Minutes-PC 1973/03/190 R C 0 M!CROFIIMING S~RVICE, lNC.
. ,~, . ,..
, ~, . ,,, ,
~ ~
City Hell
~lnnheim, Calitornle
Mecch 19, 1973
~1 REGtILAR M~F.'PTNG OF THE nNAH1:IM CITY P[.ANNINu COMMISSIGN
REGULAR ° A rogtalar meetin~t ~~~ t1~a Anah~im City Pa.ann.ing Commisnion we~n
MEETING c.alled to ~zc3or t~y Chaixman Soymuur et ZeUn F•m•. e- quorum
boinq E~reeent.
PR~SE~I'1` ~ CHALRMAN ~ Se~ymour.
- COMMIA,ION~RS: Allre d, b'arar~o, Gauer, Herbet, Knywoad, Ro~oland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIC~NE:RS: Nane.
PRLSL~NT - Asc+i.stznt Developm~iit Services nirecCor.: Ronala Thompa~n
y Ciky AtY.orney:
Aeput FL•ank Lawry
,
Ufflca Engir.-aer: Jay 'Pitus
P~anning. Supervieoz: Don P~IcDnni~l
Z~ning Superviear: CharleEt Rok,axte
Assietant Plant-er ~'hi.llip 5chw~arteR
Gommi.sgion Socretnry: Ann Kreba
YLEDGE Oc - Co~u-nissioner I'arano 1ed in the Pledge of All.agiance to the
ALLF.G:iANC~ F~$9•
APPROVAL OF - C:ommiasioner Kaywood o.f~ered a xnotion to approve the mi~nut:ae
onded by Comn~iaeioner
73
TFI~ MINUTES , eac
of the meot.ing of 2"ebruary ~1, 19
aubject to tht followir-g corrections:
ARRTrD
H~r~at +~nd ~~10T70N C ,
e
t" a
l "
pq, ?3-92, }~ara. 3, e
no
line 13, inAertr cc>ulr
Pa. 73-94, para. 1, 1i.ne 16, ~hould .reads "homea ~hese extra
ameni~~ies and some".....
Pg. 73-~?f;, para. 3, ].ine 1: 1973 "Yo" allow (delete "for")
73-116, Variance
pg No. 2469 - EIR StAtement: Cammiasicner
, Ksywood offar~d a motian ta racommend ko the
City Council that. the petitioner of yariance
No. 2469 be required to file an Envi.ronmental
Impact Sta~tement.
Tha foregaing n~~_ ~:ion 'Loet by a 2 te 3~rote.
Commisaioner ltowland otf.ered a motion to
declarQ that an EIR was not necessary a~nd
~o recommend t~ the City Counai.l.
Commis~ioner Herbat aeconded the motion.
~Jn roll call the fareqoing motion pa$ged hy
a vote of 4 t•o 1, Commissioner Kay~~ood
voting "nu".
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUEU PUBLIC HEARING. A.P.A. 1~1. P• 0• Box 396, E1
PERMIT NO, 1362 '~or.o, Ca. 92630, Owner= requesting Fermis~ion to ~STABLTSti
A HOTEL FOR SENIOk CITI2RNS WITF1 WA7VE1i OF MxNIMUM NUMBFR
OF PARICING S~A~ES on proper,~y deac.ribed as : A reatangularly~
~haped g,arcel og ].and teavi.ng a frontage of appr~x~mA~_ely 105 f~pxxmatel~ 40(1~
side of State College Boulevard, having a maximu.~,d0gtt~ of agp Y
fee~ ar~d bei.n~ ~.acated approximately 390 feQt n~~reh of the centerline of Genter
Street. Prapezty pres~n~ly classi~ied ~-l~ GEN?RAL CUMMEkCIAL, ZONE.
Sub~ect peti.tion was continued ~rom Y.he meeting ~f Ueaember 27, iti72, tu ullow
the petitioner tia-e to submit more precise develonment plan~ i.ncou~orating
suggestiona made by tlze Commi~sion.
Chairr.-a.• SeymQUr no~ed the peti~~onez ha8 au~`.!~1tt~u a r~quest for a two--week
c~~~tinuance .
Com~,:ierioner Gauer oftered a motion, seconded by Cemmi.egioner Raywood and
MOTY7N C#RRaED, to continue canei3eration of Conditional Use Pormit No. 13~2
ta tha meating o! Apri1 Z, l.973. ae request~d by the peti~ion~r. to finalize
reviemd planQ.
73-Y47
~ ~
MINUTGS, C1'PX ~'L'ANNING COMMTSSION, Mefrch 19, 1973 73-14t3
VARIANCE N0. 2438 - CON7'TNU~p 1'UBI~IC HEARxNG. RTCAf2D0 DURAN, 3U1 North Hluo-
-~- ~~~: rr~ck, Anaho.im, ~n. 92806, Owner.~ req~see-ting WAIVrR u~ (A)
MYIdIMi!M FL~OCR ARLA, (B) MINIMUM 5IDF SGT9A(:K, ~C) MTN7.tAUM
N[7MBER UF PARKING SPACE9, AND (Q) MINIMUM D7S'PANCE BL*TWL~EN BUILDIN~3 Tp CON•-
S`1`RUCT A 3-UNTT APARTMENT AUILDING IN CUN.TUNCTION WITI# AN EX~S1'1NG ^aINGI~E-
F'AMILY 1)WL~I.LTN~ on rroperty descr.lUed na: A recL•nnyulnr3.y-rhap~d parcel af
le~nd haviny a~XOnt~cqo af a~>~roximataly 47 ~eet on khe eouth aide of Sy:amore
Streot, hnviny a n~aximum de~~th of nppruximete:y 17.1 fuet, nnd bei~,g located
approximeto~y 74 fe~o't Y7@yt. O~' ttie center~i.ne of Sabina 5troota Pro~ertiy
presantly claesi~iad R-3, MULTTPI.[:-FAMxLY RL"SIi)ENTIAL, ?~ONE.
SubjocL- putition w4~ continu9d Qrom the mAOtiny of S~aptember 1~, 197~, for
oubmi.seian of r.evised plttins= from the me~,tinq of Octobc~r lf~, ].972, for the
~ubmioe~.on of an Environmenc;al Impect Rep~rt~.~ and ~rom the mAA~i~tqe of hovem-
box 27, 1972, Januazy Q, and Fabsuary 5 ar*d 21., 1973, for zovieed ~lnne.
No ono app~arad in op~oeition.
A1L•liough the R~p~rL• to tha Comm~eei~n was not cad e~k the ~ubli~ he~ri.ng, it
~s r.~eferrad to nnd mada a part of the minutes.
ChnirmAn Seymour noted thxt c~ut~3pct petiti.an hdd been ~ontinued a numbcr. of
timas t~ al~ow thA patit•ioner time to revise plans which would ~liminate suma
of ttie walvers requeated~ thereFore, he would request that the petitioncr
brief l•he Commissior. on tY-e progr9a& that had taken place.
Mr. Ricar.clo puian, tti~ pel•itioner, appeared b~fore the CommiF.sion und stated
that ~.t wou.ld appear the prlmary isa~~e wt~h the clQficiency in par.kinc~ stallet
that the Commiasi.on h~d sugge~stgd ttiak on'_y a two~unit apartm~~nt complex shotild
be devel~ped if the existing home was to be .retttined so that adequato oft'--
atreet parking could be pruvided, howevar, this would be too expensive when ~~n~
consider~d the market value of the lui~d~ that k~e hacl attempted to move tt-e
proposed thr~c-unit complex toward the front to provi.de additional narking, but
then the development would not meat Code-rPquixed 5f't:Lc'lC~CA fiince 'tl.e builcZing
would be within 10 feet. of the existi.ng atx~ucture .~rid aom~ of the o~en spacer~
would be elimiriatP~i between the twa buildingsj th~t after having had sevaral
disc~.~ssions with Ciie Planni,~g Department ataff inembers and t~ia axchitect, he
felt that the origiual plan submitted was best for the aize an3 shape of Lhe
property~ that staff indica*ed thar +che er.iating home had three b~~droom~~, buL-
this so-called tY-ird bedroom was on!.y e r 8 feet with no claset apace, there-
fore, could not be conaidered a bedroom, and parking shauld bA based ~n ~s two-
bedroom ho~ne so that the over~ll parking required would k~e as he ha3 praposed
originally; and that the residenta i. th~s home had two small. chil~lrer., and he
propo3ad open space f~r these children to play, and this was bas~d on the fac•t
that he, too, had two sma11 children and open space was more xmportant than
providing parking apace for automoblles Eince ~hildren xleeded an area t~ play
and to be pxovided a safety valve.
