The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/10/05~ ~ ~ . ~ ; , _ : City:Hall.. , Anaheim, California '' Oatober 5, 1970 ~ A.AEGUI,AR ~E'PING . OF. THE ANAf~IM . CITY PLANNING 'GOI~ISSION ' ~ , ~ REGULAR:MEET~,-`A-regular meeting`of tHe Anaheim City~Planning Commission aas oalled to ' '. order;b Cheirman,Hertast at 2:00 o'alnok ~ 9 , ' ` , P.E~.; a quorum being present.' PREEENT , ` - CHAIA~LAN ; . Herbst. > ~ :. - .. , ~ . ; . - CONIDdISSIONERS: Allred, Farano,:G'~duer,.Kaywood, Rowland,~Seymour: ;: ABSENT . . ~ ' - C0~4ISSTONERS: ~None. • :PRESENT `_ . ?- Assistant Developmen~ Serviues Director: Ronald Thompson - , ..: Assistant Oity:Attorneq: John_Llawson Offioe Engineer: Jay"titus . Zoning Supervisor: ° Cherles.Roberts 9ssistant Zoning Supervisor ~alaolm Slaughter ~~`~.~' ~~`~P~an~n7;~in Commission Searetary:, ~ _ ,~~ *~ `'sb ~°?~~~ ~ J~"`~~Sg t c1 ',~'~ ' 9nr- Krebs . . . . . , . . x~' ~. .~$ ,, ~...~.~J^, ir ~. ~~ yt~'"` A~€.: ~CrE{~'t~"OF' ' ~ , ~ ^ _ ~ r;~[2p~i` '~.~~+~it T ."~ n ~ ` ' '' ~~I9NCB~~~,.w Commissioner`Allred ledl,~in the Pledge.of Allegianne to the Flag. ~ r yy . G ~F, ''tir~yfrx-3 a c~ i ~ , . : . `~y+~a~~~e'f ~.+1' my v~j-'~~Ri~~F" r~ 's` x E~ : .. :. % . ~ ., t Si PROVAI~ OF~r~~'.,~~Minutes of -the~meeting of, September 10; 1970 were ~.approved on:motiori by., ~ ,~ ~~~~aMINU27S~~,~,~~ Comm3ssiorierrSeymour, seuonded liq Commissioner Howland, and MOTION OARAIED, t~` ti ~~"q~,, ~~ , ~Y~~ , , witfl~'the~following oorreation ,-; < , ,,~ • sv ~Y v~ ,, + 2r7~vx ~'~' y? '~ i~f.:- . . : '.. ; ~ '!~`" ~ ~s ~!s~ A 7'e,~~s ~~ 7F.T ~~`S'`~k~4~ u' 1 . ~. ~ ~~, „~'~rr.ra ~~.~~Paga 5 27, paragraph 9, lina 1, Co~issioner:Kaywood .` ~ arloption. ' I i ,~~.~-~'~k`~,~'q~;~~e'~"~'~,'~;~-~:p y~~~~". ~''r T 4~~ `, ' B PProved .on: motYon: li # ~, }~~~ ~~ ~~r,~r~.'~'it~Minutes~of~the ~September' 21, 1970 meetin were a y : ,`~ ~+ ti t„s,,~x~~~`r~,~~~'.r~yrCo~issioner;Seymour, rseaonded tiq Commissioner Rowland, and ~dOTION CAP.RIED, R. ; N~ ~~~ a~'s`,~,~~'y with~the~'following oorreations ~ • ~ ~~: ~~~n i.~ ~tg'~~.,~~,+ ~~~'y S ~ YF ar 4~ S : .~` . . ;. . ' ., . `'~K.. f . ~xf ,~ s't,f~ ~ . ~..~ ^5~`.:v'~, ~~•{.'r~`' r,~ '' b . ~ ..- : _ : .. - . ~ ~ ~ ~+~ -,g~~ ~~~~ v`••'pag~~` 5,358 '~` ara a h 5 line 2 Assistsnt Cit Attorne John Dawson {j ~Y~~~~.Y~~ ~~'`.~~~~Pag y5377}'~ ~aragraph 9, line 5 beaause these people = the Corps or ,OCFCD '~ ~"'~•r , ~ ay! #~~n~ ~s p t.~r3~,,;,. ~ , ~.:~,' ~~~1'~i~ex~~~~ "'''s~,~ y~ ~ '' did not make th;e deaision ::.:: ~~ n., c , , ,~ +~ ~ : ~;~ page ,5387.,,, paragrapli 8 , line 2 `'Conseruation ~League , . the ~ Eokbo , Dean, ' ' : ~ ; ~~ &r,`4 ~v '~ ~ ;' .: ;; :. Austin. YVilli.ams Landsbage Ar:ohiteots study. . • ~ -,. ~7~a ~,S Page`?5382, psragraphs 5 and 6,add in~paranthesis '(Co~issioner Farano'did: ~.,~ ~ ~~ ` {...,s. ~_.` ..~1 L; _..: ... - p ~~ . ..~ I ' - ~:: ... ; . not attend tkie~3oint'meeting.'of.the,Orange` €' '. V ~,. . . ., . , ~.. ~.~z. .. ~ ~~„ 54~~'-~ ~~~`'~ ' Gounty=Anaheim Planning Co~issi ons, at the' ~, -~ '~^` ' Grand Hotel at ahioh Mr. Collier :reported " ',;~; t ~ ' tfie~findings.of the 'Iandsoe~e.arcniteats' '-~ ~ u , study.) ~ ,~; ` paragraph 10;. line ~=~.to her ohin . `~~~ - ,i LXeyE . ~ .. ~.: '~:- _~~:. , ~ .. " .. '. .. . . . • . ' .. ~ . r ; ~ r; j COIJDITIONAL iJSE;: CONTINUED PUBLIC F~ARING. HAIA INVESTbL~;NTS, 3415 YPest Ball Road, Anaheim, 4 < ~ PEAMIT~'N0 1179: Qa].iPornie; Owner;;.~ARVIN GUNNU~'SOH,"21804 Belshire Street, Hawaiian ty ~ , _ . .. '~ -~ ~ 7 x ` Garflens, Califoriiis,~Agent;:requesting:permission;,to~PEAMIT:CATEGORY "L" ~ ~ ~~:~ '~~ = i `(LIGHT MEN'P6L) PAT~NTS IN AN EXISTING COINALESCENT HOSPITAL on property ~ d`escribed,as A reotangularly sheped.paroel o° land having a,frontaE,e of appr.ozimately >27~OF ~3eet on`~ the''north~:`side of,; Ball Road, tiaving e. maximum depth of approaimetely 343 feet , being lo'cated~'appTOximately 455~feet east of the beaterline of Knott Street,'end Yurther ~ desoribed as 3415 P"iest Ball Road. Property presently olassified A-A, AGRICULTURAL; ZONE. ~ ,, ,, , , ., Sub~eot petition was oont;nued from the~June.2; 1970 meating to allow time to reoeive a repor`t i from the Comprehensive Health Planning Assooiation of,Orange County: Assiistant Zon3ng Supervisor Maloolm'Slaughter reviewed the loaation of sub3eat:property, uses est•e,blished in alose proaimity, the proposel to establish-approaimately one-half of the exist- ing:faoility for Category "L" (Light Mental) patients,and.the reason why sub3eat petition hed ; been oontinued. `Mr. Slaughter further.noted that a oo~unioation had been re~oeived Prom the Orange County Comprehensive Health Planning Assooiation whioh indioated epproval of the petitioner's request for only 80 beds preoluding havin~ any more beds assigned Por Category °L" patients, ~ and that in view oP the determination by ths pub~ic agency oharged with tha responsibility that there was a need for this type of"^~ervioe in this Reneral area, the only.remainir,g I question to be ansaered by the Plann3.ng Commission was a~hether or not this type of patient should be permi.tted in this projeat; partiaularly in view of the faot that Category "L" i aovers not only senile persons but mentally disturbed persons as well. - _5390- I I: ~ . . .. . . . . . .. .. ~ . . . I . . . ~ ~ . .. . . . . ' . : ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ _ ____ . ._ .. ._.~~ : ~.,,« ~-:~~ - , .. , ...:., - _ .. . __.. ;;; , . ,,..... ,,.. , , ~ ~~ ~ ,~ MINUTES,.dITY'PLANNING CO~ISSION, Ootober;5, ~970 5391.' ~ :'.` '. (Petitioner: was not;'present and~;the pet,~Ltion:wss oontinued to later ~on: ) CONDITIdNAL USE .= Mr Jsimie Deutsoh,° lessee=operator,of,:the oonvalesaent.hosp'itsl;.-appeared ; PEAMIT N0:'-1179 before the:Commission and'~noted'.that the proposed patients'.,would be mentally i ;:, (oontinued). reterded persons and orippled ctiildreri_wHo elso had'mental`problems.. ' : ~-r '. ~ : : .. , s . : i ~ Chairmen Herbst noted that the',Orange'Cot+nty;Comprohensiye Health Planning Assooiation hed ~~ . approved the eaisting'Yaaility,Por.80:beds`and inqiiired whether or riot;this aovered itHe needs e . . Porythe City~of~Anaheim`;• and .would;approval':for onlq 80.beds preolude anq.~more beds sssigned -%~' Yor,~ this ;:type oY::_.patient L Mr ;Deutsph replied thst there,was ~:need Yur 141 .ieds in'Anaheim, however; they had ssked. ''~ , for`~only 80 beds ; :' t, • . : , . ~ Co~issioner GaueT inquired whether or not~~these patients.would.be.separated~.from the other ~ aonyelesaent patients e,iid~would there'.be 'sepe~rate`..:nurses~for:these,,patients.i , '.ti Mr.'Deutsoh roplied that the two types oP petients would be~separated,.however, all.wings ` would be seryioed from _a:rsrtral nu.~ses'station; and that eaoh.>group would have separate - ~; ., . ,, reoreatiori'fac+ilities. : y Commissioiier Gauer noted'that tlie Buena Vista Convalesdent Hospital had separate nurses and ., , _ ,. separa~e a~ s fo h ; ea r eao ;;:patient.type,•: " ~ Mr : tDeutsohj replied that their facilities weTe diYYerent ;than other faoilities` in CaliPornia a S; ~beo use there w~s~e six.separate wings>having:`approximateTy 25 patients-beds with the' es ., nurs ~,~2'station at7the hub of the°wings, and that tkie nurses oould see_eaoh wing from.,this nentral ' ` ~ ,stat'on : .;. . ~ :, ; ~ ~ ~~ c. °~ _ jl 't ) ~, , .:~ ~ ~ ~ .. .~ ,Commissioner ~auer then:inquired whath~r it was possible~for ,the.Category "L".patients to ; . i. '~ . ~ leaee th3s.Yaoility other than:the oentral area , - '` : 1 . g ., . ' . :,.. ,; ~ : . . ' Mr _Deutsoh replied thPa ategory~"L" wings would be looked so that,no one'mould leave ' ~ unnoticed, tients that these ,were physiaally healthy;but needed medioel treatment; that ~ ~ h75~:of the'patients would be eating in the:dining room with speoial riurses assisting_those ' '~'~ pati ents mho were;unable:to Yeed themselves :;, . > . ~ , , , 1: ~ .. _ _ , '.~ .. Commis~ oner Kaywood inquired•whether.the faaility had trained persannel for.this type of ~. '~ , faoillty i r' ~ ' y`=~ ~r~•~Deutsotl replied ~here aould'be 110,employees for the 152.patients oonsisting of 5 RN = ., 's .~~~ , `-LUN's; nu,.~ses aids,.onderlies,eta.~ - - ~;~ !: :.; .: .. , • x„~ Comaiissioiier Seymour noted that thc+ aRent had indioated there aould be not onlq elderly .~~: ,senile patients but ohildren;as.,avell.;,however, the;Orange County.-Comprehensive:Herslth Pl n i s :, ''" a n ng A soaiation; aoaording to tlie Report to tHe Commission, in their letter tiad w` indioate~ .this partion of the.faoility would-be prime,rily devoted to the elderly and senile " fµ~ persons: , . ... . ~ ;~yY . ,. . . _. ~ . . 7,:•; Mr: Deutsah replied, they had been asked by.Fa3rview General Hospital to take 25 ahildren ~"~ for:one wing. 4;; ~,. ` Commissioner Seymour also noted that.when he was playing go3f on the aourse ad3aoent to ' ' ~ ` Fairview Hospital he.cculd.hear=quite:plainly the soreemirig from pationts of whatever age - ~ I~'? and these were very loud noises, therePore, he was oonoeraed that iF this.type oY patient ' ~'"~` ~ was proposed.for this faoility.what effeot _this would,,have on>the single Yemily residents 4~ ` ' _ to the north. , i' -' t-'•! : : Mr. Deutsoh replied that the qoung.patients.he was reoeiving would be orippled and r~etarded, ~ , I` ` who oould not eat.by themselves, nor aould they move or ory. I': Commissioner Seymour then inquired~whe~tier or not this was the type of pstients under ~' , Category ~~L" as well as'the elderly senile.persons would be the only types of using these wings on:subjeot,proparty. Mr.'Deutsoh replied that the~e;.would be the:type that would be handled - the mentally retarded who-ranged in age Yrom ~wo yaars to eighteen.. Mr.'Slaughter noted Yor the Commission that a oopy of the minutes of the Mentsl Heaith and .~ Retardation Committee evidently of-the -0CCHPA had something of interest, anie then r6ad the , seoond paragraph'of said minutes regarding.the 1969-70 State.report whibh +ndioated a need for 971 beds for long term and saute psyahiatrio persons in Orange County, and the aetahment area for Anaheim needed 141 more beds, thei•efore, approval oY sub3eat petition would stll leave a shortege of G1'beds under their oriteris. ~~ ~ I, a1 .._ 7 ++ns~!t ~~i• d++; edl:ai)r R~"f'+~ y7"'t'~s°gr~«"•* wii+r~l~:*f,8 r' ~ ~ `~ `~ .. ~~ . . ;..,. . ....- ...,. ...~„ ~.: ...:. ~ . ~ : . ,. . ... ...., .,. , . . M~~'is~ _ ...~. :... ~ .;~.:': . ~ ' , ,. CITY PLANIJING'.CO~ISSION, 9otober 5; 1970 > 5393 ' REQLASSIFICATION'--CONTINUED PUBLIC H~ARING. ` BEANARAO`YORBA, ET;AL, 5440 Santa Canyon Road, . _ NO -i70=71=13 ''`Anaheim, Califorriia;. Owuers,`,CALPI~OP~CORP:, 1900 Avenue oY the Stars, <Suite'1400,;;Los Angeles,'R!slifornis, Agent;,property desaribed as:Portion A- 'CONDITIONAL USE '';An irTegularly shaped pardel~oY:land.aonsistirig.of'approximately 59 aores .. .,; .. , _ ;PERMIT~N0.:1202 ;~loo8ted~on the'south side oP Sarita Ana Canyori Road, having`an approaimate; ~; ;;; ;' r~ oat'ege of ~1;,250.feet on the~west side'of the `soutHerly; eatension of ,. . --,. TENTATIVE;MAP OF ~,Lmperial HighWey and extending aesterly,therefrom approximately,.1;600 feet; . , ~ .. :'-TRACT.` NO'. i7288 ~.and "Portion';B An irregiilarly 'stiaped.,paroel. of, land ooneisting of epproxi- ' ~"mstely.51-eores, haying'a';frontage oY approsimately 445 Peet on the south ' side.oY Santa';Ana Canyott:Road, hsving a maximum'depth of approximately ,:1,963 feet extending approximately~1,700 feet easterly Prom'Roya1 0ak Road. . ' Property presently._'al'sssiEied-R=A.,.'AGRICULTQRAL ZONE. REQUE$TED'CLASSIFICATI~ONs. PORTION.A - R-2,'MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE PORTION B:.= R-1;,'ONE-FA~ILY RESIDENTTAL, ZONE ' REQDESTED .CONDITIONAL, USE: ESTABLISH A~PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP~NT YPITH WANER OF TF1E ~ARIMUM;BUILDING HEIGHT NRTHIN 150 F'EET OF R-A,.ZONE ON PORTION _, , : , ~~A~~"ONLY. ~ •.. s;;, -TENTATIW; TRACT REQUEST:;;,PROPOSES SUBDNISTON OF A SEG~NT OF PORTION A INTO lU3 CONDOMINIUM - `. PARCELS• Sub3eot,petitions,were oontinued`Promrthe.meeting-o4 September 10, 1970., to allow time Yor thes'petitioi-er to'submit`revised plans'; and°for further study..of the area. , Assistant Zoning Sppervisor Meloolm Slaughter aoted>for the`Commission that the rather lenghty Report to tfie ~Co~i.ssion }of 'the previous meeting, had been submitted :Por the Cnmmission to review and• that he: wotild.,reviev~ the adderidum. as .follows': Staft has further evaluated the proposed development 4or this 110 aores of land looated on "the west side oY Imperial;Highway south~~of.Santa Ana Ceriyon Road. ,~ ~ 'Staff has analyzed the overall_density`(multiple family:and:sirigle-family),for all residentiel development,.~vithin;the City of-:Anaheim: TFiis~~analysis stiows that ell'residential development- with'in the';City w~uild:approaimate 8.3:°dwelling.units'per net resideritial eore(eaoluding.pu'blio streete) ':Tha.development proposed Por this;property works~out to approaimately 6.8 dwelling units;per~net resi"dential eore.' IAhen;these figures:are~compered, it `osn-be shown that this . _ . prop:ert" is ro osed to~be develo ed~to S y p p p 2$,of the density oP the flat-land areas in Anahei,m. This beoomes signifiaent;,When oae.reslized :that 46$`of the ~lat land is develope•~ as s~art- , _ , merits:~or mobile,`homes: In view of the:'designation of this aree as a loW-density residential area';on.the,me,ster plan, 3t can`be-seen•that the proposed density will have a signifiaent impaat, partiaularly where the'derisity approaohes thet of the flat-land areas. Approval of thi's density would;nowhere approximate the low-density designetion cal,led for on t he ~seneral Plan. 'Zf the General Plan for this entire.area is to be retained for low-d9nsity residential environ- ment, onl.y two alternatives~aould seea- available: one would be to require reduotion of the den~t}es on this property to densi'ties mhio~i would oomply with the General Plan. Even a1loWing for the~"bonus" mentioned 3n the previous s,~aYP report, this aould be a meaimum of 400 units (a~e inorease of 33$ over.that aritioipated on the General Plan ). A seoond alternative would be.to-permit this,:development and reduoe densities for any proposals_on ad3oining proper~ties. This aould be aocomplished by zoning large s, eas;of the Noh1 Ranch for R-E(One Acre Estates) , use. Essentielly, this"approeoh would throw _«,burden of the development of this property to.higher densities onto other property.' The only`other slternative is to amead the General Plan so as to ellow for substantially higher densities in the entire hill and canyon general aree,. THis,would, of'oourse, require re-..~idy for tlie entire General Plan. "It ,oan be antioipated that any substantial inarease in densities in the general hill and aanyon area would:hage a signi£ioant impaot on a11 City serviaes. For exemp~e, the TrafYia -Engineer"indioates that they would,need at least'tmo, and possible three months to study the street requirements whioh would be generated by doubling the residential densities in the hill and aanyon area. The TraYPia Engineer does ste.19 that, in his opinion, "it is anti~;ipated that eaoh olassified road in the aanyon area should be inareased to the next higHer oategory!'. This would inolude upgrading Imperial Highway Yrom its gresent secondary status to a primary str.eet. 'Even if it were possible to aaaomplish upgrading,of Citq services, streets, parks, sahoola, it is questionable whether this is desirable.. Inoreased densities in this area may well . .~.-.. ._.._. ._ ,. ,...,,: ~~,: . . .. . . . .,. . ,. .., , . .. . , ,.._ , ~:~. '..::.~ ... - -, .... • ~ ' ;.. .,.., ~ . . - _ . . . . : y ! ~~~ ~ ' . ~ ~ , . ~ ~ ~j ~ : k :~: ' MINCTES, CITY PLANNING COI~ISSION, Ootober 5 1970 k , . 5394 ~`~ RECI;ASSIFICATION - deorease the environmental quality.oY living whiah will be available to. N0 70 71 13' . ~~: . - - future and present residents in.the area. In view of this, staff would ,. ~~ ~ - reoommend that,:the density proposed in,th_s projeot be substantially CONDITIONAL USE reduoed rev . `~ ~.`' as- iousl P 9 proposed. .This aould be aaaomplished bq reduoing PERMIT N0. 1202 Portion A to ~sn area along Imperial Highwaq and adjaoent t th ,j~ ° ,. o e proposed ~ oommeroiel shopping aenter. ~e- ~• _ TE1JrAT1VE 1dAp, OF ` ~ . { , . " TRACT'N0. 7288 "If the 0ommission.feels densities of.this ma,gnitude are justiPied.on this (oontinued) p ' ~ roperty., they:,me,y,wish to.withhold approval until suoh time as the entire Generel;Plan fo this l a ~! `~ r hi l nd oanyon area mag be reoonsidered and eval- ~~~' uated to determine exaotly what kind of impaot'suoh generel density 'k- inareases would have. " ~rp~ : Mr• James Meqers, viae president'of Calprop Corporation, appeared before the Commission and stated na t ~~.`. a" si e he last meeting three weeks,ago they had reevaluated every question'raised; that aonsultations had been h ld ith t .ri?,: e w s afP; that members of the Planning Commission had toured the site - hopePully that tour helped the Commission to b tt '~` e er understand what they were trying to eaoomplish - the type of planning effort involved that hes gone into the origi.nation oY this pro3eat. The developers had looked at every question raised at the last e t m e ing and had searohed very diligently for areas oP fleaibility on the ttumber of units they Y lt t e needed o be.provided on this propertq to me.ke it e,n eoonomioelly viab~e pro3eat as well e , &s a w 11-p1anned one. Frankly, there were not too many areas that they oould give in, at least not to any degree without destroyin the onae t th ' g o p ey had set up to deveTo,p here, and that was tl~e reason smaller housing units were'beiag;providad Yor.about 2/3 of tfl~e ~Lotal ,, ~` number of housing units - smsller Well-done housing units for a speaiaiized market - tho' single e the ~, ~~', p rson, sme11 family unit. They had Purther discussions vrith the stafP an the questio f " d f'' n o people ensitq° whiah was raised.last time - and they felt irankly, thet tha-t aonaept had:to be understood and l ted to ~'' ~ re a Yor this.pro3eat ta make any sense to the ~CEi¢mission ~ and to the oo~unity, end if the Cou~ission oan:understand what i " ~ `~~~ s meant b ~~ the number Y people den~ity people in s traot or an area as residents as'opposed to 3+sst statistiaaZ Y~onzsin i ,, 3,n=~ g un ts - thea he felt that the Qo~i.ssion.oould understand that they were, in faot, npt ver~fi far ofY ~ at all from the Hill and Canyon GeneraT Plan. r.: ,~;. :~Lr. Meyers further noted that he had personally been involved`in the Santa Ana Canyon in ~ ~` x 'i r seerohing for;property, planning of;.properties for over a year, with the end result they were now ro " ~ y p posing to deyelop the Yorba property., and during thst period of time, he had`beoome intimatel f ili ' i th ~ y am ar w th e_problems in the area - and there were many - topography, drainage was a`very substantisl problem whioh the felt th n s y ey ould olve satisfactorily on the site; traYfic has been a me3or pro~lem - that too, is beina aorreoted laok f i " ~' ; o ooam~un tg facilities was another and that would be oorreated shortlq by the oonstruation of the shopping oent~~r at Imperial nd S a anta Ana Ganyon Road; and that he Yelt that they did understand the ob3eotives of the City, and the we t in ~;b ~ q re ry g very, very hard to work within that general framework a~ithout asking the City to bend too muoh but askin th Cit t ~`~~~ ~ , g e y o try to understand the housi that they were talking abaut. n8 aonoepts ` ,;;r Mr. Meyers advised the Co~ission that <iinoe the last meating, unfOrtunately, he had been unable ta Pind-i ` ' S\i n a publio form 1 hat he aould bring to the Coa~ission and make it'e pert of the publio ~ reaords-the statistioel sup ort f the p or number of oaaupants per dmelling unit whiah he had dis- aussed at the last meeting - whiah was pro~eated for 1 8 . oocupants per dwelling unit in the townhouse area oP this proposal. However, through nonversations with FHA in San Franuis . o, i which had had substantisl experience with this type of housing, and also with other developers ; who have b ilt h u t is type of housing, with their bar.kers - and £ound out he was a little on the high side Th . ese souroes aould be made availab]:e to the Planning Commission, but they oould not be made lmown on a publiu basis because tha are t 6l - y no pu ished and ware olassiYied and were rather confidential by the developer~ and FHA - homever, they stated they would coo t ith ?i pera e a staff or the Commission - therefore, the.City might wish to aontaat tham. Furthermore they , were able to get surveys on approzima,telq 920 housing units for tkiis~approaimate type of develop ment i t n wo different communities Sen Jose and Saaremento - the overall avexage number of people ! in those 920 housin units i 1 7 g s . 5 - slightly lomer than the 1:8 he had quoted at the last ~ meeting. Beoause Anaheim w as a younger community~e,nd beoause it_apuld"relate mor.e olosely with the community of San Jose - whiah is ls o a a your.g aomm++~.+~ty - that Anaheim would not be beloa the 1.8 people, but the devolopment would be in th t ~ a area. The number of children interest- 3nglq ettough, in these 920 units was slightly below .17 childre~n per unit or approximately ~ 1/6 of a ahild per unit. , There was some concsrn expressad by steff in the staf£ report that the type.of densities theq were talkin b t i ht I i g a ou m .g overorowd the sohools - theq had b~een very sensitive to that ~ that perhaps w th bi ~ as e ggest negative Por the developer more so than £or the oommunity - beoause he has to desi n his roj t i o ( g p ec w thin the onfines oP the community feailities available - and if he do es not do this he will have real marketing problems. Marketing problems were prevalent, in the housing industrq-for instance withi n a mile or so of subjeat property everyone is well aware oP a verq well done expensive project whioh is setting there aonstructed but essentially l '- ~'~ , unso d; thet they falt this we,s not what the City of Anaheim and the Planning Co~ission want, when pointin to th i t i g e n egr ty of the Santa Ana Canyon area - they bolieved in that integrity ~ ':,<-. ~1 1': I ,~~. ~ . . . ' . . 5~} I ~' . ~:.. '..~ ..':. '~.~ .'; ~ ~- . . . ~ ~ . ~~ - - .~ MINUTES, CITY PL~ANN~ CO~EM'ISSION, Oatober,5, 1970 5395 ,:~ AECLASSIF'.CCATION'- 3ust as strongly-- that was why thay:had tried to use today's planning t~ N0. 70=71=13 oonoept. Planning is e prooess.that,must be reaeptive to what is happening igi~ today in the housing markets - wtiat types o3 housing are people demanding - ~r"; CONDITIONAL USE ; what do they buy - what`ese they not buying? Planning oennot rest on yester- '' : PER~IIT N0. 1202.. day's'statistias - we must take`into aooouni; what is happening today, and he ~~ `~ ~; ~ thought; personally, that applied uiore than ever to an area like Santa Ana ~ F~ TEN'PATIVE MAP OF;. Canyon,,whioh 3.s unique - it is'a very attractive pieoe of property'- whioh ~ ~TRACT N0..7288 the`Coumiission uan attesti-to after Having wslked over it - fortunetely, itwas I~,.'~~ (continued) a olear dey,so that the viea were seen that were available and whioh would E, be available through these homebuyers. P111 of these were taken into aooount. f~y~ Mr.'Me,yers"scated he would'like to review a few seotions o3 the staPf report - this ras not an ~~~~`~ attempt to attaok the staiP report or oountaraating it, sinoe the stafP had been very aoapera- ~~~ tive, snd the,spirit oP oooperation hss been tremendous - but there was still one area oP - ~ he would prefer to oall it a lauk of understanding or misunderstaading - rather than disagreement. ;~ On Page 3-f, item 22 - onae again he was rePerring to the conditions oY the aonditional use permi't - they must be allowed if the pro3eot is to go - to phase the development from a loginal -~+;: standpoint.in terms oY the eatension of utilities, roads, and also what the market will•aooept at this oint in time; that the antioi ate'the si le famil ortion of the `~ P y p ng y p property will be d'eyeloped,approximately tao years from the time the aondominiums are built - if the merket ,,prior to'.that time is'reoeptive to higher prioed single Pemily, they would build, and they had ~y that ~lez.,~bi].ity and control agreements on the land, but they did not ~rant to repeat what some others:hsd done by.having a large amoiint of unsold inventory on-their hands. Ori Page 3=P „item 23, last line -"if the lots mere inareased to 7200square feet on the single femily area,,tlie overall density situe,tion would be improved as well". They had tried to avoid ~~ ~the,lot size.questioa beoause the were usin oluster ~' y g ing oonoepts, Mr. Meyers noted, onoe sgain ,, - on the basis oY SOOO square feet and the 3:5 units per gross aare which they were asking'Por .T,~~ ~ on-the single femily units, they would aonsume in the interior areas of the lots 17,500 Yeet ~ ~ per aore or only about 40$ of the gross land area within the lot lines, the rest would be ~ uommon aree and oity streets, but expanding the lot size to 7200 or 10,000 square feet only '~'~~ pulls the land out of the aommon,area'and into the area `of the lots again working against the ~k +i oluster conoept,_- this could be done:if that is what the Planning Commission desired and wanted ~: out:there, essentially a~repetition of what has already been done,'the terraoing of individuel "~~ lots - but they:'.submit:to the Co~iission that the alustering oonoept ,with smaller lot sizes i~% does not afPeat the size of the;home,;the prioe.of.the home aith small 1ot sizes and smaller ` s~`~ . qards to~maintain - qou will get'larger open areas Yor the use of all the residents - this ~.~ ~" is more rapresente,tive oP the type oP housing thst is being well-reoeived in the housing merket ;,, toaa~. ,,:. On Page 3rg, item 6, Mr. Meyer~ noted, the suggested nondition of the msaimum overall height V y of aay,building,= it was his feeling that the 20-Yoot maximum not be inaluded in the oondiiion ~~ ~ bedeuse they were liuilding two storg units, and the pro3ect,in faot, does stand above the ~ ; surrounding area, ss the Commi.ssion might have noted from their inspeotion of the property. i ay they would not be blooking anyone else's view. If they developed a flatpitohed roof in order ~ ,x; to aooommodate a 20-foot limitation, a great deal of the beauty would be destroyed - tile roofs for example, - they would have to drop them down and they would not be as sharp and outstanding arahiteotvral element - this was very important - it oosts a bit more - more area would.have to be oovered beoause of the steeper pitah pro3ected, therefore ihey Yelt the project ', would look better, and sinoe they were not adjoining any property on the same level - this was not the problem it mi.ght be in flatter areas. Item 8 on the same Page 3-g was'a new suggssted aondition, Mr. Meyers indiaated, and he did not quite understand it - if this does, in feat, say that a final traat map shall be r.eoorded on eaoh phase, this would be aoceptable to them, but to meet this requirement on the entire 110 acres would be unaaceptable and an it~possibility - therefore he wanted•that point alari.fied Furthermor,e, the time 13mitation of 120 days was somewhat short to accomplish this even for one traat let alone the entire parcel, therefore, further elaboration was needed or'further time indicated. On Page 3-h, whioh Mr.. Meyers read, and then ~tated that had been discussed this pa,^tioular provision at the last meeting; that they felt it was a very unrealistio aondition, partioulerly in light of the faot that it was not presented to them during the months of disoussion of this projeot with the Planning staff, and it represented a very substantial ohange by casving an additional 30 feet off the prime propertq - at this late date it represents a real burden on the projeat - however, they were willing to try to live with the inteat of the proposed saenic aorridor ordinanoe - whiafi is not law, but with whiah they agreed heartily. Furthermore, they had disoussions with stafY regarding prov:~.ing a landsaeped berm - like an earth berm - perhaps more heavily landsaaped than other areas of the projeat along Imperial Highway within the 20-foot setbaak - they would be most happy to do things of this type and it would have the same effect that would be eocomplished ~uith a 50-foot setbaok - more of the soreening of the living areas from the traffio - they wauld be willing to cooperate. .~~~Z'. ~ . ;, , ; ; . , ,,,, . .. '''~ ~.x Y . . . - . . . , ~ r y~~-' ~~ ~ rr, afi ... - . ~ ,. ~ . . ~y~. . ' .: ... . :~ . . . . .' _ .. . . . .~ . ~ " .. . . t ;' MINU2ES, CITY"PLANNING,COB~ISSION, Ootober 5, 1970. 5396 ~~ ~ , .;. ,~, r:,, , ; ~ RECLASSIFICATION =.~Lr. ~Leyers then noted that in Portion B(2) regerding the vehiaular.aooess ~$~A N0:'J0-i1-13. " ` rights being dedioated =~it was,his.understanding Prom the Yorbas that those ~~j ~``~ • ; aooess rights were.dedioated•to':the State oY CaliYornia some time ago,.but ;•~ CONDITIONAI, USE they ~ould cooperate in anq way they oould mith the dity rogarding said eacess -~:~ PERMIT N0. 1202 ~ righi;s, but they imagined`':these`rights Were riow owned'by the State of Cali£ ,?~'~' .: 4~w " ~• and by so doing would aacomplish the purpose of this ocndition to restrict ;~,{ti TENTATIVE MAP OF aco~ss to ~Santa 9na ~Canyon Road. ` n~~'~ TRACT NO - 7288 _ _, ~ Mr. Meyers noted that there was"§till one area-whioh had been disaussed at the ^~~ -• previous meeting ahioh was the pad sd3aoent to the Lusk homes. At the last ~,µ.: meeting e residerit of that area had.eapressed oonoern that the density oP that particular,pad was w;~ too'high. That heppens ~us£ beoause the topographyioP the land :thst`partioular area yields more K.i Plst buildeble land than some of the other.portions:oP the property - but the pad density is no '-~~ higher than eny of the other, it was ~ust,somevrhat larger, hovrever, theq were vvilling to,drop ?