by..the.following votet
AYES: COtIIiISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, 6auer, Kaywood, Rowland, Herbst.
NOES: CO1~IliISSIONERS: None.
'
ABSENT:, COMMISSIONERS: 'Seymour.
L
,y«~', ry~,~rl n r t ~
.~ ~~ 1 )~
'~ ~ .
. ~
~L~
.
.P yk l
~
~ ~N
. i: .~. . x T
t~ ~~ Y rh J .(~ 4 l ~ !.
S~2
~ k jl
~ 5 y
M`
.
,
i
~
F 1'VN
)
t'~ o,.i ~~. ff`54~ 1~ 5r~+4(+9 „itbC J'~ 9 L 1 ~ l, ' ~ ~
~
.
i
~t
L
$
-
"
:
'
F °~
~
Y
) J
~ ~..
'~
.
~i~
~
-
~;
~t
c4
~
``~ i~
t ~
r
t tii
t }
q .
r ;
x a
~
~ ~#
*
J~4 ~:. ~ yl A !t -:
t..
#U'IVs
t
4
f~ i '1,_
eE ~
~•1
k
~
~ y {F~
. .
„
~~
e:f.
~
1 ~ s
i 2
d~. 7~ ~
t S
r r ~
s-t
d'~ ,~ ~~
~
~' .
~
~
.
„
Ctil.
n
fi u ~` 4' ~, ,
x
i4'3F*~ ~~ h;-
S
'`
~
t
~
:
~
4,
, ti t <~ . i f. t
~~r ti~' :~ ~~,.
,~ } +ao ~~i'h~-
~
; .
i
y
..u 4 .;, .'
; ~ k
z ,:
~ ,
~
~.a+ -` f~`u
~' r ~tSi ~Se y r ,~ ~ ~~ ii
~
.
~
d
Af
j
l~fY~ ~ ~~ ~3~ l <~" t 1 ~
-5 t
I t~ ~{ ~ ~ ; r
, y
" r 4~,~ ~;;r~ ~
~ ~" j~
~
~
.
i
-
~~ ~~~ lJ r -- ~..~'F y ~l.
~~ ~-'-i
`
F
~c
~~ ,
,7.,,.z„~wt
~1 f t
. :}
!
~
Y
s
.,
J<< 1 l ~~
~a~:
lat ~
~
~~
~'
'
~
ti ~ i
~
:,.{
; ~
~
.
~ i
,~6 ~.
i ~
r
x
'
~ ~~~
~
~
1
a t~,
t _
~ - ~." ~ y _
~
~ :
...
N~
• 5
)
f ~~
5 ~ ir;
~
,, .
;
~.
I
,
- ; ~I
~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ '~. . .... e ~', ... ..
- - - -
~ r,
,
~ i
t #. ~,, .
' ~4 ,
r
r j a
4
ti r s` > r A
~
r
_ ~ ._~;
L
~
F
~ ,
~ NF
S "
i 1 .
C _ r
-
!•• _- I
~
. . . . ~ . . . :..4
I ~
_ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . t
~ ....
_ r.-_..
Y ,~ ~
~
~ ' '
, -s
~
MINUTES, CITY pI;ANNING COMMISSION, September 21 1970
~
5372
' `z~
7
+
~'~ :
l , -
GENERAL P7~AN CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAIiING '
INITIATED BY TF~ ANAF~I~S CITY PLAN
A
ND1 ~.
~c~
~~
,x
~
A
~
NING
~DiT CO~ISSION, 204; East;,Linooln. Ayenue,, Aneheim, QaliYornia, to bonsider
NO 122 a ohange:in residantial den
iti
4' ~~
~ s
es.in the~.Ssnta Ans Cenyon aree:;between
~ _
Imperial Highway on ttie west:
' Esperenza Rosd
~
"t
n ',~'~'
,
.
,.
on
he
orth, Weir Cairyon
Aoad on.the east, and'Santa Ana Canyon Road on::th'e south:
~,~
~
~
~z Sub`~ eot amendmerit -. w ~ 4~
,. as,continued from;the meeting of;August 24, 1970 to~sllow
~ additional studg
~`time For~
'and'irif
io
' ~`~;
~
y
~ ,
r
ormat
n from
the U:` S Corps "of, Engineers, the Orange County
Flo;od Control Distriat;:,the Stste Didision"of Highwa
s
and t
fi
~
~ q
,,
o
old a.,work.session '
with the 0orps ot Engineers, a`.3oint;;work~session':with the Orasige County
C
mmi
Plesui
~ x
o
.
ing
ssion, and:t
o obtain,data'from~tha,County Assessor:regardinE;assessments
for
properties in ~the
'
~
'~
.
study;.area
in the
event the property oould riot' be iised Por other
than agrioulturel purp'oses `'~
, ;' ` •
As'sooiate,Planner-Donald ~o Daniel noted for.-~he Commission•the GP: No: 122~was oontinued
~Prom the Au ,
~' 1970"meeting
and;a l
t
'"' ~
=a~
xr
~
~
o
;of
wa~er•has pasaed`under the.dam'! sinoe
thet time,'• ~e
bommission.had!.work sessions;,with the U:S: Army,Corps'of Engin
Oran
e Count
rs
~ ~'`~
~
g
ee
, the
y F1ood
Control people,..private 9ngineer,s,•and vai~ious staff inembers;`wherein
a great desl oP
disdussion to
k
a
' ~`
.
o
pla
e
,-as to-~'flood'kiszarda`and Plood potentisl out there
at these work:sessions. ;In 8aa~t~on`;ta those
`
s
'
~
work
ses
ions, the Commission fiad a ~cint
meeting.with .the:'Orange;Countq,.Planniag
Commission
'beae
s ~
;
.
,
u
e most.of the territory being
disouased.was still under 3urisdiation of the County. The County h
d~va
d~
o a^
a
an
;
rious aone ohanges
onsiderations,out there, so it-,wes felt'that a work ses~ion would be benefio~al; and
as'it turried out:it w
v
r
b ~~ ~
as
e
y.
enefiaial In;addition to.'these meetings, the County`hss
requested that,the Cii;y of Anaheim,
re
ent t
e .,;t~;
p
s
o th
.Orange-County,Planning Commissioa,`their
General Plan Yor ,that'partioular area-,.and tkiey wi11`oonsid
s
' ~„~
er the po
that
sibility o~.adopting
Plari so that:,they will have.some.means of'msking deoisions oP what theq do 3
area elso ' -°zti~
~`
n the.
` ' ,. ' ,}
~
Mr Mo Daniel noted t~et in the length-of time sinoe the oontinuanoe, the staff had
prepe,red as a result.primarily`of a
e ~
~~ ~~`
om
of tlie study sessions and ~oint meetings, e
Youx+t'~ alternative to.the General P1an Amendment p
e
t
"
~ i :~
r
sen
ed at the
then
last meeting, a~
reviewed the three previous alternatives`as we1T as
th
Yo
r
'
.
e
u
.th as
follows: ;
The srea;under.oonsideration,is the area bounded on'the west by-lmperial Highwey,on
the;north;by Esperanza Road
o
th
s t~
`
,
n
e.ea
t by_approximately Weir Canyon; and on the south
' . .
by '3anta-Ana Canyon Roed.. -
' ~
I .. ; r::,
Exhib3t "A!',prepared by staff shows the entire area in the study limits as being low
density"r,esidential
with th
sx
,
e
oeption of some pe,rk area as depioted an the exhibit
and lmown'es the proposed Yorba Regional park, The re
s
n
t
a
o
tha
the low portior. of the
exhibit was not oollored yellow was beoause the.Gerieral Plan elready depioted this as
low density,
and th
.
e-portian oolored was not withiri'the area of influenae when the
General"Plan was adopted. , ~
s'
' Exhibit "H.°-shows the entire area under study as being low-medium densitq - low medium
density would aoaommodate R-2-5000, whioh
I were small single familq lots; mobile home
Pex'ks; and in some oases low`density multiple femily residenti
l
a
. The low density on
the other ?~and, acoommodates only single femily and the smallest lot size would be
7200 square feet.
ExhiBit "C" previously'prepared, shows somewhat a,oomprotaisa v;ith the lower portion -
` that portion south of the Riverside Freeway'es
si .
~
rem
ning low density, as it is depioted
on the,General Plan;.and the no^therly portion,above the riv
a ~
er
nd ad,jaoent tc Esperanza
Road,.as low-meditim density.
~
,
Eahibit "D"'whioh.was prepared subsaqu~9nt to.the meetings relative to the flood piain
and the Plood plain haze~rds.shows ~ust e
tl
"
' I „f
xao
y
~hat.
It.is a line defining the erea
that wou13 be oonsidered the flood plain area as defined by th
U "
e
.S. Corps of Engineers
and then indioated the boundsries on the eahibit.
' It vvas felt that Exhibit !'D" oould be_utilized es an overlay to ane of the three other
Exhibits ''A"` "B"
o
"C"
h
o
,
r
w
i
h relate primarilg to density while "D'~ relates to the
flood plain aree,. Thus it was Pelt that th
o
s
e p
s
ibilitq eaists that overlaying thst
flood plairr area to one o£ those exhibits would mean that the aree i
id
°
"
ns
e the
area
would.not:be deyelopable, and the area outside of the Plood plain areR would develop
at the appropriate density.
I
~ .
.t~, ;~r:.. a~%*'~. "' ..~i. >.P ~';~ ^ ~ y . ~::.?'~.~'r. ~ ~.... a r !" G~t~4 6 9wS {aC ;r . '3 s. '~'~
. ... . :. ' J .. .~iY~_. ,11 ..i.. .Y.~'.1.,... ?~ "~ f.,.'+a~ .F~ :ti~..: ., 'S
...:^:i.f.•
-
. . , ..
, y i
,
.
,
' ~'~~'~ ~~~ ,V~i ' ~ ~ _ . .
.. •
...
. .
: .`
.
~
~ ~ '
.
.,
, .
~ :, ..: . .
.
-. .~ . .~ .. - -..:,.
,
~
T ^ MINUTES, CITY~PLANNING COMNLiSSION, September 21, 1970 5373
,
F
,~
.
, ; , ,;
:, ., . ~. . . i. . ,
.:. '• ;', . ~
p~r.
, ,
GE~iERAL PLAN ~ Mr MorDeniel then noted that'in oorioert with past aotion
,and the „~`~
'
,
`~ AMEND~NT ' General Plan as adopted by'the Citq ~oY Anatieim, -the low:density
t s
?
~
~ N0: ~_122 ..'~; de'si ation would ' " ' . .
gn probabl exem lif the
y
p y polioaes'ttnat are desirous '`
'~
.
_
(uontinued~) iri ~the~ oenyon, but the` p~r~mount question was whether or` not.~develop-
~ ~
~.
;"'~ y
,
~
` ment ot any den§ity should`'ooour in:;the area ]mowri as the flood
plain y
Fp.y
.
~ L~rea, in'light 'of info"rmetiom~ suppli:ed, the`~ City, -and in'light ;oY the ,
°^
~
da~a Puri-islY+sd.by the:Corps,'without, at;this point, eng refutation.
~ '~".'
~,
~
~ of
this evidenoe ; ~' ~ ;. x
~~
w
,
~~
Chair.me,n Her4bst inquired ~whet~.er;the exhibit depiating the, 31ood; plain,was based on an
~
, unaontrolled~ flood ',~ ossibilit
1_ p y, `as this inforurstion ~.~ras needed so; that everyone' present
" ' _
1~ a
" understan
ds : ; ,
;
`
~ ~~
:
. ,
• ,? :
Ddr MoDaniel' noted 'that this was: based on what` the Corps desaribed ;as e_standard pro~eot . y
~,:~
31ood,~unooritrolled
~
.
~
; , ~ ' '' ; ~ ~ . '
~
Commissioner Gauer.,inquire.d whether or not an unoontrolled floo@ possibility would be - ti~
~afPeoted by ~oontroTs at Prado Dem
"' ,~ ;;
' ~:
Chairman He'rbst,noted this would:?pr.obably meen~there-.would be overtopping of the dem. ~r
~;
Commissioner.Rowland noted it was his understanding..the.t•-Figures~given.by the Corps as ~
,
` they perteined to .the flood plain we e;with oorteotion.tdgtoould be eriPoraed-by Prado Dem.
. :
' ~
: ~ ~.:
~ >
: .
. .
. - . . .. . .
r
::
' Mr MoDaniel; noted-;that Commissioner Rowle.--d's oomnient was oorreat1, ".but the word: un- ~
~y~t
oontr,olled ,was Yrom the G'orps ter.minologq and<`it wes;somewhst misleading;`sinoe he tkiought r,.
; ginen:the things-they.felt were'neoessary with'purrerit.damming end,:aurrent ohaI1ri811zetiotl~ ~ ;,
` this ;flood would sti11 be ;unoontrolled'.- tl~-e-ini,ent ; would`,be, ~to. oontroT, it, but ttie
' ~
' ~
,.results would.be
;3ust the;'.opposite: . :.° - ~ ;~
~ ij
-` Co~i.ssioner.. Romlarid askedif it'vvsa staff's understaridinfi; ~e would be any runofP that "``A
was not ,ohannelized'.as being unoontrolled, or:anq`~flood oondition that doesn't maintain t~~
=:.its ohannelizatiori`:ss~predioted._:.
` I` ,i~
_
, . ~~?
16~. Mo Daniel ooncurred in Commissioner!s statement~,,
.
: ~j
. !
: r
~
Ch83rman Iierbst noted that this was a g`
publio hearin and invited anyone
:who had'oomments
_ ! ~
>
,
" and.;questions to present them.
-~r Dale Grivey,"20411:Se,nta Ana~Cenyon Road, eppeared before the Commission.and noted
` '
-
' that :the. press, the Plaariirig Commission or anqone eTse did nc,t seem ,to know what •8 '"
s~aridsrd pro3eot flood aes - and theri stated fie wou7d;read'from a letter by the U. S. ~~
Corps.oP Engineers dated Idaroh 31, 1970 (the Commission:advised him they had read tTiis
`
'
letter) whiah~state'd if this tqpe of Ylood ooourred:that.the'~ater.over the apillway
'
~
would';be
11 feet.deep. These floodgates are 1Ox12"feet and srculd be apen all tha time, ~
therefore this would mean:the rein would have`to .be worse then the rain in Noah's -time. ~- ,
The 1938 flood only would fi11 the deai half.full.iY it were built then, and.yha 1969 j 1`
flood filled the dem.a:little over half fu11, when l00 inohes of rain were drained ~rom
tae mounta;ins and: 60-70 inohes .ebove..Onterio and Upland.. The 'letter further oontir-ued,
."that dammixigstudies were still in progress,.and the.oonsidered estimate the,t a standard
p_o~adt fTood would oause moTe than $600,000';000 demege downatream under 1970 oonditions."
Mr. Grivey then stated he Yelt the oitizen~ of the City,of:Anaheim should lrnow these 8 <_:
.
£aots, beoause after ree.din the`news Q er it would a `
B P p ppear'that the 6anyon would be the
1 . .
`'
only,area a£footed, but i£ this water,:is going to be three feet over the top of the new i.
~r,eeway and go,from baok to baok-in this study area everything:from here to Huntington
Beaoh'will be flooded-thus these faots.should be published for th~ people of Anehei~
_
; ,
?
to be ful]yaware of it. . - , :
.
~
A2r. Jemes Liberio,.,1720 YPest Is 'Pa1ma Avenue, appeai'ed_before the Commission`snd noted
that he~.had~the misfortune of; owning~;property on both sides of the river;:thst_he would
aonour with-statements made by Mr. Grivey that if water was experienced in the oanyon
_.