THL HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissiuner Rowland noted ha had request~cl thc: pptitioner considez developmPnt
with no wi.n~ow~: whera apartment s*_ructures were so close Lagetrer and itiqtzired
whether the petitioner had underst~od that, and what had he done ~.nout this
suggestionr v:herHUpon Mz. Duran ~tated t1:at he would agree with Comr~iesioner
Rowland about this and p=-sented it to the architact who had advised him the
bedrooma could be rear°ang~~d with bedroums racinc~ riorth and south without any
wi-idows .
Commiaaioner Rowland no~.ed that the petiti~ner had not avniled hima~If c+f thfs
development pCOCedure si.nce no revised plana had been submitted to reflact
thisr wheraupon Mr. Duran stated he had aslced that the t+rchitec~ provide t;~is,
but ha did not know wtiy it wus not done.
Commisaioner Allred noted that in tho recommended conditions there was a re~
quirQmec~t that the ~xi.stinq structure must be L-rought up x~ the Anahefm Build-
ing, Plumbinq, etc. Codea, and inqulrecl whether the atructure r,ould meet all
o£ theae roquirementa~ whereupon Mr. Duran sta'ted that the Bu~lding Biviai.on
h~d told him this would not bo required.
CJ
~ ~
7 3 .. J. 4 ~l
F1INUTIiS~ CI'I'Y FLANNING CUMMZ5SION, Mt~rr,h 19~ 1973
VARIANCh. NO. ?.43R (Contltiued)
Comminsio'iar Allred noi_e~' --hat f.k woul.d l;~o a condltion u~ epproval by tl~~o
Planning Co~nn+iat+ian oi thc~ vnriance r~que$t if it wera yr.anted, but he felt
the p~tiL-iarioz woul.d be farther ahoacl iF Cha oxl~ting ~t~'uctur~ were remavau
t~~,d a regular R-3 typo structuru khaC. would maet Cudo wer.e c~netrur.ted, nnd
thdn inquire~:~ whnl•hor the peCi.tir~nar pr~poaod rt» dove~lopment for i.ncome
purpoec+o~ wh~ar9upon Mr.~. Duran r~~~+lied a~iirmatival.y.
Commissl.onQr .A.llrr~d noto<] it would bo morr3 bdn~*.ficic~l to thn pot~tioner nnd
to good plunn.ing end L-h~~ City of Aiiaheim if tho petitioner. would re~m~ve the
exiet9.ng etz•uc:ture ~nd devel.op the propart)~ vritli a new building~ whereu~on
Mr. puran ~ta-~d it would Ue too oxpc~neive to knock down tha Front: ntrur.tur.o
and otarC fi•oi' acratr,h.
Chairman Seymc~ur notoci ttiar .~no of` the ahowinga thAt muat be mA~e by '~.he
Ylanning Comm~ ~si~n :in granting a variarice wAS that the potitioner wai~ huing
donied a xight ~chich otiiars in the arna were enjoyin~, ~.nerefora, the petl-
tioner mu~t dc~monRl;rate that• hc~ wna be~.ng discrimi.nated aya:n3t, howeve~•, the
Frop~rty t;o the e~~sk hed thr~e un.ita ~nd rio vari.anees ha3 be~en rc:yuc~eted ur
received, an~3 ~til.7. farthor ea:~t there waei another vtry ehallow l.ot w;.th thrae
uniL•s, but here, aqain, thex'e r~as no mo3ification~ and that the potitionr~ was
rQqu~ating somethi~~y •rhlch ath rs in the ar~:a di~ nat enjoy.
Commissioner Fterbst nnt~cl thak the y~urposP of estabLiahing R-3 zoni.ny or~ 'ttiose
praner~ties in the area in which raubject property was located w3e to give tho
ownQrs an opportunity to removF~ ttie exiating structure, thereby getting k,etter
rental uni~_s which would makQ up any £iylancial deficiency, however., tho exiating
home was built in Lhe 1920's and the propobal waa not- a good plan f~r tlt~ Com-
mi9sion to consider; wher.eupon M.z. Duran 3tal:ed th~t he had thought of takfng
down the• o.ld house but found it toa expensiva for that area, ~nd he could not
zc~alize a prape.r retur.n for what he had paid for the property.
Chairni~,.n Seymour nated Ehat. otliers had slmilar size lots and had de~'E`l~ped
ttieir prapt~rty within the Code requirements~ whexe•apon M.r. Duran stai:ed they
had k~~en b~iilt :;ome timF ~~go wheri building expenses were not ~s hlgh as they
pres .:n t.l.y were .
Co,~missioner Herbs' noted that the R-3 Zone was established to upgracle the
aiea, not cis was being propoaecl by the petitioner.
Cheiirman Seymour noted that ever. if the petitioner was impr~ving the area, he
was asking for five waivers £rom the Code, which made a less thP.n de:iirable
development; whereupon Zoniny Supervisor Ctiarles Roberts stated ttiat Waiver "d"
w~ir, nc~ longer apFlicabl~.
Comm.i:,sioiier ~llred noted that in order to upgrade tb.is development, che peti-
tioner would have to remove Lhe existing structure and develop tt~e entire
parce]_ with a rew apa~tment complex, and this appeared to re the con;senRUS of
opinian of the c:o;nmission, therefore, would the peti.tioner likP a continuance
tu r.evise the plansj wher.eupon Mr. lluran statad he wanted the Commis:aion to
consicter the nlans already before them.
C;omm.isislaner. Rowland otfered a motidt~, seconde~~ ~'yonnection~withKanWexemPtidn
MOTION CAfiRLED, that the Flanning Commission, in
declaration status re~q~~est, finds an~'d*h~~~Ljor~~~~recommen3s~togtheWCity Council
significant environmental impact,
that no Environmental I~pact State~ent i~ n~lae~sary.
Commi:~sioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC73-50 and moved for its pasyage
and adoption to deriy P~tition `or Variance No. 2438 on ro~eraameniCiestneAded
posed developu-ent wouldBnvironmontsnthat~theUfuli intent ~F the zoni.ng on the
for an adequate living owner a
pr~perty for mulriple--f~mjly residential uso was to allow th~ property
moans to deyelap hit~ prcperty For income with new un3ts, however, the old struc-
tura should be rem~~vodT that the Commisaion had graestionsxa~adetbyutheepl~nnir~g~r
for i:he petiti~nar to xes~lue the probl9my and A•ugg
Commisaion, which h~V~a~~~°CemmissionrconatdaxVthedariginalhplans~aubmittedias
tion~r elected to
baing the only manner in ~Y~ich the p=O~'zantinq~tY e petaS:ionezpa/ right~nat ene
granting of sub jo:.t pet;itian w-ould be g'
ioyed by othor proper~y owners in tnis general aroa• (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca~l the f•oregoing resolution was pasaed by the followinq vote:
~yEg; CpMMIS5I0N~RS~ Allred, Faranor ~auer, Herbst, Kaywoc~d, Rnwland,
Seymour.
NOESa COMMISSIONERS: None.
AASENT: (:OMMISSIONERS: Kone.
~
~
~
MTNUTt: ;, CT'PY P1,ANNING C~MhIIt;SION, I4~rCh 19, 1973
73-150
Comrrien.toner H~rbst l~ft Lha Counr,;i.l c''tinmb~r at 2s15 ~,.in., c~tnt~.ng thek Uoc~~uee:
of a~ ~osa~.Ul.a conElic~ of intarest in the~ noxt. ~et.it.ton, hc~ wc>uld ab~~+nt himselt
Lror,i tho Council. Chr~mbar.