~ this density baok'25$ to e:density,of. 36 housing uaits on thst',pad, and by so doing Will drop the ~ i density,of that pad to the lowest of e,ny pad area.in the prop~sed development for single familg- `~ homes. The deveYoper understood the :moern of theae property owners, there~ore, the proposed y aompromise ~as ofPered. ;~. ::~ `: ..r::; Commissioner Gauer noted that Mr.E~eyers at tt;e last meeting k.ad indioated he was willing to give ~;~r what approaimated the density staff proposed or reoommended,,then inquired of ldr. fdeyers the exact :`:,r;:~' area to whiah he referred. , ~} Mr. ideyers replied that the area,on•which they had dropped baok on in terms•of unit density was = the pad ad~eoent to the Lu'sk homes, however, tihey..onoe.again,asked the Commission to take into "°~:'~ soaount the ,people dens3ty -~i•f'~Hat did~ not •maffe..any sense, then.the. pro3eot may not meke attq ~."; •§ense, sinae they felt oae must look at housing types not 3ust housing uraits: •within.the City 'h '•of Anatieim the average density:per single.family home 1s 3.:9 people-,published by ti~e Development ~~'~ ,: 7z Servioes Department"- the average for apartments 4or all sizes`inaluding larger units.was 2.3 to ~, 2.4 persotts•-per apartment. The';stafP reoognizes,that in`reoent years`apartment sizes have been " fr': deareesing;- family sizes have been deoreasing - less people ara ooaupying the units of all sizes "~ these are things:that,have happened, and-this is:elso why the 1.8,.whiah has been proven in more ~~;~ than:one oommunity in CaliYornia - arid it was their opinion this Would hold.true in Anaheim. '-,r~ ' `t E~a Co~iasioner Rowland inquir@d whether Mr. Meyers.was referring to`the McKeon pro3eat in Sacramento:= and:~if so, he aould not understand why'these Pigures were not available, sinoe they '~ Were'-publio,inYormation;'or FHA provisions as a publia agency - do you mean theq are not releasin 'y,;~~~~ •the' figures. ' ,~~ Mr. Meyers`replied that.he was referring to the 1~4Keon pro3eat; thst the,figures were quoted to ~~"`~' him over the telephone at ahioh tine ~a aas inPormed that t~ese .°igures aould not bem.~de available "~~ ~ in,printed"form,beoause they did not have the.authoritq to.release them. However, he oould give the Commission,the name oP the person he oontaoted, for'.the verifioation of Pigures whiah he hed J~ quoted.over the telephone. ~ <= ~$ ,~ r Mr.'Meyers noted that the MoKeon firm had a great deal moro exparienoe that any other devaloper in CaliYornia or elsewhere in this`size of housing and housing direoted for this particulat~ marIlse ' The.housing is not related, however, very olosely in terms of prioe, emenities, arohiteotura3 design, or planning considerations. Commissioner Ror~land inquired whether the Commission aould assume that ~he people who buy them :~would~ not neoessarily be the same_ for those same reasotts _wtiiah• ~r-. Meyers had. outlined? ~ ` , _ : ~. __ , _ ___ - . _ . Mr. Meyers replied fie~w,ould.t'pink 'not, elthough the size~is very,°similar --snd he: did no.t want to~ make a direot oomparisen betWeen tk~e proposed pro~eot a,nd the• MaKe:on projeat~~- none of the~ pro- jeats are gear.ed'toward femily housing.'Iiowever, ,tHe single Yamily portion of the proposed : pro3eot Was deYinitely geared towar.d family housing. The larger single family dwelling units - I the total projeot representing a mix of housing types, sizes and priaes. 'i'his is a alearly ;''."~ stated objeative in the Anaheim Ganeral Plan for Planning Area B whioh enaompasses the Santa Ana ~: Canyon area, but because of the size and orientation to the adult market, it would be expeated ~' the aondominiums would be purchased by the same tqpe of femily units. There have been some sales~ in Orange County of somewhat similar housiag - in one partiaular inataaoe these are small three bedroom units. 80$ - he was told last week - of these units were purohased bq oouples with no ~~ chil~?-rentover 100 total units in the pro3ect). Therefore, Oraage Caunt; was begining to show, although somewhat limited, with these newer types of housing whioh indiostes that it does Pairly f aonform to the type of buyer proPile experienoed in the northern part of the state. i 3' . , { T ,~.]~j ~ ~ - -~- ~} i . ~~ +g;:~ V1~c~ z+, y,~,~~,' y~ 4 ~ ky.a~y f~ aL,',s,~'~iµ~N~f rs.r~ , s'~t~~ xi a 4 t L'a ^5~ .,~'G~w- 4 q ~ k,~r v.~ r f r, f ~ T r w-.,'~ rct ro u, r'~x++ E ry~ t") w , r ~ ~. r ... ~t,r. sr .,.i. '*,..7 ,. trx ~Lt'i rt r ~t ~ ~ ' ~' . ~~ , ~ ~. . ~ . ~_ ~ ~ . . MINUTES.;'CIT3f PLANNING: COIdldISSION,' October 5. 1970 ' ~ 5397 ,: ,: . . . ,.,-, _ . ,_ .. . _ . RECLASSIE'ICATION Co~issioner Seymour noted that he :was the one who aas interested. in seeing NO'..70-:71-13 these §tatistios'for the purpose of.establishing the,;po~nt that you were . talking-:about -. riamely,.people-density,rather than a use density. At t'~e CONDITIONAL USE~; same,time,,`aoinoidenoe,;or not; he had:3dst reaeived a aost revenus analy's~,s `PER~EIT N0 -;1202': on'single,_femily homes,''mobilo`home.parks, and multiple familq resid..en~tial '' 'developments -publish'ed:by the Development'Serqioes:Department-planni~ig in ~TENTATIVE.:MAP,OF August;,1970 - and then reed a`paragraph from sai~ report(Page 4, paragraph :. ~TRACT: Np.' 7288 2; 3; and '4 . Page ; 5; Pa'ragraph _ 1) ; ` - (aontinued) ' Mr. Meqers indicated that.he had not seen or rasd the r~part.` mmissioner Seymour then noted that at.the lsst meeting he 3~ed asked ![r..Meyers to submit these stistics, but if they veare searet, private,"eto., he aould understand that, but ss a Planning mmissioner,-basing e`deaision bri-people density versus use density, he would have to go along what he read, and-this doaument was the most reoent he had seen. - . Meyers noted.that he hed had some nonversations on that with staff inembers, and perhaps the taff oould elabarate on this - and in thst oonversation it wss noted thst oaoupants per apartment nit were deareasing: r. A1 Hyatt, 251 Orange Acres Drive,'eppeared before the Coamission, notizg that he vras the new resident of the Perali~ Hi11s Homeowner•s Assooiation,,.and as suoh he Wes speaking on behalf of all he homeoaner§ in the Peralta•Hills - who met periodioelly usitally every other month, however they ad had about Pour meetings,dursng.the•past:Your areeks; ever sinoe the proposed pro3eot was resanted; tkiat•thgy,••had~'s,everal.meetings with `!three_other_homeowner§ assoaiations in the Hill d Canyon ar.ea-,~~and.tHese,groups would have their ofPioers present their own arguments. :~•Hqatt,tfien'noted that •tlie PeraliaHills Homeovv~-ers Assooiation ob3eat to the plan as presented eoause it deviates drsstiballq.~4rom the:.msater`.plan as;it relstes,to density and building site ize;.that it would also be`setting a preoedent whish;could have very serious reperaussions at a utvre date; and that:2ie would Tike to reed ittto Lhe reaord at.this time a oouple of psragraphs rom City~Counail Resolution No.,70R-2l33, adopted bq the Gity Couna3l oP the City of Anaheim, on eoom~endation by tiie,Planning Cod~ission on the:9th 3ey^oP June, 1970.as Pollows: . _ - r '!YYtiereas, anneaetion of the Perelta'Hills snd the Santa Ana Canyon ares gave the City of,-Anatieimlan opportunity to get ofP to a Presh start in planning the devel- ~o"pment;of this:relatively uninhabited and undeveloped ares oP northern Orenge County; thus th'e opportunity.,is presented now to build, instead of rebuild, to plan"rather thaii.reaat; snd "YPhereas,~rea;~?siets o$ 'the Peralza Hi11s and Santa Ana Canyon area were assured prior .to the s~isnezetion`to the City oP Anaheim, and have been reassured subsequent to anneaetion,.that this erea of Anahei~ will be maintained ss one of the finest low'densitq residential'areas in the oity, and it is .the duty of the City to retain the residantial integrity oP the Peralta Hills and Santa Ana Canyon erea in aaaord with the land use polioies established in the General Plan. "Now, therefore; be it resolved, that the City Counail of the Citq of Anaheim does hereby ree,fYirm and restate its previous'position regarding planning prinoiples established in the Anatieim Genersl:Plan to retain the Hill and Canyon area for low densitq rasidentiel p~irposes, and this restatment of poliog shall serve notioe to any future developers oP ; that area as.~o`what may be expeoted of.them of::any'developmeriy proposed by them for -Cliat area: "The forgoing, resolutiqn..is ~igne.d -and• appr.o'ved by me this 9th day of June , 19Z0: ° ldr. Henry'Fallek, 140 Oremge Hi11 I~ane, representing the Nohl Ranah Homeoaner.s°Assoaiation and the residents on Orange Hill Lane, appeared before the Commission and pointed out the portion of lsnd he would be disoussing was the pad adjaoent to Orattge Hil~ L•ana: Mr. Fallek then summarized for the Commission his statments made at the last p~;.~.tia hearing, nothing having changed these statments even though Mr. ~Leyers proposed to reduce the number of units by 25$ on';this ~; that he Would like to refer to the general report by stefP in that the proposed developmem` would still not be harmonious with the Lusk developments, even though they are adjacent and a green belt aas proposed, he could not see what a few oine trees aould hide; that the densities in even that one;pad aere still higher 4:5 units compared aith 3 units per net aore in the Nohl Ranoh seation; that ~r. E~eqers also pointed out that with the people density in the oondominium seation it would not put a burden on the sohools - but he did not point out that if the R-l aares were developed as he proposed this would mean another 340 children that would have to be going to sohool - this item alone should not be overlooked; that with the small lot sizes proposed, the homes on the pads would be almost in the back yerds of the people on Orange Hi11 Lane; that what makes this even worse, if the ~ ~~ - m " ~ ~ ~ ~' MINOTES,,!CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION,~Oatober 9, 1970 ` 5398 .,; ,. , • ..:... , - ' ~z ,. ;, -• : +' RECLASSIFICATION Commission has.visited,'this area, they would.have..notiaed a runoPf and ~ N0. 70 71-13 an';'approximate 15.-Yoot,grading;: thus if";these homes are.plaoed in the ~ ~ miaaie oP,~the proper.ty,;these people.will look:down into our baak yards ,. CONDITIONAL USE- viewing-our~swimming.pools and::anyttiirig else`and we.would be,a`having Y PERAQIT:.NO •1202` s ublio audienoe es eoiall ~ : P, _._ p y..with the_ density tkiey have. . Finally the ~ ' squeezing;'- in order to,keep;wi.th~the-density proposed,.- the developers T~NTATIVE MAP OF wer.e,squeezing too muah`on this. one,pieae of'land,.and.they are`taking TRACT.NOi 7288~ : advantage;of the.::topogrsphy it is a`flat region;~there. In summe,tiori, ~ ~~:(ooritinued) the„people:-:density on~that one''~pad`aompared~`'to what'is developed on Orange F Hi1T 7~sne'.is 1 7.;to l,rit~,is'not harmonious to the.,ad3oining.development, and`that"the R-1!densities proposed Would burderi the'.'sohools. Mr: Phillip Jou3an Roahe, 21927 Mohler Drive, seoretary-treasurer of the Santa'Ana Canyon Homeowners Assoaiation, appeared before the Commission and stated he'was in oomplete sgreement with statments made tiy„the t~vo_previous homeowner.s~ essooiation representatives•and wished to °~add that°'steps uiust be; taken now if the beauty of the Santa'Ai-a Canyon was to be''preserved; that mistskes have been uiade_in the past, but ttiese mistakes sfi"ould not be'allowed to be repeated; that the reaent:study..by,Eokbo, Dean, Austin, and`Willzsms, landsoape arahitects a report having been submitted to+.the'~County~';SupeTVisors on`September 16, 1970 states: "The.SantarAna Cariqon is;an absolutely unique and inosloulably preoious. So muoh already has.,been lost that the opportunity remainirig;.today,'iY not taken,; wi11`be lost'tomorrow morning "Lush growth and:magn3pinient tiills,and mountains abound.in the;oanyon. The impressive vistas irito"and out'.~of ~E'he ~oanyon haveiinaeloulabTe. envirorimental`and'`eoologioal benefits; however,ttiey. are~'frag~~.~' a,nd must be handled'~ith aare,,espeaially with the oomple•tion of tlie : Riverside~ Freewag:!' Mr. Jou~'on Roahe;.then noted that with these words of, asution asfood Yor thought let us not let • the finanaieL ambitioris:of a Yew land developers and landovvners push'the:Planning Co~i.ssion into a developm`ent:thst`will do irreparsble`harm;:to the.soettia.beauty._of the oanyon: At this ' meeting arid tne previous meeting tkie questiott of`precedent Was;brought.up.- what,the introduotion ~ of high~. iLensitq .avonld,,do to .setting 's prebedent,; however;`tie felt a preoedent; has been set already ' -in°the'asnyon~and:.th3s preoederit is`obviously~R-l.` On'tHe south side,of the oanyon the reaiden- _tial zoning.is=E-4°20,000; E-l:Oae,Aore and R-l.whiah,veries in"size from'l0 000 to 7200,square • feet. i3n;'the .north side of tYie oanyon the ,zoning varies 'Prom Rl .9000 to 5500 square Teet, and he fel~ the latter number wae a mi'stake~and should;not.have been approved.'' Clearly, the prec- eden~E~~oY;single PemiZy;Tesi~dential has been'established,`and he felt it was a quelity;.residentiel area that tiad been built up b,yr the efforts of many individual homeoaners during the past 15 years. To.this,regard of long-standiag preaedenoe of single.family residentisl, it would be poor plan- ning anfl vrould.be uriYair to the residents who have'worked so hard over the past yeers to make this e quelity area. `If the eoonomia oonditions right now were not suitable for developing edditiottal R-l:iu the,aanyon,..then that meana that the residentiel developmettt oP the oanyon would have to be sloWed down temporarily,.but he did feel thst 3ust What is aonvenient and I salable`st this,ltime to let this type of development 3n the canyon. If there is a me,rket fbr ( that type of development, he believed it should be located elsewhere rather than in a prime. f residential area.suoh,as the Santa Aria Cax~yon. Mr::Gerald Robillard, 4851 Maychelle Drive, eppeared before the Commission and noted that he y' represented a new homeoamers group in theo~Sants Ana•Ceny,on ]moan as the Santa Ana Canyon I Improvement Association whiah Was fonme'd a~put.s ~on~th ago; tlsat they were ia the process ~ . of .3ncor•.porat•im~and inbluded the residents betareen the Riverside Freewa ~ y and the Santa Ana ~°Riarer eatend3ng from~the° Nemport Freeway to Imperisl Fiighway where 2000 persons resided; that the nesidents of tHis area proposed to retain the xurel atmosphere noa~ present, and did not Pind,dr3vinq tb the shoppinR areas and other services to be grossly incoavenient: Therefore, it was thair resolve that they would whatever they could to preserve this natura3 environment. They had exemined in detail the.YorLss' propoeed development and found it to be.an eaoellent connept - the use of the land by maintaining.natural green belts is an approsoh that deserves commendation, however,.they were opposed on the basis`of the R-2 Zoning requested. It represents a preoedence that would allow men of lesser integrity to develop without regard to the natural terrain. Mr. Robillard noted that many of the residents of this area worked hard for anine:ation to the City of Anaheim in 1966: ,This was done on the basis of .the then new Hill and Cangon General Plesi• It was apparant that the City of Anaheim manted'the Canyon to be a low density showoase. Furthermore, he had a letter from.the City ~anager's ofPice thanking him'for his efforts in the successful annexation and then quoted from it"I am sure without your efforts, the annexation I would have failed: Thanks again - si~ned Fred Sorsabel, Assistant to the City b6anager". ! : ~ S `~ Mr. Robillard.then resaeatfully requested that the Planning Commission give the residents of the Canyon a planned cobmnuttity of which all bould be proud. I ~ ~.a-:: ;1 , ~. I _./. !4~t `I~N,~ ~ ' . . MINUTES, CIT3( PLANNIN3'COM~IS3ION,..Ootober 5, 1970 5399 RECLASSIFICATION -,Mr.-.Calvin Queyrel, Arisoal Engineeriag,,appeared before .the.Co~i.ssion and N0: 70=71=13 stated he`~felt the staYf.missed a very`,;importsnt point :that is ia the hill ' ~' snd:oanyon:general'area:"whioh stretohes from:the,.Newport;Freewey to the Green CONDITIONAL USE River golf:oourse, and in the,.stretah of approximately;20;miles there would PERMIT N0 1202, be several..focal points of ma~or highwe,ys,- one`would be at Imperial Highway ` ' and Santa"Ana Canyon-.:Road . There oould have.been oonoeivably R-3, zoning TENTATNE MAp•OF applied Por ad3eoent to.a shopping aenter,:and normal R-3 oould be Yrom TRACT N0:' 7288 . 20=30 units.per sare; thus it was 'oonaeivable with'.20 aores of R=3 there could '(oontinued~ be;600.units in`and around the::shopping penter - this_would•be greater than the ;~~ entire~density asked for on.the entire 110.aores = he Pelt this was a very important poirit;~sinoe he.did not:think there wa§.~'any deviation Prom the'Master:Plan end the efPeat on the"Hill snd'Cany,on GeneraT Plan, whiah had been mentioned several times. He did not hink this would'neoessarily'.:aYPeot the Hill and.,Ceayon General Plan, sinoe eaah property shoula e oonsidered on its own merits •, This is s spediPia propertg.that has speoifio effeats, speaifia urroundings thst would diatste what'should be built'here. _,Approximately two years ago, he he~d . ppeared be£or.e,the:Plenning_Commission and:City Counoil'on a pieoe of'property ssking for R-3 oning - then indioated it on the.map - lrnown as the Budlong property whioh wes alongside a school d on that partioular pieoe'of"property there was e sahool on`,one side and the proposed paroahial ohool on the other side - end he felt.tliis partidular pieae of property was under the sphere of nfluenae of the intersection of.Imperial Highway:;and Santa Ana Canyon Road. The Gity Council pproved'the zone for R-3 on the.t pieoe..oY property, and he-thought in..this proposed development here was.more of e,n argument in favor of this request: Furthermore, he did not feel this piece of.property was unique,in itself and he did not 'feel it;would:'fiave any`effeot on the Hill and Cenyon;General Plan - beoause-the densities for'the aesterly ha14 oonPorm;,basioslly to the eaisting zoning. One>oould aerve'the hi1Ts up;'good and''plenty'and one aould get 3} to 4 2ots per aore_with R-1;7200 square feet - therefore, this'deveTopment would conform basiaelly to that. e felt this was a verq important point.whioh,staPf failad to point out: ~Lr: Msyers, in sebuttel, stated his~aomments would~be psrtially:reaYfiraing Mr. Queyrel's stat- ments and:.`p"art3ally,;oonfirming wfiat was ob.'vious to;everyone,that being in the western area of ~the'Sante Ana Canyon there was orie,obviaus"fooal!point in terms,;of.ooniluenoe of-transportation - ,tlie need for sHopping;Pacilities~, eaisting ao~eroisl zoning; within the total Santa Ana Canyon area,-,e;:very.large,area - ther.e has`to be, Por reasons of good planning; some areas that have more housing,units ttian other'areas;,, but:there mu§t be some logio for doing so`- tlius being; ad3aaent:to a sh;opping`aenter; at,or_near`the off=ramp of the:new Riverside Freeway.and'Imperial ~ ~ _ „_ Higha~ay;;being ad3adent.~to Imperiel.Highway, in Paot,_they would be required to oonstruat Imperial.Highway:ad~aoent to the.property '- a11 oP the iisual aonsideration of logio were slightlq higher ahen densitq _o~`hous3ng is,applied to,the praperty „ otherwise theq mould not be planning this~'type of. pro3eot there.'. They r.ead with interest the,,staYf report'and studies done during. the psst ttiree .,vveeks as `it, pertained <to the' total densitq ;within the City of Anaheim, and the aommeat that th'is`,pro3eot, as,proposed,.represents a unit density - again a unit.density of 82~:of the average,density for tha entire:nity. If,in faot, this loastion is the focal point for the Senta Ana Canyon in terms of oommeroial and transportation, snd presumed slightly higher,density' 8/10 of the average density for the entire oity is very,very modest, and in fnot, it wouTd be very reasonable..to assume that the property ad3aoent to and behind the shopping center = e very tremendous emount of logia - oould go R-3 - a very muah higher density thatt is :being proposed. THE HEARING WAS`CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour indiaeted he wished .to make a few oomments - namely, to start off trying to aonform with tHe Geaeral'Plan, and thereowas little doubt in his mind or anqone's mind that the Generel Plan.indioated low density for this area. From there ~ne was moved into the conaept - the idea - a beautiful idea - a aancept for a beautiful°•piece of propgrty'with a planned comm~,uiity with a conaept with an opportunitq.and a creative touch of this type -~we begin to give way on densitq - perhaps that is right, he for one believed it right, but it,appeared to him not only did one,give way to but the people would be selling themselves out if the Commission were to buy this degree of density. Perhaps staff is not completely oorrect in the statoment that the total number of units should be 400 - maybe there is nothing magioal about the i,umber, but it was very clear.in his mind that under no circumstances aould the Commission believe in the General Plan, adopted by the Planning Commission and City Counail, would it be in any way oonYorming or even approaahing conformanoe to thst Plan bq permitting some 592 less the 12 units which Mr.-Meyers agreed to reduce on the westernmost pad - in no way would the Co~i.ssion be honest with themselves or the aommunity to apnrove the proposed density - in short he was com- pletely.opposed to the density. If it were possible that the developer, Calprop, the landoRner Mr. Yorba could represent the planned aommunity with a lesser densitg - he would be the first one to offer a motion to approve this oonaept: Commissioner Gauer inquired.of Commissioner Seymour whether or not disoussion was held regardi:~g the R-3 adjacent to the shopping oenter. i ~ _ ! --._ . ":^ YL} ~ . ~ ~ . ~ .. ~. 'MINUTES`; CITY PLANNING COA~ISSION;.'Ootober. 5,-197Q 5400 \ AECLASSYE'ICATION 'Commissioner Seymour noted~that perhaps R-3'or a more,::intense use would N0. 70-7I 13~,;' ,be appropriate in that area"; but'did'.it have to:aonteii-.the entire area ' ~` " as;it does - does ha1P oY the.sareage have to be u~pd'for .this intense CONDITIONAL USE . use = he~did:not think'so. ;! AER~EIT:: NO:.'.1~2 . ~ '~`" ' '~ Commissioner Gauer stated kie also did not feel the o~reage proposed Por TENTATIVE MAp~OF •.R-2 should be.permitted, but:then it wouId depend;;on;what we,s deoided Yor . TRACT NO.: 7288'' , ,the balenqe , perhaps'.tfiet ad~aoerit to.the shopping oenter aHould be for R-3, and"the balsnae loa.density.; ' '.Commissioner Allred then inquired when Commissioners Gauer and Seymour were talking about laa derisity.did that mean`R-E, R-H; R=1 or E~-2-5000.were.sll thoee to be aonsadered low densitg2 dommi.ssioner Gauer noted that a oerta'in average~had been establishsd tiiere already, snd what should'be plaaed on that oriteris - what"speoiYia type 'of low'density;:- several types had been approved. Furthermore, one oomment'by the oppositiori that 5500 square Yeet was a mistake - thus in_order to stay within'that aonoept the R=2-SOOO aould not be`oonsidered - thus the bommission would have to.fletermine;whether it should be RI, 7200, RH-10,000 or one aure estates. Commissioner Seymour..notad that,for.a more speoifio answer to Commissioner Allred's remark, it would'•seem to him;that lo~v derisity deP3.ried in:numtie`r§rif thet be.the defiaition- and in e planned~'~aommunity kie £elt~•it' was not numbers that, was being disaussed, t~ut unfortunately that was what~was always related;:to.- but in matter~of,numbers it would be.2:7 daelling units per aore~- and whst is proposed is:5.4; dwelling unit per,"anre.. Co~issioner Gauer then noted.that`2 7 daelling units per adre was generally higher than what was already developed there.: ' ' '- Commissioner Seymour noted that,would be the density of°the Nohl Ranok: - but his per__,onal feeling was that there should-be.some latitude, the paremeters'should not'be so rigid as to enforae a aonformanoe':to that iY the Commission'in faat tiad"the opportunity to work with s planned ;oommunity but to;go'to,the other`,eatreme; doubling it Mr.";Meyers spoke.about the people density ,- let'.s`try to believe in':people densi+y', but he.has.riot given the Commi:ssion _ariything to believe in people.;density - anything=,the -0ommission aould;hang.:their hats on: Co~.ssioner RoWland~noted that~Commissioner Seymour,brought up a very interesting.'snd a very .good,point the Commission had.better address themselves,to people density and:'what the.impli- ostions~were. ;People'density,was not s new conaept, but.it•was a vai~iable aonoept - the.pro3eats. giyen the Commission as demonstrations were in no:way aomparable to"the program being pr9sented •to the Co~i,ssion whioh;was a'.fine appearing program with many amenities. The MoBe~n pr.o3eats were the antithesis - there.was~no waq'to oompare'that:with a"sardine":- The MaReon pro3eats were simply degraded R-2 subdivisions, s~ld on a oondominum besis to allow people to ge£ in for $159, and have:home' oxmership - a home ownership of sorts, whiah im,ii;self is p;robably admirable. There is'no:open spsae, no oommunity spsae, no:amenities, marginal:parking. There is absolutely no':way.that you can oompare the two`aouoepts. ,If e planning oommission is going to funation as stewards,: - a position of stewardship,and a oontinuing stewardship role, it oannot have some~;hing as Pragils as human behavior - snd'there are not many on the C,ommission that ere oapable of evaluating it`= the Commission must haye something specifia, tangible_and physiaal - an ordinanoe that can be administered visually - not by invasion oY.privacy. If yau want-to talk about people density = the mitiute'you have more than 1.8 someone:has to go, beosuse our service Yeoilities :w;on't:acaommodate more than that on the.overall basis.: He`felt.that the ,o~ission oould not 'deal _with even.t?~ough it might,be vslid.-,:there were several things that would change, the fpopulation pr.o,file~in a short'..period of time - less than 20 years -..,which is a v.ery short range iplanning period - the"pill" has mede a big':d3fference in'the p'ro3eoiad population totals over ~a long'period oP time -_ if anyorie,was reading the.papers olosely - there.:~ta~•now a reservation !in some mi.nds about.the Ltse of the "pill".end a great number..of people~who have been taking them for the past five years are i~ow,off•for one~re:ason or an~other - I am not"sure Ralph Nader has had anything to do witti it or not:- xt is•the~seme oonoept;there is a big scere about this, and `$his would have a big affect on our populstion profile.in a verq short period of time. If strict pe~ple count were to be epplied - he did not think pro3sntions aould be maintained with the vagarios of human nature:: Therefare, he felt the Commission would have to remain with some physical form of referenoe..• Cotnmissioner Gauer noted that as one of the opposition had indiasted, the preaedent had already been set = name3y.low der,sity, therefore, the Commission would have to determine what average low density should be placed on the property - if R-3 were allowed around the shopping center - what would the Commission consider the average low densii;y to be.set for the balance of the pro~+erty - if that is done, then a measuring rod'has been establishad for other properties in the canyon that might oome in for zoning. I; ~ _ ".r _ _.... . ..... .,~~...5'. .vr:...N:.:l•cJ+ 1__..-„i~:tl '4.L-~N1" ~ y' ?', ::c.?, ti ~~`. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~ . . ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ . ~~ ~, ~ : :~, , , .. . . . . .. ~ . . MINUl'E5, CITY PLANDTING C0~lEAISSION, Oatober 5, 1970 5401 RECLASSIF'ICATION -_ Commiss3:oner />11red Was of the opinion that the~ planning Commission and N 0. 70=71-13 . ~'City Counail aed already.pro~eoted~ their;ideas When a portion of the C ` ` - aanyon area -'the Perslta Hills -:.Was brought into'.the City, in eYfeot OIdDITIONAI; US~ the ' : promise wss given,thet low density,would-be;mainte3ned - as low as PERMIT.:NO. 1Z02 possible, snd in his personal opinion it should'be ratained that way.. ` It should be retained.in.what aould be olassiYied as R=H, Residential TEDiTATIVE'MAP:OF Hillside:10,000-foot~lots. There aould be ;s 10,000 foot 1ot, but one TRACT N0. 7288` aotild a1e~,have;`ttie buildable erea for that:l0;000;foot lot - what would (continued) ttie minimum"buildabie`area be -~whether there would be slopes to oontend With ori~lots in:the area - wliiah.aould mean:l0,000 Poot lots with nothing less.ttian 7200..square;feet of buildable ares. This would be his reoommenda- tion, and?his'~idea as the.Hill and.Canyon.general area as estsblished in tkie 'General, Plaii. Chairman Herbst noted.he would hav~,to•lnok at the oonaept bePore the Coa~ission, and looking bsak to;•the•,lsst publio hearing whEin the Qo~ission-reviewed e"grid" situation on a mobile home pai~k -.leter tkie~developer aem`e in with.a aluster type_arrangement, and the Commission deaided:the al"uster-type.wss better,even.'~though there-was.not<as`muah yard spaoe there aas s.great:'deel more;reoreation area. '`He viewed 'the proposal noa'before the Commission in the se~me manner as:he did~the'aluster. t~pe arrangement f th - or e mobile home park. The~ proposed oonaept had~e,Iot of.merit.- it is'.different than the Nohl Ranoh, many area§; of it;being;;a v o ~ '" ~`. ery po r oonaept and.hatl e grid appearanhe. The Commission is looki:ng for'~new~ways to do things snd it was his i ~ ~ , opin on that,the.propored development Was a new,way,`elthoi~gh he did not like' all the emenities pro d ed t b ` ~ . pos . o uil i~.~~to: it, but it did have'somettiittg to; say ~namel " a smaller.buildia,g pa~i aould:be used with ;,a oetttral or ti n~ = ~ . re ea o :ares :they Nere not dividing it , up into s lot:of ?ittle individual playgrounds,~but aombitting:~them~mith a larger~green belt ~ ar a ' . . ea T e Commission has to look e t this proposal,'as poss~bly;being,"better than has been"~done Mapbe the Nohl Ranoh area has 10 000 Y t' ` <,; ! , oo ,lots, but the size of the Iot does not determine the erea for the ~ome„ 'Tt[is has,`been ezpressed many„times•:in the beanti ai~ h ' ' r " ~ eas a ere they have built $100,000 homas~;on a 40 Yoot`Wi.de lots a'~$1~J0;000' home 'can,be,rbuilt ~on a 5,000 Yoot' lot ~3ust~ ll ? ~ ~; ! 