~
- area at the highest point in Ane,heim, he would`Tike'to see whal; th8.rest,oY Aneheim would
` I-
. look-like. 'Personally,;end also for the,people he'represented who lived on Esperanza
` ;'
Foad
snd to.the Santa Ana River, we all Peel the onlq purpose of all the bad reports
, wes.to.let~the County try.to buy;oonsiderable property for a park in the area, and~this
' ~
: the
firm:belieP oY e.ll these property owners. •
The Commission inquired vrhether`,or not they oonsiderea the flood reports as bad reports, ~yi
and didn't the ,o~,inep!.s:.r feel th9se wore honest r~ports? 1
-
------ - i•: ,'
~ ,.
_
~ •..~._
, _
" , ~;, ~ _
~ ~~ ~
~
' MINQTES, CITY PLANNIN(} OO~ISSION Se tember 21 1970
' p r ' ~ 5374 - ~~
' " `i , -
;_ ; : ` „~-~';$
~;
` f G~~ P~N Mr :Liberio repli;e3 thst none of the ro
'
t~ s..
~.,
~
. +
er
P P Y a
owners fel r he report"s
AN~ND~ENT; were honest, beoause theae reports wore prnse~ted after,t:ie propert
NO 122 s'- o
i
t .
r
~
wr
ers s
arted anneaation prooeedings: to tlie' Cit of An~eli'eim ~appi ~~a't ~
(oontinued) ma,tely I 1~2 year"s ago
;': ~ ~
V
r ` ; ,~ , ; ` ; +• ;
;.Chairman Herbst steted he.would~have to disagre'e with these statements sinoa He ha3 bean-
in tkiis area a long time
ri
ms
'
~ ~
~
-
nany, .
ny
yeers ~;id he hed seen; water:~from
one ~ide; o~',the;
Senta Ana Canyon'to the other, and he wss very we11-:?aare of the flood do
di~tio
'
h
t ;a;"' '
n
ns_
in .t
a
oanyon, he wes very we11'amare of the ~lcod oonditions in the lowe: areas. One`tHing
( of gr,ave oorioern was the
s
eed of th
w
o
o `
~
,
p
e
ster o
ming d
wn thr.u the ~anyor-e.grest;'deal
` faster than~most flood areas Furthermore,.hb did not,like the irisinuation thet tha .
Planriin
Corom
n ~'°
g
issio
was going thru the;publio:hearings as,a:sham,,- ~
~ ,,, : ,, ~s
' Mr I,iberio;then stated he wes not referrinv to the Anaheim.Ylanning Commission; but ,a,'
" the tiad reports whioh the..Corps ;of Engin~ters;
and t
e G
6 ~
~~
~
r
h
range
ounty Flood Control Iibs~tric~.,"
` and kie felt'.the Corps of.Engineers wes'looking for ar.other;3ob.~
.. ~. ' . '. ~ :
~.~ - ~:, . -~
. ~ ~F~
:
.: 1 ,.; : ~. ' : . . '.~, .. ~ , ~
Oommrssioner„ Farano noted : that Mr Liborio , 7as pre. e~~t at tH~ last `publio' hea,ri ng .at arh ±~oh.
`- time Mr" Liberio ;had ma
de;
th
t
sa ,
1~} tG
~~~'~
,
,
a
,
me statemez~~; end :t,han :~quired';whether P~e reoalle3 his
` request direoted basioally,to statemen±s hat:'he~.e,nd uthjr.:people present-at tihe publio
hearin
had
rtte
d
~ ~~"~
"'
g
;
,
e,.:in whioh Commissioner:
b'arano had -iadice,ted that enother publ3d hearing
" wouldr be held end'`the Coa~3.ssiori- speaifiaslly'invited
ed '
, ask
, begged. plee,cled, and o~h~,r-
wise:,implored people to present evidenoe to the Commi:ssion.to
gi•~o some
;reason oi`
' .~a ;
~'
"
,
:
some
informetiori:
beaause the oaly informet~,on u~va4lable ,to' ttie"CommaES, ~n.was.from"the people
whiah•~r Liberio~end.
other.property o'wners'in th
t ar
` k~
2e
'~µ~
,
a
ea had orit.~oized.
Do,you'reoelT
that statement7
_ . ~;~~"
'
Mr Liber.io stated he did~reoalT: Co~issioner Farano's,request., but he hed also
` indioated-.that'the.'
propertq o
wners hadJ:the
ame
o :,~~~~
~'~
.
.
s
rep
rts from the Orange.County P1Anning
Commission 1} years: ago and tkiey still'did no~G:have any better. repor
ts i~i the int~ri
~ (~ ~,~
'' ~
=~
.
m.
:~. ~~' .' .
~ : ~~~ . ~~.'. .. ,. . : .
Commissioner Farano'then inquirefl_ whether Mr Libsrio h~ad'been
present at the'study ses-
sion whioh .the Plannin
Commis
io
h
d~o
e ~
~.. ~j'
~
~ y~'~
g
.r
n
a
n 5ept
mber ~1,.1970,.at whi'oh t'ime the Commission
rreviewed, questioned, interrogate3, aitd:otherwise sou
ht in
tio
` !°';""
~ . a~
g
forma
n from the Ccrps
of
'Engineers; Orange Courity Floud Control:'Distriot, State Division of•Hi
hwe
s
Coun
'
' , i
7
g
,y
,
ty
Assess
or
s .ofYioe snd other engiiieers,",•: however; there were `.verq .few;,;ztside of the
r
l ,;
~
,:gove
nmenta
'representati+ies,present arid he`did not~believe Mr. Liberio was present.
~ :` ,~
Mr Liberio
indid8ted he tiad not heen.invited`tQ ttiat partioular meeting.
-.
'
, '
:-
'
~
~ ~
..
, .
.
.
.
. .
. . . . .
...
,,_ , ....
Commissioner Farano`'then .informed Mr "' ~
+.-~oerio ~that not one pe: son otrer jha,~ tY., Corps
of Engineers,.the OCFCD
epresenta+i
:
s
' .~ 1~{,
~ '~`
~
r
ve
c, and
taYf
said more than PiYtaen words. No
one else oPfered ariy eyidsnae to re~°ute ~he inforc~e.~tion whioh was
presenttld ~
:•
' '
~
r
Fa:-ano
emptiasized that
he had stated at-tHe August 24 hearing, and h~ ~vas agair. statin
it the~t
if t
e " ;
g
h
property owners did not.want"+;he Ane,heim plannin~ Commission to believe'o~he
r E
r
repo
ts, then PLEASE give the Anaheim Planni~g CommisGi.•z a,mething else bhat.oould bs
matohed up'against'the Corps.report. The Com~iss~bz'wa
n
t~a
' '
u
o
body of mi:aale men,
and the Commission would be happq to review e,ny da"ta,of siud9es made bq the property
owners
n ,
`~
own.e
gineers_- did the property owners have aziy other basis than the emotiongl
Paator, and'the Yeot that you own
o
ert
in"
fi
'
pr
p
y
t
e
s~udy area.
Mr. Liberi~ edvised the:Commission that:the property owners hsci been "bee,tir,E t,heir
heads sgainst a wall" for almost:two
qears on the ,
~
`
,
properties 3n the study area, and
they were faoed with 'the same problem no matter whioh body theq faced. `
;
~
, . ~ >~
Commissioner-Farano then inquired whether .: they had ever tried te devel,n s teohnical
studq or some basis"upon whioh someo
u .
~
ne oo
ld believe.
Mr. Liberio stated he oould not see how,s teohnioel;study oould be prenr,,;red when ~c6e
Corps was talking about an Aat of God whi
h
v
o
might.ne
er tiappen.
,Commissioner Farano,noted that flood study st'stisti'as:had been presented to t?~ Cc,:....[ssion
whioh gave the hist~r
of flo
'
d
?
"
'
y
o
s;
- r.
~ioh he did
not
Peel were oonsidered sn act of God -
all floods were aots of God - but everyone ahould'.look et it as not
talki
g
`
'
.
n
about an
eot Yrom.the
land of nod - that it is not going to tiappen -;beaeuse it might happen -
`it has happened before.
Mr.. Liberio ii.dioated that he would agree that floods had ooourred, but there was no
, ;way.Por the:water to stay up in the study area ex-d not affebt th
lowe
r
e
r a
eas. If the
water reaotiad the height indioated on the flood plain exhibit - how oan the water b
e
in that area without 3lboding a11 the way to Huntington Beaoh.
~ ~
. ~
~ . .~~~~s.m
; ~ ~.- . r,` ~, ,' ~~
i ~ ~
.
1
MINIT7~:S, CITY``PLAI`Jh*~~G CGM~.TSSION , September' 21, 1970 ;+ '` " 5375 -
~ :
: s
;~~
.
": „ :
, , ,
~
~
'~'"
`' ~i
~.. ~i~ 4 ~ ' ~- r `A+ ~- ~;/~ ~ ~
GENE,TiAI,vPLAN Co,~nmi5 1 9r Farano notefl that $~e water wuuld
ff
' ....~
.
' :.
a
eot the study, eaas
,
AMENDMENT Pi~ ~?f~''of° te it :'re8ahed the flatter. =areas of Anaheim nd surroun.ling'
9~ '
'
' ^
NO 1
r~
i$ e5
x
' ~i (oont nuedi)
` ` ~ ' '.
-: ' ' ,
r
F r' ,
.
> ,
,, ? ,' -~' ~ T ~oer.io inquired how the water ~;oould remain in che; study arei ~wkien.. .
e1l
the ars
a
-~
g~~
'~
o
' .
`.. , .
~ •
.
is
~i
.,
o
west
he
P the :oanqon:'was.oorisiderably low
.
..
r
r ~ .,
` j :: , .' .,. '. ,. ...; , , '. ; ; .
~
The ~Cowmi iii~r,ytindioate3 ;that they wers Pullyraware :the water ~aould not
cemain
i
i
h
'
~
,
~
n
~
e :
~tudy
~srea rs. $ that flooding tiiould ooot`r in :many other Platte~ areas o the~;!vest. „
ti : ~; ~ . ; + ~
,
. ~
`
~ i~hair
,man Heirba~t inquired 'whetiher Mr I~be io Temem.tiere~ ~h(s f' ~ od; i. oond; tin•ta tY18t li8d
oaaur'red or' "Mt Baldq
(Mr'~ Liberio ze lied no
'
th
'
~
,
y
•
~,, ?~ ~Q ~
er~ ~~s„~ zCr
P. t:wl~l ^a 9z~~whioh
oame,down ijh~~u Baldy it started~Prom the top = it d~a~tiie., ori} Iaeilou ~ar~
~ ari,a t
l
'
~
Y
y
oo
c
boil~o ~~i3t
td everythinb ,with, lt' beaausr~ of the sn;;~ os uh~ water , This one ; o1i 'the "
t
~
~
n ~~ ~"~
x
ems o
a
~
oern t:o the Gowmi~ssion as.;;it perta3ned to 5ant;i A+~a Canyon area
whioh~was~
~ the a
d
n
' I
r ,
i
.
pee
ia
d the Ylow of the
water oom~.ng t~iru the oanyan''wou13 'be muoh~ greater in
; ~
~Lhe stud~
'area than an
o~ h
l
es
l ~~ ,.~
~
~
y
er p
aae w
t ot t
ie oan~pn beoeuse as'°it•%gets to ttie fle~-
land= be3.'ow.the water
-~spre~ads!out ana*
:ths speed and;fl~
gr
tl
d
' -
',~~
r
_
,
ea
y
eoreases
-.whioh• outs
tho'forau aric tenaoity a';f
1~~od wou7d
hsv
~ i
th
o
n ~
~
.
..
r
n;,
e..
a
yoa,-3ras These'ere th:~~pro~lems'
-:.
~'sonoern ;that are difPeres t in the _study area tham other'
.
plaoes in s~
~uttiea;
F Cslifornia ,
,~
~
.
,
:
,
.
Mr Lil~erio then inquired eYiout the~rip ra~ at the and of Horseshoe Bend tltis'
stioks
w
.
; aut ar~d th~re was,nothirig;ta aontrol tlie oharinelizatioa;:of:the.water „it there is ang
i +~
~
' a~u
it of water at, the far ertd -the watdr wil,!: pass on both: sides of the'. rip rap`:
~ ~
,
.:: ,_ ;
. : ~ < :.
Chryirman Herbst indioated thet.the City did n~it know;onoe the water leaves the hanlcs ~
~ i
:~~
'''~
; e;nd the oharinp' whioh the river has done in'the ":
past no one Isnows whioh ohannel Q_11
fall<- th~re a ld
~b
v
ii
~~
;
e m
,
~ on,snnels; and .the river '~as made-meriy,nhanneli~ whioh .oo~~ld'
; aause"a gre~' deal_of damag~a these are the:studie
th
6Lm
il
o
~
~;
~
s
p
m
si
i i3•,tr
;.n .to.mske..:
now : this ° why,publio;:hear~.~igs are;held :;the Commiasiot~;is try3.ng.to'~~tgdown to '
';
the f
t
f + i
~l~
,
ao
s o
heisituatian p4 tiuularly in this aeuiyon where The~
pos~ibility exists of
'
~i "~"
,
,
a wal
of water that aouTd aocu~i;`d,~wn; thru there whiah woutd' be; muoh h'igtier than ;any -:'
, ~ c`her.: ares in ~he 'Santa Ana Ca
nyon a
ea
i
'~
` r u
,
r
. ar the
r
rer:
be~ zr, this 3iar,.tioular area -
~ and
~e n
bl
beP
'
'
1
ro
em
are t he Con~ission
was t
o:determ;ne '~f",'t:ie~City'permitted homes
~ '~to be;~h~ lt'in the study :area jii§t what +
he den
s w
e-
ld b ^
~~
-
~"
~
.
g
r
ou
e.
~,<.: . -,. °. ..
. ,
, -. ..i ~ - : .. ~
r,
,
,
',
?~Z
`~ ~ ~Hr. -~l.,iberio',:notied that he had baer. in' ,the Azie;rieim ares
for 3~ v9e,rs end ~lie ha? -ne•ver '"~"
.
.
, , ;. seen any ooristruation of ;an• t ' ' ~
i ,~ ype of. homes -.a new schonl.was built iri
this"n
;
a thst
' ~ ~
~`
.
.
e
~ ' is 40~ loxer
aooor'ding'to,his topo mapithsn~`any of the
roperti
s i
t
s
p
e
n
hi
area - their
property was at=the 300 level and the sohcul i~~ at a 250 ]:avel Nista Del Rio Sol•ioo:
)- ~ w
.
that~sohoo7: will go, and'.this is~what m;alcCShim}laTieve - sndtie mey.be, wrong •• but fie"
did:not blame anyone in partiauli~
but
e
'
x,
siao
tl~a
prope:rty bwners had started to
deveTop the:
'a
h
' ;,~
area;,
ll t
ey were *
paed with;wYSS opposition ~s it pertainad to ~lood
problems, however they'oould present no bett'er reports then the Commission was gi:*en - ~.
a speii of ~~ qears. In;the.meantim,q: before tha O~r D had started ohannelization in
the area - statiements were made:
that'it
was inade
uate
the
n
~
I
,
.
q
-
o
an:.ei was insdequate,the
br:idges were;.inadequats; but the.flCFCD.did not stop even though they know what the i
:
y
are oonstruoting 3s : ir.adequate.
{i;
~ Chair,~n Herbst noted thet one oP- the oini,s brou ht u
I P g p at the work ses5ion with Col
.