~ARIANCF. NO. : d79 - CUN'PTp1UI:D P1J~LZC ttE:ARING. JOYAi~ R. IiUfl5UN, aR. ,°342
~~~"~+~ ~ !' CenY.rel Avc-nuu, GAk'C~aR Grove, Ca. 92G4I.r Owner~ raquoetiny
WA.iVER OF' (A) PERMI"':EG lJSCBr lB) I'L'~RMtT'I'F:D SIGN IN CON-
JUNCTION W:f7'H C.OMMT.RCfAIa U:~L OC` A[tGSIDPNTIAI, STRl1CTURL, HND (C) MIP7iMUM NUMQ~R
OF' PARKING Sk''CI'sS TO PERMI7' THF CONTINI;ED LISL~ Q[^ A BUSZNE;SS UI'FICE I.N AN EXZST-
zNG rOUlt-UNZT APAI2TMCN'P BU7I~DING on prapa~ty desr.riUu~ na e A rectnngalarly-
ah~~pc~d par.col uf land having c~ fr~~nh.e+yo of. approxiroately 50 ~'oet on tli~n naec
aida at Uli.v~ street, hnving a rt~ax.imum d~~E~th of api~rox.imatel.y 140 Paet, and
be~i.nq .locatod apprc>xjmatel.y ?.50 feot noxt•h of. tha conter7.zne of f.i:coadway.
pY•Qp~i•+.;y l,z~senr_ly c.:uaelfled R-3, MUI.TIPLr.-FAMII,Y RESIDI:N7IAI~, ?.O1J1?.
~ub joct pet-ltion w~as continued f.rom t:he ,noa*_inc~ of 'M1rch :i, 1973, to a11.aw the
p«tit.ioner r.iine ~o bo present l•o answer .~uestions.
No or-e appearod in orpoait.ion.
Althou9h tl~e Report t.a tha Commiss.ton wr,3 n~t read at t-he public hea.ring, i L•
iH refarrad to and tnade s part of the minuten.
Mr. Joya~. Hobson, t}io pQtiti.~ner, aNp~ared bc~fora the Cumrnission and ateted t-e
had been at this locati.on f~r saven year~. and }~ad never had a problemJ tt~at th~e
buz~lding had been bullt; 45 to 50 ycarn ~go; at~d that there were never more t.ha.i
two cars ±n the garaqe bpc.ause the r~t~ident.g oi thase dpartmenta w~rc elderly
women who did not own vehicles.
THE IlFARING WAS CI~O:ii:D.
Cha~.rman Seymour inquired whettier thr petitiongr hac! customere caming to thia
ad~ress since he was in the termihc, busiriess~ ~ahereupon the petitione~r slt+ted
all the busine~s was condiarted by tElephone, and C~erllaps about two cara a
month would ~tup by.
Commissiorier Kaywood inquired why it was necessary to bave suah a lar.ge sign
if all of the Uusiness was done ~~ telephone~ whe~e.upo~ Mx. Hobson stated i.t
was for ad•v~r~isi~ig purposes and not to a4vert:lae the location of their
bus.ine33.
2~ning super.viyer Charles Roberts, in resp~x-ae to Commission questioning,
3tated thai: the exi~ting sign was about 12 [tquare feet, whereas the Sigr
Ozdinance wauld permj.t an 8-sguare foot siqn where a.residential usL was
r.onverted far ommercial use.
Chairman Seymour inquir.ed whether the petitioner would stipulate to reduction
of the sign to 8 square feet if the usP were permittedj whereupon Mr. Hobeon
agreed to a reduction of the sign.
C~mm?.~sioner. Kaywood inquired as ta who resided in thp apart:nents; whereupon
tdr. Hobson steted there were three eld.erly womer. living therF, and L-he room
u~ed for telephone services wa~ entirely separate from the apartment anits
ar~d was not a part of any apartment-.
Com-nissioner Kaywood of£er~d a motion, seconded by Commissio:-er Gr~uer and
MOTiON CARRIBD, th~t the I~lanning Commisaiun, in connsction with an exemption
declaration status request, finds and determines that the ~~roposal would have
no siynl.fi.r,ant anvir.oz-mental impact, and, thprefor~, re~:oml,iends to th~ Cicy
Council that no Environmental Tmpact Statement ia necessary.
Commissioner Allred offe.red Resolution No. PC']3-51 and moved for ir_s passage
and ac~option to grant Petiti~n for Variance No. 2479, in p~rt, denying waiver
of the si.ze sign permitted ~ince the peti.tionar stipulated to providing a
sign in accordance with the Sign Crdinance, or 8 square feet, and that waiver
of the required psrk~ng was granted nn the banie that t.he pekitloaer uaed one
r~om in this structure for telepk~one sales only, there~ore~ parking as proposed
wa3 adequate, and subj~ct to conditi~ons. (See ResoZution Bonkj
On roll call the £orQqoi.ng resoiu~ion wa~ pasr~ed by the foll~~..ing ~ote:
AyFB; COMMISSTONERS; Allred, Fgrana, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland~ yeymour..
NOES: COMMISSIdNE RS: N~ne.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: lierbat.
~
~
Mi[vU'rl::i~ l;'[~'Y 1'1~11NNIN~~ COMMI:~:iiON~ M~1t'ch .1~~ 1973 73-1`il.
1:NVIItnNMT:NTA1. iM!'ACT -• CON'1'I.NUE:C~ YC~k1I~IC HF.ARSNC;. LUSM, COKPORA'P[01d, P. O. Eiux,
RK1~U[t'1' Nc). Eid '1140, N~wC~orC ^oach, Ca. '12(iti3, Ownfirt 11AIti)I,p K. IIEDLUND,
__._~,Mr~_---~____^__ 1~OP[:N, HL,DI,UND & DAl2pY, INC:., 3030 We~l Mn.in St:rec+t.,
VAit)ANCt: N~). 247F) Al.haa~br.a, Ca. 9]E~O1, Agent:~ roqueatiny WA[Vk:lt (1F' (A)
---~~---~~-.~--------~-- RL;QUTRF:MrN'I` 'I'1~11'P SItJ(iLG-C')1:N7I,Y S'PRUt:'1'URCS R[~Alt i1N
TENTATIVE MA!' OF Alt'P::}2iAL II1GIfWR1lS ANf` (~) MTNIMUM i.()T 5I7r 7'l~ PC~RM,IT
TI2A~~T N(1. H].Sl, I;S'1'Af3LIS1IMh:N'P OI' A 4~i-I,U']', R-fl-1l)~OUO sr~t~~rvr.szort vn
RF:V[Sic1t: NO. ! property cla~aribed ae ~ An irrogul.arly-ahapod E~arc~~ of
--.~___.____.---._-------.- lancl can~intl.ny af aPproximately 17.7 nc;rac•: having a
Cr~ntage of nppruxima~u.ly 1100 foot on t:he nort_h eidn
of !~fohl Ra~;ch Road, ha vi.nq a~nur,imum dcpth oi' appraxi.m;it~ ~y 750 f~et•., and bAing
.loc.stc+d e~~proxlmat~l~~ 4~i f«~nt wost of thn cancorlino o!' Vi.llaz•cal Uriv~.
l~ro~?orty pr.nsently cla :,:;lt'ie~l R-A, AGRICUI.'CUFtAI,, 7.OME,.
~mm~.asto!~~r Hor-bet .returned to ti•~4 Council Chnmbar at 2~Z1. P•~»~
Althuugli ui~u i~nrson wa~ prcyank ir- up~oHitiun, he wulved zeadi.ng of t:he Ftepozt
Co t:he Commtasion which is xef.erru~l to ~snd mt-dra a purt. of i:he m3nuR:eK.
~tr., W1111am Lusk, representiny t:he develop~r, indicat;ed hi.s pr~t~ance tu anc~wer.
quest~.orza, anci tlien .tn r;:sporiso ~.o Cummission que»tiuning, atatQCl that r.hoy
pro~~osed d~vr~lo~ment of tit~ F~rc~~drty al~ng Lho eame 7..1.nsa ae oth~~r R-H-l0,U0J
dovelopma~it in the azea between N~hl Runc'~ nnd tiohl Cnnyon Road~ .