4 . as we ss on a. 0,0~0 Yoat-lot the area will designate the=tqpe, of home that .wi11 be ;built in th s oy~ -~ , ; i area mctybe these pads with 5;0OO.;foot lots are slright - a2though`:he felt thst:w b ~~ . as e. it ~oo tight: 3 `' ; -. ' • ~ r~_ l dommissioner A~lrad noted he'~did not dieagree vuith the propose~ oonoept, but,the City had-:com= ~ mittedrtti lv ` ~ ,.r:a _ .. emae es the Commission'and City Counoil -:in'en agreement`.vnth~the people who~had" worked ior anneaation that ttie area would :b tsi e ' ; "j . e re n d for-low:density - eiid this'should.be` ' maintained ~` 't~~; ~ - r' , , ? ,;{ { s Chairman Herbstinoted that the proposed deasity aould~not really be oonsidered high density, . ; sinoe the wer i ~ ~ f ,1 x=~ ~ , e,, ro os n Y .. P P,_ B. 12=13 per, .aore in the so=oalled high :density area, whereas iP. R-3 were a " , i, pproved a imasimiim of 36 units uld b ' x~` ~ ~'2P~:,1 g g ; . oo - e developed, but oonsiderin ttiat a hi h'sohool ~ i~s proposed aoross the street, and Imperial Highway when it is developed will"b hi t ~~~; e ghly rsveled: i The•Commission should not go by what other people have.done - the Commission has a ahanoe t d ' , r r~ o o e little planning here - yes,the.people ia the oanyon,heve nice.homes - but they were done in a I s peoifia man h ~a~~,.; ner.. , T i s i s t h e f i r s t o h e n o e t o v iew a oonoep t t hat wes ~ifferent and whioh had ! a muah greater appe al. ~{~~;: ~ . . ~ , ~~ , Co~issioner Allred inqui'red•of Commissioner Herbst whether or ~ot he felt that R-3 should b ~ .! a ~•~ e permitted in. the canyon as is propos.ed on the plsas before the Commission:. " -~ £,,,,; ; : Chairman Herbst noted the manner in mhioY, the p p pr.o osed develo ment aas laid out with 12-13 units ~,. f~ t {+ ;[; _... r aore or somet in si . g milar to.that - cvas not his conoept of R-3. - Furthermore, a shopping center wa ' ~ , :: ~ y ~ P , s pro osed ed soent to it, and there were designa~ed shopping areas throughout the can on as de icted on tho G ''-~ ' eneral Plan, as aell as other areas that have.already been zoned for co~ercial uses ~`' ~ . ~ Commissioner Al~.red indioa.ted that the proposed aonoept was appealing, but he _°elt that the~ density should be o l a n ess th n R-1,7200 square £eet ana'perhaps R-H, 10000, but not R-2=S001~. i Ctsairman Herbst noted he was not t~lking about R-2-5000 geve a specifia number of units to the c a re-the property ~n question,the way il;was designed end proposed to be developed might be better tnan so f th ; me o e 7~usk development on the Noh1 Ranoh - a number of which were not at all fantastic. As far as the R-2-5000 ao oss Santa A ~ , r na Canyon Road mentioned by one of the opposi- tion when he ref6rred to high density being undesirable - the R-2-5000 w uc I as m i: lii~her than mas being proposed, at.id then asked for aonfirmation of that from the sta£f. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the ro ert p y ~ust aest of Imperial Highwuy north of Santa Ana Can o R d ( y n oa was somewhat hi her than that basis on the entire 110 acre propasal. 8 Proposed on a gross acreage '~• ._ _._ _ - . ~r, ~ : ~~ .. - ..~._ v,:. . . . i x .~ ~ ~~'~^^. ~. .:~~ . ..,, .~' ' . ... ~ ,. . . , . : " .. -.' ~• ' ' MIlVL'TES, CITY PLANNING.COA~dISSION, Ootober 5, 1970 5402 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Herbst was of the.opinion.that the density overall,planning on ~:NO 70-71-13 ;. the proposed'development wa§ Iower;than::R=3,~and R2 or R3 eround the shopping _, ~ ,.. .. •- > oenter was muah.lighter than,.Was normal2y developed. CQNDITIONAL..USE~~. :, PER~LIT N0 1202..-Commiss3oner Seymour rioted that the:inareased derisity goes beyond just around '~ ' ° ; the shop"pi.ng aenter.; ,n'ot only,"would ;the Co~ission. be enoompassing the initial TENTATIVE 1dAP OF . proposal,;but:tr.e portion to:the south end sligHtly.to the west; whioh:would" TRACT N0: 7288-= ~be just around the shopping roenter;.however, the belanoe`of the ground whioh < . ,, .. . ~(oontinued)-,> oonsists bf aores and eores.far removed°Prom.3ust~around the.shopping oenter. ~.Chairman Herbst~,then noted tkiat'the~Commission must also oonsider - something ~in whibh the Planning`Commission aould take. a hsnd in planning; the`'mode "of living is,changing: People are moving to apartment houses: ''For instarioe,!he had,a Yriead who`.advised him he was.selling his home in Pomona";and was.moving to an:,ares.around~:Iake Tahoe where he aes purohasing a E50,000.00 oondominium, because.he wanted to be free to travel. ~Anaheim:;~vas entitled to this type of housing:~in a!',olassy". area as well as Tahoe, and this is the,area that oan give it to the City. mhis proposed,density_is oorisidered=high'der`-sity;'but tY;e Comm'ission'must be'eware of the taot that.people are, movirig to apartment's; the 'older people are moving out of their large,expensive homes and moving into;high.nlass:.apertments Comm~.ssioner Farano noted thi~s would~be the seaond pieae~oP-property that aould be zonsd Por higher density ,yt~han,~R; l` Mr ,~Queyrel talked about' the site east of the high sahool ~ s'ite. - whioh was denied by'~~the~ Comm:~ssion and approved ;by the Gounail' under :~oiroumstr3noes '' , ~s ~ ~, , t ,, - '• quite . separate and apar,~from~t'he~;zpr'oposed{development Even :that site:; the.`.Pirst':~time eround- it was stated 9:ach?pi~ oe oE~p Nope~ty was to 1be viewed::and 3udged:on'its own merits and-does"not,3orm a : , ; . ._ - ... pr.ecedent¢~,~~li~e~,re'xzs the City going., to stop? Hovv`:Par ;does :the'~. Cort~ission want to extend this ~ ~ fix~ . . d,en~t`ty',~,r~ight now throughout the whole.hill and~oanyon.area? What is so different about this ,pr~,oper~ty,5froaijthat aaross the.street Prom Nohl Rannh:Road? It is quite olesr that the Commission ~will~have~some~petitions before them in•the very`near-Puture.`'.. • ~~~,~^~i~~r`'~~'k' ~K `'r~4- ~ ; : ,. ,., Chairman~Herbst::noted he did.not quite agree witH}the Heavy, density on the pads. He felt that ~any~pad'~"ed~oining low;density uses=should•tiave ;the same';density"as thst ed3oining property;and. ' 3any,~higherykdensity should be:aooomplished;within:.their. own:development; in other words, if the tad~oiningtiproperty is'R H, 10,000.then.the=pad,ed3oinii-g;it should be R-H, 10,000. \'~:~ ~1'~F4r x .,y+•, 4 nu y . . ~~i .~c~~ {r Ft~+/ f 4 i 'i ~ _ ~,:, .. „ ~ :. : ~. .; , ~ , , ' ~_ ~ ~C~~i.ssioner Farano felt this,was tfie peint of argument he was trying,to bring up Por disaussion.. ~ :~ ; a' ~ ~ ' ` ' ' ,- Co,~.ssioner G,auer was: of the: npinion that-'r'ultiple~ femily zoning around the.; shopping aenter was ac;aeptable, however,~sinoe e precedent had been.set for~low density,'the Commission stiould retain' ,that denszty a oertsin,average density: `He'liked.the oonaept - it was a.very well laid out aonoept '' a lot,of moriey was;spent.in illustrating how:the propertq vnas going to be developed; but the Commisiion sh~uld'hold•to a;oertain_average density - whether:.it is R=H,.l0,0G0 or whatever itishould;~be some~s r..eement.should be reached end held to. However, the Anaheim Planning Commission oould not tell"'the:County what to do, and at;the 3oint meeting held between the Anaheim arid Orange County Planning:Commissions - the City expressed"their desires for development of the aanqon sre,a-all:the weq to'the Green River golf oourse - ahiah represented a aonsiderable amount of~property-to take iiito,aonsideration.., Cliairman~Herbst noted there were speaifio and set eoaess points along Santa Ana Canyon Road; thetdesignated areas'Yor:shopping oenters - and:these were speaifio ereas whiah the Commission would have to look at at the'time development is proposed. The'Commission lrnows this will be a~heavily traveled area with the off-ramp;of.the_freeway.?:- Riveraide and Imperial.:3unoture. ~his couTd be e°ma3or';erterial; andithis also aould be a.ms~or shopping aenter, However, this same srtuation"will not hav@ to be':faoed anqwhere else in the osnqon - esah srea is a little different. Commissionar Gauer again reiterated that•a~preced'ent had.been set of 1ow density, and this had been reaffirmed reaently by.resolution oP the Planning~Commission arid•City Counoil. G~.imissioner Rowland noted that one of the important Paotors to consider - when the Commission as.ii body'developed,tHe Hi1l:and Cenqon General.Plan - something very,revolutionary was done. The.Commission asko~ that faats be submitted on whiah the Commission oould make a deoision, rat}.ier than impasing the Commi.ssion's own points of view on s publia douument. The Commission sai4c "Wouldn't it:be interesting to know what type of_serviaes were availab]:e to serve this area ::?:a~ ~;e previously adopted Ciroulation Element,.of the General Plan would support. All services were considered - water, sewer,,power, and we said: Why don't we use this as a basis in part to firid out how muah population`density that the hill and canyon area oould accommodate in an orderly sort of manner, and using that as a basis, the Commission arrived at some of these densities - that end the slope analysis that Boyle Engineering prepared for Zusk Corp. or Nohl Ranch.° These were some of the Paators we used in arriving at the densities - it was not a matter of maybe we should do this or that - the Commission worked at it in a pseudo-scientifin way. ~ .:; :..~ .~'.::,- -:. ..~,_~: _-.,~~~ ;:-., _- ..ic.~x~rf ~ _ ' s"~ : '~ ~ ~j ~ ~ ~ ~- .'_ . ~ - MI'niIITES, CITY pLANNING CO~ISSION, Oatober 5,.1970,~' 5403, l. RECI;ASSIFICATION Commissioner<;Rowland fu~~her noted that`:.in the,joint work se§sion between NO .70 71 13 - the Ci.tq o£ Anaheim'and Orarige,Cqunty.Ple,nning>Commissions =;at wHiah:not '~ . ., " `all oP the members`oP the'Ansheim,Planning,,Comm~.ss3ori:were;present;- the CONDITIONAL USE Anaheim Pl nni o o y ~ : ,. a ng C mmissi ri went,.there..to forestall,•.hopeYully; some develop- PERMIT N0..~1202 ~ment that did t o e i' " no a nform to th Generel Plan snd wHioh the Orange;County. ~.~,; . Planning Co~ission wes oonsidering.in'that same area, and the aommitment was TENTATIVE MAp OF inade by the:,Anaheim'Planriin Commi i , th ' ~ '~ T~~` ~" g ss on . at .:this Body did mean what was set TRACT NO s7288 ~forth,when the Anaheim General Plen aas;adopted Anafiei was o e ~ °~ m seri us bout it (aontinued) YPhy was tki'e Orange County Planning Commiss'ion tuining."rough shod° over the ~ ;;~ - ~~ ~' "~ :: ~ . City of Anaheim's area oP-;influenoe, and.which`the City would have some day ; ~ - ' ` ~ ; The Or ange:County,Planning Commission,;Co~i.ssioner-Rowland oontinued,,eoted surprised and §tated they.did~not lmow 'th C t Aa ; ~~~~ . e i q of. aheim Planning Commission was serious about it. The:Commission informed that th t:' A h i ' ` ~' `"~1~~ e . na e m,was ser ious about = not'only. adopting it, but restudied it and- reaffirmed`it by resolutio in t t `~ n ; he very;.reaerit~pas ; The'Comm~.ssion knows that the.Countq Planning,Commission is trying yery hard to adopt, in prinaiple the Anahei :Gen l '~` , m era Plari so that;they..will not haye to restuap.~t ~a rework it-.- this.:is going. to fiappen ~~ery so n ~ o . Whatever action taken by,the Planning Commission on'sub~eot:petition, Mr: Rowland noted, should osrtainlyibe 3n lirie with"~so f ' me o these:adopted pczliaies, statemerits,and'thinking;if not`a11; or. everybody , inaluding :the Or`ange County Plsiir in :Co~mmi ssio will b ~ ' , g . n,. , e given a _ "real hill to alimb!' The Co~ssion literally beat'them,over their heads for:,several_~hours at the 3oint " ` . work session in o rder to'get them to`see things Anaheim's way. ,Although:this~is a fine looking development,`whatever as'decided': this n - " ~_ ~ on req est in ;the mstter of!density - a:question that is on everyone'-s rtund.` if~the proposal "aan't fly" on the density.established in the G ne l l ~ e ra .P an many .things ;aould be anong suoh as eaoriomias,;fisasT:,,polioies, timirig, eta., ; - •: ;. ' r ';x~~ : ,~ . ; Commissioner:Se ` . ymour then':noted,that before sny eotion was t~ken,:if it would not be out,of order f to ask Mr Me ers ~M Y b ~ ~ > ~¢ y , r or a or tht~ developers whether there was a.`,possibility;.of redesigning theu 'planned oocomunity with a lesaer density; in mind i ~~~~ . , - n other words, is this,it, or is it nothing, or :is ttiere ts possibility that' there. could.;be less': density is :that uestio t of ' = ' , ~,q n ou .; ; .- ... ,. •~. ,• ; :.. order,? . . , . ; . ;. ` , Mr Meyers, at the request of the Chrsirman, a ain a ' B ppeared before the Comuussion end.stated the only. 'area thet they; had; been ble t " e ' ~ f~ ~ x~ , . a o d termine is something oY e bslanae : as to':whether or. not they;~develop'~-in the',type of pad density :was that rea e , , a in th bottom of the aenyon (indicating on the map) , Ttiey'had,had some:disaussions with the stafP b t did ` u ,; , . u . not p rsue them further at that time because'."it did,i-ot seem_appropriate`'to do so regarding the possibility of donsting th t a rid s are i ioated on the msp to the.Citq of Anaheim for a.park;in return for an:offset oP a verq substantiel eaiou t f s `i _ n o pe,rk'fe9 -.a requirement of the 0ity for all nea housing - this from.a standpoint of~their own economias would a v ~ re o er some 35-40,$ of :the oost o4 the land mhiah was proposed to be donated: If this.would be permitted it would l ~ , eave the reoreational faoilities as small co~iunit~ recreational faoilities, suah as was proposed Por the first phase and;elimi at l , , n e the arge.one on the .top of the hill - a reoreation'oenter whioh has asused.some oonsiderable ooncern by Citq repre ntet ~ se ives, FHA, and the developers'. planners. Financing oY it was a question Commissioner Farano rai sed at the la t m t w , . s ee ing -, hiah was easily solvable - I bt,t it represented a large area whiah they oould not eaonomiaally build at the outs t f th ' , e o e f project beaause of the topography, the grading, eta. were not staged`,that way. .' Commissioner'Seymour inquired as to the number of units that was proposed for that area. i . , Mr. Meyers.replied there ware 7U units,'and tk:ese could be eliminated, if,they in turn, could ~~ get ome offs t i s e n the park.fees:for.oxample..:The davelopment oosts in.the bottom of that ca ny.on were vory extensiqe beoause of .the natural drainage.:course through:there, There was a need ~o d3spose of• some di t i . r n the ares from the top of the hill - thi5 aould be done in . ~ aanformarice with a grading plan epproved by the Cit f fu u y or t re ment.at that time. T- _ Park development or park develop- ypioallq if;a.park is deyeloped::in th t t f a ype o .an area dr.ainage faoilities ~ v~ould then be left operi ,and whe_ri:a 50 or "100 year st r our ' , o m oa s-whioh cause sheet overflow, nothing ~ •+vould.be damaged as could happeh'if•'r.esidences were developed et the bottom of n a area like that. i Developing that tough topography for residential use is quite ,oostTy -.and yes,there were things i that aould be d ne ' o - but they would ask for some offset~~in return: ' ~s.far as opening'up, tdr. ~eqers oontinued, in a townhouse area, opening up the,pads and putting ~ a lesser density on there would b h e anot er way to hammer'eway at the thing and did not make sense, j because it cost a certain amount of money;to develop a large pad of an ao t re or wo, regardless ; of;how manq housing units were ereated on it. There were certsin aosts that are related to th ~ e number of units, but.the:majority of the oost is.fixed whether developed with one unit or 50 units ~ They would h t h d ave o ol pretty firm in those areas. If the Citq could see Pi~; to work with the developer in the bottom part of the canyon coming u i p w th a reoreation faoility for the community the developer would be most willing to work - the we t in y re ry g very hard to work with the City and with the land, but they were conPined by some eaonomic aonsiderations althou h this was t , g no the major ooncern for a planning commission, but they were ones the developer oould not ignore. ~.. L'• : ('. '~ ~~_~: ` . ~ ' ~~~ ~ . : . ' ~ ., ; ~. ~ . . ~ .: , ,.'. ~ ~. . ' .i: ~. .~ ~ ., . .:. . ,-. NIINUTES, CITY PI;ANDTING CO~ISSION Ooto,ber 5; 1970 . ; ,. 5404, ~ - -: , .-. . :, ..,.: ..;:,.- . ..: ::,. .. ; ~ RECI;ASSIFICATION '.Commissioner Farano;then inquir9d_by donating this propertq,;.what would be .NO. ~70 71 I31. ~ the revised;total`riumber of`s~kiousing'units~then`.'proposed. CONDITIONAL;USE bLr Meyers replied there would be a total`of 510 units~-~70 uni.ts fram.the' ,PERMI~P NO.:<1202 `~aanyon'area~.`and a-,redua£ion:.of•~12;;units ~on the ped; adjsoent .to the Lusk homes: , , , . _. ,. . ;. , . ,: ,,. TENTATIIIE,MAP OF Commissioner.Keywood;.inquired.iY this property';were donated to the City,for , TAACT?:N0.,;7288 :;a,psrk; wouldi:this,be a'publio.park, and`would.that oreate more treffio " ~,(oontinued) , ~~problems in the eres. -,`: "' ~'' Meyers replied that it was~hoped this would be:s`"publia~park,',and it~would:without question r.eete some~.treffio'irito that~area .` However.,'.the looatiori;of.it is suoh,~that:he did not believe hat:traffio=would~~be oonsidered:a,problem for-_the area;beosuse'the shopping aenter would kiave . naess off.~~anta.-Ana Cariy'o'n Road = the.property immediately'to_the.west;would remain undeveloped : or;tkie present time;:'sin6e he;did `not'know~what the'potentialiuse would be but`he wouTd assume t.would:be-aommercial of':some sort sinae it ~eas adjaoent to.the other shopping aenter. Acoess o•the proposed:park aree=would be~very..simple beaause.'it would not take,people-through or;immed- 'ately ad3aoerit to:any oY-.the-residentiel pads`. These.were::un on tHe;hill substantially eoove wo`roads iridioated`on>the map. ~;There;were_ a~number<of uses whiah'the'City aould make of that roperty that would not'involve:ma3or:':expenditures - suah as.green_open areas, although he,did ot la-ow..all~ the "City!s policies of, what aould: and,;oould`;not be. done, perhaps a'riding ~.stable; or.s,'golY.driving=sange,'any'of=.those uses would.mske sense:bedause it was a weli~oonfined area 'th;;steep slope banks - the aotivities would_.be way below the housing units -:if tfie Commissiori will,'remember s'tarding at this'one aree, - it was a,long'way_;down the:canyon •. Any type'.:oY aotivity oould tas9~`place,y_in the";osnyon, and:if tHere were to be,any highly developed reoreation: feaxlity it;'should`be in'this~.erea st the mouth of the oanyon xather tham farther irito:the . oanyon whioh;would:areate`the same.tqpe'of problems.feaing:them - those.being ro"ads and covered drain'ege struotures,, eta ;:- If a ma3or neoreation~faaility wss deaided on 'it would-be at the ' ,. .. mouth oY the';aangon and:the balanoe :of the._oanyon Ieft in its natural state; this'would be a<` real;amenity Chairman Her~bst inquired;;as to the number of ebres in this proposel made~°to the Ci.ty. :. 1 1» ~:J ~ .. .;... ' -; '' ~ . ..~.: _ _ ~ t .1 ~ . . . . - ..: ,.~. .;•'' ,' :'. . ~ ;. ' ~. ~,-:. ~dz~ ,Meqers r',eplied'>it was:in the:.viainity of ten eares that portion that would be;donated -. iY the Gity,~wanted~them'-to stop,.,it on~`the, hillside, `it oould range;'enywtiere from.eight`to ~thirteen aares Co~i:ssioner Kaywood noted that Mr.• Meqers had mentioned an area whioh she had assumed would remain as th'e~Yorbe homestead,.but.he.had "said this would..be developed Yor more.oommeraisl. ~r: Meyers;replied that the developer:liad no aontrol%of that property, and he was sure they never wouTd`have`.:however, it'.was adjaoent 1io the bommeroial.property et the interseation of.Santa Ana Canyon Road<:and Imperial Highway,,but'he would doubt'that'ttie property would be one eore zoning. , ,. Chei`rman,He'rbst invited Mr: Yorba to,answer Commissioner`Kaywood's question. ,, i Mr.Yorbe°stated the property referred-to had a resolution of "intent for aommeroial zoning. ~Ar.,Yorba tfien requested to.be permitted to elaborate on'the proposal to.donate the csnyon area to the City,:- when-he had'Yirst heard:about.this from Mr. Meqers, he beoame a little excited: Those persons who had lived in northern Orange County for`some time oould recall the batanioal gardens on the,Bryant'ranah. :The County of.Orange,,.and.all of us, "missed the boat" by not aPfordin the g proper amount o4 relief in the>form of taxes.- the property owner,aould no longer aYford'to maintsin the gardens for the beneYit of the oommunity - and as s result the County lost it.through very shortsightedness. In this instanoe, if we oan possibly get this back - the botsriical gardens - whioh he felt wou7:3 be a tremendous asset to-the County suoh as indigenous plants native to>our..oountry could be planted on tHese hillsides which would be something of great delight and of value to the".entire aommunity. Hopefully, this will work and he would be most pleased himself =;a real natural aree whioh.the entire czomciunity.aould visit rather than private reareational centers - something.Yor the entire=community.. Commissioner Gauer inquired as the future of the Yorba;homestead. Mr. Yorba replied that it was not really a homestead - the property immediately adjacent to.the shopping`center was owned by ~abel Yorba, and the property had a resolution of intent for commeroial use - however, their own property,on which their home was,located was needed to rear their family, and presently.it was also used for citrus products. Mr. Yorba in reply to a question by Cummissioner Farano noted that the C-0 Zoning pending was 'to the south of the shopping center and was part of the proposed development. ~ ~. ,'i ( ( ! ~ ,,. s , ~~, ~ ,: ~~r ~ ~ , ~~ MINiI'~'~S, CiTY PLANNING'CO~dISSION, October 5; 1970 :` ,. . - , , . 5405 ;. -: ~ " ' 'x: , , .. , RECliAoSIFICATION .= Chairman,-Herbst advised Mr Megers that,he had still not answered AT ~x~~ O 70 71-13 Comm~ssiorier Seymour's question. tM GONDITIONAL QSE. Commissioner Seymour indioated~that his questioii had beeri answered in part RM r-; ~~? , PE IT NO ;1202 i.by,iridiaating theTe might;;be lowen density by':trading in-lieu park`fees Por % ` ``fi~u . eoreage, but aaoording to his oaloulation there would still>be`spprosimately TENTATIVE MAP OF 4 6 unit er '" o ~-'t'~? , s p aore even n the basis of'a reduation on the'one pad and.by TRACT NO .~'7288 trading the acreage; ' ~;'' ~ :` ': ` ` "; ~ ~foontinued) _ f a: ~ Mr Meyers rioted tkiat on the basis of~an average of 2.7 dwelling units per ~ '~~ sore they oould-not build the proposed;projeot. - ~~~`kra , , , . _ , ~~,y Commissioner Seymour noted he~appreoiated'that, and°as steted earlier one aould get hung up on ,~ Yigures per se; but that°is the way the Comm~issa.on.would.'have to relate to figures, however ~ , he .thought,~figurewise,:again,:development of,the~:pro3eat somewhere between 3.7 and.4 units per aor'e: but the is othi ia e ' ' ti~ , ,; re n r~g mag bout that: •'- ..' ;:, .' ~ ~ ~ „~, .. -. , _ { .- .~ '.. . . . ' • ' , ~ Mr Meyers;replied that 'e,t some point,,the d'eveloper, would,';~have to stop giving and reaogni:ze the i I~r , real ties of our.life as:developers,,no matter how aoncerried we..are about building very.good . projeots ideally, everyone would have a one aore:homesite but`.th"e•world is`less.than ideal ' , but theq had tried uery herd to;work witth the.topography,'with the nature of the area and had: ' ~~ ,. bhGked off substaritielly.~.on the?density before they'hed,oome te the point of a,'publia-hearing. ~ ' -~` .,. .,~ -: ~ 7 - ~ ~ ' . . . . . . . . . ~r . ~ .: Commissioner Seymour'interruptedby st+iting the developers aad the Commission seemed to go arouttd . ~~ ~ ; in airales,; but Mr ~eyers had;made it very olear in the Yirst hearing_that the problem was one > ' of density ,= that.is what our problem is ',density -'the. Cou~i.ssion started out'et 2.7 units~per ~. ?~*~' aare;and the proposed deyelopment was,5 a,-units er'aare ` ~ ' p , and now:•the.development is do~cn ,to 4 64'.units%per aar.e the Commission as far ss he oo ld tell and e '"'a ~ u , h was.not speaking<for them,- but for him lP 'w " ~ ; se , ere •trying ~to ; do ~ttieir , doggondest" to. see a.beautiPul pro3eot like this' take ' laae a d still liv ~ +?z l~ p n e within the.oorifines that'have been.set up;by.the General.Plan. -Somewhere tki r ' ' `" ~' ~~ ! e e must ;be some: meetin _ g ground - and he would try,his..best to'find this with the developer. ; ;~; Mr ~Leqers .'replied; that ,they, too, aere `trying:~to find that meeting', ground and had oome baok to ~ J' that severa3 times', but'iY the" oonce'pt of;people density was to;ba ignored entirely end speak " `~ only of un~.t density ~tfien the:'developers would need some 'guidelines. , ~;~c „ , , . ~ , . , ~ - - ~ , , ~, ; ., , , , , . _ guidel Chairman Herbsti noted .there,were some; ines in.the General Plan for the hill an1 aenyon area ' s ' :s r ' , „ , rigHt now _ : .. . ~ ~ Coaimissioner Allred then~note3.'rather thsn using the guidelines..of the:General Plan and what the ' v` , deaeloper Fias p ro3eoted, as.Commissioner Seyrtiour stated,;the Commission end the'developer were .,„; stil7: far apart --was it possible'to.get a little`alo§er - aould,the developer oome baak with ' , ': another pl att as. the Commission,.would suggest,`and this was"his personal opinion, with density ~~ not as great as ass now.:proposed but perhaps,e little.greater than.mhat we should have7 You ~ ~are talking';about 5.4'first then 4.6, and the Commission has been talking about 2.7 - oan a i ' happy medium be reached li.ke 3.6? . ~: Mr.~Roberts advised the Commissian in aonneation with oomments made by both Commissioners Allred r and;Seqmaur,'one of.the points that`.was brought out by the'staff,before was the possibility of i granting a bonus in terms of density for the.type, of project that is proposed here, namely a , platrned communitq - and.staff.did suggest,striatly an arbitrary figure - something in terms of ' 400.units on the entire 110 aares." This represented a 33~ increase over what is presently _. ' ` ~ ' _ _ . pro~acted, and'ju st in fsguring that out injdensitq"it would sligfitly over 3.6 units to the ~ :': ,gross acre. Therefore, the Commission might wish'to consider this iri their deliberations. Commissi~~ner Farano inquired: supposing as Mr. Meyers suggested'the oenter pad being used for i park purposes, and supposing the density on the R-1 areas,were reduoed to something in conformity ~ with,the citq's requirement of 7200 square feet for R-1, and leave the balanae of the R-2 exactly ~ as it is - where would that leave'the projeat.as far as density was aonaerned for the overall ~ . ,piece of property? ° • ~r. Meyers replied that that approach seemed to be"something that might be aaoeptable. ~ „ Commissioner Farano then reitereted his statement tkiat if the,portion proposed for a publia ~ park or for:whatever purposes - and he was now asking.how would it be if this R-1 area were ~ revised.to the traditional R-1 density, and leave the remaining R-2 as is, beaeuse he thought as Commis~ioner Gauer did.that the area surrounding the aommeraisl area, if the City was going to have R-2 anywhere, that would be the area in whioh it should be looated - all he was attempting to do was go a 1i+tle bit rather than leave it all that way - where. would that leave them in the overall density. ~" ~~~T ~~~~ Q .. ~ ; ~LL~Tt,'~.'ES., CITY'`PLANIJII3G CON~ISSION, ~' Oatober 5,.1~70 y~p( , ~ REQI,ASSIFICATION ~Assi'stant Development'Servines Direator Ronald Thompson inquired of NU -70=71 13 '~ Cooomissioner, Ferario ':, for olai~ification of botfi _the staPf and ~Lr.. Meyers - .. ~,• r-: he was a§suming`that;Commissioner,Farano was txlking about 7200 square feet CONDITIONAL.USE with a speaifio`number:oY dwelling.units,,not neoessarily,that every pad ,,. • PER~17.' , N0. :1202 :: "would,, heve the . same lot sizet '.TEINTATIUE ~AP;OF : Co~ssioner ~'arano;stated he was unaole to say how msny traditional R-1 lots 'TRACT'NO.;.:7288 Would.be~rinoluded:,-.end~then indibated on the_ proposed plan`:the.areas,that (oontinued).: were involved.' ,; . "Ckiairman Herbst no•ted that the density_would depend a'great deal on the"amourit of land that would-:be inoluded !n_the greem belt - you:would pr.obably have the same number oF housing. Commissioner Farano_noted th~t the.developer would have to establish the R-1 on the pads.that: had been indiaate3-ori tkie proposal, but the R=,2would'be the'.same as proposed, eaoept for the strip taken out for:the green belt. This then.would melse the residents on the Noh1 Ranoh happq beoause'the density would be more oomparable ,to ahat they presently;.enjoy - and by so doing a portion~,,o3rthe,...planned development aould be preserved, because the proposed:R-2 had:.some tremend- bus passibilities`and is something`that.oould not be;found in Anaheim presently. Furthermore, this aioizld'be;on a aondominium=type•,pu"r.ohase rather than a rental.> Mr Meyers aonaurred'that the R 2~mould be the~o'ondominium-type purohe,se;:that the"planner had e`,caLculated the;density would be somewhere in the'.vioinitq;of 4.3 - end"then inquired of Mr. ._ , ' Roberts'.whether: he- aoriburred in tlie,t osl'ou~ation' as. to?gross housing: units:; : - ; Mr STaughtar~'noted•;there oould be_'some severe;problems - the.Commiesion wes aware of the City`s . , °, general.; poliay,. regarding the., development of ,publio: 'parks, ad jaosnt .to _ sohonl sites ,whiah in ttie •:::past seemed,t~o be firm:Ly edhered;-to; and~this is a po,lias;matter tha,t would have.to be gone into ~':in g`reat detail with the Psrk and Reareation Departmert, the Cityr~eanager and the City Counail. There aere a;lot of;;problem§ involved; and he would hate to spend.a great deal of money before this oould be`aoo:epte3 by the City~ if eaoepted.. ',Chairman Herbst noted;that the developers had made an affer whiah oould oost the taxpayers of ,.. . .. ; Anaheim a gr,eat deel'of money other than.3uat the in lieu park.Yees ='development of the park . `could'be.spdnding a oorisiderable emount'oP money - it could be'a very good:plan,.but the ,Citq would have to:explore::this.:offer in,depth before:'it oould even ba aonsidered. ~r Meyers then stat"ed s1l-the developer:aould do aas to go on reaord with the proposal - the donating of that ares Yor e.park,`.reoognizing there..could.be some problems. ''Seaondly, they would aommi.t themselves to.R-1,7200 lots on:the pads indioated for R-1 with the lot lines to run down the bank to,pull out`more density - the lot 13nes;would be 7200 on the.pad areas - but-not;the slopes-whiah would remain in open green belt areas, and the R-2 portion remaining as proposed witki'the eaoeption of'•the area proposed to be'donated at the bottom of the canyon and having 3ust the,smaller`neighborhood reoreation areas. Chairman Herbst stated he felt there was major problem by stating this is what will be done, partiaularly where the,pxoperty„abuts the Nohl.ranah where it is not developed on one little pe;cl going dowa'- .this goes back up to a very large developeble area - if the Co~ission is going.to a11ow 7200 square foot lots abutting Mr. Nohl's ranah where we have designatt~d A-H 10,000 for thet partiaular area -;he for one felt that wHerever e pieae of property abuts another the.property.should be:the same zone, the same size lot whiah it is abutting - iP ;there, aas a,problem,:the ad3oining pieoe;of proper,tq should not~be made to suffer =-only the one who is requesting s more intense zone should be made to sufier. `EEr. Meyers advised the Chsir that:what he'was talking about`was 7200 square foot lots on the pad.areas and leaving the slopes as green areas -`however, in reference to the Nohl ranch R-H, ,T0,,000 Zpning .that was not i•n add~ition •to tke. ygreen ~be~ts , sinoe he .was sure that inolud'ed ` the gree7i belts or slopes. •The"refore, if the slope area'as indicated wes retained for a,green belt area'and•inoiud'ed iri the size of the 1ot it could verq well be 10,000 square feet. Co~issioners Farano and Allred stated that the slopes were inaluded in the 10,000 square foot lots. _ Chairman Herbst emphasized that he wanted this clearly understood, beaause it would be brought up many times in the future; that the City had ellowed a certain type of development on the Yorba ranch -.7200 square £oot lots - why aouldn't other properties in the canyon have the same. Commissioner Rowland was of the opin'ion that the Commission was attempting to resolve something that should be disoussed at a work session, and e11 oP these problems should be thoroughly dis- ~ cussed as to the pros and cons without taking time from the Commission's othor public hearing deliberations. It plaaed the Commission in the position'of being in front of a gun, and was rot fair to the Commission, the residents of the canyon area present in opposition, nor the develcper. ._ _ _ ,. :, ;.; ~ .. . ..,:.. ,, > ,, . - .; . . ~~.. J.