Blsok,why wa§ Prado Dam.not bonstrucLad originslly to bo adequate: H> answered the
! yuestion.r~e,de ver~ intelligentlq r; stai~ing `5hat at the time, Praiio; Da,m .aes built
I atter the 1938 .flocd =?941-42 = whan the studies we
~ r
~
re c
e then thare,wi3s not the
number oP people and tyge of development-urban..that'prasently exists sloizg the Sarrta j:
Ana River besin _ the Corpc felt the dam whioh was built-woixld be quit"e,s3egua~e to
a i
prote
t thE;lives and the:neople`Jiving.along the'eiver at that ,time:- mcstly orange ~
groves where i,he we.te: : ~ould g~ ~ov~r the .banks e,nd flood without oaueing
~.oss or .
,
drmage to;livES: Howeper;.the unexpected -and a11 'of you will have"to adrsit that ~
~ ~range County Prom;that tirie on blossomed out;3nto a:'vast expansion of people - none
` ~!
. of the residents ir~ this:e,rea 25 years`ago expeated'eny oP this. Now the Corps looks
'
at it
with,nll the people who heve moved in eTong the river and enoroaohed the banks -
~~
and they feel that Prado Dam now was not adequate to'proteot the lives'of these peo
le
p
.
The enoroaohment of the poople taemselues over the studies made prior to the erea~io
'
~
n
oY Prado De.~n:
.
h{r. Liberio stated.`he would agree on that point, but what made:the OCFCD nontinue
build3ug the ohannel - when l~ years ago they:stated the ohsnnelization was inadequate
at thet time - tZie bridges were inadequate-not being wide enough;but they still aontinue
`
build3ng
the bridges - now they will heve to tear it down and rebuild it age,in.
f
!..,:==_:>'
~~ ~ ~.. ; . ~^
~;' ,~
~E September 21, 1970 ;~
- : 5376
..
~
5= > , F ~
3d that;the Oommission slso.asked,that question,,and
~
?ad Depa
rtment?i
di
e
H ~
~ ,
n
oat
d t
at the;bridges'were:needed
'of the exist'ing4aondi~ians of th
~ e bridges.; end;that
~rig yo built triat they;oould be eatended or wid
ned
~ e
tquirements iY4;the stlldy rthey;~w8T8 making 'indicated
o ~.a ~te~eded Furthermore, the OOFCD also
the; aha
i
nel
d
os
h
' ~
~
`
.
n
n
i
ization
ted t
at
was`being done beoeuse o4, the Severe d~g@ to the.:dykes:during..,the
1969 Ytaadt and the depth wns being inar
ease`d t
fia
' jk
'~
4
o
ndle e;disoherge Yrom Pr
ado-,Dem:o~
20,000 CFS~ howev_,er,FiP;the Corps' study also indioated additional widening oP
ahannels thisyaould b
the~ `
e
i z
.
. ~. _
e
ooompl
shed without`.to muofi diYfioulty r';,
;
}
' '
~
.
,~ ,
.
,. :
.
, ,. .
Mr "'l,iberio inquired whether or not they would have two ohannels'•or would they
- ,
tha, rip
ra
.
o
,
p
.re~
ve .
= ` ,; ' ,. . . • '
Commissioner Rowland not'ed that his uriderstanding of the,o.ost ofuenlarging Predo-Be,m,_
$300,00~ 000 ,inoluded
;re
l
i d~
7
~A
,
p
ao
ng all:;these,ohannels and reUuiTding th'e:ae,bridges; •
sotuel+q what has; he.ppened, trom his underste.ndin "'
Ai
hwa
State Di
u
i
h
t c;;
~
g
ys b
v
ilt t
sion of
e bridges witfi inadequate informations arid
built
basss of informa
he bridges on the,
tion befo
tho ,
~
.
re
y had;any suoh inPoTmation'`whioh ,N$e
presented:to.the.,
P?anning Commission Therefore;, the';$300
000
000
ro
:w
' ~
,
,
p
gram
ould:~replaae.;a
great;number.
oP publio utilities, eto. in this Plood plairi area ' Furtliermore;' no-indioation•was '
given es to the rea3on th
Ri
r
F ~'
e
ve
side
reewaq.jnow being built was'proposed at.that-height,.
bu~c ~.it was; prastimed that; it would survive ~~ ~
. .
,.,
- ,~
'
. _ :.
.: .
,. ,
. .> . ...:. ,.: ,
"- . . , , ,; ~. ,,: . : -
~. ,
Commissiorier Farai, no~e3 that:Col Blaok hed indioated the,t the Prado Dam.imprnyement
will probably not be underwey until•so
ti
;
'
~
~
a
me
me
:in the
_1980's therefore, sinoe these .:
bridges were needed immediately, the Road Depertment probably built them~with the idea
that'the bntire-program would
e
ri ~
*~'&
b
expe,
ded again ,as you.saq,•th'ey,wilT:be torn down
and~:rebui•lt,,but you don!t have.;`to agr9e witki`~hese
:stat
me
t
h ,
~
~
,
e
n
s,
owever:these were
statements made to the Planning;;0ommission ` fi
~
' :; ~< '• ,z~
~ .:. .
Mr .Liberio,'noted :then good tax'.dollars were~being spent to oonetruat somethii~g thst
~ should be adequate:.to handle.the fload ohannel
e
nd
:this wa
t
:
°
~ {y~r
~
~
r
,
,
.
s
OWI39TS ~.
he opinion=:of,the:,
. . .
1 ~years ago when:'theq"`advised', liim tkie' ohannels were not ede uate ~operty
not.underatand whg
this
oo
t
uo
o
'
~~
~
~
~ r ~
i
~~~
n~
,
,
ns
r
ti
n~,was,:not'stop
p'ed at
that time, so~that
moreelandla
. oould be aoquired and the ahanrielization and brid
es`b
on
o ~~h
g
e.n
stru
ted.to.meet future'"
needs bq making th'em wider ' Thi's.the ;thixig;that angered him so muoh -
payirig quit•e e bit'of t
ze
=
o
'
e
t r
~~`
~
a
s
r
,t
. sea
his taz;dollar:going out to build s mething
thet~
would have ~to be .rebuilt'?end ~th'is fact: was 3cnown toda
that i
•
'
s
' '
y
t
~a
•
is :oiie of 'tiis: ~i
BSr'P , .
,not adequate, this
!' i es'~.; .
` ~;
; : ;. ~
Commissianer 5'areno inquired'whether ~r. Liberio had talked with the C
E
orps of
ngineers. ;;`
~dr..Liberio :.9plied that.he talkad with them"at the meeting of the Orange County
Planning ~ommission
an
e
u ?
,
.
very q
estion k.iioh,his group has.put to them was identival as
the AnP.heim.Flannirig Commis:r:or: l:ad, and he snswered th t
eir questions in the seme manner,
i;ha~ h~9 hacl` asl:ed what wo :1d ha
:Mhaic~
an4 a 4ew o:her plaoes oP
int
es'
n
r
1yuwgs
n
8
y~'
.
ex
E
and the
.
ep
hese
areastwou d
beiwiped out~
or under water. Yes he woald egree with these stat
h
ements t
water.
az everything would be under
_ Commis~.oner Fsrano ~he.,inquired ahs.Mr. Liberio was o
'or the,:idea oP ?looding of ~t~ii§ aree.. ` PPosing the general plan amendment, i
' "~
r:
Mr. Liberia stated he ag~•eed with the idea if something like this happened - a standard
pro3eat flood, yes:he did egree`there•would
be
"'
..
the
damage that-was indioated „ but ahat
be did not sgree with was the feot that so much liad been built in:this'ganeral area
nothing'had,been
done ab
a
d
ut i
t
.
,
n
o
t; but now that they were requesting ennexation end possible
development oP their bwn property; the;OCFCD and Corps
as i
d
in
d
~
w
n
a
ioating the ohannel was
equate - but the oonstruotion was still aontinuing,on':building the oharinel. `
-- Commi.ssioner A11red inc,uired whather LIQr: Liberio had been on the San Bernardino or
•the .Se,n Uiego Freeweys reoentl r
-:i ~
y
n talking about building and the.tax dollar - what ~
oonstruotion wes done mas in dooordanoe
with tfie tax doll
i
,
ar avs
lable at.the time, ell
oP th6;-overlieads are inadequate, the bridges are inadequate,
d
'
•~
an
out~
all are being taken
b+ailding oomplete new onea, widening the "freewaq, putting in new on and ofP
ram~s, eto., this is ell being done on
the Sa
~
_
n Bernardino Freeway outside of Los
Angelas, srsd on ~he 5a,n biego'Freeway in the Oceanside a
ee
r
- these are the older type
freewa7s the..~the tax dollar paid for at that time and whioh was all that was availeble,
and a17. that aes felt to be neoess4x
b
t
q,
u
with the great influx of people into Calif.
what was felt to be adeq+xate and ne
oessary then was totally inadequate now, and maqbe
1`.i-20 pse,z•s. fron~ now it might be determined what was being buil+
d
~
`
a
eque':;,,
, now was also not ~ .
.
.
.., , , > ~ ,_~.
.. , - , _
.. : ., :;. - .: ... . . : ; , ...
:y,
,
~ ~ ;<
}~
~S. ~~ P~ ~ CCL~IDSISS.TON,s September. 21
970 ~
`
' ~
+z
,
z
5377
' '
' " .' }_,
~~~'
- - , . ,
>
:
,
G~Af~ BI;AN In making a oomparison:on the Preeways, that was somethi
AN~ND~NT- ttiought to be e3equate'at the`time:i
b
t
~
tg
h
~ ~~
y
t was
uil
,;.but wh
a
he
was
saying
N6 122 . was that the ahanne1s,.~snd bridges mere beia
b
iT ~
g
u
t and there,was every;
~ (oontinued) 3adiaeLion they~:were riot adeguate now but bhey:atill oont'..nue`to~'build. i
it: however
Commi
io
l "~3
~~
,
ss
ner A
lred was talking about something.entirely;`
di'fferent' '
.,.- .; , , .. ,`i ~'" '..
: ~:
~ ''
~
l~~ ~
` w:~
'~
X
't%
.
,
.
,
,
, Commissioner Allred indioated~that Yor the taa dollar available,it was,.edequate. rr
Mr ;;L~.berio then ,_stated .`that the tax .dollars~:: that have been spent have_ been fruitless;
~ that he personalTy Yelt
'thst oonstruoti
n
^
,
on;a
d widening of ,the RiversideiFreemay was`~ust,
abnut 8 10tyAers overdixe; that-'more psople riad been•killed~on ttie Yreeas
Fr
e
~ ~
e
way was bu3lt
when it aes not neoessaN; :and the=F3verside Freeway shouldhhaveh~ ttiee
mottey to build it-long DeYore ,the Orange .Freeway, :aiid ,the oount :on the
Rivezs
as t
d
:
h ~
;
i
o ve
e
Freeway
ioles must be ettoxmous and.~this~theor
to be-8pp13ed to ~bu31d3ng -the~
ohBilYiels ,,:;whe21•you st8te
the
`t8E do11
va
ee~ ,~`:~
~
,
.
8rs a
he
ilable
y;could have'waited~sno~Etier`five
year:s and liuilt the,ohannels;and-bridges the;rigket way, instead:of.spending money.and
tearing it,doam'and rebuilding:a
ain
Th
do
n
i r
~'
g
,
e
u
ty
s .~aking ohanoes now.with`the possi-
bility oP tha etttire Qity oY Anaheim or half oP b~eing under water
` ~ • K'~y~
r~
. .
.
.
The Commission iridioated that this flo
od oondition oould he
en
an
ti
'
~~
r
'
,
pp
.
y,
me; since a.liig
flood was
.overdue.
; ?,'
:
Commissioner Farano noted that;',he Commission had to in effeot "shoot dioa" whether it
is or~ ~vhether 3t .is not ~= and he was :a
very
;,oonseryative'
'
'
o ~,~'
,~
.
,
,
.
orap sh
., , : ,.. ,
oter". ~;~
Mr. Liberio:adqised the Commission.that the engineers that.:,he had;oonsulted had indloated
there was no problem in the oanqon. s„
~`'A~
Gommissioner Fa~eno eske,d why Mr Liberio's engineer;didn't'oome in and ~
~ present his
° arguments to the Anaheim.:Plannittg Commission;~sinoe"the Comnission wo
l3
l
t
' ~~
~~
~ '
~
u
-
ika to talk
a someone,
else to,get,tlieir viewpoiats.
• ~
,,
. :... i; •
:~ :; :... .. . ' ~ " . .., ~~~ .. . '.
Mr Liberio.indioated,that MoDaniel Engineers.elso had reoeived.the same'er
he had p , ~~ ~
8uments, that
~ust resented but he would not
`
~Y~
~"~~',
;°~
~ P
.
want him to.
buak the Cor s oP.En in~ers. ,~
~ Commissioner Farano noted that"tfe was not trying to.get,anyone to:"buok".the Qarps; :
all the Commission:~wanted;was.for someone to
stand
u
=
t r
"~~
,
.,
:;
p when,
he Corps,of Engineers and .
the; OCFCD were present arid heer`.-tae disoussion Letween these engineers
o
D
t
'
n
s
tha
the
o~ission nould tlien ask`either group:-to verify, 'substantiate, or deny.any.sllegations,
,beoause these people - th'e Corps or OCFCD did'make
th
d
ois
`' ;
~
.
e.
e~
ion -
they o?uld not deoide
the is§ue for the:Co~i.ssion = they haye to give the Coa~ission information and ar,
nts
' to the Co~ission - but'it~ would be the An
hei
si 'r
~
t,c.~
a
m Pla
n;ng Commission whu ~nould make~e
deoisiori in`reoommending mhat.oould be.done:in.the oenyon to the Cit
u
"
> ~` ~~
y Co
be
noil -
we w~ll
shooting the dioe" not the Corps or the OCF'CD.
I
l~
Mr.,Liberio'steted;that their engineer~ ~ad paoed the Ce:ps before and got nowhere,
Whereupott Commissioner Farano stated th
~o
m ~
e
mmissio
would give them a"rematoh".
Mr. Liberia noted_that the Corps oould not give.any definite answers - whereupon
Coa~issinnsr Farsno stated thet was f
oorreot he oould only present the data whioh the9
had.aompiled =:it vss up to the.City of,Anaheim to make the
deoi
io
~
.
s
n -,the Commission
was trying to get valued impressions. ' ',. .s_r
Mr. Ernest Dsnker,:5132 5. Ohio,,Yorbe Lin3s, appees~'ed bePore the Commission and noted
he had resided.in this area for 75
r ; s
.qees
s, and if the Anaheim,people for one-mi.nute.~liink
thet the river:,•will"spread out they are badly mistaken; that he had aeen the.river sYdit
~arouttd and make naw ohann
l
it i' '~Y
'~~
(
e
s -
oould 3ust go baok to the;old ohannel whioh used ~o be
between`~9naheim and:Flillerton. _A11 the,debris that the
..;
n
in
' ~.
e
g
eers
olaim will ba ooming
down, the oanqon will go somepleoe and th
ill
is w
make e new chtinnel-stream. There~ore,
it ma~ high time that the A -
rmy Corps of-Engineers end'the Cou
zty en
inee
e
ge
d°d
e
`
~
.
g
rs
n
t busy
o som
ttiing about it'bePore what thas olaim will`happen does happen. fiere We
sit talking and arguing about what will ha
b
s
'
ppen - get
u
. . `. ,; : _
y and do something-about it.
;:
~Ca~issioner-'Gauer noted that the;figures on the'history ~f Ploods in the'Santa Ana
Canyon area,go baok,to January,;1862 wher. it was estimated
that'317,000 C
th
w
~
,
FS
ru,the
ent
river, and this area has.not-had anythirig'Iike-this sinoe then beoause it ~
has been canteined.'