Mr. RoJ.and Kruegar, 561 Peralta ttilla Ur1.vc, appaared befor•e the Gommisaion
repreeanting tha Per.~~7.ta Hi.i:ls Improvc:mant Aseociation - tPGUSC ~:.ropoz~tiea north
of a~abjoct prop~ 'y - and stat•ed that his comme~nts may ~>pear i:o be negative,
but hc would like ta ltave ~~me quesL•i.ans enAwertd today ~i.r~ce hi:s orraiiia:ati.on
waa not satisfied with the so~.ution ta some oP the prot~lems that were presentec3
at thr l.ast public hedring, namely, in hhe EI~t it wae his or~anization'a
opi.nio,~ that the report: as it stood wa~ too ganeral and di~`.t ~iot ::~ver. ^L~~cif:ic
y~roble~r.s~ that the geological n~ed~ wQxe not. studiad in the+ area e.nd what wa~+
repurt~d on R~ology cover~d all of ei.ght. to tan linec,, and one of the statr~mentta
mn.~e was th t there were ;io fault .lin~s i.n the are3, ho~.~ :ver, hi:a o.rgani:.ation
!+ad evide~l~ ~~ti lnstability ~~f soil o~ th? hills duzir.g t1~~~ past thr.ee yeare,
un~ with guch a superf:L~~ial stuciy, ~ne ~ould not say tnis wa~ a:~table area;
that he had taliced with a geulogiat wl~~ r~ac9 advised hicn that in order. t:o make
a bet~~z sti~dy it wotild be wise to hav£ an ~,ezial photograph i.n order ':a d~ter.-
mine if any chanc,•e4 had occurred, howevaL, titia land ~,~•~a already cut and Pilled,
which ~:ould have covered up any :,lide arear tliat the slope would affect the
stability of the property; that the dxainage was only par.t:.411y covered ii~ tho
EIRI that `.he City'~ pulicy staL•es that any new developmer,t ehall require that
drainage be ta :n care a£ ro its ult~.mate disposal, which appeared not to h~sve
been do-ie r ril~-~ the EIR stated that lots may be graded to drain to ex: sting
stxeQtsi ~that a.l^ng the west side Cnere was a very steep canyon cutt~nq through
the lo~s about 2~i feet d~:~p by 4 feet wide, t~nd if thls ware nc>t ~roperly pre-
pared drainage could be over.lcaded, it covld cat~se problems to ~.~ie Peralta Hills
area, therefore, they wE~i'e ver5~ cuncernPd wit:h the drainaye; t.ha~ abutting t~
the north th~ze were several eroded areas ftom the ln~t ma;or rain~ in z969t
that there was a large flow of water and mud from recently built areas and homes
in the Peralta Hilis area weze in dang~rr that. the plan alao indicatPd ruvertir~g
drainaqe aleng the n~r•th =zd:. of tne b1cN~~ to dr~.in to tbe west whtch wculd be
adjacent to the 1'aralt.a tiills Water Company, with additional drainage which
would gu west and east to anot}ier gul'leyt tht-t ~11P.}7 w:~re cuncerned ~s L-o the
solution af the tot~1 flow havi:ig changPd in vsl.ocity frocn sheet fl~w i.n ~he
ns~.u•ral htlls f.lowing down a hillsicle, with thls sheet fl.ow bc~ir.g basically
tak~n up by the soil i~ ;.ts natural caurse downnill, however, this p~an woulr~
incrense the velocity and coiild cause aevere ez~sion problems; that another
~cneideratior~ waa the f~ct that the Peralta Hills Coir:munity Water Fteservoir was
bolow this project, arxd if. there was any failure or any mudalide or danqez of
drainage overflow. this could er~danger their drinking water, there~or.e, they
f~lt a more complete :~tudy should be mttde of the tirainage probZen~; Lhat th~-e
would be an tt~clitionn:l impact problem b~cauae people normally c~nsidered flora
~tnd faund as part of the h~ll~ide dave.lopments, b~zt t,here was environment for
peoole also, and some consideration ahould be given k~ the change in the
natural hilleide where high-density houaing wae~ propose3, and how this density
wauld affect the living Qnvironment of the residents of Feralta Hilla so t.hat
any ndvmree impact coul.d be minimized' that tha ETR fuLther indicaced that
there was no wild liFe in tihe hilla since No'.~1 kanch Road wae conatructed, but
he had saon deer, fox, c~yote, etc., k~ut, of course, they could not be seen
trom the ruad, but they were locat~d i:~ the hilla.
~
~
MtNn'1'L5, CI'cY 1~I~ANtJ1NG Ct~~1MTSSTON, Mnrch 19, 19'i3 73••.l''i1
CNVIRnNMENTAL LMPAC'I' RLPQR7' N0. Bkl, VARrANC6; N0. 247Ei, AtJU 7'h,N'T'ATIVr MAP OC
TRACx NO. 815:3~ RE:V7:5T()N_WO,., 1 (Continued~~_~.,_~M~___.____•~.~-.~.--.-
Mr. Kruoqr~r then reyuoaLed that the pub?.ic ha~ering bo continuod 1:o Alluw t.ime~
to meko eeveral atu<9tae C'hnt hin or9enlzation would .Likc to have~ a) d morn
complatA g~oluylcal Ntudy madG of the aren, i~~clutting an a~rial aurv~y e<~ thn~
th~ ro~id~ntd could F~a ~aeuro~ ~~ no s~ric~us eli.de are~ae, ovnrburden~.nc.r tho
hillaidc~, and beCtar aloping tor tha lok~F b) n~:ompl~ Ca r~lan ehoul8 b~ arrl.vad
~t Ab to draina~o to ineot nll City se.andArde end recui rnmant a Prom the p:~tnt oP
drnir~Rqe to its ul.tiu~at•u di~po~~-1~ c) that somo conai.d~r.ation be givo~ ko t•ha
impar~: upan tho Per.alta Nills acec+ with miti~~ati.nq measuzc~a chat coulcl t~ko
caro ~~t ~robxama afPactin.g `.hoir oranoo yrov»r+ and l~wering th6 de.~aity oC loke
~.djacer,t to tho Paralta Nill.e Uoundariaet +and that they w~c~ not t~ying to bc
negntiv~, t~.horufore, theX would bo glad tn cooperato with i iak Cocpurat:lon,
and ~he City, to g~t t.uyathor with Che~Y or.yanizntic~n ko get thie iuto Uhepo
to minl.mizo any adverae aifccts this could havo on the Peralta l~illo arc~~.
~ommiesionor C.ttuor i.nquir~rd how long .tt would Cn?:o to rnnkt~ thie axudyt whero•-
u[~on Mx. Ktue~ger statod it. could bd don4 in a month i. E paople set t.heir roincl~
to it.
Commic ;loner Gauer notc~d Y.hal if tho C~mmiseion took action on this progasal,
by t.ho tima it r~n~:ha3 tYio City Council perhapo thQ s~udy could hav~e boen mado
for thN (:it~~ Counc:il tu tako i.nto conAider.ation, ~nd in ord~r to expaditu th~
matY.ar ratha: than contiilue tho item for. a study, ttie ytudy could b~ made bu-
tw~en tho time the Flanning Commleaion took actio~~ ~nd tl1;.b would be cnnsidered
by thQ City Council..
Mr.. Kru~qer statad there was une problem he could e~ee wliich was i~~nppening all
of. the ti mP - i:he clemanda out:ran the capacity of the City s taf i: because the
last tir~e ha 1-nd r+~e~ntioned tYie water dra~.nage problem in 1:ti~ weat ynd of Peralta
tiills, t.ho h:ngi.nee~:ing staff indicate~i there wag c~nly a 2v~ tncraase in flow,
howover, tlie Cngineeri~zg atufF had not: done a atudy o f tne imp~~.ct of vAlocity,
and ataff had indir,ated the,y had n~t atudied it thems elves but quoted fL~~m
another source ~ th~it the:re wae a chango in the grade from the ranch ltne and
tt~e velocity wus n<>t ar.alyzed hy th~ C1.ty, however, tr~ey llad agr.ec~d to look
inY.c, thio matter, but khe way things had b~en going on in the Ssnta Ana Cunyon,
stafF would h~ve na time~ to look at this problem.