~ = .:--= `-=_: ~ '; _ ~ , MINUR'ES, CITY:PLANNINCr CO~MiSSION,:oatober 5, 1970 ~ 7 - RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Herbst noted .that the hearing had been`alosed, but it oould be ~NO 70-71=13 ~.;reopened if .the Co~ission.so d'esired for:edditional informstion, as well as to oontinue'the,publio,hearing. ' - CONDITIONAL~ USE . . . ., :. !PER.MIT-NO I202;` Commissioner Allred.was of .the opinion that ~Lr. Meyers had something to .,. . - •- go on.aPter all this disoussion, therefore; he Yelt the-hearing should be `TENrATIVE MAP'OF - reopened.and oontinned to allow tAr.,Meyers time to revise his program and `TRACT`.NO. 72$8 ,,presettt:it ag~in., taki:ng into oonsideration el~ the guidelines`presented (oontinued) during'the digauss'ion, althougti there might not be suff'ioient guidelines whioh.oould,be'~ntcrpreted as what either'the Commissian or the developer ` .. would.like. I. = _ . : ; : Assistant City Attorney John Dawson pointed.out'to the Commission two matters whiah would have some 1ega1 signifi.eanoe,those are: 1).There haVe.been oomments by the Commission that anything ,that would be done here aould Yorm a preoedent Por the entire hillside erea;also some of the Commission have indidated`that a.preoedent had`;already:beett set bq the.development of the Nohl ranoh. 'He would.lilse~,to point out that in:the General Plan.,in this erea probably above all areas.througHout the~City, ~he•Commission,must oonsider the'properties on an,3ndividual basis, end any deoision the,'Co~ission makes is not - at least in the opinion of the;Gity~Attorney's ,, Offiae = setting a preoedent. These ttiirigs;must stand'on, their own-tv+o, feet. Bear~ing;that , _,.. .:in mind, regardless whcst.-the,Commission might;`otherwise oonsider as';§ettin e area in•parti'oular must be oonsidered on its own.merits throughout`,;;and~will berqu3,texiYr`ankly, to the,benefit:'oY all conoerned, be it."one homeowners group or.:another, o'r..the developers themselves. " `2)The question;brought up by Mr.. Slaughter in oonneotion mith;parks - the polioy that has been set ~Or parks ;that the City:would looate them neat to, sohools - this is an effort on the part of ~the City to buy less'property,so that.the oan,share~the sohool " and balls and~Whataver else would:be needed right.in the '~~~ds SO You:aan have bats ' park'and the sahoolground. Howeyer, where a.,"situatiott ooours in.the hillside<area where it'ma;y or may:not be:in.the interest of the City to',establisH a park next to a sohool,_aiiy-.unique park, as.this would be;.:would obviously be aaoeptable.by the ;City e,nd. does not.neoesse,tsily hade._.to be,neat to a'sohool. THat'sgein, is ~"not a matter of solifl;polioy:, ho~vever, if-this-metter is being oontinued,.a;;.statement on behalf oY either admi,ri3,atration or oY the'City:Counoil: on that wou7.`d:•:olariPy it. ' ,Commissioner Allred noted,.that almost everqthing in the past had been approved in that manner - ~., erythirig stood:'on.its own merits. :... that ev -: . . . . ,. . _ Mr Dawsori noted that was very true, but yery often in the City generally, many times it is stated,.that aertain things.oould not be done beoause s preoedent would or•had been set. This is a me,tter of hiding behind'.something when the Commissiori or Counoil does not wattt to make s.denision. Mr. Thompson in oommenting on Mr. De,wson's statements noted that in the past the area west of the river the City did 3udge thzngs oiiu~.~eir individual merits,:.and that is why the City is faaed with the.problem today of a Brookhurst.Street - ahy.that street has been aidened from 80 feet to l00 Peet and now to 120 Yeet, beoause, quite frankly, 3udging it.thst way we oould not retain the balanae of living in.an area,snd the publio Yaailities - the City found itselP reaoting rathex thar_ planning, and he aould not think of e worse vve,y to get the General Ple:n out of balanoe than;3udgiag:everything on;its individusl merit. If the City does that, ic will end up ~ with twice°~;he~, density in the..hill and oanyoa area that.has originally been planned for and ! planned all tlie publia faailities.. : . _ _; , _ _ _ , _ _ _ . ~ Chairman Herbst reopened the hearing. f Chairman Herbst inquired as to the amo•.uit of time tfie develapers would need to present any I revised plans - whereupon Mr. Meqers stated that a two meek oontinuanoe would only be required. I The Commission advised tht~ dedelopers that any revised plans would have to be in the department bq;Friday, October. 9, 1970. Mr. Craig Grainger, 125 South Claudina Street, appesred before the Commission and stated that they mere faaed with an esorow period, and these continuanaes were areating a problem. There appeared to be a meeting of,minds of what is to be acoomplished, and instead oP another oon- tinuance, why oouldn't the proposal be approved sub3eat to the City aooepting the park and subjeat to the oonditions set up - then a oontinuanoe would not be neoessary, and the problems aould be worked out in study sessions with the department rather than taking up the time of the Co~ission. Commissioner Seymour stated he did not think there had been a meeting of minds whatsoever, what seemed to have been aaaomplished was some progress - it was far from a meeting of minds. r' - ~ ~ y ~ - - ~~~~. ~ .. ~~ . 1 r,,. - . . . . . ,.~.~,. ,~: , : ..~..,. .. ~ ~ _~_,.~. . MINUTES, ~:CITY PI;ANnIING; CO~ISSION, ;;0atober -5, 1970 - 5~08 RECLASS_ . ,,, ; ,: .,. ,.. . .: : . IFICATION Disaussion was then held on mhether-or not.s;two=week oontinuariae would N0.'70 7.1`-13 be~suffioient Yor; both,steff and the`developers to present alternatives. CONDITIONAL USE Mr`i~Mayers.advised the.Commissic+n.from their'standpoint they would find a .., ;PERMIT~:NO '1202. way to;liv.e with_::the tro-week`aontinuanae. =:they`lrnew at that_moment what ° ~ ,heir proposal would be:= this:hed been disoussed _quite openly, the con- TENTATIVE ~AP OF ~tiriuanae;aould be:Yor the aonvenisnae of the City. ~ ~ _;.TRACT NO:: 7288 ; ~ . `.(aontinued)-`" Chairman,Herbst noted that the,Cor=issiori was.ettempting to give the develop- ers::;an opportunity,tb home in ,with'speoifi~aetions laid down by the bommission, but'these petitions aould also`be denied. ' Mr': Meqers then restated and`summerized the position the developers'aould ta,lce at`this point, and that;`was'that: sub3ect to the,;approval of tHe':C=ty, they would donate.the property shown on the plan as Toavnhouse Are~ "A" 'at the bottom of tlie aanyon; they aould keep the pad densities _-~ .. on those;portions,of the.'~ownhouse;,Area "B" as presented; and>,in the,single femilq area R-1 they would bui13 to:R-1 72GO standsrds on the buildable pad areas`- if it was easier to say R-1.10,000 or whatever it oelaulates;,to that.would be'fine with them, but they would live with . . the densities that would be_yie~ded,on the:;;pad;areas as:;showri considering those as"R-1 7200 Tots,Por,those.pads Beyond;;those,ststemerits;„e1l:tfiey`oould do was;to.redraw a map. Chairman Herbst.'then inquired:what,would,happen'if the,Perks and Redreation Direator deoided thYs°would not be aoaeptable•- what>did tkie developer plan'to do aith`the qround? This was _.. , the dilemma he.:dould~foresee; and the.Commission'did need an aneWer trom Mr: Collier, the. City Mariager, and'the'',bitq:Counoil:.v~hether'or not:this would be aaneptable for a park, and .. tlien to b'e refleated on the General~,Plan as suoh.; Mr:. ~eyers,repTied if the developers,were not required to develop that area for reoreation faoilities,.they aould live aith it'on.that basis. ..Mr. Thompson iriquired whether.this.uiould pert of:open spsce on the plan „regardless ahether it we§'2ield'for.-.publ3a;;or;;Private: ~: p. . , . Mr:'~leyers re lied this aould~be sor Commissioner Farano ststed it we§ his opini'on he would rathen leave it in its.natural state, sinoe it~`would'create,"e good rustio;appearanae. Mr. Meyers then stated.it would ba left nstural, but if the developers were required to start ;developing it =:beoeuse oP`the eatensive development costs'-.the;situation would be baok to `~priar,to;the originsl.disaussion. Chairmsn:Herbst.then asked.for olarifioation that the developars would withdraw that aenyon erea from tkie,proposed;,R-2,'offer it to the City'for a perk or leave it as open spsae, and undeveloped -:reoognizing;this, Pirst the.developer: offered this in lieu of park fees - but there•was a poss,ibility that'these fees would still have to be paid - was the offer still open. Mr`. Meyers•replied that he reoogn~zed this faot thst he might s~ill have to pay park fees - but he was_hoping the City would tske it,as a park bsaause it made'.sense as a natural reareation area. - ;,. ,% _ Commissioner Farano inquired what would happen if the City did not`aoaept this oPfer - whereupon, Mr. Meyers replied they would ati].l have to pay park Yees. Mr. Slaughter'advised the Co~ission that the City Counoil was undertaldng a study for the possible inorease in park Pees - the.appliaant should ~e'advised°of that and should lrnow that it would be e potentiel aost`aonsideration ahich should he taken into aocount. Co~issioner Farano inquired where there wes grading proposed on the R-1 pads would a prob'lem b'e oreated to this area7 . 6~r. Thompson replied that basically there might be homes on 5000 square foot lots but more open sgace and::less homes. . Mr. Meyers stated;these would be 7200 square £oot lots on the pads. Mr. Thompson noted that.would be anoth~r way,,but.the basio result would be less homes on each pad'- there were a number of ways this could be saaomplished,fewer homes on 5000 square foot loi,s or on.7200 square foot lots on thH pads - either way there would be less homes - in one instance there would be larger lots, while the other way there would be more open space. i • ; i~ ~ i I ~i l~ .~ c ~ ~ ~~"~`~^5. 1 t t`, 1 4 ~,_ ` ~ ~ ~FT~i', t . .' ..~ ~. . .. .. ', ~~ MINi1TES,,- CI1R PLANNING COrIl~iISSION, October•_ 5, 1970 ~q ?~~ i =- - ':.. .: .: ,.,,. , o.'. . _ 4~ .~ +RECLASSIFICATION°j` Commissioner Rowland again stated he:'did not think.the.Commission should ,,~'~ NO 70 71 13 be"taking'~up allzthis:time;for someEhing tHat should be;,handled~at a "~~t~ y~' ~' ° work session, especially since there`hK+ ~~Lher~petitions to be heard;_ ,,,.;Y:~ CONDITIONAL USE this should be continued and all t,~~ ~&E~~e~^.~r~ses worked out at e work ~ 1 PERMIT NO 1202 session before the Co~ission :wou~:~;• R~~f~?:~ ~t,sx~9+~.r; it. •'This would;.give ' 'x~~ ` ' tHe~Co~ission time to';thoroughl~"~~a;~•L~r ~,~~.~ ~.~~e offc=~; implications, ;~ ,zTENTATIVE MAP OF etc, 4,~r~ ,: , ` , . If fi~ TRACoatinued88 - Cha . , , _ . , ) irman Herbst egreed with Coimna~,~.t<~^~~r ~s~*~iee~~} stating ~there had been Y'~ ~?~ ; ,;: such a drestic change in that.plaQ ^~?;t~,~ ~;~ ~~~14.d-be put on paper; ' '~ , althoughFthere appearedito be.;e closer meeting of minds;:it still should fyr~'~ be put on paper ;: : ..: ~:a; ~:~., ~:.: _ . . ., i ;'` - .. . .. . ; , -.~ . .' .. . ~ . . ~3+~' Cou~iasioner Rowland~offered,a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 70-71-1~, `+`, Conditional Use:Permit'_No 1202, and TentaEive Map of Tract No: 7288.to tlie meeting of - October;'19, '1970, to; allow. fime for', the sEaff to' obtain `a report from the,City Council,, +~µ4' Ciry Manager,,and the;;Parks•and Recreation'Director regarding ;the,offer~,af~the`canyon portion ~y,,+ 'of subject property,.for..a'park sfte:~in lieu of:perk fees and.for the submission:of revised `~;' ~plans iridicating that'all~pads groposed for R l devel~opment are to be,developed with 7200- aquare foot lots,•said,-square footage not.:to include the slo e,'areas;which are ~ P proposed to , .be retained as green lielts.' Co~issioner~Seymour secoaded..the motion. .MOTION CARRIED. - :~ RECESS Commissioner Rowland moved for:a ten,minute:;secess: Commissioner A~11r•ed f ~, ~'~ seconded the motion MOTION CARRIED.' The meeting recessed at 3:57.P.M. L»; ~ , RECONVENE Chairman Herbst"~f onvened the%meeEing at 4c'14 P.M., all~•Qo~issioners ' ~~ ' being present ~~ RECLA~SIF.ICATION CONTINUED'PUBLIG HEARING WILLTAM B: AND.ELSIE M:5 PURDY; 161 East iw N0; 70 71 12 ~ ~OrangeEtiorpe.Avenue, Placentia, California„ Owners;.H:M;S AIR CONDITION- ~~; . ` _c ING CORP:-; .760; North MainsStreet, Suite A,';Orange, California,',Agent; _ ~ ;~ .VARIANCE~NO 2203 properfy',':desc=ibed as ~' An irregulaily shaped parcel of land,.consisting ~'+; - of,approximately one-acre~ havin ~ " Fi a, ; . , _ g a;,frontage of approximately 250~feet <; on?_the north°_'side of•P:lacentis Avenue, hading a maximum?'deplh of approxi- ~~ mately 318 feet, and being~located appioximately'S30,"feet east;''of the`'centerline of`State : '~ ;' College Boulevard.. Property;presenfly classified R A,~6GRICULTURAI:, ZONE, h~';~ ~ REQUESTED:CLASSIFICATION R=3, MT7LTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. • '`. REQUESTED~. VARIANCE. .-WAIVERS"OF (~.) MAXIMUM, $EIGHT WITHIN .150, FEET. OF AN R-A ZONE, '"'~,;; `(2).MINIMUM-LAND AREA PER DWELI:ING;:UNIT, (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER,DWELLING'UNIT; AND'-(4);MINIMOM REQUIR~'D PARRING SPACES,. i, ~ . , TO ESTABI:ISH A 50=UNIT.APARIM~NT:COMPLEX. '_ :' , . . : ~ . ., Subject.petitions were continued from the meeting.of September 10, 1970, in ord~r- to allow { ' the petitioner;time to consider revision of plans'and:t.o resoTve the many problems presented f at said hearing. ' Asaistant,Zoning~Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the_locaiion of.subject property, uses ~" °,establislied in close proximity,.and the proposal and noted that s.ub:je.ct.peGibions had'•been ;- continued from the meeting.of September l0 for the petitioner to resolve ttie many„problems ~ wh,i'ch the Commission had indicated et that-`public'heaiing; and'a telephone dis cussion on. `. ~" ~' Tliursday, October 1, igdicated the petitioner was;proposing.to rev3se~tlie plans, having 34~ i 'f apartment,units, but tliese pians. had:not been.presented to the staff, and staff had not had ~" a chance:to analyze the proposed projecc -`therefore, in view of the lack of revised plans, staff would reco~end a two-week cont3nuance bp~ granted_in arder to allow the petitioner sufficient t'ime.:to submit revised plans. ' Coimaissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassi- fication No. ;70-71-12'and Variance No. 2203 to,the meeting of October 19, 1970, to allow ' the petitioner,time to submiE.revised plans. Commissioner A11red seconded,the motion. i• MOTION CARRIED: ~. ..r.,~, .~... ... .. . . . . . .,.. . . ~ ~~. :.~ ;. . .. ~ - ~.`,~'.. ,:~,.~.. .:.r<.......:..~ ,._ .. .,~x~ :. . - - - . , .. . , . :. .. . :,,. , ,, .. . . .. _ -. . '. {l ' , ~ .. ~~, . . ~ . . ~~ . ~ ~~ ~ . . ~.. ~ . . ' MINUTES, CITY"PLANNING'COMMISSION; October 5, 19]Q"~ 5~~ . .. . - ,,. ~ . . - . VARIANCE NO >2205 --CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING- THE'::COLWELL COMPANY, Frank R. Jackson, Box - ~ '2007,YBrookhurst`Station, Anaheim;,California, Owner; re.questing WAIVER TENTATIVE MAp,OF•;, OF>:TEiE~REQUIREMENT TAAT~RESIDENTIAIi`LOTS_:REAR:ON;ARTERIAL.HIGHWAYS,-T0 TRACT NO:s4427, PERMIT THREE SIDE-ON LOTS,on property deacribed as::. Two irregulerly REVISION NO 7 shaped parcela of`land:,l'ocated aorth-and south of Riverda7.e Avenue, the ~` northerly;parcel conaisting of approximately•25 acrea, having a`frontage "' .~TENTATIVE;MAP OF; of;epproximately:'.1,420 `feet on the eorth side of',Riverdale Avenue with a .TRACT N0,`_5827, maximum depth of,approximately,750 feet and'located east of Bluerock RBVISION NO 3 Street, aiid the.southerly paicel consisting:of.approximately 10,.2 acres, ' '~~ - having a`frontage:~of approximately 550~feet an tlie~south side of Riverdale TENTATIt/E`,MAP. OF Adenue with a maximum?depth of;approximately 1',400".feet located east of 'TRACT NO .7284 r Sweetwater Street: Property'presently.classified R-A; AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ TENTATIVE:TRACT REQUEST; NOr 4427, REVISION N0,~7, PROPOSES-SiJBDIVISION OF SUB,TECT PROPERTY.INTO :44 R=1 20NED LOTS, .. h0. 5827, REVISION N0. 3, PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF.SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 48 R-1 ZONED LOTS. N0. 7284 PROP05ES SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 41°.R=1 ZONED~ LOTS. Subject.petition and'tracts were continued from the,meeEing of.September 10, 1970, at the request of the petitioner to consider'redesi~gn of;~t6e'tract-maps to eliipinate L•iie propoaed side=ua:lots, ~ -, Aasistant;.Zoning Superviso=:Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of aubject'property, uaes established in _elose prozimity, and:the proposal,to have`three°side-on lots,::two.3n Tract No. 7284~ and one in .Tract.No,: 4427;~, Revisi:on No ;:.7, that the,:proposed,-tracts were "esserit.ially the same layout and design~which had been''previously,approved for the.;property under previo,usl~ revised tract maps however, aubsequent to-the,,previous approval_of the tracts, the:~oning Ordiaance tiad been amended to,preclude the development of,side-on or front-on sfngle-family residential~'lots-'adjacent to arterial<':highways, and:.three>of these lots:.were".approved on the predious.tract mepa,;wtiich no>longer.conform: to the 2oning Ordinance. Furthermore, sEaff had prepared a''number of;possible s~edesigns.'of ttieitract`mapa toprovide';for rear-on:lots, but in view of-the limited ao~ount af~properey with:,which Eo'.work;,particularly_inllight,of the:existiiig road;pattei-si whicli already~had;been;,established,::none of the alternatives seemed " reasonaa~le`urider<the circwristanceo ,.`., •.' Pir §laughEer then noted`~tHat.b"ecause of the.coacecn expressed by the Commission regarding ~he;possible'flooding,in`this area as~iaised~.,by the~`recent-letter received fs:~m the Corps of Eng~ineers,_the Commission might wish•.to either continue this item for'an addiEional period afi-tY9ae ia~order°that a;`decision'could'be ar=lved at regarding.ttie flood control problem, or tf t2te Commission felt the flood l~azard.west of Ehe Imperial'bridge was not as critical as ttost;~,~ast^of tfie bridge, it might,be appropriate to require a favorable flood hazard '' lehter from ,:Me -0range.County F1ood Control District as a condition of approval of the final trac't mepa"- ; Mr. '~aI k6ab, ~ngineer of the development, appeared b~fore the Commission and noted he con- . curred witli".all the co~nditions of approval except'for Condition No•. 9 of Tract No. 4427, which required extension.of Addingt::sf ~treet easterly, to the elementary school.site since . they were;proposing;to`.have a.pedestrian walkway between lot Nos. 36 and 37, and inquired why it was iiecessary to extend addington Street as`staff:proposedr Office Engineer Jay Titus,_in response to Commission.questioning, stated the reason-for asking - that the street be exteqded and cul-de-saced along the easterly boundary of Tract No. 4427 was because the school"had requeated an access from the tract to the school property, and in the past the City had accepted a 10-foot wide.pedestrian access easement similar to that proposed on the tract, but:from past,experience, this created considerable problems as to policing:and the maintenance adjacent to the masonry wa11 ~:?:ich had been a considerable problem.- thereEore, the recommend?tion to provide this access,going to the school with a wide enough,street would preclude problems that had occurred in 'Khe past, and it was logical to place this street to the school properCy line. The Commission inquired whether or not it would be more expensive to maintain a street than a walkway; whereupon Mr:.Titus stated that he knew something of the policing problem that occurred in`the northeast section of the City with:daily calls being received from the property owners,complaining about.people riding moEorbikea, horses, etc. on this walkway, and at night all kinds of people would be`lurking in the narrow confines of these walls which were only ten feet apart, and there were many undesirable characters in this area - not necessarily from the. homes on the atreet but outsiders, and lt presented a real police problem in patrolling and maintaining this area. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not there was any other access to the school; where- !--°_" upon Commissioner Allred noted that if there was not one available, the children could walk , back to Riverdale Avenue to gain entrance to the school. ~; ~ " ~' r ~ -_ ;. I ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~~f J ~ ~,~ ~ . V'p - . .~ : • -. .:.;: . , ~ . ~. ~ ~ .: . . . G MINUTES, CITY•.PLANNING COP4IISSION; Octolier 5,•1970 5~11 ~ ; ? > ;, . '= .: ~ : ,, ~ VARIANCE NO 2205 =,Commiseioner~Gauer inquired;why..a~wal,kway could not_be provided along .. . °? - ;the freeway'fence or;the:canal { TENTATIVE IfiAP `OF rTRACT:NO 4427, ¢ommissioner Rowland_:inquired whether.or not the sohool district was ~ REVISION NO :=7 aware of the concern';'and;the,problems that a.walkway presented. ~ TENTATIVE MAP;rOF Mr TiEus replied that he was not.-aware of whethei or not the school , .. , . .,- _ . r TRACT:: NO ;.5827 " . .° liad been ; contacted . , ' .` '!REVISION N0:?::3~ ~ ,•;+ ,; Mr Slaughter`advised the Co~iesion that.it was the.staff's understanding ~ ..TENTATIVE MAP,;OF . that'tHe school.was presenEly.being uaed,for.retarded children, aad,'thua, 'TRACT.~N0:,Z284 the,pathway would not.be necessary because these;children would.be coming (Continued),:: `from.~all;oder-the`area. :'However,:3n tfie near future this scfiool would be ' ~' '`` converted,into a normal'elemenEary school, et which time~access would be 1' - •;",.needed;:and the policing problems`of these walkways had not.,beeri-discussed ' . : .. . , - with the achool district. Chairman Herbst noEed that•3t would be up to the developer.to provide a more convenient way ~ for ch'ildren'to gain,,acceas~to the achool.. ~ Mr ,Raab replied that he `could not see why a street:was necessary.when a walk would.do, and `anyone~purchasing lots adjacent to said walkway,would be fully aware of Yt. ~ Mr Titus stated that the purchasers:might be aware of the.walkway, but they were not aware ~c of the.,problems which coBTd resulf, ae:had been`experienced by other.property owners. , .~-: Mr Raab then:noted;that a'simila; problem had±occurred on Rowland Avenue where"a park was ;adjacent to the MatEie Maicwell School,,;and tHe:only,solution~`was to'':either~:get sid of Ehe, ;problem or eTiminate'the 10-foot;walkway, thei:eliy re,quizing'the children~to walk to Riyerdale . : Avenue. ~ 'Mr TiEus noted that,!it was:definitely.not conducive'Eo the questionable-type.people who might 1'frequerit this;~,walkway, and.~this'would not occur~if a;40 foot:'.;sEreet were,;pro'vided, and'that , ~ ,.. !the type of people ,who wou13 be ~lurking in this`:walkwa~+ generally;did not 'reside'in.the ,area, 'and tfien, in reapon@e to;Commission questioning, stated that even.if the wells were removed :!and landscaping 'pu[ ~ up, within` a~ sbort -while~ tfie ,landscaping'.would grow; .and the` same `result- -?ant problem would oc,cur :J ~..Commissioner'Kaywoo'd:-inquired wheEher or;:not Chere could be=:a flooding problem in this area , , ,, _ . ~ and wondered;whether,any action-ehould lie taken~on'the,petition and~.tracts until such time`. as the;Flood Control~D'strict and the-Corps of ^cngineers had resolved the'possible flooding I ~ sproblems , ~ . , , ' t `Commis'sioner Allred,.aoted that since there were a nwnber of homes already constructed there, and,tfie Co~ission had pieviously"approved this'tzact and it was before the"Co~ission only because of an':amendment to.the Anaheim Municipal Code. prohibiting side-on lots, there ;;appeared•to lie no..reaeon~for a delay oa approval of subject'tracts and variance. 'The Commission'Secretary,read a letter,.to the Co~nission from the Orange County Flood Control District, recommending that the.City of 6naheim obCain a letter from the Corps of Engineers '.regarding-the possible.flood hazard for`these tracts prior'to.making a decision on the tracts. Mr..Raab noted.that the most southerly tract should be imp=oved fin'sC and'[hen work toward the river. By that time; the problem mighE be alieviaEed. `Fur.thermore, in discuasions with the F1ood. Control District, tt-ey h'ad'agreed to, p,ro~,ide the revet~nent along the river as required by the F1ood:Control District,,and that.he, as a p=ivate civil engineer, did not wish to argue,with the Elood Control DistricE or the Corps of Engineers, but there were tracts already deveToped.to the.north, east and south of the canyon,~and if a major flood did occur;_pot only these tracts.but all the cities to Huntington Beach would be affected. Fo one appeared in oppositian to subject petitions.- THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held;by the Commisaion relative to the conditiona:set forth in the Report to the:Commfasion,regarding tlie submission of a favorable flood hazard letter. Zoning'Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that according to a letter received from the Corps-of Engineers, the only tract.that'would.be affected would be that one north of Riverdale Avenue - why would there be'any difference between flood hazard conditions on subject property than would occur on.the properties which would be under conaideration at the evening session under General P1an Amendment No. 122, and why had the Corps of Engineers and:the F1ood Control District waited until most recently to bring this problem of flood hazards to the attention of the City. +~ ~kV ." : ' ._a. ~ e ~ 5, 2 ~Y ~ ~ ~ ' •r. Y~ ~j . . • ': .•. .~ • .. ~. . yW ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CODIlfISSION, October 5,;1970 ' S~12 `t ,. ., ,. , , -' : T, tt : ,; VARIANCE N0: 2205',- Mr Roberts:then read a letter,from,the Orange County,Flood Control , ~~, , . . ! ' Distiict at 'the time a tentative=tract: had b'een submitted'to them rin ~, :.- , ~ `~"'~ ` „ TENTATIVE MAP OF ' September of:1969 ;in which specific conditioas.were set forth relative ~ : - s~ . TRACT N0 '4427, to a_protective redetment:•along:;the portion of the tract :adjacent to the '` T , REVISION N0: 7 ' Santa Ana-River, a 5 foot;;chainlink fence along the F1ood Control District M' ~q~ ,Y:~; ; . '` ` nortlierly boundary._of the..:tract;,' a storm channel: to „include~chainlink ~ ~~,h ~~ TENTATIVE MAP OF ~. fencing to,be consEructed~from~,Riverdale Avenue to.~the Santa Ana River, rxu: TRACT NO 5827, '` the entry.into the-Santa'Ana River of this storm channel being approved ~~' . -' REVISION NO;: 3 ` by the Orange Counfy Water District and th~ ~range.Courity F1ood Control r~ ki.- 6 r~:• ' ,District and the°_ rovision of.necessa , p ry storm drains from.the.street ` Y TENTATIVE MAP OF fo tfie storin channel•stiould be desigsied and'conatrucEed in accordance ~y?{*' TRACT- N0. :7:284 ;: with approval of' the City ,Engineer . t 5~. , ,:;: (Qontiriued) .; `~.'. ~. > ~a.. : Mr.. Roberts,'in reaponse to Commission;:questioning relative to the ~~~ recoi~ended:coridition of;a favorable flood;hazard lette=,,CondiEion No, 9, stated that in ';~`i the eyent-the Commiasion~was of:the opiaion that the flood hazard.was tfie same~on aubject ::::~`~ ' property as'"it woui.d be'on•.the'east, then this letter ahould be a.:requirement of the ' conditioi-s~:of approval.~ Furthermore,.,there was 8.storm~channel alorig Tract No. 4427, as well:as between:~Txact,Nos. 5827''aad 7284: Mr.,Raab, iii response to Co~ission questioning, atated that the storm channel had to be ~ .. ,:: built'from;Riverdale Ayenue to,the river =,however,'the'wesEerly'portion of the char.nel , ~,;:~ south;of.Riverdale Avenue.wes already in, and a chainlink'fence was also construcced on it. '• Co~pissioner Allred~offered Resolutioa No..PC70-182.:and moved for its passage and adoption ,; :~ ~ to."grant;Petition,for Variance.No.,22J5, sub~ect to.conditiona. {See Resalution Book) „~,.r ~ .~~`-`` On roll call the foregoing resol.ution~.wes passed by the following vote: :~,~ ' AYESc COI~AfISSIONERS:Z.Allred, Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Herbst. :;; : NOES:;, • COt~AfTSSIONERS:! i,Kaywood; Rowland.: • ;.~a ABSENT: COrff~fISSIONERS: `..None. .. - .. . ,_ - . ,,. , ':',:>r ,-: -..,, •, , Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve TenEative Map of .tact No. 4427, Revision , ,~. No F7;, subject to the 'following ,conditions: ~ - ~ ;_„`: !: , ' ; ,. 1 ~That approval of Tentattve Map of Tract No. 4427, Revision No. 7;.is ~granted subject • ; , ,, . . i ~"'~`, t , to the approval of:Variance No.,2205 ~ i' ~ ` ~ ' i ' ` ~ . : ' 2, That should Ehis subdivision be=developed as more,,than one'subdivision, each sub- i f ` ; divisi'on thereof sha11 be;submitEed"in~.tentative form'for approval: ~ 3, That in,accordance with"City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall:shall'be conetructed ~ <" on the nortli'property line aeparating:Lot Nos: 18 through 23 and Riverdale Ayenue, ; . ;: except tliat;;-.for corner Lot No. 18, said wall shall`be stepped down to a height-of `' thirt inches,in the front Y Yard setback.required. ~ ~ ~ .:.. 4., That al1 lots within this tract:ahall be aerved by underground utilities. 5. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a ~ final tract map. 6. That the vehicular acceas rights e~ccept at street and/or alley openings to Riverdale Avenue shell be dedicated"to the City of Anaheim. .;-.. 7. That drainage shall be diaposed of in a manner that is.satisfactory to the City ; Engineer. - 8. 'That'a 6-foot masonry wa11 shall be constructed along the south property-line of _ Lot Nos. 42, 43; and 44. . ~ 9.; That the 5-foot walkway'indicated as Lot A shall be deleted. Co~uissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED'by a vote of 4 to 3. ;. Co~nissioners Rowland and Seymour stated their "no" vote was based on the fact that provision ~ of :extending a street easterly to the elementary.school site was not propoaed in the motion, and some access should be provided for the school children. Co~nisaioner Kaywood stated her '!no" vote was based on both the atreet elimination and the elimination of requiring a favorable.flood ~azard letter from the Orange Founty Flood Control ~ District. ' ~ - i.: 's: ~ ""`s~e~ ... - -_ _ , ;~; ,, ;~ ^ p x w*~~~ _ -.; . . _ , ..._ ~' __ . ~... ~.,.. . x .r:.a z _.s ~ ~ ~ _ < <a-~ ,r~Rr.,a ~ Y`f } }~~` \ Y ~~ n a ~ . . ..