~'• er 3ndioated thet the 1Q0 yees flood is long overdue', and `the Corps of Engineers
, will sit baok until tkye flood dees oome beYore_thay will build
n
'
a
.
preventetive faoilities,
then.it arill':be too late. Y ,
~
~~ ~~,~
~1
~3 ~ ~r}
~~~~~R~ ~~ -~''t~f~,r"r+~^9¢"~~~~~.r.E ..._ ~ a.~, ~. ~~.+~~'~"'~~~ ~~~'r~^~ ~^ ~`""z,tw~'~~y~ ~~ri~^ti,,dy._. r~1 ~~'`q9
4. _ - .i:r ...~~ , . , . .,tn ..<? ~`-c , . ~',~.e'~~
.~~ ~ . . . , z~
y
~ ~• ,' . ~-.` -~, '.~ ..~ ..~ . . ' ~ ~
~
~'[~'PES, `CI'i'Y PLANNING COE~SISSION,~ September', 21, 1970
5378 _
~
'" ~
~
i _ _
'. ~.~ ' - ,~ t ~:.
r
' '~
~ C
~
~
~
' .~~
~
•' .~ I ~-•
. ~-
' / ,
'
. ', ~
~
~ :
. CENFRAL PLAN Commissi.oner Gauer,stated a,s;Par aa:he was oonoerned let the eople build
A~Iv~D~uNT: ' dom
ther
e
h
' ~
~~~'
n
e m
;ybe t
is type
:of,P3ooding will ne-ier.i~appen ~-; but if:some-
NO 122
' ~
one says that a~ill be
:e Plood areatand me;are~~endanger.ing the,:•lives. of
; people iY we~,permit`homea to;be built dowa_ there' then
me,qbe -we should ~~
~
:
; `( not 1et them build it is as simp~:e as ~ tkiat Either tfie' Commissioir-will
' oa
~~'~
have to follow the engiriaers advise or otheraise ;;YOhat_.the Comm3:'ssion;:3ust~"learned was ~
_ the Corps was ~ust` e
kir
f
r `th
s . •
a
.g
o
a asae
- ~y
sed v,eluation oP., the :ynttre Anelieim srea -:tha~E
` mas.as Yar,as they have go~e 3I dori!t 1¢-ow 3ust what good that aill do; •
; , .
~
~
f ; ,~ . : ~ ,: ~
S
-* :- Mr Danker,~then stated~that iP ;there was goixig to lie suoh a Plood
then%let the
~
r
~'
r
Y'aC
,,
:
orps
get ~'in thene~
and,;build~ thinga to prevent it,;';beoeuse the:.debris.;.oomin dowri; the Santa
B t. ..
.,:
Elns+River is~not
going to stop:in the~-'Ses-te Ana oariyon it
ill
~
~'
~
'
,
w
:.lodge;righi:
;here in
the~City of Anaheim ~: '
, ,~ , : ;. ! ,, ' ? : .
C
m r
~
}
om
issioner Farasio in q u i r e d o P- M r D a n k e r a h a t h e w o u l d p r e f e r m e d ium or 7
i
h t densit x?
,
g
.,
y
or iio density at sll -
..
.
,
' - r
..
, ;: ,:. .
.:
)
.~ ,. ... { . ~ - .'.. ::~. : '.• ....'. .'. . . .' . ~:.. . .'~' :. .
Mr Danker~replied that either the property awners should be'reliev
d f
`
K
~ ~~
~ *
e
rom the
taz burden,
or perm3t the property o~viiera to do something with"•_the groperty: >
r' ;.
Co~iissioner Far'ario noted that•at the work session,.•the-Commiasion asked the tax assessor~s
re
re
t
ti
ha ~'
~~'.
p
sen
a
ve t
t question„ but the'Cowmission did not'get a sstisPaotorg answer, and
that;fis one;item fi'e wanted to be sure•.the Oommission did:i;~t drop, sinoe he Yelt more
inYoz+mation
h
ld
l w~
s
ou
be supp
ied than was given
~
~
~
- . ,
~
,~
?
Chairman
Herbst ~oted that Mr Redding had edvised him he
had
no
owe
e
t
ll t~
,
,
p
r.
.
s
to.give an.
answer sinoe he was only;sent'1as an.observer ;to~report'baok t
Dd
s t,
~
o
r. Hi~
hew, but he had
indioated that ~rc Hinshaw.wou1~3 attend~enq cieeting~.whiah`the Plannin~ Commission aant
d ,
~~
'~'R„'~
e
him to be presentr' 'M
~C:
:." ~:•~~. ~,:: ` ..'~
, ~
' ~ ~
~ ' ~'
~~ ' r
r
~
.
..
.. .
.
.
Co~issioner Farano noted that he had thought'an anawer would be evailable
at the vno
k t
~'~t
.
r
session, and was~'the reason the-Co~ission assed t~he questiona they did,.maybe'We will
:
h
su i°
~
.
ave_to is
e s speoie1~3nvitation next time.
' + 'Y,
~.`,.
,!
:
, ~ •' `. ; ,
` Co~ii.ssioaer Allred indiaated the
t if the ait
a p
~
's~.
,
y oP An
heim rules tfiat no 'density would _
;~ i ellowed.4beoause;oY the Yload`:plain.situation,~~hen these property owners sh
uld h
v
`
~ ~^;
o
a
e
taz r
elief minima]. taxes
' ` ~ '
!
' ,,;~".
~
r
. , ~ 1 , ,. , ` ~ ~.~
`. Commissioner Farano also'indioated that the penslrtq alause-indioated 3n the Williamson ~ `~~-
~
aot.For the agrioultural preserve not:lePt iri for the-full.ten yeers ahould also be
o ~ ,
r
~
~` rem
vsd
'
- ~ ,.
~
,
• ..
.
Chairmea Herbst stated it was fine to tslk about it - but.how oould it be done
Also
' ~ i:
~:
~
.
Mr.~+;Hinshaw.
kiad indioated fie would be present to answer questions if the Commission ~
` `~
so desired:,
_ ~
i
, Commissioner Farano'then'stated that a speoial invite,tion-ahould be tendered Mr. Hinshaw. ~
- `; Assistant Development_Servioes Direotor Ronald Thompson noted for ihe Commission that the
.
• Minutea oP the work session ,as . well-:es reports and; studies oould be" furnishe d to Mr :
+' "
.
Hinshaw; and the'atafP aould be.happy to furaish"any,outside engineers and property owners
e ;
aopi
s o~ these minutes,,sirioe the transoript wouTd
be
verbatim i
s
.
,
. . ~
' Commissioner~Gauer inquired why the City wea une,ble;to get Mr. Hinshaw to eny
of these
' i' 7!
.
work;sessiori
when all other representatives hold_publio.offioe me,de themselves available
Por qu
i
i
b ~`?
est
on
ng
y,the Oammission -~vhy did,he have'to aend a repreaentative who hsd no
~e 1 ~•
~~
uthority"to speak:Por him . .; : - ,~,,
L.
~ idr :Thompson indioated that~it was;rather.short no`tioe to Mr. HinshaW
:but Mr
!Hinshaw
~ ~
,
,
indioated ha ~aould trq to,;me,ke the
•next meeting" ~~' -
Co~ii.ssioner Farano again:,'s'tatr,d: tha% perhaps:^a speo3al indiv~dual in
v
i~ation should ~
,
,
,
be. extended.~;to L~r. HinsYiaW, but he did:+.not want en :h "` '"
_ y ypothetiaal;que~tions
nd
a
s ;'
,a
,
n
wers,
~ beoause.he wanted the Commissio:.~oo riave the ability..oP-.having a quest3on e,zid answer
session where otte
~ ,question
is esked
and th
:a
i
e
` '
.
.
e
r
s~
r
to that could:be the besis for another
• question, beoause:tie persunally got too muoh inP
' : '
ormation.
otherwise. ; ;
!
. . .
~ ~
,
~
..~:: :~~.. ., ..~..~. -. . ;...~~~. .~.: ~.. . ~ . ~a.171
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~
' . . . . , . . . - .. . . ~ ^
~,~
MIIdOTES, CITY pLANNING.CO~ISSIUN, September>21, 1570 ~
~ ~ 5379
, s ,;
. ' ,:.
,, ,
~~NERAL PLAN Mr. Thoi^~son noted that in order.to olarif a oint made b
Co
A~NDII~NT
i
i
G ~
'"~
y
~n
ss
..,
oner
auer for the benefit oY~the. audienoe the 317,OOG"CFS for the flood
NO 122. ;. im:1862.'-:.wkiich;the audienoe ma
o
' -~
.
s~4°
~
,y n
t have
hed an o
(aontinued) informationtpresented.to the:Planning'Commission bypthe Cor
stof8
ng3
e
a
' ,~
p
E
n
ers,
th
t f
lood was basiaelly.t~wSoe the.emount whioh.they ere pro osi
n6 to reP
desi P
gn'Prado De~:to hold = sinae e'pro~eot`fl~od as indio
e
t~
i~;'
~
9
at
d b the Cor s
! was:160,000 CFS.. ~
Mr Grivey speakiag from~~the'sudienoe'ittdioated that the eaisti~ng dam did hold some weter. ~
~~
Mr.:Albert Yorba;:;20911 Espersnza Road a '
had,heard the same'~~ator ' ppe~'ed before•tHe Commission and steted that.he
y
;presented bef ~
~`~~
:
;
ore and;would not dwell; on flood per sa, but he would
like~to say;;that?;in 1438 he was up in,the,oer-yon and<down in~the
r
~ ~~
;
iver., and was there when
~he=yorba bridge went, snd there"was less damage iri:the oianyott esea than .there was westerl
of .the bridge
in Ansheim'
r
r E
~~
,
p
ope
-he wanted to?emphasize that agai~~:.. Ttie 3.968-69 Ploods ~
there was aot'water in that aree, as some oY::,the engineers indi
ie' ,*;'z
oe.
will happen or did
happen ..but iP:..there was any wster it oeme from the"hills and not,from the river. F~rther-
more he would disagree with Mr. Danker;about'giving some t
x
li
f ~
~'
a
re
e
- he would rather see
the:land developed, let .the-.property owners do what they aan do so that the oan
~ money out of it. Sf the p'roperty owners were not
~ost
e
d
'
~
~
~
p
rmitte
to develop
the land, why did
the`!City;oY;Anaheim,grant,~d zoning below ImperiaT,Bridgo - they;would be in more danger than
the,propertiea
in;
the oan
on
YYh
th
' ,
.
-
y
..
e
er the Corpa.of Engineerslmew or not, but e portion of
the M property, was lower thsn the river, but~~still industriel oom
lexes
YVh
b
h
'
I
" ~
p
y;;
are
asn
eing built. ,
t,the Corps done something about lomering that portion of the river so that it
would not be higher than th
t por y~
r~~
a
tion north of the railroad. 'The
area have teen psying taxes on.the ro ert Property owr-ers in this
P P Y~-: and in oase for tiver 50
t
q ' '
'
~
~''~
r
years he had been
ing to,`~old h~s property so that they oould•get:something for it - but the County was
holding up the.rjeople so that tti ~
~` ~
e property oould be purohesed for a parg, The pro ert
: owners ]mew.:noi~hing would'heppen,- meeting,sYter meeting was held for the psst
'` a he,l~ ..he did,
year and
not believe the
t '
5~„
,
~
proper
y owriers were
erial Brieir deal - if the Citq
of,Anaheim coulri• g',ju§t to the.west of Im
Ygrant M zonin ~ I h
p
dge.= sn area thet is
muoh:more hazardo;ts thea any pTaoe in the oanyon = but still-those property owners in
the oan,qon_were.not being permitted t
b
• ~
;'
o
uild
on their properties. Furthermore, he had
seen;where the water had.staqed.in the ohannel - and
the
mater did
ot
s
' '. ~;
,
,
n
, ss wa
oome thru ss Yast
being
olaimed 'and~he should know he had seen.the Plow oY water yeer after year -
theq,go'by the~books, but`he wes not anien
in
b :.._...e~
i
I ,
g
eer,.
ut he had aeen it and knea what it
looke3 like. ~
p
. ,
.
. ana
Idr. Gilbert::Kraemer, representing the Kraemer femily eppeared bePore the Commission and
noted,'his family hed property that wa~ `pending before LAFCO and befo
th
:C
~ r~
re
e Planning
ommiseiott, end inquired whether tne Commiasion was going to mske e decision today rcgarding
the Your alternatiyes.
, . j
(= n:
:
;
Chairman Herbst noted this would be uptothe Planning Commission to determine that. ; ,:
~.
~
~'• Krsamar then noted that he vras the oaly property owner who had been notified about
the Work session with the Cor
s
of En
i
p
,
g
neera, and that was only beoauae JePP Millett, the
destgtter~Por,their pro3eot had adviaed him. There was some question amon
as
t
Ch
la
th
:
g
o
e
ndowners
e reason they were not invitad --sinoe this was an issue that was a thorn in their
sides. The propertq owners would like to l
o
m
w basic~:i,lly what thsq needed to refute the
arguments me,de by the U. S. Corps of Engineers, whioh he felt was a logioal approeoh for
the other persons in the audienae.
, . : _ -
. .. . .
Mr• Thompson noted that Mr, Kraemer. mss oorreot - it veas s pu~lio study aession, and thc !
staff,tried to invite as many teohnioai paople as possibT
He ::
::i
~';;
e.
knew that staff hed invited ;
many oY the`.engineers that:have:WOrked in the banyon out in the flatl
nd
-
a
s - Millett b, Kir.;~: ,
MoDeniel.Tngineers, Toups Engineering,.Boyle Engineering - s11 these people were invited ~
beoause the,testimony the Commissi
s .~
on wa
tryittg to get wss primarilq from an angineering i
`standpoint.,
_ Commissioner.Farano inquired whether the set of minutes being prepared would be in the
nature of a.transoript so that tha
o
l
ra w
u
d be very_little oondensat3ott -:he ~ould like
to apologize;to MrC Liberio for stating`that he was not
e
pr
sent at the work seszion,
, sinoe, 3f he.mas not 3nvited there would be no way for him to get here, but'`aas there
any reason wkiy this transori
t do
ld no
p
u
t be made available to those'individuels mho mished
to have a set7 -
Mr. Thompson steted these Minutes would be made publio and anyone who would give the
Commission Seoretarq their name wo
ld b
u
e mailed a oopy - but it is a very lengthy transoript.
_ ~, , :
. ~.^ __ _... , . ..
. ,.: , , . , ~.
w
- • ~ ~ . . . . ' 4Ki
, ~~.. . ~.. ' -~ . .. . . ~ . ~
MIIQUITS,-CITY PLANNING COD~ISSION, September 21, 15170
, . - :: , 5380 ~~
~
G~~ PI,AN =.Commissioner Ferauo then.noted that~~sinae the property oWners were not
AM~t~i~~T invited, ;then a.°.oopy .of. the. Minutes .should be, meuie available, so that '"~'
N0: 122 .` tliey will : imow whrst they ar. e. Ye~ning. :; a~
(oontinued) ` ~~.;1
Mr. Thompson noted that,.:~e already hsd e liat of names of d ~£
oopies,of these';Minutes: People who wante #~
' ". , ..