Mr. Lusk, in rebutt:al, ~~t~-tod chat Mr. krueger had expreased some real concer.nH;
~hat: he had lived with t:hose ^.oncei•ns for 25 ye~trs, havir.g developed in tiillside
property throuyhoui: Sout:hern Caii~ori,ia and kiiew all o£ the problems of hillside
develapmentj that ~:eEere~nces made as to the goolcgi~al study on Nohl Ranch - he
did not know of anyone orho knew mcza about thla than hia company; that ~hey
would atand by anychin9 his cumpany did~ that t.hc~ tw~ inr,identa ieferred to on
Nohl. Ranch at Nohl Can; c~n Road - he did not know wha.z 4a s ed the slippaqe after
tkio cut wxa made since t:hey had never had L•hio huppen elF ~where on Nohl Rancbr
and as to 4tie other lot mentior.ed, he did not know h~w trat lot was impacted,
but the 1964 rains were the worst in the subdiviaion business and n~ud wes the
only thing that did res~alt frum th+.~, and tiiey had tr1.e3 to yet some planti.ng
t.hat wou~ d rer~olve this :vater problemj that they had planne3 tl~e drainage by
Lurning it to the west 311fI dclini:~g into an interfor. st~eet, then ontc~ Nohl.
Kr~nch Road; that concer.ii reqar.diny erosion was elso mentioned, HowFVer, during
the ra~ ,s the}~ had men ~~ratching this on a c:onstant basis; .h~t as to dirt r~lides
mentioned, if the property owner would have catlpd L~~k Cc~•rporation, it wou13
have been his comp;ny's r.esponsi.bility to takQ care of tliis ~LOblem; that tr-e
concern expr9ssad rPgarding thp Peralta ttills watgr ~u[~ply area - this ahould
be yiven ap~cial attention, and he felt tha~ careful analy.tis of the situation
ahould be made; that mention wu~ alsu made thnt ~ub~~ct petit3on be continued
for a geological report, ho~,+ever, their geological reports wera on file for
anyono tu sPe and there were no se~reta iti themj that they constructed these
banks in 5-3.n~:. lapers and the bases oF the banks ~-ere tigh~e.r than the earth
that the banks were built on; that durinq the 1969 rains, they oxperiencod
same "pop out" , and the on]y banks that he].d were tt~ose that were not plante~r
that the complete drainage plan was available to view, and ~he engine6i~ o£ this
tract wae present in the Council Chamb~r to annwer sn;+ questionG that might
arise, and thia waR the~ same engineerinq firm thdt had worked with them for the
paet 24 y~ars on hillsi.de developmant in Sou~hern California, therefore, he
woe.~d like ta invite Mr. K.rueqer ar~d hia ~roup t~ s ee the landscaping plane
they propoaed for this tract and the manner in which they proposed to main-
tain the ecolagy.
~
~
~
M~UC~TP:S, ::T'I~Y PI.ANNtNi: COMMTSSION, Mar.ch 19, 1973
73-153
F:NVIRON~•:~~:N'l`At, ir~rnc'P RLPORT NO. 88, VARTANCL N0. 2478, ANU TF.NTIITIV~ MAP UF
T•RAC'P NU.~Al~i3~ REVTSxUN NO. 1 _(Cont.inuod~~..__.._ ~_ _ , ..._._.
M: Y.ruflyc+r. noted thdt Mr. Lusk wae ~~ory o~~en t:o oEEe.ring halp thdt his gruup
~vauld n~e~3, i~ut he te].t that ~Sr. I~u-~k ~'r~iled to eay enyth.l.ng about ho~a thsy
propae~d to t.aY.o cnxo ot the wa-t.oz ~reinage do~an Peralta Nills brive to 9Rnta
Rna Canyon Road sinca thn Gity's E~c+licy wae th•ar a~evelo~ier muat 'ak~ car.a u!
c2rainaryo from i.te p~~i.nt ot' incap~~~~. ao thn~ t'tioro would be no nQd~Cianel
ero~ian tro-n thnt poinLJ thek th~ ~i~~ ~+~loper hud boon ci~a xgninq e~ve+ryth~nc~ to
dump into the natural ce-r~yon, a» > l~i yroup d1d not want that water to and u~
going dawn Fora7.tu ilills Driv~ ~~u. t~ Ana Cany~n Itoatl ~ooauae it c~~uld cuuao
a~mo very rFlA1 ~r~bl~m~.
Mr. Luek not.ed t.hnt lh~y had, ~ n Eact, roducod t.ha runoiP to the, w~ot by
doeiqning the Fubciivisio~i runo~ ~: w:,tor south onL•u N~li1 Rn.nch Rond, and whak
ran c9~wn the nat•ural d.r~.inago l~.l:: f.rom tt~e t~anka, Uut thay had re~ducod this
runoff coneidurnLly.
Mr. Krueger noted ltiat L•1» d~~velo~~ez had coriaantrated L•hi~ veloc:i.~y which wns
a r.oa1 conceLn t whoroupon Mr I~usk observ~:d that the on tira canyon was cori--
c~ntzated, whather mun-mado ~~~ n~t~:ra1.
`PN~ NEAR7:NG WAS CL~JSGU.
CommiAaioner Her.bet requ~ated tk-at the Engineeririg repre~entativo answer aom~
of thP ~ueation~+ preso~iteQ by Mr. Kruager.
Of:ice Fngineer Jay Titud advi9nd ttio Cummi~~rion that the cancern ex~roasa~~ by
Mr. Kr.ueger wr.s alsa ehared hy the City ~ince the City did n~t want something
tht~t woul.d creute a problem to p~~p1e downatreamt that to Mr. Lueti akat•ed,
ac:r_~rding to thP plans submitted ~.t wa:~ true Lhat thP area wner~ they planned
ko place the wat~r was a~iatural channel, but it would be considerably le~s than
i.n the natu:^al ~tato although it would ).~e cor~centrated at a point where the
ve.l~city would be greater, however, anc~~ it ~ra.s in the channel, tha tot+~l
volume f1oN w~uld be le~e than it wae uofoze development, theref.ore, downsY.ream
from a point whE~re i~ entered the cunyon, t:ho vclocity of the water w~uld brz
the a~me as ~vhen ~.he property w:s i~~ it~ neitu~.al stafi:e with a decr~aae in flow
to any de~elorment., howevaz, a. condition w<<:; prop~9er3 on the tract ~«hich waE
a po.licy of the Ci.ty and which wo~ild requi~^~ that t.he developer of thQ txact
take the drainage to its ultimate point of dis~,oealJ and that the tract 3ts~.tf
Nar~ graded So ttiat it woulci dzain to Nohl ?tazch K~ad, which L•hen flowed to the
w~st where it would go to ~ caLch b4sfn ~n3 storm drains.
,mmissioner ~llzed inquired whe~her the d~svel~per would have to conetruct a
drainage pipa to santa Ana Canyon Roadj wh~~reupon Mr. 7Ci.tuA atated rhat co~xld
be done or the d: ,inage taken to anothez stor.m clr.ain, t~owevzr, h~• was not aur.a
this would enter it at all, bUt tt,era we.re some drai.nagc; area~ bralow SantA Ana
Gan.yon Road tnat dYuine~. to the river~ and he d~d not }:no~r if the drainaga from
thts tract wou].d be taken to the river.
Commissioner Allred obser•ved tiiat if this ~~vere not d~:ie and a drainage prob2am
were fovnd, then the developer would txave to take th` drainage to the proner
drains.
Mr. Titus, in response to questioning by C~mmissioner Rowland, atated that he
had not done any study r~garding drdi.nage downetream from this poinc, howovdr,
there were several maps acailable, and tlie Luak engine-pis had made a study ta
a point where it would enter a natural chnnnel, howe•:er, tn.sre was nothing
a~-ailable be~ow that point~ that Lu~k Corporation engineere~ w:~uld have t~ pr~-
sent tris ii~for:na~ion to the C.tty Engineer and the etaff woul.d st~;dy this
informat.ton to determine wheth~r it was in accordRnce with the roatea proposed
on the tract; and that th:Ls wnuld not be a plantiing function but would ba an
engineering problem, which he felt sure could ~e work~d ~ixt with the recommended
conditiorir Por said t.cact made by the Fngineerin~ Uiviaion which Mould have to
be met pr~,or to approval of *.t~ £ina] tz•ac:t map.