~ .: .. .;. : -. , . ~ . ~ - r } ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C02QSISSION, October 5, 19Z0 51~13 _ ' ~ ~ VARIANCE NO~ 2205:- Co~issioner Se ~ " ' . " . ymour offered;a r~solution; aeconded.by Commissione= Gauer• ' ~ aad MOTION _CARR7ED by;a 5 0:2 vote;to approve Tentative Map of Tract .,TENTATIVE MAP'OF •No 5827; Revision No:< 3 aubject-to th f llo n ~'~~ ~ ' ,, e;; o wi g conditiorisi; " TRACT NO 4~27;; , ,, - . .+~ n ~ REVISION NO 7 1 That ahould this'subdiyision..be developed~es more 'than one sub- ` - division `ea h ubdi e ~ ~.~ ~~~,~~n'~ ~ , c s vi ion-thereof shall be,submitted in'tentative •• TENTATIVE MAP ,'OF ~ form for approyal ' ~ ": ~~~ •. TRACT N0: 5827; ~,~~,:. REVISION'NO 3` . 2 That in.~accordance witk City;Council policy, a 6 foot masonry~well ~;,~. ~'', , -shall be.:constructed on the~.south prope=ty,,line separating Lot.` TENTATIVE MAP OF Nos .1.through 5'and Lot Nos 43-t6ro h ~ :~~. . .; ug 48,;and Riverdale Avenue. • 7284 ; ., ; , . - ~ TRACT NO" ' - , . :-(Continued) 3 That all~lots.within this trect shall be served by undergro"und t ~ ~ ~utilities:. • „ ~ .~ , ;~:.. `:4 .That st=eet.names s~all be approved_by the.City of Anaheim prior to approval`of a , ~'~ , , .final eract ma ' ., P ~ ~ i. : , ' .: ; : ,: ;' ~ . w k -5 Thet the vehicular.acceas rights except at street..and/or..alley;openings to~Riyerdale ve s a ' f'~` ., A nue h ll be dedicated to Ehe City.of Anaheim.` '`' 6. That ap~rovai of Tentative Map ~t Tiect No.' S827, Revision'No. 3, is granted subject ~ to-appxoval of.:Yariance,;No. 2205. • ';r, 7. That drainage of TracC No. 5827; Reyision No. 3;:sha11 be disposed of.in a ma nner „ _ that,is satiafactory to the City Engineer,and the=`Orange:CounEy.Flood Coritrol:District.. . 8. That the developer+~`sha11 enter into.en agreement with ttie Orange Courity Flood;Control i . D strict for-the installation of protective:revetment along thoae porEions of .the t . ract adjacent fo the Santa Ana River with the cost of said work being -equal!ly shared b , eEween.the disErict and the:developer A•,5 foot-chainlink fence shall be construcCed to F1ood ControL District standards along the northerly'tract boundaiy: ~ r ya ` 9 A storm.channel":including staridard chainlink fencing shall be constructed from " ti Riverdale.Avenue`,to the'Santa Ana River'in'accordance with plans meeting the~approval 7 of ;, the Chief ;Eiigineer of the `Oiange 'County,=Flood' Control`: Dist'rict , and'.that the ~~ necessary right-,of way,for~the storm;channel shall:be dedicated':in fee:;;to the?Orarige~ ou ~ ~'' " C nty Flood Control District in widths determined.necessary in; , .. the desigii and not ~'~S~~;J . . necessarily as shown on the,tentative tract map ' ' .'k'~ i - '; `' , , , . . , , 10 That the.entry,into the;.Santa Ana River shall meet=with Ehe appr oval of the Orange ~ ~~ '; ~'` , County Water bistrict and a permit~for the facility sha1T be obtained'from the ~ Orange County'Flood~Control District. _.. " 11. That the riecessary storm drains from`the sEreets to the storm channel shall ;be . ~ designed and constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer I and the necessary easements thesefor."shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ~ 12. That the applicant acquire a favorable flood hazard letter from the Orange County ~ Flood Control District prior to approval of a final tract map. , Coimnissioner°A11ied offered a motion to approve ~entative Map of Tract No. 7284, seconded by ~ Cormnissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED by a 5 to 2 vote, subject to the following conditions: _ ` - 1. That approval of Tentative Map of T:act No. 7284 is granted subject to the approval : : ::: ' '' of Variance No. 2205. . 2. That should this subdiviaion be developed as more than one subdivision, each sub- division thereof shall be submitted in tentative fozm for approval. ' 3. That in accordance with City Council,policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed ! on the south property line seperating Lot-.Nos. 1, 34, 35, 36, 41 and Riverdale Avenue . except that for corner Lot Nos: l and.41,`said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty inches in the required front yard. ~ 4. That a11 1ots;within the tract shall be.served by underground utilities. i ~ 5. That street names shall be appioved by the'Cify of Anaheim prior to approval of a " final tract map. . ; 6. That the vehicular access rights except at street and/or alley openinga to Riverdale Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 7. That drainage of Tract No. 7284 shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Orange County Flood Control District. _" «.c;:.l. ~ . ~ - . :..1 ~ ' ~~ . ~ ~ .~ J. . ~ :. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 5,':1970 ' ' S~1.4 ` VARIA.NCE NO;~ 2205;-. 8. .:That .the developer sha11 enter into an agreement with the.Orange ``' " County,Flood:Control District for the`installation of protective TENTATIVE MAP OF revetment along:those'.portions,of the Eract adjacent to the Santa TRACT.NO:'4427; . . Ana River;•;with.the'coat of said work being aqually ahared_between ' REVISION N0::7~ ''the district'~and EHe developer; and,that a;5-foot chainlink:#ence ` ` ~:shall be constructed;to:Flood,.Control DistricE'standards along the ~TENTATIVE MAP OF ,~ , northeily:tract,boundary.`:, ' '. TRAdT.`NO 5827~~ ` REVISION.NOt'3. 9. "That'a:storm channel including standard,chainlink fencing shall -be conatructed from;Riyerdale Ayenue:to.the Santa Ana Riqer.in . TENTATIVE MAP OF ~'accordance with.plans meetin~ the`'approval of the Chief Engineer ; TRACT'N0.-7284.. ~:,. of~the.Orange.County~Flood Control District; and that the neceasary '(Continued) `right=of-way'for,~the storm channel shall,be dedicated:in fee to the Orange';County•Flood.ControT District in widttis,deteimined necessary in the`.:design:and'not naceasarily`as shown on+Ehe tentative.tract map. 10. 'That the entry into'the.Santa Ana River-shall meet with the approval of the Orange -~:County,Water.`District and a permit for:-the facility sha11 be obtained from Ehe , , ,.: ~-; ., ;`Orange County F1ood:,Control District.-':, 11.: That.:the'applicant.acquire;a.favorable flood hazard letter fram Ehe-Orange County _ ' Flood`.Cont;ol District'prior to.approval of a`final tract map. ~ VARIANCE NO.i 2212 = PUBIiIC HEP,RING. WALTER.FLUEGGE, 1668 South Nutwood-StreeE, Anaheim, ~ California, Owner; RINKER;DEVELOPMENT CORP.,';10600:Katella Avenue, , .. . : Anaheim,,California, Agerit',_requegting:WAIVER,:OF'(1) MAXIMUM'BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150;FEET OF:R-A,;(2)-MAXIMUM AISTANCE':BETWEEN'-,DWELLING UNIT,..AND:COVERED . PARKING SPACE,, (3)`:MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND ~.(4) MINIMUM IANDSCAPED BUILDING ~'SETBACK, TO;ESTAB~ISH A 220 UNIT'APARTMENT COI~LEX~on property described as: An irregularly r.,~: shaped parcel of;land having approximate frontages:of.390,feet.on the east side.of N,utwood ;`; Street''and 755 feeE on the west,side of,Easy~Way, haying a;maximum.,depth :of approximately '` 640~~`feet,~,and bei'iig located approximately,,558:feet north of::the~centerline of Katella Avenue r: as measured;along Easy Way Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. F , i Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed•the~location of aubject property, uses. ` established 3n~close proximity,.previous,zoriing action on,the property i:n which R-3 zoning f . . , . . .. .: . . .. '. : was`approved;`with.ia vartance.to',permit`a-227-'unit apartment complex;`that at the time the ~ City;Council,,approVed the;R-3 zoning, a;condition.of,the,zoning required a public street through the~property from Nutwood Street ro`Easy Way'to-provide vehicular circulation into and Ehrough'thi§ area; that the"petitioner was'.now proposing a'220-unit complex having a .. net density`of approximately 27+units:per acre;" that adequate parking was being provided according to Code;;that'the plans did not-indicate a street as required under the resolution of intent to:reione to R-3.- therefore; if the.development were to be approved in its present form, the resolutiori of.intent!for.R-3 would have to be amended so as to delete the required street; thaE at tt-e time_the,Planning Commission had reviewed the plans, no street was shown; that the requested building height was to waide the height,for the R-A property to the south- west, which would be retained by Mr. Fluegge; tliat Code required a maximua~ of 200 feet between dwelling units and garages or carports - however, 240 feet in one area was proposed; that the peti~ioner was also proposing only 5-foot strips of landscaping along some street frontages, whereas Code would require a minimum of 15 feet; that the applicant was also proposing to provide less distance between main buildings Ehan Code would require in almost every instance where building walls faced each other; that although the Report to the Cortoniasion indicated no elevations were submitted for the'Nutwood Street or Easy I1ay frontages, these had been submitted by the petitioner after the report was prepared; that in view of the applicant's proposal to orient the back end of the carports along th~ streets, it would appear that particular attention should be paid to these elevatioi_; so as to preclude a monotonous, unaEtractive appearance:'along the ,"stieetscapes"; that the petitioner was proposing a 15-foot strip for a childreri's walk adjaceot to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the north, which evidently was in lieu of the providing a public street for both pedestrian and vehicular 'tza£fic; that the agent for the petitioner had submitted a letter stating that it was their , desire to build an 8-foot masonry wa11 between the apartmenC project and the parcel which Mr. Fluegge would retain'- however, the City Attorney had ru2ed that this would require a variance for maximum wall heighb, unless the Planning Commission desired to make this a requirement of approval o,f`the variance; and that the petitioner was proposing to abut the rear end of carports along the R-,1 properties ta the south, and in view of the Planning i Commission's previous re_quirement of a slumpstone block wall along this property line, the •Comrtiission would have to determine whether the proposed carports were a satisfactory I substitute. Furthermore, the Commission might wish to continue subject petition to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans reflecting the street which was required under j the rezoning action, the proposed treatment for the carports, a reduction in the maximum ~ distance between the garages and the dwelling units, snd an increase in the distance between , the main buildings so as to more closely conform to Code requirements. i , ~ r y, *'N ~~'t`, "',~ ~"w"~. >S. Sra- , .~ 4 F ~ ,y~ ~F'', . . ~ d~ t . ~: ~ ... ! i. ,4 Fx ~ } { ' i .~Z ! ~ ~ p r 9,, t, ,~ ~',,, ~."'~ "T~ \ 'f ..':. C' ~ ~v.h .1., ~_ f'~ r'..: ~,--':~' . i7ti .., . .: P a w .~ ~., r. , ~ x." r -,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ J . , y l~~. t S` - ~ '~.- ., ~ r i '~. ~•,w'~ ' . . ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ . MINUTES,:CITY PLANNING COI~AfISSION, October,5,.1970 5~15 VARIANCE'N0. 2212 - Mr. LeRoy Rose, 1711 Westmont Drive, architect and representative of ~' `(Continued) the agent for the pefitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and noted. that,the zoning;was not a qaestion.before the Commission; that the site plan variance was the consideration; that the proposed development, in , his estimation, was a better,:.pro~ect since only 45% of the land was covered, whereas over 50% was<covered in the previoua development;'that this had a more garden-type appearance with corisiderable open.area.in the`center, and they had eliminated'the vehicular access through,,the pioperty, as we1T as fhe cross-Eraffic; and thab since this required street ~ was a,point of contention, he wiahed to elaborate`on this: ' n;~ , ~-: Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission and the Council had approved aubject property for R-3 - however,,a:requirement of the City Council was to provide said through street, and, therefore, this.would have to be resolved by that body and not by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rose:noted'that when this project was before'the Planning Commission there was a series of alleys with cui,de-sacs to'give fire protection, and it was.determined that these alleys would not be needed; that.the Planning Co~ission had originally approved thc~ project with- out the-required street providing through traffic, but at the City Council public hearing the Traffic Engineer had suggested that'in order to provide adequate traffic circulation said street was,necessAry.to provide some kind of a passsge for the students going to school, who had formerly used the Southern:Pacific.Railroad tracks to go to the Madison School; that they had made a survey and had determined there were 32 or 33 students who would be uaing this proposed:accessway to go to school fram:the tract to the east - however, one could not prevent children from walking down l•he railroad_tracks if they so desired - neverthelesa, they had proposed the 15-foot walkway to eliminate any possible problem that children might ~: have to use the railroad tracks; that iC would be:more desirable to have this walkway along ' ~ the northerly property line rather.than.through the center of the R-3 project, and, further- : more, as far as using this.street for access or circulation, most of the traffic would be ~ ~ going all the way in order to gain access from one area to the other; and that from his , h~ observation, there were only one or two trains a day on said'tracks: Furthermore, at previous '' "~ public hearin~s the opposition had indicated that development of the property for apartments '~` would overload the schools - however, the school was now designed to.handle 900 students and had only 756 students - therefore;_the number of children from the 220 apartments would not ~. `create an overloading of scliool facilities, and`the only;quesEion, again;,would be.whether ' or not:the,street required by the City Council.wae valid enough,to give up.one acre for the ~ land plus the cost of developing this street for only;the northetly portion of this property. `' In,addition the ro ert owner Mr. Flue , p p y , gge, had requested than an 8-foot masonrg wall be `"'' constructed around his'property that he was retaining', and the developer was in concurrence with providing this wall. The Commission, in reviewing the plans, noted.that from the access points it would appear that one-third of the traffic from this development would go Co Nutwood Street and the balance would go to Easy Way, and since Easy Way already was developed with numerous apart- ments, it would appear this street was already overloaded, and the petitioner was not supplying any additional access except whet was already there. ~ ;. Mr. Rose replied that it was their belief that they would rather have no access thraugh the ' property rather than having to provide a raceway since this was a garden-type development, and even though the street were required, both Nutwood Street and Easy Way would have to be used to gain access to or from the development. ; i Office Engineer Jay Titus inquired of Mr. Rose what type of construction was proposed for ~ the pedestrian accessway, and would it be dedicated to the City of Anaheim or would it be •- a private facility. i' Mr. Rose replied that this would be an open-type fence and would be maintained by the developer - therefore, there would be no need for the City to require dedication. The Commission inquired of Mr. Titus whether or not there would be any prablem if two-thirds of the traffic from this.facility were to use Easy Way. Mr. Titus replied that there would be considerable loading on Easy Way, and it would be better to direct traffic toward an arterial, Nutwood Street. Mr. Rose replied that traffic would not operate that way since the density was higher on the northeast corner, and many of the open parking spaces were at that area, and it would be assumed these people wouid be using Easy Way, and that there were four entrances to the property from that street. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not any other secondary access was proposed into Chis area since one could not control persons, especially children, using the pedestrian accessways, and in his estimation this would be a waste since tHese children, in all likeli- hood, would go through Che apartment development or use the railroad tracks. ~, ,,:. ,. , - - - :. _.. .. ,,,, .. _. . . ,_ . , -_ . ~.:; . :.. . _ . y~~ '.1 f - ~ ~..J MINUTES, CITY•PLANNING COMMISSION, OcEober 5., 1970 - `51;16 ~> '~ VARIANCE N0.'~:2212 - Mr Rose replied~that he understood tkis, but.since the single-family (Continued) ;homeowners'in the area had'indicated the children would have no place ` to.walk, the'Council then;decided:to have the.st:-eet, and now the ' :revised plans were'proposing a'walkway for these children in lieu`of - said,'street,.although he.was fully aware that children.could not be controlled as it pertained ' to::walking;on:th'e>railroad`tracks. Commissioner:Kaywood inquired whether or.not steps could be taken Eo prevent~people riding their-minibikes~on the walkway. .,:; •,Co~issioner`Rowland indiceted that the~,walkway would be staggered.- therefore, minibikes would`not 6e using:this,walkway.~. , ` Mrs ;Betty Merquardt;-16b5:South`Nutwood Street, appeared before the Co~nission in.opposition ' and stated she would like to.mention a.few iEems that-:were;stated by Mr. Rose,.name.ly, she `did not know where`he had'obtairied the.'figures,';of 30 to?_32 elementary school'children since ':at least 80:to 90.'childreri were on other than'the cul=de-~saa to:the.east; that many children from the apa=tments,:now located on Nutwood Street attended Trident ;7unior High School and Loara;`High:School, and iE-was.very unsafe to.have children walk down the railroed tracks; that:Mr Rone had>:quoted'a price`of $60,OOO.for the street'=_however,'one small boy had lost both'of:his•;legs and"one:;child's,leg'was worth much.more than $60,000; that she.did not know - the niimber~~of tiains on that~track,,but;sometimes there were treins.running around the time i children were coming home;for ldnch; that she was sure they went through that area more than ~ once a day,,but this could be checked, and the'.railroad was planning ta place.a signal.at . that.intersection,;;that;children threw:rocks aE the engineers;-and that the need for a street where:children could go. to':and~from school was`brouglit to the atterition of both the Commission ~'~`-and tfie CitysCounqii tHe Tast-E_ime,s4bject property-wea considered at public hearings. ` ti`` The C ~.. ~ ~ ~ ommission noted that the developer.was proposing to place'a walkway there for the children. ... ~'Mrs Marquardt stated,thaE the•last traffid count taken in June of 1969 was 3,400 cars on. °Nutwood Street however, that was before,the!apartments.were~deqeloped; and Mr. Granzow, ; the Traffic Engineer, had.indicafed the;apartments could genere~te'1,600 additional cars. Furrheimore,;many people would not be using Katella~Avenue,-~because it was>a very busy street ,:-and'.it;'would be difficult~to make left 'aad~right turns - th"erefore;' people would.be using '•Nutwood.Street to:gain accesa to•Katella'Avenue,because it,was ai"gaalized and Eaey [•?ay was , , ., . .: not,'fhat if:a•street were;:placed between Easy Way and Nutwood Street, this would provide `some of the;on street;parking which was'prevalent wherever apartments were developed and ':would;~eliminate°it from Nutwood Street;,tha.t as Co.the requirement'of landscaping, she would,_prefer_;having.!.a wall;:since she.would be 'looking'at the rear of these:carports from tier home, and many times landscaping.wes`.not maintained and,>therefore, thi§ would be an unsiglitly view from.her..window; that she had given up fighting development of apartments `in this area since.she could place an 8-foot wall adjacent fo her sidewalk because she was residing on an arterial;;that although,.Nutwood Street Was posted for a:25-mile an hour speed limit, the police were constantly giving tickets to.drivers who were,drivxng ak 37 'and 38 miles an fiour - this, of course,'`created quiEe a problem for children walking in this area - however,:she would-xequeat that the 15-foot setback be maintained on Nutwood Street. ' The.Commission advised.the opposition that there were four areas on Easy Way in which the Landscaped srea varied from 5 to 20 feet - . however, none of the setback re uested for waiver q was on Nutwood StreeE. Mr. Walter Fromme, Secretary of Rinker Development Corp., appeared before the Commission and stated that the validity of the count as to the number of children was based on those children residing on the cul-de-sac streets adjacent to Easy Way. However, it was possible there were many more children there or who would be using the alleys behind this cul-de-sac area and would then go to the tracts- however,,their count of 33 was based on those children residing in the R-3 xracEs to the easE on'Easy Way; that they also were not sure of the number of trains that passed through the area during the day;,that comments made as to the wall on Nutwood Street, the reason carports were placed on that side was because of the single-story within 150 feet of R-1; that they planned a decorative masonry wall on the carporE `side with shake-type facade, as'well as landscaping around the whole area; that as far as requiring the street, they were fully awa;e of traffic problems that could result, especially if one were to allow cross-traffic - this wauld increase the traffic conflicts; and'that he felt a street was not valid to connect these two streets. Comnissioner Kaywood inquired what the cost of a walkway would be since the architect had indicated it would cost $60,000 for the sCreet. Mr. Fromme replied that the walkway would be approximately $5,000 to $10,000. The Commission-Secretary read letters from eight persons requesting consideration that an adequaee street be provided in the proposed development to avoid illegal Crespassing on jh;v:i' d of Mr. Rose advised the Gommission that the.figure of $60,000 he quoted was for the cost of land and construction, and that the cost.of the walkway would depend upon the wall treatment and'landscaping.which might;be required. THE_HEARING WAS CLOSED.`- Mrr Slaughter.noted that some.concern,fiad been expressed by the Planning Commission at the last_public hearing on the remaining'parcel'owned by the Fluegge's - this had a resolution of intent`for R-3 zoning. Furthermore, the petitioner would have to submit a request in writing'to the City Council requesting.deletion_of the atreet which was a requirement of the reclassification. ~ Cos~issioner Farano noted:that he was,quite familisr with this area since he happened to xepreseht in :the suit the child who lost his legs; not only did the cfiildren walk.down the tracks,'but they also played on.the tracks after school; that these children came from farther east than the R-3 tract to'the east of subject pxoperty, some of them coating all the way.from Brookhurst Street; that at the time the'boy he represented was hurt, it was close,to supper time; that the children threw rocks at the engineers; that in this particular ,aree the.train's speed was 25 miles per hour; that a chainlink fence existed along the rail- -`roa:? right-of-way;west of Nutwood Street, and children flipped this fence; that he wae not sure a sEreet would.keep the children off the tracks, but a walkw~ay as proposed would be an open invitation to children::fo flip the tracks and perhaps this walkway should.not:be immediately adjacent to the railroad tracka but should be through the project under con- sideration - however, anything that was done would not resolve keeping the children off Che xailroad tracks or from flipping the fence. Also, perhaps from the circulation stand- point, the sfreet might be important, but,:he, for one, was not.concerned about requiring the street although he felt the wallcaay could be relocated so that at'least some of the children would:be discouraged from using the railroad tracks for`access'to the achool. Coumiissioner:Rowland noted that all"°the lettera submitted in opposition were more concerned about the circulation than to.provide streets for,.the children,'and yet`these same people who;wanted.a.street from:Easy Way to Nutwood Street complained about traffic on Nutwood Street - therefore, it appeared that no matter what was done to legislate the number of abnormal activities of the children, this could not be controlled, and perhaps the developer - was taking a risk by building in this area with.'children throwing rocks at trains, stopping trains;,etc.; that the developer was providing an ancillary way for access to the school with the walkway; that the development itself had adequately provided pedestrian access through the property - as to vehicular.access, it did not make much difference regardless of where the traffic was directed, it still would generate approximately 350 vehicles on Nutwood Street, and the balance would be on Easy Way, a 64-foot wide right-of-way whicit could take care of the traffic and could be veri.fied by the Traffic Engineer. ~ r~~ ..+~ ; ~'+a ;~ ;,,y . ,~ I Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts adviaed the Co~ission that the property owner, Mr. Walter I Fluegge, had requested that an 8-foot masonry wall be piaced along his north and east property lines adjacent to subject property inatead of the permitted 6 feet, and that the developer had indicated they would develop the 8-foot wall along said property lines - hawever, the Commission would have to make this a condition of approval since it was not advertised as i parE of the waiver request. ~ Co~aissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC70-183 and moved for its passage ~an~~d ,adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2212, in part, denying-the requested waiver ~, maximum , distance from a dwelling unit to a garage, on t:~e basis that the developer could redesign ~ the project and place these parking ereas within Code requirements, and subject to conditions, ; with the added condition that an 8-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south and ~ west portions of subject property abutting the Fluegge property being retained for their ~ personal use. i Prior:to voting, Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that at the last public hearing the Commission required a slumpstone wall on the carports ab±stting the R-1 properties along the south pr•operty line and inquired whether this condition should be continued through to subject petition. i After a short discussion with the agent for the petitioner, it was stipulated that the ~ petitioner would.provide the slumpstone for the carports facing the R-1 properties to the south. Commissioner Rowland amended his motion to include provision of slumpstone for ttie carports --- proposed to be located on the south property line adjacent to R-1 properties, as stipulated ~i to by the petitior.er. (See Resolution Book) i ~ ~_ C ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING CO1~RiISSION, October 5, 1970. 5~18 - VARIANCE N0:-2212 - On soll call the foregoing resolution was`passed by the following vote: (Continued) • ' AYES: COMMISSIONERSd Allred, Farano; Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland, Herbst., NOESs COMMISSIONERS:, None. . ABSENT: COI~AiISSIONERS: . Nonel CONDITIONAL USE :- PUBLIC HEARING. EMANUEL AND FRIDA CANDELL AND DORIS RUTH BROWN, 838 PERMIT N0: 1203 15th Street, Sante Monica; California (Parcel A) and STAT~ OF CAT.IFORNIA, Division of Highways, Box :2304, TerminaL Annex, Los Angeles, California ' (Parcel B),,Owners; CHARLES F. NIELSEN, 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 403, Santa Monica, California, Agent; requesfing permisaion to CONVERT EXISTING MOBILE HOME SPACES-TO`TFtAVET. TRAZLEA SPACES ON PARCEL A AND PERMIT ACCESSORY OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE ON PARC II, B on.property described as: Parcel A- An irregularly shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 4:8 acres, having a frontege of approximately 220 feet on the west side of;Harbor Boulevard, having:a maximum depth of approximately 730 feet, and being located approximately 540 feet aoutti of the centerline of Vermont Avenue, and further des- cribed as 1009 South Harbor Boulevard; and Parcel B- An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting,:of approximately 2 acres iocated generally`west and south of Parcel A, having epproximate frontages of 190 feet on the west of Parcel A and 310 feet on ~he south of Parcel'A and having a maximum depth of approximately 480 feet. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning.Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to convert 45 existing mobile home park spaces.into"travel trailer.spacea -all of said,spaces would be placed around the periphery of an eacisting mobile home;park; that Ehe center portion of the park would be retained for mobile home use; that the petitioner was proposing to uEilize leased State land to the south of this.property for outdoor storage area of•recreationel vehicles; that the primary cons3da- tion before:the Blanning Counaission.was whether or not'the mixture of travel trailers and mobile homes was appropriate,'and the previous approval'of travel trailers on this site was ' on_an area whicti'-:was.aubstantially segregated from the mobile homr~ area; that it had to be deteimined whether the.-use of'Portion S-for.the storage of recreational vehicles was appropri- ate since this entire`area was master planned.for the Commerc;ial-Recreation 2one, and in view of:'this,'_the somewhat unattractive continued"uee of tt~is area for storage:of such vehicles without appropriate:screening would not appear to be in the best:interest of the City given the close.praximity to. one of the major'freeway entrances into the Commercial-Recreation Area - therefore, careful eonaideration must be,given to assure that the park wiZl presenr an .-attractive appearance to visitors; and that perhaps i£ the change in use of the par'k were considered favorably, then the Co~nission might wish to require masonry walls as a aondition of:approval. .. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Co~ission that a telephone call had been received from the agent for the petitioner requesting a two-months' continuance of time to determine what to do about the recoamiended conditions of approval, particularly No. 3 regarding the fire hydrants. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1203 to the meeting of November 30, 1970, as requeated by the petitioner. Co~issioner Seymour aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2213 - PUBLIC HEARING. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Box 1254, Orange, California, Owner; H. H. HANSEN, Box 1254, Orange, California, Agent; requesting WAI~IER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO ESTABLISH AN ADDITIONAL FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Ria Vista Street, having approximate frontages of 149 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 156 feet on the west side of Rio Vista S[reet, and further deacribed as 2791 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COP~fERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to remove an existing free-standing sign lacated at the southeast corner of the service station site and replace it wita a different free-standing sign which would advertise a newly-established accessory carwash located in the third bay of the service station building; that this proposed sign would be within 60 feet of a 55-foot high, nonconforming, modular sign which protruded above the top of the service station canopy, and Code would require a minimum of 300 feet between free-standing signs; that the ordinance was designed so as to abate nonconforming sign situations such as this one, and in view of the recently-constructed residential uses to the north of the service station, the existing 55-foot high sign would exceed the maximum sign height of 25 feet by a total of 30 feet; and that it would appear that.the intent of the Sign Ordinance .!;'X. ` :w !i'. ~'"~,'~',_~ ' i ~ `~ ~ r. . . . , . . ' . ~~7'~~ ~h~`~X ~~'~~f+~ . , s1.~ + , '~ ~C- , a k" ~ 4~" ,-! '~C~ ~'~~~by+'~'u~' £'Kr'~` ~'a" ; ~ 's."c `,~' a''r .: r f. i f .u S~~, a +d , ~ ~ r',t f ~` t~,s^, u ` .+~ s .`' ~~ ~~ tix f t ~. ,j~ ~ v+e"r~, ~, j''.~j~1^y '. ~,~~r uI~/`"C. ~+~v { q/~ v r""'.i.'~j.t~ ,„.~_ ~~ ~~~tt'~ ], ~ ~ L" ~I~ ~i~yf" ~x g i 9 ~~C' r)~b~l'~~'~ M~ ~ X' `} g2~ t ~ ~'~ ~3~' ~.,~ ~~S~ ti u r ~,; 1 C~r-t ~ 6 Y ~S ~` f.. .} {, , ~; 5~\C `C" 7 ~'+~ ~~y.r r . f'"' . .l'_ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~f S . 9.1+ i '$ ~~a ~,nt'~'!/~C.+i:.. L r",.{'1 ~~...G s+S~ty~'U,~_iLt i3..~..: yY~7'i,ns~-j,'~kiul`~y„~r~`.~'~~,~~'F~`)°~~~~~ . . ~y ~ i'~!d j ~~t "t i, ~+ - ~' 1~ t ~. ~ -~ : a:iR. _ H` .. ~ .. ..:~...: .~ :.. : ~ ~., .. - ' . . .... . ~.: . .. ;~ : ~-_. '...; ~ ~.: . . ~ _..~ . , ... . . .: . .: . ... . .: : G , . v . . ~ . ~~ .: . .~t~~ r ~ .~ ~ - . . ~ . : ~. ., ~. . " 5 , .: ,'•~~•~ .~ .. ~ . . ' . i >• MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~fISSION, OcEober 5,`:1970:` 5¢19 " ;:~-': ` ' VARIANCE NOr 2213 ~- to abate nonconforming signe would be defeated if this variance were ' ~. (Continiied) ' granted without provision for-.abatemenE of nonconforming signa. '~,`~ ' Therefore,iif the Planning Commission.felt°that this request was justi- ' r~ - fied, they,might wish to';grant-the variance for a.specific period of `~~ time;•namely three,years; with.a stipulation that'elI signs on this'property; including the ,~.~i modular sign,•were to conform to the,ordinance:at.•the expiration.of the variance. " '>~ ~, Mr.,H H Hensen, Field Eagineer for Humble O.il ~ Refining.Company and agent for the.petitioner ~~:~'-` appeared before the Commiseion and noted,the service"stat3on was,built epproximately six years ~ ~ , u~ ago_et which time:they recognized the fact that the freeway.would be constructed and then ~~~ erecEed the 55,foot high;,,modular sign.which was now a nonconforming sign;'that this monEh ' . ~~?~ they;would be completing`.a~coin-operaEed carwash in;the newlyrconstructed third,bay and the ' `.=r , - request to advertise this.addiEional businesa.;was:Ehe~ ur ose of the P p proposed request; that ~~~' ~i~ they,were,fully aware of;the fact that the modular'sign was a nonc~nfo:ming sign, and he ?~''~~" assumed"thet:the request`before the Co~iesion would be approval of this modular aign;. and '''~ . that'the location`of the service.station; together with the-cuin-operated carwash was at ` , the on-ramp of the:new :Orange Freeway. ' The,C~mmission inquired whether or not the petitioner had Ewo signs, one being a 55-foot A higfi`sign.and the other'the circulating sign. Mr: Hansen replied that the small si~ did not circulate, and they proposed to replace this i s gn with another free-standing sign'although they were not asking for an additional free- standing 'pole. ~ The.Co~ission then inquired whether or not this additional copy could be incorporated into ~ ~~Q~M1 the existing "Enco",~55-foot high sign; whereupon Mr. Hansen replied that this could be done ~; , but it would require another sEructure: ;,~`' Co~issioner Gauer noted:that.a 55-foot high!sign.adjacent':to those'apartments was a non- conforming,sign; whereupon.Mr..Hanaen replied thet:,Ehis was a problem.they alweys faced ~t~'.: when a new sign vas'proposed - the fact;tHat~the existin g sigri could be:nonconforming - ' =`~ howeyer, thi s sign.had been.erected as-;part,o£ the service-station six'years:ago and was _ ,,. . . =~" ' a freeway=oriented°;aign. .; ~ ~ The:Commission further inquired whether the petitianer was.proposing to retain the nonconform- ' ~ . .~:~a~ ing sign,•arid;,;remove the, confoiming:sign; whereupon,Pir. :lansen stated that they propoaed to ' ' repl ace the existiag codforming eign,with new copy. •~; ,< , ; .,~,,-, Mr. Slaughter,advised the Co~ission that the nonconforming modular sign was approved by the ' ' ~ ! Ci:y ':Couricil ,prior to the adoption of.the:.Sign:-0rdineace. , ,,,,_ ~ ~ ._ ., Cou~issioner'Allred noted thab,his reason for asking why this service station was signed . with two signs was,that the existing nonconforming sign could have the new copy incorporated • into.it, and`.then inquired of Mr. Hansen how many of the Enco atations were proposed to be ~ converted with carwashes.. ~ Mr. Hansen replied there were six test,stations in Orange County, and subject property would ~ have the first station; that the carwash would be completely automatic and a fee of 50p would be charged - this would act as an assist to the station operator and would encourage more volume sales. Commissioner Kaywood noted.she would be in:favor of permitting one sign with the additional - copy being incorporated into the existing nonconforming sign. . • ;- Discussion was then held by the Co~ission as to the manner in which the signing could be incorporated. ~ Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that there appeared to be a certain need for higher-than- average.signs which were freeway-oriented in order to alert potential customers on the freeway,who needed services of the type of fecility or brand that was available at that exit. . Commissioner Allred wondered whether or not the City was interested in incorporating this type of facility, in every service statioa in.the City of Anaheim. Staff indicated that the original approval of the service'station under Conditional Use I Permit No. 451 indicated this bay for a carwash. ; Commissioner Seymour.noted that the xequest befere the Commission was for signing, not the ~ ` 4 use, and under this particular proposal he concurred with ataff's recommendation in Finding ~ No. 7 since a nonconEorming sign existed there, which was a big monster, and if the existing ' I- sign were replaced with the proposed sign and permit that to remain for a short period of { ~ i '~ ~ r ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~3 ":~"MINUTES, CITY= PLANNING COMI~IISSION; October 5, ,1970 5~20 ~ VARIANCE N0..;2213 time, at which time~the existing nonconforming,.sign would alsa be removed, f ;;;` (Continued)- '.the CiEq.would be farther`ahead~.instead of denying.it'and;allowing:t.he ~ -unaightly; large ~sign` to remain. '. . ,. ; ., r n Co~nission~r=Herbst~noted.that he'`was opposed to sigsis as well as anyone e1sE, but there was ` " a considerati'on which the Cownission would have;to.give, especially signs; that were freeway- ' oriented since everyone traveled-;freeways tfie•,moEorist~generally:;looked:for specific`signs ~ within~reason;of tHe freeway, and;-there:would be a certain nnmber`of these nonconforming, . 'freeway orierited signs which were:neceseary since they'did.indicate wHen-:to:tum ..off the + freeway, and.,his point of"contention was:"the requirement:thaf"'the signing''on this property "be in;'confo`rmance with .Code ~within three; years:;: :.Therefore',' he 'felt:, a time limitation sliould : not be mandatory on',a freeway-oriented:sign. Co~issioner:`Allred.:•'expressed concern that,first.the"Coimaission wae',faced.with carwashes with gas and now gaa-stations with carwasliea; each`petitioner indiceting it was.necessary .to haye tHi's;type of addiEional.use to.'assi"st Ehe operator,of the primery.use to have a `-~'profitable.;operafion. Mr Han~en advised.the Co~aission that..the carwash operation competition was very substantial, _ and'considerably more business-would be;generated if.'the carwash were.in operation, and they were artempEing to recapture~some of tfie business'they hed lost. Furthermore, there was a >remoEe-coritrol'feature which permitted'Ehe service station operator to trip the carwash ..fa~3,lities,at.such time.as,the:purchaser:of~gasoline had,purchased the given amount of gasoline or.oil:to:warrant.:a free carwash: . No one,appeared in bpposition to subject petition., THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Co~issioner:Seymour, offered a motion to'approve Petition for Variance No. 2213 for a period of ;three years, andrat the:conclusion of'three,yeara, all signs'that were nonconforming would have'to•conform with the'Sign Ordinancei '~Commissioder~Seymour noted.'in making the resolution`he still was unsure of his poaition as ,;.to a'freeway-.oriented gas station.. >.Chairmsn Herbst noted thaC Yf'subject petition were'approved,'xhen an:ordinance should be ,drafted requiring Ehis of a11 service.stations that had signs that werp nonconforming and =were freeway-oriented, and-the condition imposed by this resolution would place the service stat~ion.operator in.`a position of'not enjoying the same right:~ as other service stations, and if this were a part of the Sign,Ordinance, then he would agree with it wholeheartedly. The foregoing motion lost by'a vote of 5 to 2. ~ 'Co~issioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-184 and moved for ite passage and adoption to'grant Petition for Variance No. 2213, in part, deleting,approval of the free-standing sign proposed and integrating the copy proposed.for said free-standing sign advertising the carwash.facility in the exiating, 55-foot high, nonconforming sign. (See Resolution Book) The Coumiission Secretary advised the,Commission that in accordance with the petition that was advertised for public hearing, the motion was for the approval of a free-standing sign and did not include placing the carwash copy sigtiing on the existing nonconforming sign. _ After considerable discusaion between the ataff, the Commission and Assistant City Attorney 7ohn Dawson, Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that it was his opiaion that the variance could be approved in accordance with Commtssioner Allred's motion. On roll call.the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES:. COAAIISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Kaywood, Herbst. - NOES:: COI~ASISSIONERSs Gauer, Rowland, Seymour. , '`ABSEI7T: COMMISSIONERS: None. ADJOURNMENT FOR DINNER - Co~issioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn for dinner. _ Commissioner Seymour seconded.the moEion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened.the meeting at 8:05 P.M., all Commissioners being present. ~ ? - N ' _ ~ ..\ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ( ~. ~+ ~LINUTES, CITY PLANNING;CO~~LiSSION'; Oatober 5, 1970 51~21 ~ GENER9I, P.LAN CONTINUED PUBLIC FI~ARING TNITIATED~ BY TfiE ANAI~IlE CITY `PLANNING CO~ISSION °~ AMENDMENT ,204 East Linooln Adenue, Aneheim,.California,-to:aonsider.a ahange,in-resi- ~ NO 1221 dential'densities in''the Santa Ana Canyon`area.:betaeen:!Imperial, Highway on ~ ,: . ;:the west, Esperanza,Road on'the riorth,_fReir Canyori;Road on the east,•and.: _ ~ ' Sente: Ana Canyon Road:~ on °:the`: soutfi~ ~~- ~ j ' ,. s Sub~eot amendment was oontinued Yrom the meeting of;September 21, 1970 to allow.time Por the F . L property ;owners!.,to oonsult with their erigineers arid to;;.submit,;dooiimentation:refuting the ` ststements made,by the~`U S aArmy Corps of'Engineers and_the Orarige Cour.ty`Flood'Control ^ Distriot;;as to potenti'al flood •liazards ~in. the study area. CFieirman~'Herb'st;noted that the Commission~had°reoeived and reviewed literally reams of reports ' pertea.ning to:;;flood hazards',:and the~~purpose of;'this hearing was to hear'sny further evidenae ... , ; ,, , . . regardirig. said.!flood fiszards:!`. , ~ Zoriing Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Co~i.ssion that'one of the reasons for the last , aontinuanoe wasSto'allow,.time_for~.the property owners to obtain a;~o~~ork from their engineers ~ that would,reYute the.,information presented.bq:the U.,S. Army,Corps_:oP ~hgineers; and that k °a`;letter:,had,been reaeived from one oP".the owners,Gilb.ert Kraemer,requysting that that proposed amendment,be~oontinued"anottier two weeks beoause they'were unable ~~~ sssemble all the data that was needed Yor the3r report`, said aontinuanae to be'to the 0otober 19, 1970 meeting. ~ , , -, ; Chairman.;Herbst::.stated .that as e aommission; he Pelt.that the Commission should.prooe^d.with the publi'b hearing now,. sinoe;,"ttiere`were some prooeedings going_on.in .the oanyon whioti required 'the Coaimission'.s i¢~ediate attention as we11 es that of the:Orange County;Planning Commission, and he would not like to see this aontinued.again.sinoe'some.tqpe•of a decision should be madE. Commissioner.Allred inguired of staff whether ther.e was sny new;'data.whioh should be presented to the,Commission, whereupon .Ddr. Roberts stated .that'~,t,he'' only' info.rmation was to have oome . from the.property owners. . Assoaiate;<Planner ponald Ma Danie~l noted Yor the~Commission thet he might give a brieY synopsis of,what had taken pleoe.to date might be helpfult~to some of the;.people?'in the=audienbe avho had not been`present'et the;previous hearings~- the-ms~ority.:,of-them haa been - but there seemed to be some'new;faoes. ~ This originally:was a density study, Mr MoDattiel oontinued, ia,rthe Santa;Ana Canyon and was . ,, prepared;at the;'request of:_.the City;CounciT:to study the:potenti'al densities,in this area, end possibly,%revise+,~hose densities, It has grown sinoe that time tb a~reater ::magnitude, and the primary<_reason Por that was, the`Corps of Engineers,report and letter'"whioh,indiosted that this area was potentisllq;hazardous at a time oY Ylood; and they hed''gotte further to delineate an area that-they;oonsidered a flood plain area. The,eahibit om.'the=east'wall shows that area quite alearly. The exhibit was onlq a portion of the ares, but it wes the portion thst the City was-considering',itt terms of density - the heavy red line indioated the 41ood plain area, and the properties outside the red line wyuld theoretiaallq riot be in danger of Ylood - a • standard project flood - the Corps,of Engineers indicate this would be s 300-year flood. Of nourse, a 300-year flood does not mean that if one oaourred todsy that another flood would not oocur.for another.300 years - it meant that every dsy that passed by there would be a 30C-1 chanae`that tomorrow s standard'pro~eat flood_would oaaur - so that it was a continuing thing. On the basis.of the flood information from.the Corps and the County oP -0range Engineers - staff had come up w=th aertain reaommendations, and this partioular studq.had progressed to this point. At th3s point now, staff is looking.for direction or further information from people who live or hsve.-propertq in the.study area, and as Mr. Roberts pointed out this was one,of the reasons for the.latest oontinuende of the amendment to this date. ldr,.` Tames L. Morris, appeared before the Commission, stating that he represented two of the property owners in this area.who wsre residing out of the City, and when staff re~ers to a .;standard pro~eot flood,.was it based on the flood thst oaaurred Januarq.22, 1862 -,,was that correat? Chairman Herbst advised ~Fs.:Morris that was aonsidered~~`,pro3eot flood by the Corps of Engineers, ':and appeared to be the only;pro3Aot flood on reoord. ~ I 'Commissioner Farano indicated his understanding oP_a standard pro3eot flocu was the flow of water at 160,000 CFS,' and aaaording to statements made by the Corps this would have been twioe the size of a standard pro3eot flood sinae approzimatelq 317,000 CFS aere supposed to have ~ passed through the canqon, and.the olosest to that figure would be one in 1870, 1890, and 1938, ~ when more than 100,000 -0FS.of water passed through the oanyon. ~ ,;d - - - .' . ~ _ pr r~~ O ~ ;MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt~SISSION; Oatober 5', 1970 . 5~22 'GENERAI+ PLAN -, Mr. Morris then bontinued;.by ssying,that he did not know:how aoourate reaords AE~END~NT were;kept.iri,1862;;but.aaoording to.ttie:transoript of a previous meeting of NO., 122 the Planning Commission,,residents planted a.aouple of poles in Prottt,of a (oontinued)..-. ahurch"whidh measured the'height of the=flood,.and.then 76,;years later they measured this and `called~it a pi~o~eat flood.' He.hsd oheaked with the reaords of the-.Gra.nge',County Flood>Control Distriot, the U. S:. Metsorologiaal Serviae, Orange County Agrioultu'ral:Depertment,,the'Anaheim Chamber of'Commeroe, and.the Ariaheim Publia Library,,and he Pouad.that:the rairifall in the~yeer'of 1862`aias'29.44 inches.of rain. ` Sinae that time in ,1940,;1941-the~reoords oY'.:the=Ansheim Chamber. of Commerce the reaords show there was 33.46 inohes oY rain He:lmew that ra'in§.aould be aonaeritrated.itt a smaller period over a.whole:oelettdar'year, but'the lergest single day of rainfall in.Orange County ooaurred on January 26, 1965,'when . 5.37 inahes of .Pell in one.day. One day might oause`:s Plood but;if there was a month of heavq rain3a11 - take the two largest months.during the last 40 yeers -. in Februarq, 1941 the seoond •largest monthly rainfall wes 10.8`3nches, and-the.largest month was January, 1969, When, 11.83 inahes,;of rain. It appeared,to him when one was talking.about a pro3eot flood in 1862, when there was rione..available to.measure it and only 29.44 inahes of rain - they.`are talking about something thst.they oan't even tell as .to the number o° aubia`feet per seoond.(CFS) were ' Plowing:through the.oanyon. It would'appear that if'the reoords thet were available = and it 'is an interesting aomparison -'if you'wi11 look at the;Plood`and the rain whioh has fallen in ~Orange'Oounty.:sinoe Prado;Dam was built = for.9aempl,e,.in 1938, before the dam was built, the flood that most of the residents remember, the_ra3nfa11 that year was 19.38 inohes of rain with 7.2 inohes in one month. 'This was the bad month when we had the bad flood -~his was a flood. Now Prado Dam was built - and during the raias.of 1968-69 there was 23.62 inohes of rain and. there was no flood. `Also in the year 1937-38 we'had 19.38 inahes and there was no flood. There were also other years with 18.20 inohes of rain and no flood. What the Corps of Engineers is :talkiag about",is something that happened`waq.baok in~1862; and if you will remember, Anaheim Was only farmland then. The Pirst Pamilies'only moved here in 1860, so there aouldn't hade been more than a dozen femilies. >,Whet~kind of reaords do you have for 1862, and thi~ is,~vhat you are:basing;all of.qour tiazardous thinking on;.that we are going''to ha~e anothar pro~eot flood .~.IY,you;w~.ll remember;, there was no ohannel for:the river as there is today, the water flowed `wherever lt wou13 Plow ~.,tlieq had`: no ~otiannels 'for. the 'river in-those daqs'- no banks. If they.got e:,team•of.horses.and:dug s.ditoh:for it that,was the river. 'T6erefore; he contends the figures on rainfall - you oan!t say there 7ould be e pro~e~a`t"flood - we have never had more than 33 inahes';oP rainfall in Orange County itt.the history of reoord'keeping: :Then how:,oar.( ~you say'there~will be;a;pro3eat`flood suoh as~was suggested in 1862; when. iio one.was here L-o measure•it He thought this was inter.esting information that tkie Commission should tiave. ~ Chsirman Herbst noted that sometime during the msny disaussions, someone brought up a figure of 50 inah'es of rain in .tha,t flood, nould anyone reoall where that figura oame from? Assistarit Development Servioes Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commissioa that he had brought.that:up from.a book that was shown'to him by the City's design engineer Bi11 Devitt - however, he.was unable to obte.3xi that book bece~use the Engineering Division vras loaked - but , that was a Pigure that he had personally`read,.and as to its authentioitq, he had no waq of ~ verifying it. i ~lr. IAarren Williems,"21568 Mohler Drive, appeared before the Commission, and noted that first of all a great many numbers had been presented as they pertained 'to Orange County - but the ~ wster dic not come from Orange County - it,oame.from Riverside, San Bernardino Counties, so ; those rainfall figures were aompletely,irreleyant. `Chairman Herbst noted that Mr. Williams statement was ver true that a ~ Y great deal of the water in the'Santa.Atta Riger-aame dowri the aanyon from the`mountains, and he aould recall that in ~~6~during the Baldy Ylood e, 20-foot wall of water`oame down that mountain and part of it ' ', flowed to Orange County. Mr. Williams appeared again before the Commission and noted that he would first like to say that ~ City Council Resolution No. 70R-283, in whioh the City Counail deolared they would maintain the ` Santa Ana Canyon and the hills Yor low density residential use - low density means residentiel. I This is old busiaess and yet it is new and pertains to what is being disoussed - densities. ~he ~ flood problems, he was sure, had something to do with it. He was not an engineer, but he had i watched the water flow two feet below the bridge during the last rair. - the river has been channelized - fine and dandy - but everyone should get bsak to the.primary sub~eat, densities. ; There already i~ aommeraisl in the aanyon - lie did not know if the Commission had driven on the new freeway - if you did, did you look up into the.hills?~ They were pretty weren't they? (The ~ommission concurred that the scenery in the hills was beautiful~ and it should remain so.) ~Lx~. Williams then stated that he nould end his speech then with the oomment by the Commission and then he would be out of trouble, but he might comment more later. ~ ~ ~~ .'irq~ i~~ ;;' 1 ~=~. ~l.' 4Zr.~3' ~""~ ~ ~ r A ~t,y S :_tL' ~ c _ c 7 ,.- ~. . . . ~.Y- ;: ] ~t { 2a F MINUTES,`;CITY PLANNING CO~LISSION -.Oatober 5 1970 51~23 ` . .. . , :.;. ., ~ . + ::,.: . ~ ~ ~I;. Y:fi. , . , ,.... ,;..._, ,..:,,: ,,. , : ~ _ ' ~ ~~ .~. ... . ~. ~. .~ . :: -~: ':~ ~r ' GENERAL PLAN Mr. Robert McQueen, 4831 MoKinnori Drive,:appeered.before the'Commission and ~` ~AMENDD~NT noted he resided in the Pl"ood plain area; although,the,'map did not indioate ~ ` t 7"'~'~~ ~ ~ NO 122 .:'the area west" of Imperial:Highway,: his property'Was loaated north oP Riverdale ~iia r (aontinued) ;Avenue` He was the presidont oP the newTy Yormed'assooiation in the,_oanyori, and ' ~1''~ z ';~ ,' their:vioe presiderit.Mr.-Robtilard`-was before~the Commission>during the afternoon ~ x'r publia hearing :;; The.,thing tie; would,•:like;to reafPirm wss the• low density ooriaept whioh the` City : ,.. , !'~" r ot Anaheim has approyed and'reaffirmed in;,the resolution mentioned bq;.~r:,Williams. His'family eri t ~ ~''° ~ d all ; he other families~.iri his area moved out'into tHe oaiiyon beoause of .the rurel atmosphere, and the 'wa ted"'t kee it~ ' '~ e ~~~, y'.~~~ ' ~ ' y n o p ,that,way . Th ir prime:~,oonoern was low den§ity,- they-lrnew there was ~~~ ~ :tHe-possibility,.of Ploods;'snd looking at,;it tkiey".had seen the dykes ;there,~and the vioeipresi- s'~; . dent of their;assoaiation ha§:,his home baoking~,right to"the dyke nezt'to the river: He.said . ~ ,:~~. he had looked'at it~end iY there was a lot:oP.rain he might be in trouble, but everyone.liked ' ~ }~;;;' the area'; and 3.t~ ~was one. of the ~prime~ areas .in Anaheim --`very'saenio -.; and':,they felt ,it: was worth it If'th s o ~ t , ~<- ere i a fl od. they~,would` rq to.-get out, butGthe thing they were':opposed to.was if ' {~:< the area_is~approyed for high densit'q, there will~_be•me,ny more;-people';attempting to get out oY R ~= _ tfie flood'aree, and-thus.me,ke it more.diPfiault'for"the present',residents to get out, and the ' -. ,. comurun iogtion• to these people.in high.,density areas oould be more diffioult. ~He would donolude ,~ by stating the re~ibants were.for the City of Anaheim, the Planning Co~ission, the.General Plan, :~ arid in.keeping it low density. - +~;~ Coffiissioner Farano inquired:of Mr. MoQueen iP he was fully aw8re of.extent of the Plood problems ' ~''~ 3n this ,erea when he:purohesed his property, and iP,not now''that he was.awere of it aiould he - purohase`his property::again? ' > ~.!;.,. Mr. ~LaQueen advised the Commission that he did not know the extent of the problem,as it.has now :w''''~:~. been.deYined'at:.present, but~looking et it, he realized.:there'oould be water:.problems in .tlie', ,v:a area into whiah he moved. Formerly, when he was..,younger-he. liyed in `Idaho r6kiere tkiey had; a . , e e ' k.~~ ,tr m ndous emounts of snows and water and one beaeme.aooustomed to iti: -If enyone:has ever lived ~" in an area. where. the potential was eyident ~rster, you;3ust ,took a`ohenoe ,et, it; ~~3ust as'enqone '~~~ wHo traveled on the:freeway -'you take a chanoe that you::ere not,involved in-an acaident.:.He " thought most of_tha homeowners felt -'in~the aanyon ttiey were;taking a ahanae, espeaielly in ' y~~ Tight of_: what hae been~.presented by;:the flood study Everyone'knows'there is the bhenae of a - . fTood, but the propertytowners he represented pur,ahased`:their home s because.they Tiked the`area ,?i, the way it was,:the rural atmosphere, and all'~of~`them would 3us.t as~soon stsy, ttiere riglit now, :3 eVen though they were aware~of the~possibility there.a'ould be more "of'a problem than everqone ' fi rst axitioipated when taey:,Tooke3 at.the;:property,'before purohasing;.it. , , , , : ~ : , :. : '" ~: , . Commissioner Farano iri,quired.whether,tdr McQueen had nated an anxiet on the 9:. Y part of the home- . '~` . owners iri that~area.who might,;be;planning'`:to move;;out7 . ~r. MaQueen replied there:had`not~.been ariy:undue anxiety at present;`.but the property owners had brougtit up things bQOause of<the seports;from.the'Corps.of Engineers'=.people are oonaerned about it now, but liarsonally he had no dommunication'with people who had stated they wanted to move out ' beoause of this; but they are aonoerned and are Pollowing very olosely all act~ions and comments ~ that are being made in regard to the Corps of Engineers report. ~veryone is quite anxious to heer.that something wi11 oome,out of the Tri-County study that is being made of the Santa Ana " I. River - then everyone wilT,know a bit more as to their stand, then maybe the residents will be ~ a bit more afraid and want to move`out. C~mmissioner Gauer noted that residents in the hills were 3ust as apprehensive with the fires - l ~ there ase some things that can't be prevented, they ~ust happen -.they take a ahanae just as was ~ stated people,who_drive the,:freeway_teke e ohanoe:- the Corps of Engineers report is fine - but ~ - sation,won't be taken by Congress till around 1980 -`and if the Corps will get the money appro- ~ ~ priated-to build the addition to the dam and'the ahannels. ~ Mr. McQueen advised the Commission that their homeowners group's prime interest at the present ~ time was:,to maintain the corridor - the oangon as it is right now aith its rural atmosphere. I °- The flood control problem.has oome,up.quite reoently, and none of the.members.are fully aware of ' ~ it, but the,thing they were conoerned about wa's in maintaining the oanyon as a beauty spot in ' I . An aheim: They.felt it:'oould be•maintained, sinoe it'was one of the ideal piebes of praperty in ` ~ Orange County which could be 3eve3nped,~into something:really beautiful - that is the stand of ; their..group was to have the'canyon remain'a low,density housing area. : i Mr. Williams again appeared be~ore the Commission and ststed he now represented the Santa Ana Canyon property owners%assoaiation - before it was his personal view he presented - the Commissicn~ ' hss committed themselves to something whiah the people as a whole want. The developers want ~ something else - so do the large.property owners. Is the Commission interested in the assooiatior ' vihich he represented as Puture-residents of the City of Anaheim whiah they may be, and their opinion = if.so, their.association's opinion was to retain the area Yor low density, and iP that were'retained that would rule out oondomin3.ums; or any other more intense land use. What does the Commission•define as low density - whet,tqpe of zoning - can someone give them the definition ~~ ~ of low density? • ~ tii ; ~ ~ ~ ': ~~, _ '. i~, . ~ f ~iz ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ _ ; ; t , : , . „~ x„ MINUTES,'CITY PLANNING CO~MISSION, Ootober:5,.197Q. 5T~'L4 .. , .. ~ . , ... . . ,..~ . ;,_ ~. 3~ ;x~~ ~ GENERAL PLAN 'Commissioner`Rowland noted.~that`the definition of low 3ensity was published ',~ ti :At~NDtuIENT information as a-part` of the General Plan', as _wes,low-medium and:.medium density. '' .; - ,F r' , : . ; ' N0. ~122 " < :~ ~ ,.;(aontinued) Mr ~Williams asked ttiat these daYinitions be explained evan though many people : ,,; , . ?r , =~ ,-in the~;Counoil'Cliamber were"femiliar.'v~ith; the .terminology. ' . . . ` . '~ . : ~. ",Mr Rober.ts noted thst-the:text of`the General Plan does; break'the various residentiel areas ' ,~„ _ into low density, low medium,::and medium densitie's The.`text„goes on to state that the zones r~ that are presently aontained.;within::the Aneheim Zoning:Ordinenoe will,be used.to implement these. ~,*t{ vsrious.densities Tfiose''zones that will-implement the low,density aetegory'inolude the R-E ~~'~ Zone = whiah~is:the re§idential estate zone requiring',one aare.lot sizes. ~Another zone is the r''~,~~ R=H. 10•,000 Zone:; wkiiali has a' minimiim Tot area requirement of .10,000 `square feet. The. R-0 Zone ,-~,P~r~ aTso requires a>10,000.square foot.lot size The,R=1 Zone hass:a 7200 square:foot.lot size. ~:'r Anything'beyond,t?:at•would be;getting into the low medium den'sity aategory:' ti: , , i Mr. Williams noted he;was referring=to the':low density~oetegory - he thought with the more ,r4t~ tkian 100:memberahi in,,his:homeowners p= y g p_ .' grou ~ the had; more or : le'ss a reed with what uas ~" ~•r' presently out:there -<that would mean basi'aally'one-half aor e. lots,,'snd when the.lot sizes' ~''~` , sre smaller than that~twitohy=a;little-;ed Some have':.oonceded to 10,000,-other gY people have 1~~~: said no;;and if',the,zoning or density goes:down:.to 10;000 they would.prefer to stay in the ? Gounty The offioers`oP his group_.had.to.make~everybody`happy:-.,just as the..Planning Commission was attempting~;to do -.maybe~;some day the City oY;sAnaheim wiLl oome +slong end say;it is-time to annex = with the varying attitudes of the members of the:'group.