. . . _. ' ~
_ ~ ~~?~
Mr~>Kraemer ~;+,ed:that.there were a Yew ~lisorepenaies that.the Commission may.be looking.at ~
in the wron~ ~.3ght, the maps on the board~~ere in error", they don't show-the, true preoise •-'•~
elignment:of Fairmont Avenue whioh grestly_ohanges''the:iasgnitude oP the problem - if it is ~`~
e,problem - the.Commission is due the"right to see exaotly where'Fairmont Avenue ~ FaiTmont ~'"
generally, has been realigned by the;County,:and is in the desi ~'
gn study to run eesterly fTOm ~~;„.
the mapstindioates~the.eree on the map) atopping.at,the eatension;of,La;Palma Avenue, whioh
also:is no•t depioted oorreotly, but s~vings:Purther to the`south.elong:the leyee. These two ~~
streets me'et -,this street is iri the design stage.and should be fuaded"in the 1971=72 budget,
Ai
sinoe the preoise'alignment hss'been.appruved. Furthermore, this would afPeat about 45 aores
` of his family's: propert"y whioh was looated.west.oP the extension`oP Fsirmont Avenue, this ~;
area;;'of i~he river is very high.-..the road e,lignment:will go over the railroad trsoks on a %a
bank:and~oome down and.meet with the.Ia Pa1ma Avenue extension. There immediately is a
barrier'from the.west of the preoise alignment.of Fairmont. In this respeot, the preoise ;;;
alignment;bq the County not only stups at I,s Palma Avenue oomes eoroas the freeway ead the
: Ylood.oontrol.ohannel and ties in mith the presant San:a Aria Canyon Road - the preaise
alignment,wes adoptedby the Orange County Planning Commission oomeJ eoross snd tiea in with
Ssnta Ana Caayon_Road'- the present design`studies.are from,approa:~mately I~ Palms Avenue j fs;
on,the south to Yorba Linda Houlevard:on the north, end then indioates where some type of l~P~
off remp would oome from Fairmont to Ie Palma Avenue with Fairmont eventuellq going over i 4
the river to Santa Ana Canyon Road. ,
Mr. Thompson noted'he had e di~ferent understanding about this f' ~~
preoise alignment thnn Mr, ti„~
Kraemer- of nnthe reasons this alignment wsa not shown on the exhibits wss baoausa the i
City of Anaheim has not held publio hearings to amead the oiroulati~n element of the I~'i'
Anaheim Genernl P 1 a n p l s o i n g. F a i r a o n t on as erterisl airoulation;'that no ~4
have beeri sdopted'but stePf has,.reviewed the preoise alignments f"
proposed preoise slignments. Ls Palme Avenue
on_the•Anaheim General.plan ia pre~fise to the westerly boundary of the Kraemer property from :
'.Imperial Highway.- it has`slso beeu dedioated. YPhere Ls:Palma Avenue goea easterlq will
probably depend on whether or not the County does something with the park: Staff hss also
reviewed the`preoise alignment Yrom Le, palma'Avenue nortfierly ott Fairmont and'sre.eware thst 1'
it.is pro3eoted oonsiderably esst oY where the eshib3tspresently depiot it. Flirtt~ermore,
he was aware`i;ha$'the County had adopted a_preoise elignment'Por Fairmont to La Palms Avenue
and a;general plan amondment showing it extended aorosa the river snd the freeavay and oon-
neoting with Sants Ana Csnyon Read, however, he wss not aware that there wss Finy preoise
_ slignment between Santa Ans Canp;,n Road and Le palme, Avenue.
Co~isaioner Farano'inquired whether it was generally agreed that the street sli ~
looation of Fairmont will hsve a beari Bnments and
ng or wake some kind of a differenoe engineeringwise
as to water spread - is this what qou eaq, or the OCF'CD or the Corps oP mngineers7
Mr. Thompaon stated that`no one had indioated this. ~
Coa~i,ssioner Farano then indioated that would be one question the Commi:,aion would have to ~
k~~Y.e' olariPied by the OCF'CD or the Corps of Fngineers. ~
Mr• Kraemer noted that the property owners felt this would heve some bearing, and it would be i-
__their aontention thet this:.could be prov,~~n, there~ore, if the Commission is aonsidering ~~
oontinuing this emendment - he would bs:, * favor of it, but if the Commission is oonsidering ;
soting on the Pour exi~ibitshe would be aga~..3t, sinoe he Pelt that they v¢ere entitled to '
substantiation oP statements made suoh es Mr. Yorbe's statements - if these could be doou-
mented as Peot theq would,be as noteworthy as`:the II. S. Army Corps oP Angineers - because
someone who Yias lived on the property'ti':•.at me,ny years and has seen ~he property and exper~ ~
ienoed the problem by living there. ~rthermore, he had a letter whioh he oou3d present I
at e later date from the Tri-oonservation league whioh stated that the 1938 Ylood the
Kraemer propertq wnioh would be.antirely inundated by figures presented, was not aYfeoted
by.that flood.
Commissioner Gauer stated thst if another study session was soheduled for the Commission,
°'h`~ would like to ask Mr. Hi.nshaw - not a repreaentative -sinoe the Commission oould not get ~
any positive statements.from the representstive - if these.people here - e,ll the landowners -
are interested in this, then Mr. Hinshaw should lwow first hand not seoond hand - he would ;
' like to.see,Mr. Hinshaw Pace these people and let him answer the questions they have presented
to the Planning Commission.
1~'• Krsamer indicated that Mr. t'inshew has seen most of the propertq omners quite a°ten. ;~"
' ~ .; .. ::
L-
,, - -
; ,.
. . _
~
'.'.. ~ . Y1 ~~
. . ~ ~. ~
O
~ r rcj
.
.
~ . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ ~~
~.
_ MINtJTES, CITY PLANNadG CO~ISSION, September 21, 1970 ` 5381
' . t'.
GEI~RAL PI,AN Mr: Braemer indioeted:that their femily had quite s bit to gaitt or lose
' ~~
A~NDMEN
P as.cto ttiese oonsiderations he; ~preserited,~'and Toups Engineering in their
N~: 122 §tudy were trying"to
use the same figur
s
th
t th
o
' ~
~:6 :..~
~
,
;,
e
e
e.C
rps
of Engineers..
~ ,~. '-' had submitted There:appears°~to be :substsntial niPferenoes and whet '
' ,
~&
happens t
o all the properties',east',o£ ~I'iiperial Bridge - so;good; bad,
:
i
Pe
`t ~
or
'
ndi~
rent;
here,is a disorepenoy, and,these tnings'should,:be'.
brought out at the appropriate time,;`and'he thought
ro'
i
o "~
i'~
er
r
n
ommuni-
` aation by: the landowners in tkie,t the "landowners .did not• come equipped.
;
~ ~
t~'~'
.,
: ~ - . . -
r ,
Coc~i'ssioner;Faxano noted::that.the appropriate,time was olose,:ai-d iY the informstion"Which
Mr. Kraemer':proposed to pre'sent
:was evailsble; and
~r Hi
sh `~:
1~
S
,
,
n
aw.was_present to answer the
, msny questions faoing the!Co~ission ~~then he-will be a pertioipeait rather than a leader. ~
J~
Mr Thompsoa.noted'that one point was raised by Mr Kraemer:and Mr: Yorba - that was`one:
of the reasons he•hed passed e
ma
to the C
mmi ~~
~
.
p.
o
saion; thet he did not believe.the Commission
hed asked;tY.e Corps of Engitteers:this`speoifio questiori; but he believed:it
was-answe
ed
' :
,
r
.
Colon
e1 Bleok from:.the Corps;:eaid that'he.was:not`.es'oonoerned about industriel arid oommer-
oial;;devel'apment beoause''in the'event of a'dis
t
r
o
'
TM`
ss
er,o
~lo
d thay
woul3 not have to go in
and,awaken the people:as:they would in"homes in the middle-of the night. F1~rthermore
e
~
^'
,
Mr •Yorb
wss~quite•
aorreot -:some,oY`the;propert~'riorth of the°river e,nd west of Imperial
is 1'ovren-by,;3-5 feet~.lower than the river. `` ' - ,a~,
,~,,.~
Mrs..Virgii-ia Riohards,.21611 Esperanzs Road'appeared before the Co~iss~on and noted that
she and her sister ownedi about 38 aores in'that ares; thst she hacl attEended a League
f
it '
,`h~'
o
C
ies meeting the ottier night in the Convention'Center when the Par.ks snd Reorestion
Direqtor Mr:.:,Collier spoke - he'stated:they`he
d b
m
`
ki j°~~
~
,
een
a
ng studies iw~i'~tu Sh,e Tri-Counties
Assooiatiori -~Riverside, San Bernerdino, and.Orange Counties, and in ,s].l ,of his statements
he.asked~that .the:oitiea disoours e an develo
B Y
t e
' r~
i'~ ''
'~
, pmen
ast of Imperiel }Iig
liwsy up to Featherlq
>Park. He stated`:thst,agrioulture mu§t`be erioouraged,:sarid aiid gravel m~ast be disoouraged r" r~~d
~~'
;
~
,
and ederything but egrioulture should'be disooureged:~ The;t she and he•r siater ~rere not in
the m
od-
fo
i
l -
;
'- ~'_~
o
,
r sgr
ou
ture anymore - they had hed it with the:oranges - tha ta~c~es - they had
beenibefore the Board of Supervisors,;tHe tax assessor, LAFCO -and'no~'befare'the Citq of
~ ~, ~y
Ansheim,
and;the same old:•thing is thrown at.the.property owners = that sha ~elt the
` Cou~ission wss somewhat rude to:~r. Liberio - ycu a§ked for studies to b
de
`
~ ' ~:
e ma
, and you ~xant
proof.;
and
ell oP these studies have beeri made .bq the; OCF'CD atid`they aan't give you any
s
n
i
9
°-
`
~ ' ~,A
answer,.
u
t
l 1
80:
it saams
so ridioulous
one did aot lrnow.what,sll the landomners have been
` going ',thru. ' _
, .
,
s;
Chairman Herbst advised Mrs. Riohards that the Commission was Yullq aware of. the heaxin
s
ll
e
o
' ~
g
a
th
pr
perty.owners hed.been''thru end
every_agenoy hes had some 3ontrol, over th~s, but
now'it?was'getting,to the'point where~the Citq of Anaheim - the P1e
nnin
CCc
i
i
-
,
,
g
~
ss
on
wha
` had;~ust reoeived the proposal ~or,the general plan;amendment as a part of the City's sphere
f i
f `~`
o
n
luenoe:during the past three Wesks, and the Co~i.ss3on hed pursuing this very diligent-
ly with_all.types of ineetings end'he wished ~
su .;;
o as
ra her there would be a deaision froa the !
Planning Commission oP theiCity of Anaheim very shortly - the Planning Commission wss not ;"
~;
going.to keep pr.ooreatinating as has"been done in the past. As far as the Couttty park is
oonaerned oLt there, if ttra County wants that la
d .
n
, and want it Por a perk, as far as he
was_oonoerner! they would have ta buy it; end iY the Planning Cr.mmi.ssion determines that it ~
is habiteble out there - this is the deoision the 0ommission k,as to meke - osn we put people ~
out.there, that is our primary oonoern, and iY so, what density should be a1l
d
oWe
. IY the
Planning Commisaion does determine thst people:can be out there, and there oan be density
e
out th
re, this vvi11 be.reYleotad on,the Anaheim General Plan, and if the County still Wants ~
to buy,the property, they will heve to:
bu
it
o
th
Ci
4 .,
.
y
,,
r,
e.
ty o
__ .
:,Anaheim crlll zone it f;ir the ~
property owners to use it.` We ere npt going to oontinue to
roorasti
t
s <:-, ::
p
ne,
e.
Mrs..Riahards stated it had been a terrible burden on all the proper.tq owners - theq did ~
not Iike to oomplsin - but their lands had to b
u
e p
t up ior ssle because teaes were so ~
high and the oranges weren't paying snqthing - and then when we nut up our land Por sal
e
the County throws this`park into:our Ysoes - we ere not agsinst s perk - if they want a pe,rk i
OK take it, but they woulc
ha.ve
to pay to
et th
r
.
.
.
g
e~p
operty
_ ;
. ..
.
" . ,:
. .
~
Commissioner Farano inquired.whether Mr. Collier or:anyone Yrom the City oP Anah,eim me,de '
statements to the effeot and enooura
ed thi
o . .,
~
g
s
r that?
. , ;
,':
., _
Cammissioner Rowland:stated he believed tbat John;Collier was presenting to the Tri-County ,
Conservation Leagtte'the Eocie
Royoe-Beari-A
ti
L
`
-
u3
n
andsoape archtiot study-theq were aommis-
sioned:by.the three oounties to make e study, and the report presented were the reaommend
~
a-
tions oY the landsoape arahiteats that made the g80,000 study from the sea to the dam, and
S think this is what Mrs. Rioherds heard - these were not Collier's stat
t
,
emen
s - they mightbe
his sentiments.- but the apeeoh was mede on the report itselY.
- ti ...
~.i
,. _ : , .
~ -
<;~: . ; ; ~..
~ ~
MINL3'ES, CITY P~,AIaiIl~iG. CO~ISSION, September' 21, 1970 •~ ~
` , .~ . ,. _.. `. . ~.., ; ~a
5382
' ' ;. : , ~
' G~N~~AI' Pi~AN 1d~'s Riahards noted that during,Mr Collier!s apeeoh he> he,d. indioated: there. - j~
AL~.ND~NT. was very _open spaoe fon~reoreation beloa Imperial:Highi~ay add everything ~~
, N0.~122 ` above it to Featherly Park must be disoouraged Yor everything ezaept' ,~~
. (ootttinued-) agrioulture
~, ; ;
- ~
i~ , : , ~ . , . '_ '~
~ Commissioner Farano noted for Mrs Riohards that he.a~culd assure her-~ea ~er,as he vias oon-
aerned,that:whether Mr Collier~saqe i~L ar anybody.else,;any qonsidaratiaa~as..;to the,density ~h
Yor the Santa Ana'panyon;would:not be;based upon whether or not-there'would be s park there. `
This,ystetement by.,the Tri Couri~ies Conserve,tion League makes it..,aeem~sill ~^
~ stupid hims+~lf sinoe one°•;hand :did not :.lmow :a~ligt the, bther,_kiand~ wsa doing,9maqbe~this`.isltrue `~
and;perhaps:it isri'!t, but if tkiere~have beea::other-_statemerits or'.the dity.oY Ariaheim is`in
any~Ray partioipating, eiqbarking or studying'or enooura iri sn ,
or use for that lend out there,,he es,a Comm3,ssioner;wouldglike.tolg-owlit,tbeoauaeaifethis .~
,_
~ is being sioiie he v~anted to know.,it and; he aeuted the 'other;:Planaing.Commissioners to know ~
.-, ea well as -thei pe'ople . ~ r -
;rtf
• Chairman Herbst noted that the.Plsnniiig Commi;ssion had met at meetinga with the,Orange ;.
x
County pleniiing Commission arid other.~County.bodies, and the Co~issioniwas moving out and
on as rapidlg es possible', arid:he.wished to-assure.her'thst it would:not be long before the
- Anaheim Plarining Commiasion mould make;`e deoieion oa ~the property.in the.study'srea - the ~
Comm,tssion's big:problem`noa was.to determine~wtiether or not there was:.going to-be any l
density and'onoe;that aras.decided then~progress would be made, '
' `y , ,
•,w
' Mr. Thompson adviaed the Commission that Mr Collier was ~ '
oonsultants>oY'tfie:study_at tkie Convention.•.Ceriter., Presenting the findings of the ~'~
~ ~ , ~ ~~
,,. . . , ; - ;, . . , : ::. ,.` . -
.~xy
Commissioner Far'ano stated thet might be true;'but he did not ]aiow if:snqone,else on the ~~
' Commissioa knew about.it,:.and~"in:ell feirness to the people-the:landowner,s and himselY as `'
~ s Commis'sioner that ederyone_ahould ]mow everything,that.was possible.to know about it, t~~,
beoause it me]ces,the Commission,look like they.were dealing underithe tsble and this bod ~,
mas not ~
i ~ Y ;~.