Commissioner Herbst noted tha:: thf.a was a cor~cern exprussed by Ghe Peralta Hills
Improvement Association as to when this st:Ldy woulc~ be made and whQn it would be
available to them; whercupon Mr. Titus at:ited all th~s intormatiion would hnve to
be filed fo~; approval prior *o approval of: the final ~ract map by tlie ~ity
Cou~ncil and re-:ordation of the tract, and as soc~n Rs this inform~stian was made
available to thg City enqineering staff a~id analyTe+i, it wauxd bo avaLlable to
the pvLlic or tha Peralta Hills Improv. mettt As~o~i.ation.
~
~
~
MiNUTE:S, t:TTY PI~ANNING (;OMMIS510N, Mttrc:h 19, 1977
73-154
LNVIRONMN,N7'AL IMPAC'f 1tF:PORT A10. H~, VAfcIANCP: NO. 24%E3, ANil '1'I:N'PATIVE: M1aV Of
TMCT N0. 8.53, RL~'VIS7.pN N0. 1 (Conti.r~uod) ^__._._~ _,y__.~,^________w....~._.
~r.>mmi.eof~ner ~a~uer +~qain ~tet~d ho could not c~c~~ wliy t:h~eo problomN uoul.d noY.
be renolved bAtwOen the tlme tha P1annLrt~ Commiea.ion toc?k Action xnd tho CiL•y
Cnuncil c:ons+3dur.oA the trac~ enit vnri+~n~:e rather than continu~ng the i*_c~m for.
the ntiidy, r~inae it wnuld heve to be r~RO].ved pri.~~r tr~ appro~~al of. L•he final
trdc~ map uccording ta ~.he c~nAition of approval.
Commisnivnor Rnwland nol:sd tt~et one of th~ cul-df~-•~,~~c stroc~tA was much lonqar
rhan tho guldellnee eet.nbliNh~d by the Sani tat.io:i Di.vieJ.on and inqui red whnthgr
th1.q xoquiri~mc~nt ditla.rod ~rom a plRnned ~~nit de~~lopment Uecaus~ this wue inoxe
thnn 600 feet lor~y, AnQ ~inco t.he avid~n~ ~ pr.~sent.od by tY~e 5anitA~ion Divie.ion
at a work soeeion collad ~~r a n-aximu-r. ot 500 foet, p.lus the etand~rd cnil-de-aac
turn-+-round, woul~ti tt-ie como un~ier. th~~ eame scrutiny fis u plann~d unit• develop-
mont.
Mr. Roberte then r.~vinwed *ho tract ma~> wf.Yh thE Commiaeion, notiny wh~rc t11a
cul-de~aRC waA propaood and etatod there was ~1 differenco betwecn a eingl.e--
fan;ily eubdividion nnd a PuD whur.eiii L•hero was no liope of straete extending into
th~~ ad~ecent properr.iee, while Chexo were still pr.opert•1,oa tindeveloped tc th~+
oae` ol~ thie cul-dd-ertc £or etroet oxtenaion of the stre~et in tTle future, how-
evoi, unt.ii that wns de•v~~!oped~ ttie cul-de-sac would be roqui.red to ullow fo.r
a turn-urov.nd aXda.
Commission~r Allre~d inquirod as to the tentati.ve date for the additional dave.l-
opment extendiny thi$ street through to Nohl T.anch Ftoadj whEr~upon Mr. Lusk
etatod thia would bN controlled by ~ales in the prupas~d L•ract, and if the hames
~aold at a rapid paca, then tlie ad~oining property wouZd, of course, bo develc>ped.
DEpuCy City Attarney Frank Lowry, in response ta Coinr~i.ssion questi.o[iing, t~tatad
that if the 3AVelopox mek the City's ~~tandazds, he could r~ot see how thc~ City
cu~sld .impo~e off-eite demande by aff-:iite property ownsra.
Commir~sioner Gauer offered a mution, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTiON
C?1F.RIED~ that tna Planr-ing Commiasion, in conrie~:tion with the filir~g of Enairo-~-
p-ental .LmpACt Report No. 88, has z'eviewea the LIR Review Committee's statement
ae sot: for*.h in thelr report, t.herefore, tlle Anat~eim Planning Commissior. recom-
nier.dn adaptiun o~C Environmar~t~11 Impact Raport No. 88 to the Ci~y Councii as
being tl~o C~ ~ncil'~ Envi.ronmental Impact Statement.
CommieAior~er Rowland offared Resr~lut-ion No. PC73-52 an3 moved For its passage
and a~d4ptian to grant Petition f~r Varianco No. 2478, in part, granting waiver
of the requirem~ent khat homes rear onto an arterial highway on the basi.s thaL-
thare ~ras a grnde difPQrential of 10 fezt between the arteria] and the propex'ty=
that *.hn petitionor had withd!:a~n ~aaiver. of tne min9.mum int aize; and subject to
conditiona . (See R~sc,lution Boc.~k)
On r~ll c..ll the fcregoing resalution was gas~ed by the following vote:
AYFS: COMPtIuS?'Ut3Elt5: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Flerbst, Kaywood, Rowl.and,
Seymour.
NOESo COMMLSSInNERS~ None.
ARSEN'fi COMMISSIONER None.
~ommiealoetez Gauer ~ffered tion, seconded .~y Commissioner F[erbst and MOTION
CARRIED, to approve Tentati dap of Tract Ho. S]53, Revision No. 1, subject, to
the lollo~,ing co ~ditions:
(1) Tt~at• the apptoval of Tencative Map of Tract No. ti153, Revi.~i.on
No. 1• ia CJY3:lt@C: subject L•o the completion of Reclassification
No. 67-68-7 and Var~ance No. 2478.
(2) ThnC should thie subdivigion bo developed as mare than ~ne sub-
divieion, each aubdiviaion thereof shall be submitted in tenta-
tive gr~rm For approval.
(3) Thut a G-toot decorative, openwork wall or fence sh:~ll :~~ ~on-
atructed at th~ top of the slope adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road on
I.ok Noa. 2, 26, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and ~11. Reasonab7.e
l~nducaping ahall be installed within ~ha s~ope areas of each
lot sdjaGen« to the roadways and in the street par'cways. Plans
ter e~t~ic~ landacaping shal~ te 9ubmitted to and subject te the
aggrovr~'L c~f the Pa.rkrlay Mair~:enance Superlnt.er.dent. Fol.lowing
inntallati~n and uccaptanc~ the property owner shall assume
reapcnaibility of maintenance of said landacaping to the lot
~ ~
MINUTES, ('ITY YI,ANNTNG COMMISSIUN, M~rch 19, 1973 '13-155
F.NV'[RQNMENTAL, IN~PACT RE}~tJR'P NO. 08, VARIANCE Nq. 2A')N, AND TN:N9'ATIVF MP? OF
TRACT No fi1.5:~, ItEVTS]'UN N0._ 1 ~,Conh.a.na4d ~_~._„__~..^.__~._ __~._.~_____-..~
~ ! i.n~e r.e+g3r.4l.e~e o! the loce~~ion uE tha an11A or ~oncee . ':he
City o~ l~nahei.m eha.L1 aeauma rc~eE•r~iidibilS.ty !or mxintenar~~n vi
lendecaping i-i thd Nohl Fi+nch Ron1l riyht~-ot.-~way.
(4) That all lota wi.thin this tract ehall be aervad by uriclc~rground
ut:llitie+~ .
(5) Thnt e final trvct map of subject property ehall ba eubmitt.eil
to and npprovod l~y t.he City Council and th~n b~ recorded in the
~ffic~ of the Urange County Ftecurd~r.
(G) '1'hat atiy prU[inHer3 covc~nants, condit.i.ons, an~! ze~.trict•i.~ns BllAlj.
be evrmitxoa t~ and e~provc+d by tha City ~~ttor~ :y's ~ff~.ce pxior
to City Council a~proval of tho final tzc+ct map, and, further,
Lhat tho approvad covax~auts, conditio-:~, and rest~ict.iona ehall
be re~.~rded c:onc~irrontly wiah the final tra~ct mdp.
(7) ThAt atreet namea flha11 be approved by tl~e City of Anahei~~~ prfnr
to np~ruval uf a final LracC map.