-,they_`have advised these properts x,~ owners what the;City'of Anaheim had'done,-previously with`Peral,ta Hills - what the,`City's nesolu- '~-~'~'~ tions are - and have stated that the~City of Anatieim has',prettq well`;backed:up their ststements':- , ~' - _ ,,: .. staying right'down the.:line. ,' If the;'City now goes in tkiere arid"~ starts ahanging tkie densities, ~t: making them higher -. start r.e'soning;for small lots condominiums = staaking people up, these ~ ~~ x_ people,will beoome pr,etty irete and `will come to the offioe'rs of the group stating;that tlie City . ;. , . t~~ .. ~ of, Analieim reversed themselves. ..., .,. ? ~~:~: ~: . r~ Commissioner Geuer noted that`the Countg Plenning~Commission was considering a mobile~home park - ~"~? something that,.you tiaVe to contend'with right now. , : ? : ',~~. i:.~ s , ` :, r; , ; ~ ; r _ . ., .:: . --, " W M llia o or t ~r ~','~ i r: ms noted that the C unty was wai ing f the City of:Anaheim to deoide -and from the s , . ~oonaensus of opinion ~rom sev,eral members there -:they..would more :or less go aaoording to what . `"' "~ .the City;of Anaheim says, and~that-is a pretty good reaommendation. afi . ,: . .. .i~.. "; ": .:. = ~ ~ ' . . :~. Commissioner Gauer noted that~the,Anaheim and Orange Couaty Planning Commissions h~ld a meeting . ,. .. ~r. lJ:fi ;:"~, . ,. , reoentl ~ ; . . y:;regarding development in.the oanyon: ~ ,,; ` - ,' Mr. YPilliams iridicated he was;fully;aware of that!meeting, and the County had gone pretty much ~ along with what=the Anaheim Planri'ing Commission said; beoause;they feel it wi1L be Anaheim's `"' "piece of ground"', thst Anaheim would provide the servioes,.eta. Thus he was baok to the situ- I tion•whinh he hoped the Planning Commission representing the City of Anaheim`- to whioh his grour may annex - urge the Planning Commission not to reverse their previous decision and stand ~ whiah was given to them.and everybody else in the oanyon previously. ; Commissioner Farano noted that at the last meeting the Commission, and he in particular, made quite e point of very strongly, urgently, and sinaerely asked the property owners in the oan'yon area to,present some eviden6e or Yaots whiah.would xefute the Corps of Engineers - long discourse ~ ~ and information presented - but it was regrettablo tHat the property owners in the aanyon did noi; I have-this information Por the Commission tonight, beoause the Commission is a position-now where ~" they would very much like - in the best interests of all conoerned - pass this amendment on to i "' the City,Counail or take.some.kind of sotion this evening which would.put this in the hands of ~ the Counbil as soon as nossible, and the Commission ~ust glossing,over and not allowing the I property owners an extension of time,within which.to present this refuting evidenoe - it should ~ be.explained - then asked ~Lr. Thompson to give'some explenation as to the reason the Commission ~ was anxious to'take eation. ~ ~dr. Thompson replied that one'of the primary reasons for the Commission to take action tonight ~ was.because numerous applications were being_filed.both with the County of Orange and the City ~~ 'of Anaheim that ~.s, 'contrary to~the City of Anaheim's present density policy in the area. Sometime<ago the City Counail asked staff to take a look at certain areas of the canyon to see ~ if.they mi:ght be considered appropriate for higher densitias. This has been examined in some. ~ de.tail, and General Plan Amendment No. 122:aovered,an area whiah staYf felt would be one of the first areas that would feel pressure for development, beaause this would be an area that would have city services first." The Orange County Planning Commission has aontinued several items in the County based on recommendation that they do so from the City of Anaheim, pending the outcome of this particular study, and i:e thought they were very desir.ous of not holdingthes? p.operty owners up any longer, and have now scheduled to make some zoning deaisions in this particular __ ~ area ~ctober 14, 1970,-and were very desirous of being brought up to date on what is the City ~ of Anaheim's current policy regarding this esea, and whether or not there has been any change ~ ;~ in this policy.. ~ ,';:l~'= ~ -. ~ ... - " ' '-. J ~ G' µ i ~ .," ~~ ~ ^I~ . Q : ~ ~~,~~ . , . ' 'e~_~t;Y`}~ ~INUTES CITY. PLANNING 'CO~dISSION, Ootober 5, 1970 57}25 ;~;~ .. . :~-~ .:. .. : ~ . : '. ' '.; ~ ...' . .. ' ~ " . . . .. .. .. .. . .;': ~ ~ . ' . . ~ . .. ~. .. ... . GENERAL''PLAN.='Commissioner Farano:noted that from.oomments made by,ldr: Williems, he seemed to ; . _ ,. . . , . r ~ '("th~ ~~; . .. . . A~ND~ENT ' be.of`the .opinion.:that tlie Orange,County Planriing"'Commission would wait for.an , ,;w:r. M~.~~ N0..=122 -extended period oY time, or~any:period.of time:for.thst matter, for.Anaheim to '~~tt €~ . „ , ,(oontinued,)-.•:;.make . up it§ mind =:- that~ is not' tr.ue , as he understood :it. `. . . . .. '. ' ~. :. - ~~~ ~ , "., :u'~~~.,'~ 3 .. _ . .. , ~ .. ::~': ~., ;. . . : : . . . . ... . , . , . . ~LL , ~r . , . Commissioner~Farano noted.tiiat the:;Planning Co~ission<:originelly planned to.'look into the-density ;1, a; ~ as ects and 'in so.doin the Commission"happene ~~ ooinaidentallq or'some other reeson when all . ;~ ,;. ,~ " the faotswere:brou ht out,•beoeaie involved in t oblems -;not tHat.ttie.-Commissi~ g ' he flood aontrol pr ~ y~ • , would 'dFCide :them, but warited to analyze`them•in the,-Gommission's aonsiderstion. `However,,the ~'~;`~'` City Qounail has- telcen the ._flood 'control ,problem. under' its `direat `wing and ~'planned to . delve more ~w ' -,deeply:into.tHe sub3eat,,eiid will'probebly ma~e~`some 3etermination'on that: So that, basiaelly ,;~ speaki:ng,'the';Commission will not,be able to explore'the flood problem'as deeply as theq-might . ~ lieve, before ;sending;a reoommendation to the ..Couna3L Therefore; :"tonight:`tUe Co~ission";would ' ~'a try to:".hand;:tkie City;Counail~their:analysis of.density ;;and let the douriail;:fit that analysis •„ r .„ 7 . with.the result§~of:;their study on"flood'.oontrol and try to'put them.together so:that~:the Counail ;`fY~ cari come up,with ;some ,kind` of a:deoision as. far; as`,Orange ~ounty,,is aonoerned, so' thst .,the ;v:;~ ; ~:Commission:is not in':some way preempted prematurely.by,Orange;:0ounty_-was thatafai n statement q~=' `Mr. Thompson, 'asked%Commissioner Farano. s - ._:. ,~ ^~r;. :Mr. Thompson noted`th8t was so, but.he would:like to elaborate a.little more - ttcere had'been . ~~$ a number of .things:whiah have trarispired;sinae the General:Plan was adopted last year. ~At the ,"~y; t . .time the P1an:wes adopted,:Anaheim did not tiave a land"use poliay for, the spproximately 360 aare . east of Imperisl Highwaq, north of Santa`Ana P,iver,;':and south_of:Esperanza Road =.if one oan a~;: ~ ;observe.on the General P1an Mep on the west wall.that area:is basidally'white = and one::;of`t5e:, "~"~ primary,reasoas ther.ewas no policy,Por that area was.beoause:the Loca1 Agency Formatiori Committee ~~'~ ~ `(LAFCO).;up uittil that time had indioated,.':that this area would.not be.a ~art of'the City of. ~,. 'j~ '.Anaheim's influenoe.:; They,have sinae ahanged their thinking and at_:tho present time they have ~~ ., indicated ttlat Anaheim's ~here of influence would'go.up to the railroad tracks. :One oP the ~~~;~x raasons for several of the`:ex.i~its on the east=wall indiaete the area north of :the.river Por ~"~; low density,~low medium density, a~td medium density = also these same exhibits indicate`:possible :~;;; alternatives.'Yor that portion presently on the.General.Plan~snd lodated south the siver and east ~~'~ ;; ~~ , 'of Imperiel Highway ,: ,Basiaally, ;the .problem ahioh .tHe, City -Oouncil will ,faoe, ttiey .would be '. ;`: r ,desirous of having: a•,'reaommendati'on~on ;land use from the Planning; bommissiun, but` they,:'also have =~a`c s more immediate problem the poTioy of the Development Ser..vioes Department - beaeuse of the i;~? ~ facts that were brought out;~by,~the~µCor s:of En" ineers ::'- was to issue=a buildiri B g,permit:in this , ,P } '~~: ~ . , „ :;.partiaular area only':uponatthe,,-direat3on';of'the Citq Counoil. :As,.the Commission knows, there have e "~=r ,. , '":,been some propertiesi";in `the°~ar'ea'-` one siri partioular was approved for a•mobile home park - so ~ " he thought the:Cit;~~"Couridil~ :would:be interested in,not only the Commission;'s regommendation for :,;~ this eptire asea on a long..~ange.„plaas:;~so that the City aould design its facilities rether than reaot 'to•"individusl propos'sls,,;arid=:s3'so'have this more urgent problem whiah they probably will consider beoause,of the pressures.to issue>building permits. ~~.~ . . ~ . . . . . . . ' . ~ .!: Commissioner Farano stated he was sorry that the Commission would not have an opportunity to ~ 1~`: hear ttie experts oY the property,.oamers - all he oould say was they should not abandon the assem ~ bly of :this.information Por presentation beaause they would be able to_present it to the City E -- Council whera it would as effeative if not more so beoeuse they were the body that would malce ; the final deaision - by all means do not ebandon this assembly of information, beaause the Coun- j -,. ail needed all the help,they could get. ~Lr. James Liberio, Liberio 2nvestments, 1720_West La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission ~ and sta,ted he 'owned property.on both sides of the Santa Ana River in the oanyon ares, and then ( edvised the Commission that he had aontacted his two engineers who had worked with him before on ! the property, howeyer.they had informed him that they cou2d not aome up with eriy report that I ; 'would refute ths Corps:of Engineers report for the simple reason that the 0arps had their own , '=" rules - a set oP rules whioh private engineers had:no acoess to. The only thing in the past, the Orange County Flood Control District peme and purchssedproperty on the bottom of the river from the property owners on the north side of the river and indiaated that a~hen they did pur- ~ ohase the property the would put.the rip rep in end`enhanoe their'property so that they oould ' '!sell it;'beoause in the.past the property was hazerdous in the event of floods - these l;~ndo~:°riers ' ~ sold the property to the County'for a eery nominal fee - now the`property owners are faced with ~ the flood situationaand this is meof the reasons the property owners were very unhappy, and he ~ was sure the Commission aould see why they were justified in being unhappy, benause they had ~ been.informed once the channel.was put in, their property,would be developable - but it is not ~ sccording to the'Corps. i i. _ ~ . Mr.`Liberio, in response to Commission questioning stated that the Orange County Flood Control I District purchased the property, but lie thought the Corps,did the work - same of the property is still undergoing condemnation suits - but this had happened within the past year br two. ~ Some of the property owners had'beento caurt two or three times already. The reason he nad pur- ahased the property in the area~they had talked with various city representatives,some of the councilmen - everyone kept saying the place to go was the Santa Ana Canyon because this would ,_ be the scenic area of Aaaheim - and was one of tho ressons he had invested in the canyon, but was very disappointed, because of all the problems presented regarding flood hazards, and i~'" ~~ Ddn..Liberio advised the Commissi'on that he did not:think engineen it this way - personally he did'not think it'could be done;;altHough he.was not an engineer. .IE one had to go in there to;gradethe`ground just`right:for streets, ,;the' trees had to be:removed in order to grade it ao;aordirig to grading requirements so that the flow of water would be direoted to the river, many of the trees would:hava to be.removed, slthough it oould be done - some of the trees could be saved. Commissioner Allred noted that if a.portion of a windrow of Euoalyptus were taken out to develop the property in aoaordanoe with engineering requirements, then in turn on.the perimeter bf that d.evelopment you would replsde those Euaalyptus trees with new trees, so that in a short period of time the soenih oorridor appearanae,would still be there, even though you did remove some originally.;. ',;. _ __:. Mr. Liberio felt this was not a ma~or problem to replace the.trees - this aould be a pert of the ordinanoe., Commissioner Rowland noted that.the soenia corri~~Or. wes not up for discussion before the Commission - all:.the Commission was corisidering w~s (3enersl Plan Amendment No: 122, whioh dealt with.densities Yor the hill and nari nn'area.:- ~~' - ~ ~6Ar. Litierio oontinued by;stating tr~gs could be planted, but a developer aould not go in that area'and engineer;a tract without removing most~of'the trees -`this would be neoes§ary in order to hade a properly engineered.,subdivision. However,.he.did not feel that density,was the big "hangup!' -, all the property owners wanted to do was:.develop the'property.in the manner in whioh the-City de.termines it'should be developed - but<it was:hi's opinion that this`entire area oould not be developed`entirely in I/2 aare.lots -'perhap§ on the hillside,-sinae it would somewhat difficult to heve anything else'sme,ller beoau§e of the grading diYfioulties. Mr. Liberio stated his prime reason for being before the Commis~ion wss to explain the propertq • owners~position in their attempt to hsve,their engineers appear be:ore the Oommission, sinae it was almost impossible to aonfront'the -0orps oP Engineers -.this probls;a had already been faced before the Orange County'Planning -0ommission, end ev.erqtime a direot,question was plaaed before the.Corps they were very evesive in:their answers - this wes their asperienae. : : r , . ., , - s. ~j.,-~ cFj~ ~ ~ -. MINUTES, CITY PliANNING:COM~ISSION, 0atober;5, 1970 'S$27 GENERAL,PLAN Mr Robert Riahards, 21611.Esperanza Road' his~wife being one o3 the property AMEND~ILENT :.owners ` inv,o`lved in th'is - stud ~ y appeared•;,bef.ore:: the Commission and ,stated he -,:,NO''.122. ,,had resided in this `area fo~r. 22 years for arlittle ti'eakground of what he: would •. (oontinued) ;like to;.!present to the Commission he heppened'.to be an air traffio ooritrol speoi'slist, ai-d part'of his'baakgr'ound' was,topography,. air spaoe, and weatHer, , i 'meteorologq,'that he;.was not a degreed.engineer:; but~the next:'thing to it,'_and he~was'aonsider'ed sn engineer;in his'.business, ttie,t he had.prepared a study. of.=the flooding in.the st'udy area whiati has~'ooourred;.sinae~`.1938 in the form,of''a map together.with-.some ptioto- <: : . .. : , „ graphs ~these',were~then presented':to the~~,Planning Commi'ssion - whioh would indioBte the..small problems;;which oaburred in this area.(~he.map wa5.,posted=.on.ttie well, and.photographs presented: tb the,Co~ssion.) tdr'. Richards~noted that the photograplis were numbered'in sequenae that fit to the map whiah would illustrate the'aotual,`r.unof£;:of water in tfie oanyon -.and then indibated the:property_,whioh hi"s wife and:he,were involved in<- the..full ranoh ares was a narrow',strip extending Prom the.hills: a11 the:,viay to,;the river - there were four flood areas in this,:partibular'.piece -, one at the. bottom of ~heir`~property, another one further down the river. = and two elong Esperanza Road. None of,these.'flood areas•were oaused by the river at least-sinae 1938, and even then these Yloods,were not'oaused;by the river..~ The .water sll oomes from..the gulohes partiaularly as - it:involved their property -,when the.water got past`the,Esperanza Road snd'railroad traoks - it would~fan;out into"the flood-basin in a,'small.area and 'then down to the river - the natural fTow-of the river.ori .tHe map„was indiaated in.heavy blue'- the aontrolled ohannel the oross- hatahed~seotion - and:tl~eri what happened to'the riyer.in 1969 after'Featherly Park was'graded the,r.iver'ahanged'aourse"- and this wes indioated`.by e.`brown color,- eating away banks and doing damage, and;when it reaohed their property the-.river went baok to-its natural`flow,.and . down,streem.. The area;marked No. 1.is a oulvert -• and a'pioture whioh'the Commission has will identify it - tliat gulv,ert is epproximstely,:,24.iriahes:im diameter - it has,en 8-inah and a 12=inoh pipe running tHrough 'it,.plus;ahunks of~aonarete;:dirt'and debris blooking`it - water barely gets through and -thst-onTy'.by.:seeping.;:;through; besides that it is.tkiree feet e,bove the small sres marked in red'- iri:,other:words'::this.'area.would have'to'.flood to a depth of three feet before' it ,can.reach tHe aulvert '<.The Orange:County Highway Department,~came out;to the area last year when it.was flooded and after;.it reaeded:to r-1oOk~::fOr.~a :drain ='stating "there'was a=24-inah`drain in the'.area = and `tkie only: one in ;that .area is'<that as; indiaated ,previously on the photographs -~vhe,re the `water had to:rise"three feet'rto reeah ttie`drain.-'.oonsequently that area floods aonstantly during raiz-s. The F1ood:Control ~ap,shows that''flooding from the river`= it does not - it floods beaause it hss noti~kiere to get'; out, when. it comes off of tliese hills~ tfiese three , guTahes .ind3cated on , the map., Theri in response`to Commission~questioning', Mr. Riahards stated the: water was supposed to drain 'into the;river - and onae it';gets.'to the river it would.fen out.and run its normal aourse. Now that the oharinel"is there with:aulverts if the weter reaches there it should go down the flood channel -`'if the.;property is developed.it oould be ohanneled even more suoh as was done e.~rere Housing development oocurred,- drainage oaourring thrnugh a ahannel.right to the river. Commissioner Rowland inquired where the Metropolitan Ple,ter Distriot line was loaeted as it pertained to.the Richards property. tiLr. Richards indiaeted that the.MWD line ran along the easterly portion of their property - the-Carrillo-Reqes ranch is the area marked and the NIWD is along that easterly portion - in fact Weir Canyon Road would run on the property line between the Riahards and the Carrillo properties; and when-that road is aonstruated it will be edded`proteation beaause it will help ohannel:tha water-into,the flood°aontrol.channel: Another area that floods frequently, is just east:and.is indicated as No. 3- a gradual aurve aoming sround, and again water ooming ofP the hills has to rise approximately 1=1/2,feet to reaoh a aulvert = again water has to run uphill onco it comes off the',hills to get to the river = those are two areas that flood on Esperanza Road mainly because.of improper loaation oP oulverts. The balanae is at'the river bottom and with the culverts that are there;now, as the wster,comes through it should go right into the flood control ahanriel.without eny problem. There were-two sdditional areas that have caused trouble:::on Esperanze,.Road Nos. 4 and 5- No. 4 is an inadequate aulvert and goes under Esperanza Road'and the railroad tracks on to the river.- No.5 does the real damage - in the pict+are those are 3, or 4 12-inch oulverts and about six times the water aomes down one,gulch into a sma,ll.culvert than the amount of water for a large culvert,.for the simple reason that it feeds off the,canyon at e better than 60° elevation all the way down, areating quite a rapid runoff,, and comes violently down through,where it hits the small aulvert - and a piature where the water had reaeded showing some`.of the mud and water running down the road running down the road to,the sQcond nulvert marked No. 4:- at the height of the water ooming down this main channel - or gulch, the water.was actually going over the barrioade of that aulvert. Commissioner Farano inquired would it be Mr. Richards'opinion, if this land were developed to even a low residential density = ~vouldn'tthe drainage problem increase? ,~ ._ . 'c ~ .'y'•.L'.`r+f~"ii rowdlD'~4Y,~~. G+ts„r.r y .. ~~. y _ ~ iS i ~j 51~28 ::~hi _ `i;: + ..,;Ya + :e„.. . N0 122 ~ through~ -sinae there is`only.agriau~tural there now and no ahaiineling.:it is~kept , ~(oontznued) to,'proteat trees'in*its natural stste~and it has a,tendericy to;fan out'end ,v~ ° . ~ ~, ., ~' a actually: flood tlie trees when^ in 1969~ it destroyed: almost• eight 'acres .of trees w. ;,; ~ ?~ near the river bottom next to the flood,aontrol ahannel+ .~. . 1 . r , . . ,~ : . ' : ~ : ~ 1 ,. ~ : ` . i . .,. . : ti ..' .. .: ,: .,' .: . , :, Commissioner Farario inquired whether or not ~hiskwas the only ares where;that partiaular ohesinel;. ~ c~as-defs.oient in~other words,.,zf this problem were solved providing adequate',`.means'for wste'r~-~ '+ ~~ ~to'flow from Esperanza~ Road7 ' ,,; '~ ` 4 ~,~. ~ _ , : Mr E~.iohards replied that it would solve the problem forfthe entire.area at Point No 1 at ; ry~ , Point No + 3, andi at Point No 5: " • 'ti'~~ , . ' „ j ., .. ;. :, ,: • ~ .~~.~ ~, . ':. ,. ~.: `. '~' J .. .. . . . .r~. ~.: . . .~' . ' ' Commissioner Rowlsnd inquired ;of Mr Richards'how fie proposed to;handle the problem oE whiah ''~': V was• mentioried 'before of ~alluvisl deposit from; those .'60° slopes goirig 'through there -. wliBt was ,~:~ the;'snswer~ to the;t? Sinae there ,were ~ no allueial depasits ;up in: the oaiiyori'.tkiat were higli, -' `;; they'were all dowri at the bottom `~~'v ', `~ `~ ? ' -~ ' : ` ~ ~' ' '' ~ Y ~a ) ~ . , . . . , .' . .. Mr Riahards replied these alluvial deposits were aeught at Esperanza'Roed. , .. ~ ._ , : : . ,. , . " ~'t~ i~ ,~: ,:~ Commissioner Rowland inquired whet~er~.he anti~aipated.tliat"the silt and mud would go down to : . ~; ~ 4 , be "channelized out'into the river , ~ , ' ,- ~' - -,~~ ~r Riahards stated this aould be if it was their natural flow, and if.they were properly ' ' y , £o contr ahanneled ol them they would::go right into the fTood aontrol• ohannel ss ttiey would. 43 ~' ~9,Wa9, but;being,8 more>'direat:route without`doing:;any side demsge if a proper oulvert'were T~ .~ placed at Point No~ 5, it would not demage ttie road or the"railroad ~ust ss~thA otfier two , ; :~~` '+~ points would do if proper channeling;were done viith the development this a~ould~~take aare ~of , ~ '~~~~: ' ' ,. the„situation -_, . : - ' = -; ," ~, r • ,. , ~ : _ . ~ ~ ~~.~ Commissioner Farano inquired whether the photographs, were'taken aft'er the 1969 rains,;whereupon -~ Mr R~.ahards replied they were taken just the; prev.ious week ."ttie one thet was,~dovered .with`,mud - ' ~` ~'~ was during;the rein, right after the.heavy rain had>'stopped the.:msin-issue~wes water., beasuse '~~:~~ the aulvert',had stopped;up -.it,-had;to go some.plsce'so it took the nearest~low level"oourae `';~ . it could gn. 1 -'~"_: :, .~: .'. . .~ ' . ~. ' ,. .. . ... , ,. .:. '. '' . ... ';. 'ji Commissioner Allred inquired if,low de'nsity:ooaurred~in that.area;,and the property was oorreatly f y r ohanneled the water would not;fan out~there - what about the volume of water that w ould:aome ~~ . down::the~end of the wider: ohannel'tc tlie river"-.pould;this have,'eny effeat.on..your oomplete . '" outlay of ;water coming'"down the.'river .= if this property were developed:into low density as .. ' t ultimate development? ` ' - - ~ " , . . ,- , - . , ,; - .. . ~ ~ . ~Er.:Riahards replied from the p'resent,flow coming down the:water wuuld be held within'ttie a e' ~~.,r,F ~ ;.i; ch nnel;- ther might be a.little more weter; going into the riyer, but otherwise there would `f be less which would have to soak in, but a natural channel which would hold it and wouldn't ~ ~ - take°'much~would not have,the:d8mage done~in'getti"ng it -.since water takes the line of least I: resistanae,`.end,with acproper ahannel the water would take that line.: , Commissioner Farano not'ed that in the development of vaoant property from what the Commission i; understands - it.transposes or ahanges.the property,'iato the nature of b'eing aompletely saturated I.~:.....:: - total saturation oP the land: -From:.the information:giden the Commission; if.he reoalled it ~ I°' -t"otai saturation ~vit~: the flow.of"somewhere'around 30,000 CFS from the hills end no discharge j from Prado Dam. With the situation 3ust referred to', and the kind of grades'and slopes indi- ~: ` oated, did Mr. Riahards,still feel tliis would not eridanger or oreate new problems with this ~r additional xunoff; beaause the runoff:would.be inareased - and Prom his,aelaulations'almos+ doubling.the runoff. Mr.'Riahards replied that it would not because there wasn't that much at.;his time - it could . be tripled,`and still remain,in a:very'shallow.channel, so,long as;it would be ahanneled to these ~ " aulverts which'lead'to the;flood<aontrol channel..• -- 1°' ; ~ Commissioner Farario..then`inquired~whether the.answer would be the same if.Prad~ Dam were to ~ i~ discharge "to its designed maximum of'36,000-40,000',CFS.- it has,been requested,liy the Orange ~ County Flood Control District.that the.Corps maintain'its disaharge'ibelow 20;000 CFS; and oecause of all-the damage that was aaused downstream -.the Dorps had;actually held their dis- j charge to 5100'bFS - how;would this,information, the~results and-the reoommendations 3ust made }• be affeoted by the ohanges in the discharge - 5,000 - 20,000 - 36,00-40,000 CFS - how would that:change the piature_whioh Mr..Richards had presented?' ~ ; ' " . , ; ' ~ I ,_~ ~ ~t,... . ~ , ~~ r Q ~~ ~ ; -•,'- ~; ... .: . . . . .. . : . .. MINUTES, GITY PLANNING.:CO~ISS20N, Oatober"5., 1970' ": -.` 9~29 - ~. GENERAL PliAN Mr. Riohards repl'ied.that when:the ahannel'was'put.in they'were told it would _, . _. ,. ~ , .9~EENDMENT=~ handle .that situation, the.r.unoff and a disaharge,'of 36,000.CFS - but now.;they , :NO ~122. bome bsak and tell us that it will not tiandle it;- they did`say, however,,,that > :. ,. ,. , ,.: .: .. (continued) ;ttie dyke`on the!north=,side to:proteot'this.would'only have to':be raised four ~Yeet and,iti would .talce~ oare ,of it;.,everything eaoept"a pro~eot flood,~,and~~from- tHeir,desaription'of a:pro~eot flood nothing~in the world.would take,oare of'that. Chairman Herbst noted ttie Co~ission'.agreed vvith'st'etements made-by Mr. Aichards, but ahat was ~ust presented aas the~runofP;'on ttiat partiaul"ar side of the river, but the'Co~ission was; _ aorioerned;'ebout.'the:runoff.of`the entire river~as:it.affeoted ederybody, r-ot 3ust•, parti- - culaily the'Riokierds propertq. `- this~~yrill+:kisve to `all~ be tied`together, however, Mr, Riohe.rds - wasi not presenting a:pioture c,° the>runoff,t'o'the~,river• of:; all the tiills and mountains whioh` drained`into `the,oanyun;-•not necessarily e'projeot:flood.but'the whole runoff: _ . ; ,._: _.. ~ •,: _. . Idrr Riahards noted there was one problem with it - on:tkieir ending of the flood aontrol ohannel `Points-;:9 and 10, of:whioh._he~also had photographs -.which ends'at the.MWD,gate, . .. aaaie dovim1ittaouldds~illhoveruth.side,"so that water ooming down -,theoretioally - if enough p' and aome:down the other side, but'onne`Weir Canqon.bridge'is put in,.,and it:wss"his nnderstanding it would be'.:ttie samestqpe that was construated;at Imperial .. Highway -:;dirt _~'i?led,to the::ohannel,!and then_,bridges that again is a"guide'for the water to remain.within the ohannel; and with the ohannel Ylared on`the east side of'VYeir Canyon,:the natural:.oharirieling oea remain arid:guide the water`:down'the ohennel - therefore there should be no problem with`their reaommeridation the:dyke:be-raised am additional four feet. " , . ._. THE;HEARING,YPAS CLOSED. :_ , Coaimissioner Seymour,commented~t3~at;after meetings upon meetings, reams upon reams of"peper ~e§ evidence, he::stilT:~felt hc~'was not.quslified personelly to mske e deoision regarding the " flood:problems = he"felt,ell;~"elorig, although,kie l~ad said'nothing~, that.the.flood.problem even though the:Commission is aonoerned'about the 3ives'en3,loss of,property ~- the problem which the;.Commission~should•'oonnern,itselY was thet of density. The landowners, it aas very .epparent to him,.':after hearing from them that there was;a great amount-of proarastinatiori ` as`~to the;,devel'opmont`or non-development of their;"proper.ty - aomplaints were, made about.ttie kiigh,taxes", county trying to,;oondemn'-their:property for'a park: !Therefore,•it'eppeared to h'im,that'-the !'buak had'been passed".in th'is instanoe downhill -:'-thi's being'the last body, the "buok° has:to stopi,here. 'TherePore; it was his; oonolusion that'the Commission should 'make a;decision on densit ' end y; perhaps put a tie to it that in the future, the City would have.to aome.up with an ordinanae in referenoe to floods'and the flood plain, or something of that nature;:and along those,lines_he would offer a sesolution reoaromending to the City Counail approval.oY. General P1an Amendment No. 122, inoorporating in that;low-density as set 3orth'iri Exhibit "A";.and also keeping in mind`that sometime in the near future that an,ordinanas will be .orested whiah would delineate ereas that would be undavelopable. Commissioner Gauer conaurred with the statements made by Co~issioner Seymour - the Planning Commission'and City Counail have gone on record very reuently that the hill and oanyon area would remain low density, whether that should be R-1, 7200 or Ft-H or R-E or mayt~, a combina- tion of sll three. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission at this point was interested in the density itself as being low density and not the aatuel zoning, and what would be done in the future as..it pertained to the scenic.corridor or:the ad~ption oP Yuture ordinanaes; perhaps at that time the Commission can be more spanific.- Chairman`Herbst noted that the amendment enoompassed a.speciPia area and'not the entire hill and canyon area., Commissioner Rowland steted that a general plan emendment was just.precisely that - a general plan designation and no specific zoning was impliaated for specific properties, whioh would have.to be handled by application by the proper'ty owners - the.same in whiah people come in to;the:City - the residents have to"apply to ihe City of Anaheim for annexetion - the CiTy does not of£er annexation = it is-available for the people zn the`areas that are oontiguous to Anaheim's boundaries and would like to-come in - the City is not selling anything. Commissioner Geuer noted that the park of which so many of the property owners had spoken, it was his understanding that the Board of Supervisors had eliminated it from~this year's budget, so that area is in there - arid it will be considered es low density also as f~r as the -0 om- mission is concerned. Commissioner Allred noted that it might possibly be low density but the:Exhibit "A" which Commissioner Seymour alluded to indicated a park - the green belt as depicted on the exhibit. b ~ ^~~~ K .'