Mr Ttiompson;.rioted~that Mr Collier wss,present at the ~oint Orange County-Aneheim Planning ~~~~;~
-' Commisaion work session and pointed tYiat,out:,i
„
•
..: . ,.. .
4~Y
., _ . :
. _.
_ . '. . : ~:. .'. ~ . ,~ ; F!
.: ... ',r, ~ ..,. ,,.~ . ... '. ... ... . . .
` Mr James L:;Morris, 454 South Anaheim Boulevard 's ,~
he represented two;oP the;property oamers of,'propertye netheestudytarea~-~oneiltvng inted ~'.` F~
San~Diego snd the~other`in Oregon,- property on the.:south side of;the new Yreeway and ';,:y
north of Santa Ane Canyon>Road -;;one question oame to.his'mind - it seemed to kiim thAt in
the flow oP water down the river.-otiannel it folloms the natursl leas thet ~eater will folluw ~
,it would seem with the Santa Aria,River ooming_in a straight;line, then it turns near Olive ~
`that the most dangerous`along the River is at'the tuTn where'the rvater has a tendenoy to.go ~'
straight: He had'.only been in this area SO yesrs therePore, he oould only speak.arith exper-
ienoe of the plood in 1938, and he knew this wss the area where the water ment out of the
rivar`ohennel - it..did not go out of the.xiver ahennel in the study area. Therefore, it
ruould seem that the oottoern of the Co~aission should be ovith the people, as Mr, yorba s~,id ~.
earlier,"the people below the turn in the river. F~rthermore, it Wonld seem that a oampetent,
,engineer oould determine this verq essily.,'He Was'using the word oompetent, having apent
two or three years with the U. S. Army Corps of ~ngineers, therefore, he wondered about their '
oompetenoe. Neverthelesa,;some engineer working for Mr. Kraemer or som~ oP these other
people who are developing their properties should oertainly prove to the Planning pommission ~
that the dangerous portion is below Imperiel..Bridge in the Anaheim aree- not way up the (~~
. . ` f
river where the aster~vaill flow ita ttatural oourae.
`Mrs. Hazel Mseg, 5865 Sarita Ana Cenyon Aoad, iriquired why the sohooi distriot wss building ~'
sohools•there, if they would not,let the.,property.owners build houses - they have taken our ~.'
, property away Prom µs ?or,sohools;- thea ae oan't build but rema,in in agrioulture - mp
property is east of Imperisl aaross from'Solomon Drive'- if one oan~t build fiouses thern they ~,
-~° won't:have children'to ~
~ ;; .~ 8o to,sohool. _ . _
Chairmea Herbst noted that".-the.;south side of Se,nta Ana Canyon Roai would in all likelihood •!
develop with homes'which have ohildren, and they probablq would b1i attending these sohools.
The hill area:;has been planned Yor houses for~at least the psst Pire years.
M~'s Maag noted that'she.lived in Ansheim during the 1938 ~lood too, and stood in water up
to her waist itt her home,'and.as soon as the river broke thru the ohennel everything was
flooded - she,elso omned the property in the oanyon too and it did not wesh out her orange
trees -the groves are still there.` The„last flood in 1969, the Citq of Ana,heim ran.a pipe
for water eaross ~rom her end the water oame gushirig`over her property and mashed a gulley
50 feet wide ia Pront of her home and she was i1T aiith the Ylu at the time and wss unsble
to get:.out - there sras no way of.getting transportation Por her - the water reoeded;, but
the,water aeme Yrom Wslnut Creek and the whole pleoe wss flooded - the County brought bull- ~
dozers and broke into the river then the urater reoeded rapidly, beoause it went downstream. ,
~. ~q1t . - . .. . . . - . . .. .
ar~,.w,e.~. ~ . ._ _ . - ~ .
_ '-zt._.. .-.n'2~ .r ~ ::~~ "~
~
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . - .
MIIVUTES,;CITY,pLANNIlVG COA~ISSION, September 21, 1970
" 5383 %
a G~RAL 'PI+AN The,q used the bulldozers to' out 'the oharineis , so tihat we,ter oould get into
~ND1~1'r the rider tHe water:~th
n
' ~
~, e
;reoeded
`NO 122 ; °'
and everything oleared up rspidly:
! ;
'
~ i !Co~isaioner~A.llred noted'~
ttiet Pro
ll
'
m
+~ .
m.a
Co
thathad baen
mission had heard at this:publio heering, and'What the Commissionphase
e
appear that the~0ouaaissi
e
~itaw
e
~h
`
:
~
~
' se
n
on ne
ould.
ded Yizrther
~, should be'oontinued " ~; ~ :<,
information thus oonsideration of the amendment
. ~
:
:
%
s
~
i .
,. .
Co~3,asioner Rov~land tfelt '~hat the Commission should take, more oonstruotive 'steps, iY not
by,;eotion~at least by.intent = that.he believed that
t
~
~
s
every property.owner in`,the oe,nyon
udy areathad:the seme`idea,:_their;:p~tiaular ~
aiid it oan be used this is ~probably true
t9 has_ been demonstrated` as being se,fe
t
eP '
n
;
o som
de
i
oould adopt in its entirety;the U S:"Ara~q Corps,.of Eng3neersHstudq,nbut until~suoh timi
the teoYuiioal~ inYorma,ti~on -has-been
e o ~
aS
r
futed = tectinioel,:iiiforaie,tion .that is 'reoogniPCd es,
authoritative, tkie Coc~ii.ssion will -be atuok'wi~h this `pieoe oP inforaie
published=has bee
tio
,
n; beoause it is
n published-and will be republistied. He did not oare about everqbodq's
idea thst the Corps oP,..Ettgiaeers valuation:'is en
i
- ' i
l
'
.
~
~
t
re
t aas
e little
y om the basis of human liPe, he thoug
more on the basis of..value=dollar,:value.,`that the dams whioh th
struotures theq.build ha
'
i ht
~~
ve to
ey bu
ld-the
-save more
~ the:way,they 8ppraaoh~it To di - Property..thari the faoilities nost-this is basically
stud Bress a.bit - ell`,the.Commission wi13
Y
:probabl
wh
l
t r
.
y
eva
a
uate rsny reoogriize
:the.Conmission.should'do is think of doing is'adopting some kind oP a
flood plain area.at some, point.in time-a poliay
r
n
d d r;
, o
a
si
overlay snd the boundaries be oon-
ered as Ylexible- they are now follosving:some partiaular psttern akioh the Oorps of
Eagineers;set up by the elev8tion =.b ',:~
~'~
the;perimeter or olose:.to..it`will have the~i~esponsibilitysofedemonstrati g how th
not af~eoted bq flood
hazard,'
i
n
~ r~
.
ey
sre
or hoav the
protoot themselves,: sinoe he thought there
vras,some asy of salvaging some of the_propertq in the study area to s oertaitt
Generally speaking thou
h
th
t ~~t`
~
g
,
ez
ent.
e Commission'arill be stuok mith.looking'at Pi res
P
y the Cor s until it reoeive,s:.some`,inPorme
~ Presented
tion"to'
~
~y
,
tha oontrar
cari.anqone help eapand on that szid help solve this?
~'~hioh is authoritative - F
.
Commisaioner Allred ttoted iY
th
' ~`
.
e
property owners in this study area aould give the Commission '_'
that euthoritative inYormatior-,' it,would be Welcome. °
, , •,
Commisaiorier Rowland theri stated.that they would be the only ones who oould present this
information. ~ ~
~,r~?
Chairmsn.Herbst noted there was'another poittt - bosed on e standard
only=`mould~this area be under water, but everqthin
f
w
ld
h
e
'
r
~
~
g
ou
rom t
be uttder
is area to
Hun
tington Beaoh
water, tYierefore; he Pelt the Commission would have to determine would thi
srea be in more'danger bg a standa
d ~.
~~
+
r
s
~ so, to ivhat
pro3eot Plood thasi the whola of Ane,heim itself, and iP
greater'degree - iP it ian't'any greater, then how fa,r can me brin
in.that the.Corps oP"En
ine
th
r
s
s ? ~ ~~
±
g
g
e
s
e
e liues
tandards have set, beoause if one looked at the standard
pro~eot Ylood as it brenohes out into the Plat areas to Huntingt
be im trouble
n B
Th .. ~
'
o
.
eaoh everybodq vrould
us he would,3ike to know what the next best thing Yor this erea, where
is it ssfe~or as safe as the stendard individuel is d i
own below.
Commissioner Gauer noted his me,p indioated the flood spread out irom Imperial - not the ~
aree where Mr. Morris indioated, but;Imperisl mould b
th
~
e tb
focal ~f ths spread - from
ere it mould oover a11 of Atwe~d, a11 of Anatieim, then down to the beaoh
he was oonoerned the Co
i
'
~ -
mm
ssion should vote on the issue this date - let ~themagofahead
and build. ,
;
. ~
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I:
:
.
~Y.:.•.:
.
~ . _
. . .
.. ...... . . ...
. ...
. ..
. . . . . _ .
. . .
,.
.
.
.
Chairman Herbst -, it has been suggested _ M~.; ~orris made the su ~
a possibility oP getting some looel engineers t
t
~
r
s ' .
. ~
o give the Coa~issioa
somethf:n
in
writ
whioh would rePute ~some of the statementa made`by the 0orps oP Engineers
mould.like this
very
n
ne
'
.
- a
muoh.
d he Por o
'
i
_
Mr. Danker a , , i
ppeared.c-gain;.bePore the Co~ission end steted that he had some experieno
1916 = his parents
owned some
o
i
.
pr
e
n
perty on Jefferson Street - the water out a ohannel right
thru their property all.tho way'down to the Sante.Fe crossing where it 1
~to Olive. If; the Commi
ssion w
ld 8oes from Atw
d ~
~
.
ou
oo
go up there
ttoa and look at the nurber oP houses there ~
- are in that`ohannel - that seme thiag will happen agai
ll s
-
e
n
.
he had:seen the river break out
long the'.Anaheim dam`a good many t~imes sad go thru Anaheim, outtin out oran e
and the Ulive.bridIIe• That property that h
r
n
g
,:
e p
eae
tly oamed, and on whioh he was
at~mpting
to get.s variance - the natural soil is still'there - it is blsok dirt - it is not rive
se,nd• The loaest part today next t
t
r
o
Freeway. _
he Preeway is Pour Seet above the ttew Riverside
i
! -
~.
-
i `
i-
- -
.
~`~
~v~uoinuea/ or;tine xiood,area was belaw~tho turn.in the':river,;:.rather than north o3~the
z
~ Imperiel brid
? ~ G~~
,,. „~ ti
f
ge
; -. r ~
,. ~ s '
` Commi`ssiorier Rowl?snd replled negatively noting that ,that
aould be
;
t
t
~ ~ Y~"
~,~.
~"
,
.
s
a
ements,_ and~ the :
Planning Commi'ssion would need`some teohniaal'daxa that'would~bslanoe the Cor
s;
t
teme
s
p
s
a
nt
;
: not,,3ust~a .statement ~that_ the area of dsnger is in artother~ area, ;beoausb:r that' liemmin hi1-
8
osophy did n
P
t~`h
lp n
''-
,,
,
o
e
a bit` ,. _ ~
_ . A ~ -.,: + . : ~ ., :. / ~ ; : ,
F
Mr Morx
is ssked,What tho Commission wanted the engineers to say
;
`
~
~
~
•
z M~
.
y ,
,
. ~
; ,
:
Commissioner Rowlend`stated the'_Oommis,sioa should be'told i~hst the flood'plain area is; •
thru~the oan
on wh
t th
d ~
~
'
y
a
e Yloo
--velooities are .
,~
: Mr Morris~noted that iY.Oommisaioner Rowland=,wss talking sbout a
pro~eot"Plood that oan't
'
.
be dePined
,~ . . ..
.
•. . -
, , ~ . ,, , . .
• :. , ,
~ Cocm~isaioner Rowlarid.asked that:something be given,;,beoause•the.Corps of~?~ngineara gave a
,
~
very'fine definition of a; pro~eat flood give the
Commission something i;o ~work ~vith ti
i
°~` ,
,
_
es
des
rhetorio and the?Co~isaion will ~ust work`the !'d'evil" 'out
oP
it
~
_
.
p ' ' ' ` t ` :. '.,
, Mr Morris then inquired~
whether;the Oom
i
ion ~~~r
,
m
ss
oould then.get the OCFCD to:give the~propert ~~
'~} '`owners letters that the area is'davelopable7 :
:, „ , , ` • • .
. ti,
' ,~
; ;,.
: Commisaioner
Rowland noted that•the Commisaion ]mew what they.did not want to do.- the
Co~ssio
~
id
lw
o ~,~~
n
d
not
ant t
blook anything that did not need:_to'-be:blooked by the Commission
, get'izs out of yaur;way
.
. - k`;`'E~~~',
,
;
,,
, , , ; , . , ~,
~
i,~ ~
Mr Morris then qou say the't a letter from our engineers would do no good.
' : F,;- "~
, Commissioner:Roaland stated he did not
want
~
~
a
t i7~y x~
~''
,
.v
,
gue sta
ements that ,, ive is in•trouble,
~ or that Big Bend, Oregon;is in trouble that wi11 not`hel
'the C
i
i
s' k~-~
~
~
p
omm
ss
on in it
determina
r`:rtion when ststistioal evidenoe'~has been;presented ~to the oontrary~. -, i
.
;,~
~; S~
~r ~Morris aoted that when he spoka tha~first
ti
he
:
me
thought the:0ommission-was trying to
~ make a deoieion'oa;the study.ares up above~Imperial bridge = but this was nob:the a
e
f
'
`
``
r
a o
th~ Plood
hazard
<the~flood hazard is downriver from tkie studq area.
' , , -
: : ''
.. ~~
'Cou~iasioner:Rowland observed.thst perhaps Mr.;Marris,was disoounting veloaities and lnt
l
"
o
' ~
era
.; ero
af
n altogether
.3n yotir statement. - -
°;
f~r. Morris nuted iri`the history oP the Senta Ana River had it ever flooded over the b
k
`
` ~ '
an
s
~above
the Imperial, bridge,
before it flooded d'ovvr-stream - from
:``always Ylooded doamstream: ~YY ~derstdnding it hes
F ~ ` T
~
Mr. Ttiompaon noted he oould
probably answer the empasae reaohed - one of the representatives
oY the OCFCD present at .the work seasion
ointed o
t'
th
t '
:
p
u
:;
a
between Imperiel Highway end
I{atells Avenue or the Santa Ana;~eewaq - beosuse.oP the prablems which theq hsd du
i
!
r
ng
the 1969 rains -..they were.oompletely,reworking that area in there to take additional waters
that
v
ouldn't b E,
~ ''
;
e
e oepable_._of being takeri.;east~of Smperial Highway,:to~Prado Dem - that mas i
~, my~understeading of;his statements - perhe,ps
the verbatim
transor
t
ill in
t ~°
.
.
ip
w
dioa
e this. ~".
Mr. Morris then inquired'whether bCFCD had.stated that it would be more hazardous th
i :
ru
tk
e oanyon.srea than below the oanyon area2 ~ ` ,
_ . .
,
Mr. Tkiompsom;noted.this ~vas the `statement mede b OCF'CD all:along. +
.
g:
- .
, i
:
'
~,
. _
.
_
w~ Chairmea- Herbst noted thst
it sppearad-that th
"
` ..