(E3) That L•hc~ owner(~) of. subject prop~rty Hhal]. pay ta tho CAty oP
~-rahEim t-ie appropriato par.k and racrention in-lie~ feap aa
<1~termi.ned to be appxopriate by ~l~e City C~uncil, eeid feao to
k~e paid at the time th~ bulldiny permi.t ie l.sauod.
(9) Thnt drainage ~f said property stiall be diapoeec3 of in +s manner
setlsfnctory to the City Er~gineer and aliall include c~neCruction
oE dzain~~3e £acilitios of a size and type suPtir,i~nt to carry
runof~ waters orlginating fr~m higher propetti~s eoulh oE Sante.
Ana Canyon Rc~ad t,~r~uyh said propt~rr.y to ultia-ats dl.~posal e~
arpr.oved by tiha Ci.y ~ngineer. Reimb~xreemant agraomonte ma,y be
made a~vailable to ttie developerH of sai~! groperty u~an tht~ir
request.
(10) That grading, excavation, and all other ~onstrucCion activities
sha11 be conducted in such a~ ez so Qe t.o minim.~se the possi-
btlity of ~ny silt originati rom xhi.n prajact being carr.ied
into the Santa Ana River by ~-torm wate~ uriqf.nat:ir,q from or
flowinc~ through this project.
(11) That the vehicular access r.ights, except at stroeL• and/or alley
openings, t•o Nohl ~anctY Raad shall be dedicatad to tY~e City of.
Anbheim.
(12) That the ;treet centerlinp radius a*. ~he northweet corner of tract
sha'_1 be a minimum of_ 150 feet.
(13) Tha~ a 10-£oot sewer ea~ement shall he pr.~yided in either Lot
No. 4 or Lot No. 5.
(14) Tt-at piior to approval of. the final tract m+~p, the rwner ahali
provide the City with an agr.eeme~nt to landacapm, irrigate and
grovide perpetual maintenance for nll xlo~ee outaida the kract
boundaries which are creaL-ed by tha grac3ing operationa for thi.s
tract. Said a.greement shall bo rPC!?rded aancuxrently witk~ ~he
r:.nal tract map.
~15) That pri~r to appr~val af c~~e final tract map~ floox plans and
slevatiuns foz the pr~poyed houseg s;~all ba submitted to the
C~.ty Cnuncil £or review and approval.
FINDINGS:
(].) That prior to Ci.ty Council approval of a fina~. tract map, the
City Clerk shauld notify representativos 4f the PAralta Hills
Improvement Association o£ said action in ~rder that these
repreeentatives may determine wrhether the~is concorns expresaed
at the Planning Coinmi~ssian hearinq regarding increase in vqlume
and velocity of water draining from subj~ct property ontn the
Peralta Hills area have been ddequatelX resolvedt ~il
adequate measures ha•~e been taken to daa~~~re eai~ pro ~wneza
t:~~ti tlieir drinkin~7 wuL•er supply will no~ b~ contamir•~ ~•
~
~
~
M'LNti'l~CS, Ci'[`Y t'LANNZNr, COMMi:+~'[ON, March ~.9, 1.9%;1 73-.156
CNVLRONMLN'i'AL IMF'ACT RP:I>OR'P N~. 89, VA1tZl~ri~;r NO. 24'18, AN~ TENTATIVP: MAP pF
TRAC7^N0.~9153~ RE~VTSTON_N0._ 1 ~ontinue,dZ~ _.~. ~_- -
(2) Wtiile it i.e th~ normnl E~~11cy oP the i:ity to re~uire loft-turn
E,ackntr~ a~' a11 ~+tr.e~t intereaction~t wi.th Noh1 Ranch Road, kha
P1annLny CommisAion r~commonc3s (ba~ed u~c~n a se~commendetlon
Lro~n the [-tterdu~brtmental CommiL•~eo for YuNlic wateky and
C~nerc~l W~lfaro) *_hr~t: lef~:-turn pocl~~tg not bo roquir.ed in t;hie
in9tancc, 'Che ruxaon for Ltai~~ rocomme~~dattoii ia that thE ~~ci.~+t-
inq right. ~P-w~+y uP Nuhl [+anch R~ad i~s inadequate to provl.de a
laft~rurn pock~t, and t:hs nrnperty on thr+ ~tt-or side of Nohl
Ranch Ro1~~ and west.orly of the RtrQ¢,t intor~~ction, whoro t~e
turn por,k~at ia nr~~dad, is alr.eady dovel.ot~Ed. xh:la mak.ye acqui-
~it-ic~n o.f the r~FCeseary r.l~h~.-of-way impractic~.l.
ARF.A DI:VF.LOPMCN"_' ^ PUBLIC NEARTNG. ~NITIA'PEp F!Y `CHG ANANLIM CT`PY PLANNING I
F~LAI~ N0. J.11 CUMMTSSIUN, 204 Fust LincoJ.n Av~nue, Anaheim, Ca. 928JSt
--"' ~~ to con~idc~r aecen3nry accesa eoluti.ons fo- p.ropert:iea on
the e•ast sid~ ~f State College 6oulevard betweun V~rginia
Avenue on tho nor~h and sr~ath 5tr.eet on ttte south.
Plxn:~iny Aide ~olln And?x~son review~d Ar~a Development P1an No. 111, indicating
the a.r~a encom~asse~d by the "Y1an", adjc~ining land uUPa, pr.e•yioue zoning ~ction
OIl the property, and the ~pct *_hat Area Dovolopmenf plan No. 66 had k~c~en con-
eideze,d in 19b4, a<< well ao the Front-On Study cun~;ldax.ed :fur sub~ect property
i.n 19h7~ that the I~r.operty fronted on a 106-foot wl.de, primery 1~ighway which
prQSently Wa.s carx}~iny over 34,000 vehir:]es par day and was pr.njoctQd t~ carry
44,600 vahicles pe~i' ~3y Within ten years, however, if tha Orsnge Freeway wer~
constiucted, the T~:aff.ic Engineor eotimated the number cf vehiela~r per day
~ould he cut in ha:lfi that accQSa rights Y~ad nat been dedi.cated to the ~ity of
Anaheim, however, t~y those prapertiea in Portion 3s that thoy also did riot have
direct access to S~kate College Boulevard but had accesa by wn•~ of an alley to
thp east; that the C-1 pruperties - Poxtions 1 and 2- had two access drives to
State G~llec~e Boulev3rd from tk-e aouth and one to Stute College Boulevard un
the nozth; that there were exist•ing curbs, guttera and sidewal.ks with ultimate
right~of-way width of 53 feet par half-width~ that Portions 1 and 2 had dedi-
cated the additi.oT~al 3 feet for street widening pur.posec, however, Port~~n 3
had not dedicated to the ultimate right-of.-way wa.dY.hz ttiat. oler;~trical utility
2.in~s were ].oc~ted both to the front anc~ rear of the propez•ties, with pu~.es
J.ocated at the corner of cvery other loti an~ that of: the 12 resldence~ located
on the east sidc of the all.ey to the eaet of the study area, only 4 had access
to the alley from their gar.ages. and all. lota had eitl~er wooderi fences or
masonry walls.
Mr. Anderson L-hen reviewed th~: three exhi~i.ts posted on thF east Councit Chamber
wall, noting that none of the exhibits tool~ inta c~neideration the offecta oa
bicycle tr.ails, b~:it these were proposed to be located in a n-fooC w±de access-
way along the east: side of 5tate College Boulevard.
Mr.. Andersun, in ~:onclusion, noted that the Traffic En~ineer would suggest that
access be taken fr.om the existir.g a11ey only us depicted on Exhibit "C", and if
consideration were~ given to having this alley return to State College Boulevard,
tha•;: a ma:cim~m of onE re~uin would be suanPsted in order to minimize traffic
conflicts on a be<ivily-traveled street, thercfore, staf.f would recommend that
:~.xhibit "C" would be the most appropriate means for. previding accesa tc the rear
parkin.g area3 of i;he study area if thp Pltxnninq Commisaion ~ietermined that com-
mercial zo:~ing ~va:i appropriate far theae properties.