. - f ~ ~ J ~'.:~. ~~,.,. +r'._. 't ... ~ ~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ' _ ~ ..: , ~ . . . ,.I~~k~. MINUTES, bITY PLANNING'-C0~ldISSION, Oatober 5, 1970 51~30 '' ' • t~y,: , . , :, ~t ti ~GENERAL PLAN Mr Thompson, in response to;Commission questioning, stated thst the green " ~;;k 'A~ENDIdENT .'area onl•Exhibit,~"A"'was oonsidered:the Yorbe Park,,and'staff tiad indiosted ` t tt`•; .~NO. T22:~ ,.this wes on.the County's master.'plan of parks, however, this year's budget ~ 4 y ~` (oontinued). 'would not have`rany,aioney available:;for its purohase - but sinae it;still is ~ „ ~, ~ f .on the.~County!s_mester plari:;'-.based on that,staff has so depioted it on the' k~` w ;ezhibit: ~ ~ '' ~ ,~~ Chairman:Herbst'noted'that sinoe ,at this point~in time the Commission wa~ oonsidering that , {~" pz;o ert 'in the,densit stud therefore,,_,hsteven was, passed:by this`Body"should heve the' P Y.' Y. y; w c ~~'~Y s area~de,pioted as,a park aovered.as'to density:whatever it-was, end-he would not vote.for , t tlj. ,~ the exhibit-if the park desigrietion:were not deleted:. ' ,,~~"' , : ~r~ Co~issianer Seywour offered Resolution No. PC70-185 and'.moved for its passage and;adoption b~ to reoommend to ,the City-Council adoption-of General Plari Amendment No, 122, deleting any ~~ refererioe,to s regional park on~Exhibit "A" and.:establishing low density Yor ~he entire study °^' area'as:`set forth im-Exhibit="A". Coritinued disaussion was held'by the:Commission,`Chairman Herbst noted that iP that portion delineated~in green on Exliibit "A" was desired.by:the County, it should,be purahased at the. ,,,;;;' valuation as depicted"on the,Exhibit "A"`whioh v~a§ indioated Yor low density: ~lr: Thompson'noted that he was aware. of tHe.faot.that the County: had some oiraulation ahanges, {; and had:updated`,their>~aster;Plan for Arterial Streets.and Highways in this area,, and staff , . . : . : . might be`aoming~;beok to the;Commission;and:the City Counoil,in the.near future with some emend- ~ments to Ariaheim's General Plan - Ciraulation Element-Highway:-Rigtits-of-IRay. The County, Yor '`'~a;'~~'~ instanne,has Fsirmont Boulevard on their master'ple,n of highways easterly of the looation ~_ depioted ori Exhibit "A!',, and they elso have it. arossing over the river and tying into Santa Ana ~~~ danyon,Road.'~Tlie County,also has La.Palma Avenue extending:slong the north side_of the rivor '' ;r tying into Weir`,Cenyon Road.- therefore,;at some future date stafP will bring these baok so ~~' as to ,up-date Anaheim!s Ciraulation Element = Highway Rights-of=way of the General Plan t~ aonYo~~m t " C ` '` " ,~ wi h the- ountg,'s ~aster Plan of Highways, but this was -not part-of this partioular, general ,;. ;plan amendment at this time = this_riow before the Commission.was to'determine the'density for ,:. the area.;` Furthermore, for clarification both .?.for the City CounaiT's information and for ~the~~department':to be able,.to'tell the property owners and developers'`in the area what the Commission's.poliay might be'in regard te requiring all development.to have a flood hazard {~N. latter.from the.Orange;County~Flood Control District. ~"'' Commissioner Seymour,indioated this should be mede extremely.alear - in his previous statement that the.::,City`miglit be.oreating an ordinance that_would deal with this area in 3ust that fashion and'by all means that,would.be a standard requirement.. However; he did not feel queliPied to make a'debisioa-of the Ylood`hazerds - it came before the Co~ission in en:attempt to solve the problem, but as he was individually concerned, he was settin& the flood problem aside, and let the,City Council,solve that problem = the Commission was only aonoerned with the density. Mr~.Thompson stated it was fiis feeling that the praperty owners should ba epprisad of that fact -:if that was part of Commissioner Seymour's motion. : Commissioner Seymour.indioated he~wished to amend his motion in offering Resolution No. PC70-185, to include that:a flood hazard letter may be required at the time of development of properties in the study ares. ~ Chairman;_Herbst inquired whether this would be tied into a pro3ect storm or a 100-year storm or ~ . - what? ~ :}' Co~issioner Seymour noted that the Corps'of Engineers was talking about a 300-year storm, but the Orange County F1ood Control Distriot was talking about a 100-year storm. Therefore, it i would be up to them to deaide. i ~ AQr. Thompson indicated perhaps the Commission desired to have s finding that they would have ~ f to basically comply with whatever,.the.Orange County Flood -0ontrol District would establish. ; ' Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission had discussed this at the afternoon public hearing,~ j on possible changes of position - and as far as he was concerned he did.not want anything in the,resolution tying it to a flood hazard letter, and since the.City Counnil will have to deaide ~ what would be required - the flood hazard letter and the flood hazard problems en-toto should ~ be decided by the City Council -;sinoe the Commission.has only been asked to,give e recommenda- tion on:density - and thet would be as far as he'would go unless he would be able to participate in making a determ'ination as to flood hazards and flood aontrol - we may in faot be giving the Council idee,s and making decisions on other than density. He would like to make another reoom- mendation to this - i£ this land is developable, after the City Counail makes their determination ea to the flood hazards, that s very strong finding be made as to the reasons for their decision,~ - oecause in all fairness.to the property owners in the area there has been some kind of a cloud hovering this thing, and he hoped this oloud would be removed one way or the other, by doing `;~ e . . . ~ ' ' ~ ~ . . . . . .. . ' ' . . . ~ '~^'~ i~a ~~~~~ ~ ~ Z 'r r~~ 4 ~ ~ tr~?,. :.~ ;.~.~`.N .. ~ /.~ sC~ ~ 5 ~ O .~~ ~ . .~ .., f ~~ ' ~ ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING CO ON b , , ~dMISSI , Ooto er 5, 1970 5.~31 ~ ' ~~ ~ .. , ' d ~ ~ ~ _ . , . ., . : .: . . -:. GENERAL PLAN "~this in strong terms so;that there is'no doubt in anyone's mind that these ~ ..~~ ,;~ A~ENDMENT : things will not oome baak and haunt the developers and owners of the'property, ' N0 :122 this should be sent on the Counoil as;a reaommendation „~ ~ (oontinued) - ~~ ~ ~ sa Chairman Herbst noted he did not,agree'with tHe Corps of Engineers'definition of a staridard ` . .~x~~ ~ pro3eat flo od,he did not,think it fe,ir to the(property ovmers in:the;ar.ea =:he did not:feel the Cit tio , LA '. y, s uld be ;loolnrig two .or three` hundred years down: `the rosd th'e City ,shouTd be looking. 4 ~ ~ ~~ at something, that was more realistia ~:'He personeslly'; " felt there 'e~ere oert'ain'sneas out there~.that _ were ' ot build bl , ie ' ~`~~'' n a e - but k felt .the resolution should be worded .difPerently. _; He Pelt : th"e' steff had done a good b b stati ' it ~be ro " a~~. _< •~ ~o y ng , may app priate;to require a;favorable flood liazard letter ' `- from ;the Orenge Cotinty Flood Coatrol'Distriat:;` ~but;,he did:;not :feel thst~:it'should..be `stated that t o ~ '~" i sh' uld be a requirement there were`oertain areas where';this may be•`possible However, he d d ri t f l` ~ k ~ ' i o ee that the City should go a1onR with the~area delineated by the~Corps of E'ngineers' ~'' ~ as.depicted on Exhibit "D" as not beirig;a buildable`erea -,:beoause a flood might~ooour 300 years ,:•:N from;'noa if there is,"all of Orange;Cour+yiwill be in trouble., ,The'City should be just as f w u t " '~"~ a , ith the people:in he asnyon as it has.been with'the`.people;below .the canqon on the other d o3 H - ,' si e;: Imperial ighway in other.words,.the property owners have the right:to~.develop tHat e ' ~ ' prop rty on;the seme basis as tHe~~people down below.developed. ,`~ Commissioner Farano indioated he; aould,not;agree with that statement, sinoe the Commission was ~~ not.really.consid"ering.the flood'problems.~ ' ~ ';~ Chairman Her.bst was of~the opinion that the Commission was;oonsiderin the flood g problems wkien ' :~'- , it was tied.,into tHe favorable`.flood hazard~letter : If the.`terminology of tlie,motion indiaated that it msy be required :he could vote fo th bu ` ` i , ~' _ , r at, t not to_ requ re the.letter for any develop ,' ~ ment in that.;area: ~ Commissioner Allred in uired zn~this ` f 4 partiaular motion made:by Commiseioner Seymour - there is `: ~W,:..~ . nothing that the City ,aou3d ~tae -`~.t to, but wheh the properties were 'starting to develop then uoria odal a l" ,,, ', s 's p ppr of. fina _tradt map possibly require the~favorable'flood hazard,.letter from the ' ' ~ :D ~ : 0 F:C • . . . . .. . . .. ~ _ t rti _ . . . 4Mr Tliompson;noted'th~s was-his.reason in,bringing it before the Coa~ission he did not want to .,. i ~ a', ~ , throw;any of;the developers or property`owners or anyone,else a curve by`'indiaeting to them that . we may not;put ttiat kind of a requirement in:some spe'difi'c zoning aotion:- if that is the ' Commission's::feeling" Comoissioner Gauer.noted that they.had,'been informed:that,no property would be developed in ' " ~ the hill and: canqon area:unless::the Citq.Council spproves the;plans and.gives its permission , therefore,.why is the~Co~ission so aoncerned about it. All the Commission is.supposed to ~ deaide we,s density for-the area. Leave any referenae to the flaod'aontrolletter out, and let ~ the Counail:make ttiat deoision.. - Commissioner Rowland stated this was all well,and good, eaoh Commissioner had an opinion on this sub3eat that the land is developable - than that is firie, but what the Commission is now oom- pleting is to shed tkiemselves of s"thorn under the blanket", and.he did not think the Commission . aad:done anything~but adopt the Generel P1an Amendment es depiated on the Exhibit "A" as amended , and if that.amendment.is sent to the;Counail the Commission might be doing the Counail a great ` disservice = a lot of opinions hsve been.expressed, a lot of_conaern was indiaated a lot of , dedicated effort was put in out'there -,but there was only one voice of authority and the Com- , mission has heard no authoritative word, and has seen no efYort of authoritative worth to deny ( the U..S, Army Corps of-Engineers'work presented to the Commission. He wss perfeatly willing " to say in his own mind that the area is:.deve'_~pable - tha Commission was right last year when theq reaffirmed the General Plan and'said .that the`hill and aanyon area would'be preserved for generally low density dedelopment - if that area is.developable at all, and that is the only . way he would vote on it - he mi~ht vote,for the general plan amendment, but`he would not vote . for any zone change in'the study area,.because he,arould not abdiaate the conaern expressed to the Commission by the Corps unless there was some way.of offsetting it: ~ ~ Commissioner Farano`indioated to Commissioner Rowland.that in the last few minutes he had ~ inferred that the Commission was walking away or "shedding,,the thorn" - that may be true, ~ t but he did feel that he was, but to malce a judgment on a sub3eot as important as this ` takes a lot of time.and a lot of effort -and in his opinion the Commission has only gone about f 60-70$ of the way, and he felt in order to_make.any kind of a ~udgment or any.kind of a state- t -men as far as the flood aspects'in the canyon at this point f'rom the extent of the in£ormation the Commission has drawn was somethi.ng like a guy '~chewing hay while sitting at the pickle !' oarrel" it_is a nice homeya~mosphere,:but it,doesn't get one anywhere. However he did not , think that.the Commission was in.any way neglecting its duties or:responsibilities by not arrivin at deci i n b ~ ' ~ g a s o ased up n only_,part of the facts - not in this oese, and especially , not,now. If it happens:that the timing oP the,entire pro~ect,is approved and the bity Council wisHes to return this matter to the Plsnning Commission for.more exhaustive study he would be e ' , ery happy to give it ell the time that it requires, but to make any kind of a determination when the Commission has gone no further:thsn they.have, is something that he was not going,to do. : _ ~p ~,~,.. . , ~ __; a,;:`: ~ ' ~~~ , ' , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ` *, ~L~ y~ ,: MINUTES, CITY PI~ANNING:COMIdISSION, Ootober'S 1970 '~ " , 5Jj32 k GENERAL PLAN ldr Farano,"oontinued by steting that any:feots as',unrefuted snd unohallenged AA~NDN~E,fi1T as the Corps f E i e -~,~ hw~ o ng n ers report,;regardlega~of_the eztent of:knowledge oF'tHeir ~NO 122 ;:: autHority,or how ~owledgeable~the are ~ ~' y e o-author.ity at;all - if someone. (qontinued) does not stand.up and;refute it ci~.:submit t~he°Qomm~~'si ` ;,-% ~` on Paot the,t bslanae -.against;•this, beoause the report~.wi11 only s'tdrid'.'i4 somebod ref tes`it ~P ~ y: u . Until _ that time, the~;report is valuable informetion, but was not.something he would ant t '-b n ~~ 4~S: . . w ... o ase a opin; ^-~ on ' ~,~u ' , o ~~ C mmissioner Seymour then stated that was psrt of his thinking in agreeing with Commissioner Farano,"and was,why he-~had suggested:'that perhaps the City w l ' f? ~~„~,~ ' , . ,: ou d be uoming with ari ordinance d ealing.with the:'Plood.'plaia;;`and too, the';Commission should'in Psat reoommend to tHe City Counail tfi t th C ~ ~ ~ . a e City may require a favoreble flood hazard lett3r from th O. b ~~~' e C.F.C.D:,- easuse . he:did not we,nt`to shed!thZS problem`or push it ofP.into a oorner -or.3ust forget it. .He just felt he wss not qu l fie " ~~ ~ s i d to make that deoision, and'it'appears.thnt.there were people above the Planning Commission's level th t , r , . a .were qualified to make that deoision -.'and he'.wanted to make sure,thst~someone aas required~~to make<that deoision he,~u t id n . , s d ot want to let it slip byi- tha+.was the reason for tying e'£inding that a satisfactoryletter from the O.C.F C be required D ma . . . y . Yy Copim~ssioner'Farano-then stated he would agree with Commissioner Seymour ~,a ~ouia ao that when the decision wss d ~ ' ma e., . . ,,r. T~ Ohairman,Herbst noted.that theze .wasa,goint, whiah had, not been disaussed - that being the •state- ment made ';by Col': Blaok: "9P ~,, :' . e at the;Corps:;of Engineers possibly are overaonservative;-and he thought perhaps•.their reason for stating.that was'the feot that if'a r , '' .p o3ect flood did'ooaur, and somettiing did happen,.they did not want'to be H ld es s `~ ~ , e r ~on ible - and if theq don't we,nt to be;held responsible who will•be? We are•looking:.down the road 200=300 s , for.something whioh he thought~.the Cou~ission as le year ymen haye to-look ttiis in h ~ t e eqe and say ,this is not realistic~_;- this':is based on ttie feat'that orie million people or more;h b b '' _ ave een permitted to ui~ld homes in this flood plain the §ame flood plain, loaated in the ' ~: ~ ; oanqon area, whioh the Commission: County are'not alloaing-to be built;'ead he~personelly aould not go along with that t e of th n ` ~. ~% yp i lcing the Commission had to•be reelisti;o bq saying_there are some..areas in that floodi plain that a N ., . re not'buildable, but:,when one takes the 300-year flood pro3eations, it is unrealistin :these lsndoaners have a right t b o o, uild n their property, just as.those down the!river;farther~were'permitted to.build on'their , r.;~. property. _ Coa~issiondr Gauer stated he looked at this prob.em in another waq - he had bean a resident in this area sinoe.~1925 and he had go e th . , n rough some,very:bad Ploods, yet there has been flood aontrol ell those.qears:'- money is being:spent ave e r ~; ry y a for flood:.control. Carbon Canyon dam was:built,,?and Prado Dam and Br'ee Dam.:uere bu3.13;e;great deal of work h e ' as b en done, and he:did not:lrnow how muah money had.been spent in all those years, but they should have aoaomplished something as far as th u e ontrol oP the water is oonoerned. It was his opinion that the City and County were a lot better off today than the people w i 192 ere n 5 or 1916 or even 1862. He saw no reason if one says there will be'a flood in 200 years that will flo d I ~ o everqthing - then we should say there is no building to be done in Anaheim at all - so l t' e e s g t with it and let the landowners develop their property. ~ Chairman Herb~t noted that in 1953 - v'oyote Creek - s great deal of water oame down the areek and went right through Anaheim, n ~ e d now thet Carbqn Cenyon dam is built, no water at all has ` aome down,the areek because it dumps off into the i e r v r. There are many areas that hevp been improved whioh ha§ made the area safer to build in, and he would a ree with g . Commissioner Gauer that the property owners in the study area.should;be given the.right to build but h we t ; , , e say here re.some-areas,that are'not`buildabTe - and these are'his only reservetions - those areas would have to be looked at whe i ~ ; n pet tions are submitted to build or develop the property at that time - those are the properties immediately ed3eaent to th i r f e r ve - but the Commission should oross that bridge when the time arrived - but one asnnot sey that the enti fl d ; re oo plain is not buildable. - , L Co~issioner Rowland asked that.the motion before the Commiss3on be restated. . ' .: . ... . . . ~ I . '~. Commissioner Seymour ofPered Resolution No..'PC70-185, and moved for its ~ passage and adoption to adopt ^veneral Plan Amend nt ' i " , _ me No.. 122, Exh bit A" - but deleting s,ny referenoe to a regional perk north.of the_Sants Ana River, and that a Yavorable fl d ha oo 2ard letter from the Orange County Flood dontrol Distriat;may-be required fori'oertain s at t area he time the properties are proposed for deqelopment - establishing the ontire'.:study.area for low densit r id ti ' 1 y es en use; al land ~d recommending to the City Counoil the adoption oE same.(See Resolution Book) ~ I . I Commissioner Seymour noted that the Plood hazard latter whioh may be requirad would let the { praperty owners know that the ma f c thi y: y a e s problem; Fyrthermore, the reason for this letter was beoause he was not willing to shed the responsibilit of th fl y e ood problem entirely, and if in the future - something may ba'needed to hang on to ethi - som ng aonarete - this might be the.tool that could be used. , Commissioner Farano noted.that if a flood hazard letter were required and this racommendation . was made to the:City Counoil it oould ti , e up_the property until 1971, since the OCFCD had .,~~..~ __ a ~ ~ ~ `~ 0. ~;MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Oototiar 5, 1970 5~33- z GENERAL PLAN' indioated at the~work session thet a Tetter;would not be issued until that, time,. , A~LENDMENT -` whioh would be after the''Corp's;of.-Engineers oompleted their study of'the flood .. . NO..:.122 , ,;:, , ;: _. ., : . . problem ' . , (continued) `; '; ', ..: , iComm3ssioner~Seymour theri noted that a developer.would not.be able to go in and develop?the 'proper.ty unless he:=had:reoeived'.olearania from the Department-of;Rea1 Estate - the'City;aould :zone "it high'density, iP ttiey so:;chose - and~still there.would-not be any:'development,unless: •;alearanae was•reoeived = what the~Commission-was ettempting to oreate at this hearing:was a ~'step in the direation.that"may lead ta'development.of;that~.land, and unless this step were rtaken'; then there would be more"proorastination this.is the first step. } On roll oall;the foregoing'resolution-was pBSSed by the following vote: AYES: CO~ISSIONERS:~ Allred, Farano,`,Gauer, I{aywood, Seqmour, Herbst. NOES ` COt~ISSIONERS:. `None. ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: C06~ISSIONERS:: Rowland. `.>REPORTS AND - ITE~'NOr::1 . RECOA~NDATIONS Varianoe:No. 2100°CDe,via Collins - Dsryoush Mahboobi-Fardi) _ , , -- Request for approv~l cP revised plan§ for property loosted on the west sidE qf-PearT°Street approximately 425 feet north oP'Wilshire Ave. Zoning,Super,visor Charles;Roberts•presented'revised:plans for Varisnoe No. 2100, noting the loastion of the,property', zoning approved foz the property,.and the:proposal to aonstruot '.e 106=unit :two and`three story.apartment oomplea with waiver of the.maximum building height .with'in 150 ,feet . of - R-0 ' property; maximum.;building height - three-storias proposed;,for the :soutfierly buildings;;;and':mi.nimum:distanae between buiTdings, said;wsivers;having ;formerly been.approved:'in 1969 bq both the City Counoil~and the planning Commission;' that'it appeared there was insuffioient.parking since six of the unitssoontained dens, and'this waiver:tied not been advertised~in:the origine.l publia hearings; that the,ma3or,diPPerenoe betaeen the " xevised•and original plans;was the.inorease of six unit's to the~pro~eot ss;well as an inorease ?in tkie~•'number of main buildings~;'and that from a review of the plans theTe appeared to be more open'spaae whiah made>the-plans more'superior thsn the original'plans: 'Mr. Richardo Niaollet,;arahitect Yor the developer, appeared`bePore the Coa~ission and noted . that there.was only;l/2_spaoe short rather than the six.spaoes:noted by:staff, and that the parcel had been inareased bq ten feet Pram that originally.presented, whioh in effect made an inorease of 6000 square feet. Assistant Development Serviaes Direotor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission 4rom one of the zoning representatives that the plans had been reoheaked and there appeared to be one spaoe short rather than the:original six as set forth in the blue note, therefore, if the Commission was,of-the opinion that tY,o plans were aooeptable exoept for the parking shortage,.approval could be made sub3ect to meeting Code parking requirements. Commissioner Rowland noted that although there might appear to be more open spaoe for the project, the plans were oonsiderably different,than the plans_whiah the adjoining property owners had'reluctantly approved last year; that the .~riginal plans gave the appearanoe to f the R-0 property owners to the north of a aontinuous slope; and most of the first floor was f subterranean thereby reduoing the height appearanae to these residents, however, the revised ~ plans had completely eliminated this Yesture and was plaoing both.a drive and aonsiderable (.open parking-imu~ediately adja^.ent to the_R-0 properties. Mr. Thompson noted that the.original pTan'did heve a mansard contiguous to the R-0 properties. I Commissioner Rowland noted that the a artment p proposal was adjaoent to to very sensitive area, i and if there was to be any aon~iderable ohange to plans the arahitect should have presented the ! ~ plans to i;hU adjoining property owners to the north. I : ' i ~~ ~r. Thompson hoted .that letters had been sent to thase property owners immediately affeoted by ~ I the proposed development :,ivising them that xevised plans would be considered by the Commission 4.;and that the developer had:indicated to staff that he would oontaat the ad3oining property ~ ~ owners to present the.revised plans. ~ Commissioner.ttowlend noted that as of midnite last night when he had reoeived a oall from some irate citizens, the developer had not presented the revised plans to the affeoted property owners _...~ ~ ' ;~ ~' x K~' , - ~.. ~ .:. ~ - ~ ... ~">. ~ ~V _ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ w ~~ ~. ~ '~ .~' .' .' f',~~ ~~~ ~ tdINUTES,; CITY PLANATING COI~ISSION, Ootober; 5, •1970 ~~ REPORTS=AND " IT~L N0. 1"(oont'inued) ; ~ . RECONARENDATIONS? -. ; °, ' A letter,-of opposition from an''ad3oining~property owner,'representing ~ ? '` three propertq owners immadistely ad~oinirig~sub~eot~property , was ~ead ~ to the Comoiissiori~`:by the Co~ission'Seoretary: ~ '; , ; ` - Mr Roberts noted thet~if the Commiesion:;Freferred to oonsider sub3eot petition at an advertised " `publio hearing whioh would give the':ad3oining property owners an~opportunity to:review the, y revised''plans;:this oould be done;in time for the';next.meeting soheduled Yor:Ootober.:19, 1970. ~ , . ;. • ;,~.,, ,, .. , .. , ~r Nidollet noted that tHe revised`plans pr.ovided for a better distribution~of open spaae, and that.'~onlq three of the original seven'waivers•`were:now:baing rePleoted.in'the revised. plans ;: . _ Commiss'ioner Gauer expressed!opposition to having:vastly revised plans submitted at the end of:s very lengthy evening session, with very little time~,being'allowed to review them in detail. ;Furthermore;;the petitioner~was proposingcto inarease the'number of.units, therefore, the revised plans should be aonsidered at s publio hearing. Commissioner Kaqwood offered~'a motion to set for publio~hearing oonsideration of revised pl8ns . Por Varisnce No. 2100,,.~said':hearing to be.soheduled 0atober 19, 1970, in order to allow time 'for the ad3oining property owners to view said:plans and.present`any opposition:at an.advertised publio hearing._ Commissioner Seymour sebonded the motion and emended it by:;adding.that the petitioner shall bear'the cost of readver.tising.sub3eot,petition. ~lOTION CARRIED. Commissioher Rowland noted for the'erahiteot that the new plan withrevisions made the.plan more soceptable;;es a,pro3eot,`but did~not,take into.aonsidaration•the ePfea~t the revised plans would haye on ttie ad3oining proper•ty owners, therefore, he would suggest .that tha ravised plans be xeviewed with the adjoining property awners.~ , , ~. , _ ITE~;NO: 2. '- -Conditional Use Permit No:•1009(Immariuel Baptist Churoh) : :: , _ . Request for extension of_:i;ime for.oompletion of aonditions Property.looated,'on.the west side.of iRestern'`Averiue;' 330 feet south of .` Orange.Avenue - establish;a ohurah-faaility as,a oonformiag use, and'permit 't day;osre ohild nursery,;in an •existing residential,struoture. . Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented a request Por.an extension of time to oomplete conditions.iri Resolution No,,.PC66 73,;dated;~Laroh 25, 1968.granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1009,;'noting that~there tied been'no extensionscof.time requested or granted, and none~ of.:the ~oonditions hed~been meet, therefore;:'if the Commission.granted the request for an extension of time i-t:should be retroaotive,,and any new extension shall expire on Apri1 4, 1971. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seaonded by Commissioner Keywood, and ~OTION'CARRZED, to grant sn extension oP time'retroaotive to April 4, 1969, and granting an additional extension which shall expire April 4, 1971, for the oompletion of oonditions in Resolution No. PC68-73, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1009.' - ITEM N0. 3 _ Conditionsl Use Permit No, 1002(Salvation Army) Request for extension,of time for o0 m letion of P oonditio _ _ ns Property looated-on the north side of Cypress Street on the east and wast si3e of Claudina Streat , oonstruot ahurch faoilities Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented e request:from the Salvation Army requestittg an extension of time, noting that approval.by;the Commission had been with the understanding the construotion would be oommenaed;in 1970, and that said petition had been granted to expire in-1970 rather then plaaing a,one.year time limitatiori on it, however the petitianer indioated they did not intend to aommenae aonstruotion:this year, and requested s'one year extension of time. Commissioner Farano offered a motion,. seoonded bq Cpmmissioner Rowland, and E~OTION CARR]ED, to grant e one year extension'oY time for the'oompl9•L#on of oonditions.of.PC68-53 grenting ' Conditional Use,Permit No. 1002, said time extension to expire September.30, 1971. , ~ I : ~ I i i ;. i t ~ T; i ~9 ~ i I I ~ ~~, : ~. ._....w ~ ~ ~ ~ c.~ ' ' ~ : ~~ ~.'~ r~~e , : . > ~. ~- . ' ~ . , ~~ .:' ~ . ~~y j~~t ~,x ~ •~INUTES, CITY PLANNING COA~ISSION, Ootolier 5, ~1970. ~ -~ n~ `~' ~t ~,~ c . 5 REPORTS AND ' - ITE~ N0:' 4 ~ s ~a ~C~~IdENDATIONS Orange County Zone Change 2C70/64 (Iso Yorba)~ ; t, ~` ;~ ~ k (oontinued) Property~looate.d on the north side,of Santa Ane Canyon .. Road i.• M~ ~~ ~ . approximately:3200 feet esst'oP We;lnut Canyon rbsd( and west of Mohler. Drivej requesti g a:z na h } R ~''ru n o o enge frow'County;;Al, Agrioul~tural Distriot ;to Courity ~2~(4000):~Group Dwellin Di t i t~. ~~, '~ r ' . g s r ot _ . '- ~ , ~ ~`` ; •. ;Zoning;Super~isor Charles Roberts:reviewed the lonation of sub eot 3 property, noting it was ;immediately west of `the Dank ro ~ ~'~~~ ~ ~''~ er p per.ty. ;Whiah wes reoentl :,• eoommended: for'disapproval Por a mobile home , 9. r park,:that sub~eot 'property oori i'§ F,; . s ted oY,appr.oxime,tely 25.acres and was looated ~~ligtitly west of Aoaess Point No`;a10 of`the-Aooess Points Stud 'and h to e e ' ~'+=`+ 7 q, ave ~ tner b Pore,;aooess;would aoqu'red aoross `othar;parcels~. Furthermore-, no plans;for develo submitted ment h d been '~~ p . a ;, , r ,~, . Mr. Roberts also noted that;,',in vi~ew oY:the faot that the Planning,Commission had 3ust aon- :sidered General Plan:pmendment N :' 122 e " t, ~` o , nd tiad.:reoommended:to the City.Counoil that the 1ow density resideritial designation on,the General Plan f t s ~~ or hi area be reaffirmed, the proposed realassiiioation.would not coriPorm to tlie•,land use•:polfoy Por staff would this are , re d h '` , . s . an t at .. oommend denial of sub3eot petition on:tkist basis: ,_ , ~~R » Commissioner Farano:offered`e motion to.:reoommend to the City Cowioil that.the Orsnge Countg Planning Commmission be urged to den sn } , . y Or ge County. Zone Change,Z~70/64; on the.basis'that ,the Planning Commission, in':adopting General , Plan Amend t< ' '' ~_~ . men No. 122, Exhibit !'A!', reafPirmed its position in maintaining:the.Santa Aria Can on 'eres<for low density residential uses, and .the`proposed:'zone'ahan w ul ~ o ' ~j~~, ge o d n t :be in:oonformsnoe with this deve,lopment'.polioy. Commissioner Allred seoonded the motion: ~OTION E~~ ~r '~' `'ADJOURN(~NT _`There:being no fur~her business to, disouss,:Commissioner Rowl d ' s~~' an oPPered a 'motion to ad3ourn the meeting Commissioner Alli-ed seoonded the motion. ;:MOTION'CARRIED ~; .. The meeting ad3ourned at 9::57 p.m. ~~ RespeotYullq submitted,', M ~ ~j' ~ v~ ~~~~j~{ ~ ~ ~ . . ~" k: ~ ANN;KREBS, Seoretary : Anaheim Citq Planning Commission i ~ . f I 1 ~ ';. ;. ' S: ;: _ - @ c ~ . ~ . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . _._. ~ ~ .. - . . ~ . ...~ : ~ j~`,` :c:~..e:.:. - _ i e ~. . . / .. . ~ ~ .. . .. "` "., .,. : '; ., -: :.,.. .. ` ' . .. . .:. r ... . • ,, . _. . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . .. . . w -1.~1 ~ if' ;~j M ~ :'~ ^,'~ °~ ::~ :-~ ~.+' { ~ ;' :..~.1 iI 1'1 ~ ~~-' '~~.~:;~,- • ~l:Y ~'