.
e
property owners, needed more time ,to
prepare i
evidenoe rePuttng the data'submitted by!the:U:S. Ar~qy Corpa of Pn
ineer
,
d ;:
`
g
s
an
the Commission ;
needed' Yurther time,- e,nd any, date; that the .property. 'ow~qrs aould Yurni
h the C
m
s '
s
om
is
ion '
> .would ,be a . great ~ help
•
_ ~,, ,
: Commi'a~'sioner:;Farano inquired ahether the property owners had the seme data available to them .
that tisd been
resent
d tb
h
a
u .
p
e
t
e.Pl
n
ing Commis§ion? The data Yrom the Corps, the OCFCD,
the.Diyision of Highwsys,:.the Road.Depertment -anyone who had s
bmitt
d dat
u
e
a to the Planuing
Co~ission7 °
,
.,
. _ . . ,. _...~
: ;~
_ ~'r~x^1
4y~
. - . _ ..
_ o ~~ ~ _ • . ,
'
~
.' . .
~ 1 '. •
~
, . ~ .
. ~~
,
.
. _
~..'
.
.
~
~EINUTES, CITY pLANN2NG C0~M2SSI0N, September 21;'1970 ~
~ -- ~ ~h
''*~
ti
5385
.
`
. ,
'- : ;
GENERAI+ PI+AN Mr Thompson edvised the Commission ;that he' doubted~ that ~they would heve all
~NDMENT
the d
t
Y
s
n
~ YF A
~
w~
, ,
a
a:
ur
i
hed the,Commission
, however;.this°informatiott oould be.made -
NO .122 °- aqailable to tliem, sirioe this_'was publio~information ,,
~~~~
'~~
(oontinued) , s : . .. ~,~
~
Commissioner Farano reguested`that"this inPormation all' that.the Co~ission
had presentnd to them
be
ad
a
ail
''
` ;~
~
,
m
e
v
able
to.the,
property owners representa- ~G~
tives, so that :avhen they prepare ttieir stetements,'`refutin
this~ d
t
„
h
r`~
g
a
a
t
ey
vrlll have all;oY it_before ttiem 'give'them.s.:fair shot"at,it:,` ~
~~
Mr.~;Thompson noted he did not'.think.the depsrtmant.'s:budget aould afPord to wake oopies of
the,:wealth.oP inform
tiott
h ''~'
a,
in t
e Piles Yor everyone aho,wanted it - perhaps for ona or two
who would be representing them;would;be possible - ~r
>
_: . ` ,
~
~
s
Commissioner Ferario~edvised Mr: Morris the information he-was~speaking of was sll tfie
,. ;.deta that`tiad been.given ttie Plennirig Co
issiori
' .
~r
~
:b~r ~he,
staff.,,the Corps, engineers, the
OCFQD, eto. sinoe he feTt that the property,ownerfi,should`be aware oP the infor
tio
h
th
~
~
~;
*~`
ms
n w
ioh
e;
Co
.. _ ..
ission constantly reYers to, and thie information':was neoessary berore the p
rie
t
' %
_ ow
roper
y
rs
.erigineer3 oould present their:arguments.
:
, , • . . ; , -
M
~Lib ;,
r~.,
~
r:
erio indioated he.had e;letter. dated~Septemb'er 16, 1970 from LAFCO whioh gives all
the'data asid reports Prom the difP
ent
n
er
engi
eers =.that inoludes one Prom the
of;'Engineers - several letters.that hed been'wri•tteri on other ~'mY Corps
properties by the Cor
s
'e
'
lie
a
`
'
p
a
r
r,
letteri dated ,September 18., .
whioki'more 'or less :aover.ed`. the aeme ground that
the first-letter;did:- both
avere from:LAF00
'
e
' '
.
;'
;but th
re.was one
.thing~'that he was sure the
, Gommi,esion'was not aWare of was.the'febt
th'st
th
r r~
.
.
e p
operty owners went bePore the Board o3
~Supervisors a qear and one-hslY,ago; and.Mr. Be,icer'who gave the reoommendation, Por denisl
of-;the enriexatioa to the
Cit
oY A
hei
' :E=.
v
~
,
y:.
na
m - at whioH
time Mr. Baker indioated that the srea
would be retained as open s
eoe
d pr
h '~
p
an
esarve.~
e green areas of this erea - seoondly, and
he.~was ~sur'e the Minutes of thst meeting were;`available - iP the .pro
ert
oiv
rs
a
e '~'
~
p
y
ne
w
nt
d to
,get their property rezoned in the Couttty theywould be,more.than glad'to let them develop
it,'but tliey did not want the property owne
s t
dev ~
~
~,~~
~
r
o
elop in the Citq of Anaheim at this
time: However, reoently;a letter Was reaeived, and.the borders.have been oh
d,
- I ~~
ange
and now
theq. aill let us come into .the:City; of'Anaheim -: this will oootiir: at a meeting:bePore L•AF'CO'
on Wednesday
Septembe
23
1970
i
' ' y''
,
r
,
. ,Th
s is §ome oY
.the baokground~whioh he.vranted`to bring
~ out = tHe'Board oY Superyisors,indioated.that -. as fie had':indioated bef ; "-
~'
~
ore - by thair
aotions that they were ettempting to;hold the property owners beok ~ust to keep the value
do~i; so they'oould purohase these
ro
ti
s :
;
i,:,~
p
per
e
,for e perk: However, he had not indioe,ted
at any time. that the Plesuiing,Commission or the City of Anaheim had bee
d
in
'
h ~ i
n
o
g
t
is - but
the:pxoperty owners were_in the`oenter, of a political thing - and this Was all that he
could ~eel;
personslly - a
nd this a
el
~~
.
,
as.
so the Peeling oP the other propertq owners, and
- this`was:elso the reason Por'these reoommendations`from the verious governmentsl b
di
f
o
'
o
es on
l
od oontrol that these properties were undesirable'for resident3.el uses - there are reasons
Por being alarmed- there have been flood
i
- ~
s
n the area
there are many more people in the
area - but he still went'baok to the same story = why wasn't the dam and, the ahannals de~ign-~;
ed right in the first ple
s
ti
l
oe - p
r
ou
arly now with the ohannels and bridgea under oonstrua-
tioz - not what Was built five qeare ago - and still theq say these ohannels and b
idg
r
es
are inadequate. However, if the property owriers oould not develop it Por reaidential, they !
wanted to lmow what the properties oould be develo
ed a
H
l
p
s.
e a
so u~ished to reiterate that ~
the:property owners he represented wera not ageinst the'park - ss Mrs, Riohards stated -
the property owners have indicated iP the C
t
oun
y wanted to purohase the property for the
park - buq it but don t eapeat the.pr.operty owners to be delsged Por years until the propertq`
has-to be'~given up beoause of the high teates -
~:
~
assessed thesa - aBrioultural uses don t pay the taxes being
people - there is no msy ia the aorld that one oould get the mone
out
Y
hi
y
o
t
s propertq Yrom egriaulturaT purposes Yor teses alone - 1et alone mhati other expenses ;
~oocur - ther6 .is no way in the world to h
ld
h
s
' : '
o
t
i
proper
t~. I,est yeer the'texes on his
property mas $10,000 - my:return Prom tha oran es vrs~ .SL6pp _ this is
hat th
g
w
e
property
owners are up against -,now we have to present some more reports - we won't be able to
get any other reports than me have hsd Yor the past gear-e~nd one
h
lf =
-
a
the Corps indinated
the next data ~vill not be available until`1971, ar.d the property owners can't wait that long '
If he found it eoonomiball
feasibl
he'wo
,
y
e,:
uld not mind putting s golf oourse out there -
something that would not have many people on it - but ae.have to do somethin
i
g w
th the
property, beoause there'is no way in the world to hold on to it.
-~Co~issioner Gauer noted that he as a Commis3ima-did not lrnow how one oould proteot a
ainst
a
g
ea
at of God.- in the Middleaest,where they are,faoed eaoh summer mith ayalones should they !
stop_building houses beoause the area i
ith
s w
in the ogalone aree - the Mississippi has !
levees msny.areas are below the'river;- are they prevettted from building houses alangside ~
the Mississi
i? Hi
P
pp
s
eeling was = me,ybe there will be ~. Ylood - but how oan he say there
is going to be;e flood in 2080 - when he was no longer e,liue - but personally he would l
t
the
e
property oxners build on their land.
- - . t:_._ _~
~ . ~ , -
; , ,.
:
_
: ~
, ~
.
,
';
;
, ..
~ .: .: ~
,
- ~
..
_ .
~
. ..: , .. .
;
>
,
;
-
~
.
,.
~ ..
.~
.
;;..>..
~ MINU7'~S CITY PLANNING CONQdISSION, Septemb'e'r, 21, 1970
5386
~`
4 1
' . . . ~. - , . .' , J . ... ~ ~- . ~.., ~-
f r GENERAL PLAN Mr~~ Liberio advised the C
m
is
t
e j~
~~
o
m
sion
hat th
property owners that he
A6~ND6~NT: represented hed,`started zoning eation with-'the Orange County'Planning '
k~:~-~
NO 122i ~ Qommissionjin May; 1970, and~it took~ them three' months;;just to';get on;;
the
e
a
t
~ ~
~
ir ag
nd
with all
he deTeys pTaoed in:front:;oP t~em~stating~thst;~,
'~ ' they were
waitin
fo
re
t
~
th
' ~,
y
±
63
r:
por
s
from,
e Corps of: Engineer
s and 'the OCF'CD,
~; - howev
h
't
h
e ~k
er
, w
ese r
en
ports oeme baok,~t'ey,were`the seme as'had been-'.
~ l
`
t
: s ,
~
a
s
year_ t
. ~ ;;
. ;
K Commissiorier Geuer noted that the Buoaola traat out_in the oanyon area~~was 20:Yeet below
` ~
c the,~river; _bed ;,and he viould
n't buy s; ~house .in that~ area ~= however, . the `peogZe had purohased
` ~
- th
eir homes ]a~oaing ttiat the river was alose:by,,thereYore, if. they Warited.tosliva there; '
that was their privilege. however ,; Yie was~ not ~ goirig
t
tr
to
suli
nt a
G
:
~
,
o.
y
,
ve
ni.e,ct of,
od
DAr ':~Liberio advised Commissioner Farana that,theq hed reoeived all the
re~ports'~sinoe theq
~ ~i~~,~
,
were all the same; old?report§ that had teen.`submitted
:to them a year.and.on-hslf'ago,
hoWever it;might:be.possible that he.did not'!heve
~the letest ~riPormati
bmtt
d .~,~
~~'
.
bn su
te
to ~he
Commission': but he sti•11 felt-:tha~ nothing had been done 'after a11 ~this time. `~
~: ' ; - ,; . ~ ~;
Comm~ssioner Farano noted that`the Commi.ssion would'have to deoide whether tu allow develo '`~
p-
ment in th'e aenyon or not, even iY the Commission did'feel-that ~there should be
some d6vel- '~'~~
,
opment, tliere was;: still •.the problem of how °miiah'density whioh had to lie aonsidered. Therefrce, ,;;
in ;the preparation oP, the reports by,~Sr Liberio
and the other' pro
ty
o
ers
`'
.
per
,
wn
; th3s sl~oulal
be a oonsi;deration oP their repor.ts,:and he would advi§e them not to~overlook:;that aspeox ~"
``~
,
beoause ottce the Commission resolved the flood problem -,the Ptrst hurdZe -~here was s~,i17 ~
~
`
.
.
another hurdle
. _
' <
~
~
~
, .. ., ,
;
- .~
_ ` ; ' ?~M
Mr ~Liberio then §teted,that at this point the proper.ty owners would ,aooept slmost anytb3ng - L^
'
e~en having dog kennels '.there'.
. ;.
.
-' -- y,~
, ;
,r ,
,
~~,~
Commissioner Farario .advised Mr ~ Liberio ttiet : it aras not the intent~ of th.e Planning Co~nission{ ,;;,~
to foroe the
ro
ert
t
:
p
p
y owners
o
aoaept anything, but their~:body was trqing to determine tlSe
best wsy to develop the-properties in-ttie oanyon ~~~
'
,
ry . ;,
Mr ,Liberio noted' thai~ he had b'een in "the real estate businesa .in' Anaheim• and Orange Count
~ ~
~ Xn~~
`~~
y
for the past ~iPteen years - he hsd not beenrin the County 50.years'es some oY~the property ':
e
'
'
'
' ,~
~ nFx~
own
rs pre
sent fiad
, but
he had been buqing srid selling
properties, as we],1 as daveloping
pe
t
h z~~"
pro
r
ies,~and
e owned,oonsiderable property in Anaheim. TherePore, with his vast :
" ~~
experienoe; he
did not purohase'any pieoe'of property witfiout at'least obtaining an engin-
i ~ s:
ser.
ng report, soil tests.; and this was done°%on this'partiaular paroel he owned in the
'`
' ,,~
oanyon
ell the
,reports`.reoeived Were`very 3avoreble. The engineers that he had hired.
had,oonsuited with .the City of `Anaheim
to determine iP there wa
a
' 'y~
:
s any h
zard
out there; and
iY".they oould build out,there - this is. what;paid an engineer to do - and on that streng;;h ~
of the en ineerin re ort he had
B B p gurohased'the property. ,!The Commiasion.oould eppreniate
~
~ L~
`t °
his
feelings, after Holdirig the property 2-3 qears`- psqing a oonsiderable emount of u
'~
interest snd taices - but he did not feel that he would be fsoed with a:possible flood risk
~ ~~
,
until
prooedures were started to be annexed to the City of Anaheim and obtain zoning. ~ a~;,
Commissioner Rowland advised Mr. E~orris that his question to the Commission whether it would;
do any good iP he'obtained letters from engineers - and his rather abrupt answer of "no° ,,
, was not guite true, what he had hoped to infer was;that the letters would not be enough -' j `~
the letters should obviously be supported by data.-.:not an_eduaated opinion,:but teahniosl ~
~
~
' t
data -
and~
.then'inquired"whether Mr.-Mo:ris_understood it'that.way7 . ~
: , •: 'm
~
Mr.,~Lorris noted that he had•not understood it that way, but it was slso his intent to sub- +
'
mit substantiating data from the engineers slang with the letters supporting the property i
v
''
' ~'
o
vners
position.
Therefore; if the bo~ission:would aooept,that data, perhaps the .
property ovmers, the engineers,.and he`oould,ge~ something done. ' ~
. Mr.,,Kraemer'then noted t,hat he.disliked to belabor sometfiing, but aTier-13stening to:~the ~
eT y ~
oonv
SStion arid.it wae the seme that he had heard.for the ast 1 !
p } qesrs - the area ~
~
under oonsideration was'a very nuval ares -'it was unique - therefore, it aould see~ that ;
,
if eaoh psrcel were considered '- those-.properties whioh would eatend toward the Riverside ~
County line~~ as:esah pr.ope~ty 'owner submitted their tentative traots or: plans of develop-
~
ment; then-the
Plannibg Commission with or without.the,oooperation of the U. S. Corps oY
~
Pngineers or
the OCFCD,-the property owners;with their private engineers and the City of
, Anaheim staPY oould get•together - why:oouldn!t a11 tYsse problems be handled:at thst time? ;
This_erea.aes not,so large and
horrendous tha~ it wo
ld b
s
`
.
u
e neces
ary to
adopt an amendment ;
to, the General Plan . ' ,,, _
Commissioner Allred,inquired whether. Mr. Kraemer would not prefer to have-something to go
~
by,es to what the Citq Yelt -;no_dsnsity -.some.density - multiple'Pamily houeing - or ~
' ~
everi industrial. ;;
~
r';
, ~ ~„
_~
e d~'a:.~,'?" ~' a-t. '°'~'wh' ~t ~ ~:.r -~'r Slk p~, ~r~e...'4. n ~ .+r ~i '~"f z~S `~Gr'~..^ ' -'t ~. ,-..`.` H' ~w e ~y~ ' f . ~y ~'
~: x`
~, ~'F~`'` 5 . n?4~ '~ f.~--'.i'^°^-. ~ ~ ~ !a~, ~ ~ 'k, r~i9'~ ::'. ~ ~ .,~~'~~i 7 /' ,3`f' r t~ . .~ .. y L'~..Cf~. . '~r -.f 1 ~;~ v - _ ~ a . . ;;
!~ r 7 ti
~ +' ' :~:~, ~_ .~~ - ~,~, i ~- a ~~:.y .~ } ~,~~'!
..~X X.~,~°[,I
~,
, ... :.~'~.
~hl i . ~ iE~ ~
:.
~ t . .•:~. . ... ~ . ~ ' +a,~ J
('
i s-i MLNf1TL'$ C~ ~ ~ -' ~ ;
•
~ P~ C~SSION, September 21, 1970 ,?,~
~
.
.;
;: , ...,._.. -- , . 5387
,. _ ~. ~> _: ,
, : . ._. ~~ ~;
; ~ , ._.::_.. ,_ -. ,
-~' z GENERAL r ._ • ' ks '~.
' P~ ~'' Kraemer noted basioally that would be ,aorreot` in the everage situation, ;` f ~,;
~D~~, zoning, general_planning, he?would a ee 100 ~
~ ` N~` :,isola~ed±unique,situation suah•as this, he'thoughttithwas9audifferent 'problem
(oon'Einuad) ~ '"'~
~ '
~-~, ,For ezemple, there is"a struoture now at Imperial B idge`which is some.whst
'~ ~le$$~than the design Yaoility'that was under disoussion - `
~ r: it_'• "` , ' _ p ' what. tf this',were ~ :~,~~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.movAd 5to;:an area, (indicates:on .the:ma ) farther east, Whet dipference;:ivould ``
f make es to the looation of this Peaility - all that was done vras move .~ :;
~: the problem Parther ea'srt, then`he.aould;d~velop his, ro ert
" ,., ` ` ' _
^*, Was the logioel way to;approaoh the:§ituation. P P. y•- This, to h3m ,~5
' Commissioner Farano noted there~~were two reasons why,he would not go along with that e f. ~
"~' First, sinoe this has beoome suoh a" ~~ ~
y - God-awful thi PPraaoh r;
property owners right:now, the Commis s i o n~ h a s a n o bli g a t io~o ~ettle onoenand for 8e1T t8 eh ' ~
p r o b l e m i" t l i ke;you heerrsomeone say,'it oPtett enough "t}~at's a^bad au~omobile" and'the
man:who buys will have to rebuild the.whole..:thing.'_ then people mill beoame suspiaious'
they.'.vr111.stand off . that may.be the
It is some kind of a'~boo „ Position this property in the canyon is in ri h~
gyman ..Therefore, in fairness to the;property oa~ners, the' ~~p ~~
Commission.should`~make a'determination in their own minds - right'ar wrong - whether or not
- development shouTd be allowed 'in the aanyon = so t these
~ "boogyman~~ hangiag:over,their properties: IY they aen' to.sellPittto~ omeone~elsehBViP~theq' `,
~, get. e potential buyer, they will not~be whittled.doum in;._,. ry+
oloud that is hanging-over them - that~is the first.reeson. ~priae by virtue of this omiaous. ~j
second reason is, he wanted:
to lrnow as:far as'-the entire'oanyon'is`roonoerned, bec~,use in e;nsw '
Corps of Engineers;~they indiaated.that it wa§ alto ether tO his_question•to-the ~ `:1
the aenyon ~arould be oonsidered,'safe arhile otkiers would notp~Saiidliptth8tcertain areas: of. '..
to ]rnow thet;~ and''the , p y the aese we~ aent' ~~~"'
handing out~~on a~ pro ert a~vners.there are.also entitled to know this. ):;~?`v
pieoemeal ba"sis - the advantage would for the msn who happenede4idea oP •
first and happened`• ;to b~eoome luo' get here ~ fs~~
tion = kY - or:be here at the right time or with the right forms- ,
this might be'OK, but.someone.might get their proverbial~~piow cleened".
in fairness to everqbody he would Theref ; ~`"
., prefer to see a decision on whet oan be done. '~ .,~: 't
Mi'• Kraemer.noted that he.did reoell at the work session that Col: Bleok said that there ~ ~J
svere:three alternatives first, make Prado ~
, way;--and -lastly, aTternates oY~~both "'But,' Co~l'.m' B18okrststedhtlieylhad `ahe: channel ell ;the ", '. . ~
preference•- the .a
Corps:..of Engineers~~would,prefer „ sinae their budgets, aosts, snd estimates were suoh thst ,~~
the.river would be.ohanneTed~and lined to Imperial - east of Imperisl it would.be o en s `
Perhaps he~wes quoting out of.oontezt - but wes this a logiual B P P~°e• ~ ~
reason for,his suggestion~th8t He ~vould oome`to Anaheim and..stateptha~khtheyhwouldsdevelo ,~
and"do.their share;by,,moving the;:ahannel.Pur.ther ea§t tfl the same speoifioations that'is no~ '"
proposed to the West .the`problem hes not been changed.
, .
' ~- .: .. .~ . . . ~ . " _ :S
Commissioner'Farsna noted he did not get'the signifioanoe - that he knew ahat the Colonel
said, and he;,thought he had understood the sigaifiodnce of what he ivas~sa in ,
Krnemer 3ust=.brought this;up,•now`I'have,a~question in 3' B. until 1(r: ~
transoript oder, ~en`a, if ,there. ~is a question '.then l1r, I{r~mernshouldrposeethisito thedCo ps • ;
or to your own engineers arid lat them determine ahether'that is a logioel solution. ~
1dc'• I{raemer noted t~hst he had brought tHis.~oint up for one reasos only and he did not
intencl,to belabor~ but it might.be_morthwhile at the nezt studq'session or ~hen the
F property ovne'rs doroome before,the Commi.ssion to oonsider this as ~ elternate, enah ,
being oonsidered on its own~ paroel ~"
merits if he oould haadle the problem on his'ovn partioular ~ t
property whether north or south'and ~uatiPi•ably prove that he hnd, why should he ~<.";bi
! time be obligated to-zoning;restri`otions~Yor the entire area? 9 '
i -0o~issioner Far~o then noted thet this pould be .~~`'~
you would 'be solvit the ~~ ~ prodided that qou oould eatablish that,~ '
nB n, prob~.bm es to y,our`property, and enhencing.or inoreasing,the. . ~ '~
value ,oP some'one else's ~~roperty , ~ ., ^,Y
; ' t y . .. i
. . ~ i ~ ~~,.;rti ~:.'.: > . : ,
MY' Kraemer noted thst it wss a point of~disoussion, but it'was worth givirig it some
consideration:'; ~ ` ~ ~
i
Mr Yorba noted Por the Commission;~on the~ • : ; ~ ~
M-1 Zoning he was:on the;Boerd of .~Ehe Yo baperty.on whioh the City had ,~ust granted ~ ~
from,Holidaq Rsnoh east of:Atwood,•,to Imper,ial,~ he~Co~ Company _ t~ng in ths area ~ ~
aoross Orangethorpe AvAnue ;and iai:his.d"ay-he`took:onre~of a number~of ~oVes~inethat ' i ;
entire„oz~es ,;nezt to Pier 31 or ~hstever the;~build is oalled = ~ g
of that property whioli runs ~'sloag th~ river, ttiey oc 'u1~, 'd` not run the vatersofP~~ en~thly ~" •' i ;
finished-irrigating n;theirwetandpip~e ~,~;~ 1p-12 feet~high along~the trnok - but they ~ -'•'~
oould not ruu;,the water vdste wst~r, iiito~the'river."because"the river wns too high~
' That is an ezample of;some o'frthe.engitteering Work of •ti:e OCFCD -'the ' '' ~
dyked the dyke~';prevent ~' ~ ~ Y en$iaeared nnd ' ':
inB thbm irom•'runai their waste' ~ter into .$h'e ~river-they:.hsd ,~ 1 ~
to run it along'the edge of ~he ohanuel =1a+er.'oa phen:irrigation sas oontinued.ihrther '
d~vv~'t = the vster had to be run d"oni slmost`: to Taylor Street near Atwood along the edge ~,
~
.
,......
. - ..:
. ,.
. ,
.
,. _: ,
. _ ..
, . . . ., , _
. . ~ .
. .
.._ _ . `~~
~
: •.. . , ' ;_, , .: ,..; '
r::::
~' " 4 ~
.,..,, .._.,~ _,.__ . __ ?~: .. .,. ., . _ ..
~ ~ i
;'~
MINUTES:, CITY~PI,ANNING Cd~dISSION,~September.21, 1970.: '1YF:
~aE
'
5388
.,
. .. ' - . ., _. ..~ .;~
~ rf
. ` . {
GyNERAL:,PLAN - of the river. That entire portion from the traak~down - the 10-foot stand
..:
AMEAD~1T . by the:railroad traak would not darry the wate
i
'
~~~~
`_w~
r,
nto.
.the river - and this'.
~: N0.:122 ro ert has, _
P P, Y :~ust reaently been spproved for M'Zoning,
(oontinued) • ,. , : ;. -:.
~~'~
~ r"~~
: ~ . .;. : . ,
1Commissioner•Gauer noted the Corps,of~Engineers stated that~thing.that oould
,`go~i:nto that area wss industriaT
;d
l
m . Y~~,a
.~~
eve
op
ent, beaause"'the_.people are'.not=there
exaept,to work and would not be~asleep;as people im`homes'~might tie: f
~r
•~r. Yorba then;noted'that residential uses were a ~ ` '
Avenue ' ~ pprov.ed on the north side oP Orangethorpe
,,.and they would be in 'th
a ~~`
,
e s
me predioament, sinoe the•land was praotioslly,level.from
the railroad traaks' to the river.,'end water".oould not;be drained
Yf
i ,:,
o
:.aPter;.irr
gation due
to tha lieight,of tHe`levees of the_river = however, that situation did not exist
an
o
in th
=
:
+~
o
y
,
a
e,.
the:water oould.:be,run-into the river.
~
~
. ..
:. :. -
.
,
Mr Thompson aommented that the Orange County Planni '
ng,Commission had a number.of,.aases `
for propertq looated-out in
the
Sa
t
A
'
~ ~5,
sr r
,~~
.
.
n
a
na
canyon, where=they
are"oonoerned`about;Anaheim's
position in relation to density - this-was aotually the thing'that`initia
ed
'
~~'
'
'~
t
this.
pe;rtioular
studq tiAlso,ma;ny of-the people pr,esent who areranxious to davelop.may have a,problem when
they go:to deyelop - espeaiall
fro
Pin ,
'~
y.
m e
ancing,standpoint if:'this cloud is.s~ill there,
beosuse.he doubted, based on'some of the Corps;of Engineers re
t
' ~;;
por
s,
aome of,them might Pind
finanaing difYioult to.aome;by. therefore; he felt this is~ue should be:.olarified:as to :
whether or not"the
o a~
~
y o
uld,,oan or:oannot'develop..- lie,thought another oonsideration - many
oY thsse:;people:are'paying in the vioinity~of
$30
l
~ ^''~
..
0 p
us per eare a y,ear in taxes. If it
turns out that.,.they.oannot`develop`their proper.ty, he would hs,te:to.'see these propertq:owners
stuok with thi"s
type of a
°o
`~
,
ssessment:-for a
onsiderable period of time, beaause if yr,u-do own
30.4G ~O;aares;~that is a oonsiderable amount o?'oash to aome:up with eaoh
yeer, tkierefore
the Commission
should move ah
d
s
s ~~
~+
.
_
,
.
ea
a
soan a
,possible, espeoially in regard to the density: '
Mi' Danker has a paroel.of lend on td~e south side of the oanyon near`Mohl
r D
h
' .
,~
~:.~'~
`
`
e
W
iah he
rive.- 30 eores
is proposing.for a`mobile;home park 't~e Oraiige County planning Commi.ssion oontin-
ued this:
request until 0atoli
14
` ;•
;~
_
er
,;;1970. The SO aures
to the west of the:Danker propert
~r.• Mokeson of-,the Or.arige Countq Plannin
;De
i~t ~'~~
g
pe,
ment informed him that another applioation
was Piled far a;mobile`home park and was.soheduled for publio'hearing'in the very
'future The
near
o
t
'w .; v~
`~
,
~pr
per.
y
hioh Mr. Morris is,interested in is the.Nemsome-Hollowell.property
oovering about:25 aares; and,the Kraemer-Liberio p
t i: ~
~~
roper
ies on the north side of the,r3ver -
=they,too; are anxious;ito get some ariswers.- In all good oonsoien
c ~3'~
'
ae, before the City aen make
a:reaommendation to the Countq regarding.the'density = the Commission will.have to resolve
some of.these:..questions, and the:Commission may-wish to
hold
u "~
~~
,
a p
blic heering in the not ;
too distant future, beoause`the'.County is going to meke e deaision - he thought - on the
Dsnker property in one or anoth ;e .,
4
~
er os Ootober 14;.1970. ,~ ~
j
Gommissioner Farano 'inquired of Mr. Thompson ahat the 1-2-3 steps were sinoe he had henrd .
ell t2-e testimony given and the Commi
' ,
' '
ssion
s statements - me can't delay it - there were
too a~.ny deoisions r:~waiting the City of Alte~heim's density studq = wgs it best t
h
li
v ;
'
o
pub
a
e another
c hearing et whioh time a representative of the Corps oP Engineers would b
n ~
a
e present to
swer questions - evgineers--epresenting the property owners will pres.ant their data _
Mr• Hinshaw the Count;v Assessor should be
i`'
present to answer questions - oan that be done? ~
Edr,: T1-ompson noted that he did not have the answers - that he was trying to define the
problem - but this issue had gone on Y
r ~' r
'
'
o
quite some
period o£ time,,and he lrnew the County
as well,as the City of Anaheim-will be getting inareasing pressure
"
n
e
s .
i: ;
~'
,
a
d th
i
sue Would have
to be resolved.,- therefore,-if it Would take anothar publia hearing, maybe another hearing
should be soheduled - ex
es
l
pr
s
y invite Mr. Hinshaw, the Corps of Engineer§, the OCFCD, or
whoeyer it takes, beoause it is a verq knotty problem - it means a great deal to the
owner: i
ro
th
t
u ~
p
per
n
y
e a
dienoe, and subsequently the people who might purahase homes in this area-
or`devslopers.
F
Commiasioner Farano otfered a motion.to aontinue aonsideration oP Gen~ral P1an Amendrnent #122
to the meeting of Ootober 5, 1970, to allow time for interested
ro
e
t
' ~
~
p
p
r
y owners to prepare
documentation.to substantiate their alaims; that the Corps o4 Engineers representatives
County.Assessor Hi
sh
w
,
n
a
, the Orange County F1ood Control Distriot representatives, s member
of the Board of Supervisors - the ohairman.
~`: .
Disoussion was.then held on whether the meeting should be soheduled for 0oiober 5, 1970 as an
..evenin,g meeting, in order to ~allow time for all the
erso
whi
p
ns
ah the Commission was
desirous o~ having present - keeping the item an eaah agenda ;uitil the problem had besn
'resolvec,.
At the aonclusion of the disaussion Commissioner Farano amended his motion by stating it
should be scheduled as the
nl
i
o
y
tem on the euening agende, of Ootober 5, 1970 - and his
reason ior proposing an evening meeting was the faot that he would be unable to attend an
aYternoon s
s
i
`
e
s
on, but he oould make the evening meeting - and he did not want to miss the
meeting. Commissioner Seymour seaonded the moti ' 1
`l
on. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ..
~
~