Mr. Doug Browne, 5~67 Ambridge Aven~ue, app~ared before t:he Cocnmissian and s'tated
that as owir.er of t.wo of. thp parcels i.n the center of ch•ls stuciy area, hp could
see se~eral probl~ams, namsly, accesa te his two l~ts woulc~ necesaf~ate going
through tha alley adjacent eo residential uses, which was rather narrow, and a
number of these resic~ente had +:heir trash recepcaclas in the alley, preventiz~g
mare than an~ rar u3ing the alle; at one time~ that if the propasec~ Parking plan
taEre approved and the property wer, rezoned, the parking araa itself would
neceESitate widening the alley somewhat, even if un privaGe property, therefo.re,
he would be iti favor of Exhibit "4", 3~pandir-g upon wliether the existing homes
remain on the property or if the Planning r_ommission would permit ~onversidn oE
the existirg dwel~ing units, or w~iether propertios were asaemb2ed, pro~ecCing
two or. three buildings wher.e some front par:cing miqht be desirable.
~ ~
M1N11'PL;5, C1TY PI~ANNIN~ COMMTS:~ION, Merch 1S, .197:i 73-157
AREA DEVCT~OPM3NT_~'1~AN~Nn.^11.1 (Cont~.ntled)
Mx•, Roq~.~X Tei.k, 6iH ~outh Stato College Boule~~urd, app~are~d hefurc- the Comm.iu-
~iion, noCiny hi~+ ~roparty wtis two dc~ors nart.li ~f thp snrvire aCati.on on thu
gouth (Yor.ki~n 2) ancl i.nquirad wha*_1»r the requirod 6-foat wa11 could ba pleced
on the Ii-1 p•roperty i! auUjact prop~rtiea w~r~t ro:.one:l comm~rc~cslly - GhiK,
then, wou].d n:~t intexfc~r.u With ewinging inCo tho parking nroa at thg rer~r of
th~~ee pio~~ortioa .
Dc~puty City Attorney Fre~nk Lowry advt: cl t.he Commis~~on thnt au~:h a cc~ndltion
coulc9 itiot be attMChed r~inr.c~ ctiie was a put~lic alley, und one coul.d not place
someth.ir~y on other ~ri.vute pr.<~p4rty.
Mr. T~iC n~ted thaC in ~rer~c+n'~ii1g thta 9L1Cj~]6R~~011 ioY rs wall on the Tt-.l proper~
ties wae bc~r.auso accose was t~.~~ded tor thesa lots J.n the e~s!~y aren, and tha
ulley wotild noL- ,,~erfo.rm itg function, ttiorafor.o, kha wall. would pz'o~~i~:la bu~f.er~-
ing Pox the R-1 homes uguinat noie~ and odors of L•l~e comaiercial ve,hiclv.s.
FurL•hermore, if a numbe.r of neop].e aae~mbled their propc~rtido ar-d dav~alopod one
lar.qe l~,ui].ding inAtead of indlvidual develop:nont, lie '~ould be in favor of a wAll
or~ the east side of the ~11Qy, eliminatiny "hodg~-podgo" development of wc.llbs
and then ir~ r.ea~~nye to questioning x•eqardir~g the ~ltarnaLives gresonted, statod
he woul.d be i.n favar ~f Exh.tbik "C".
Mz. Brown~~ suggested i:h~L• gerl~aps ~.f the alley wcre used Por c:cmm~xci.a.l pur-
poaea, that thit~ mighL neceasitate t- traf.fic signal at South 8treat t>>id State
College Boulevard.
TI~~ Ii~ARI'7G WAS CLOSF.D.
Commissioner flerbsr inquj.red whether. there were other property ownf.r:; of these
properties prayent ln the Counc~.l Ch~mber, and t:wo peroons indicated that they
oWned pra~erty at 556 and 6].2 Souti~ SL•ate Colleg~ Boulevard.
Commj.ssioner Herbst inqulred whethcr thexe was a po~~ibility of land e~ssembly-
ci the entire seven oarcel~; whereupon thr mail owning prooer.ty at 55~:i Sauth
State Col~.ege Boulevard stated he might be inkerest.ed if tho zoning of the
property took piace.
Commissioner Rowlancl note3 the ar_ci~^ befor.e tf~e Commission was an area deve?op-
ment plan and hnd r.athing to d~ with the rezar.ing uf the praperty.
Commissionex Herbst stated r~e was more co~~c~•rn~d whether r~ubject property could
be assembled ag one piece for commezcial devel.opment.
Mr. i.owry ad~ised tkie Commi~si~n that land as~embly could be a condition of
appxoval of the rectassification, but the only thir_g the Commis~i~n could con-
sider undez ~he area devplopment plan was circulatian.
Chairman Seymaur noted there was an item wh3.ch Mr. Tait had mentioned rega:ding
a wa11 being ~laced on the R~1 properttes and inqu_ired what type of ac~ion
could the Commiss!on take regarding thiat whereupo~ Mr. Roberts noted that the
wall mi.ght be placed cn the easterly one foot ~f the a1Zey, however, if the
wall were damaged, this wouid mean the City would be obligated to rE:patr th~
wull since it would be on City property, bu~ as an alternative, he yiould imagii~e
all of t~ie R-1 prcperty owners would be agreeabl.e to haviny a 6-foat masonry
wall on their pruperty if they did not already have one, however, thQSe property
owners wou13 have to give thei.r consent to consLr~~ctiun oi said wall by the C-1
pr_operty awners and tliis could be made a condition of a:~roval of the re<:tassi-
fication, not as a cons~.deration of thE ar~a development plan.
Commi~sioner Farano effered Resolution No. PC73-53 and moved fo1: its pasaaye
• and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Area Development P~.an No.
111, Exhibit "C", be adopted as the most agpropriate means for provid~.i~g acr.ess
to the rear parking area of the study area. (Soe Resalution Book)
On rozl call the £oregoing res~lution was passed by the fol~owing votE:
AYES: COMMIS5IONERS: Al~.red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: CO-IMISSIONERS: None.
ABS~tiT: COMMISSION~;RS: rlane.
~
~
~
MINU~rr:s, C7'1'Y PLANNING I:QMMIS570t7, MArCIt 1~), 1973 7•j"~~'~
RFCI.ASSTF'T.CA'PION - PUHI.IC iiGARiNG. INl'PIAT~ll 13Y 7'FiE ANANf:IM f_~ITv PLANNING
N0. 72-73-37 CODIMI3SION, 204 Ennt L~.ncol.n JAV~nue, A;~a~hc+im, CA. 9Z805~
'-~~ ~~r y~ ta pzopode roclaeeifice~tion or a rectanqulazly~~h~pod
paroel nt land caneimting of approximntoly c~»e ~are, bning
nom~riaed oC Revan contiguoue lota, heving a Lr:oni:age oP approxin~ately 440 Eeet
on the oA~t eide o.E StutA Colleqe Doulevard, hnvinq d maxl.mum depth ot eppxuxi-
mr~taly 3.00 f.~eC, t~nd b~~ ng lucata~t appxox:i.mataly 225 geet north ~i the can~e~r-
lino 4f Sou~h ~treeL ~'r.om th0 R~1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTZAL~, ZONL to thu C-1,
CENERAL COMMI~:Rt~tAG, 70N~.
4c;ning 3upex'visor Charles Rob~zt~ noY.ec~ that sub~~ct peti.tion woulfl effact thoae
prope~ties r,ansidore9 undar Area Dc,v~.l.opment Plari No. 111.
No one ap~eurod in oppoeition.
TtIE HEAR'ING WAS CLO5LD.
Commissioner Herbyt stuted that now was an opportunit:y for tho Pl.~~nnin~a Comm.~.s-
ei.on i-.o ask thc~ prc,pe.rty owners o~ sub~ect nropexty whethar they woi~l.d conaider
lan~9 aasflmbl.y t~in~e thio woul~ ~.ncrease the passibillty of a good dnveloF»ent
on the l~roperty rat~~ar than pior:~meal nomm~~~~a1 uaea estnbligi-ed in thes~ ltom~~
w;,~:re there would r-ot bp poor ACC~AB~ that now that the property <,wnerc~ knew
what typo ef acceas wa3 avai.lable to them, thi~ patition iniglit be continued foX
two weeke to allu:: t'_me fos the prc~pertx owriere to get tuqc~thc~r t:a deter.mliie
wt~et.her l~+nd asaembly w~Q feasible.
Chairman Scymour. stated h~ had ccn~ern ana ~mpath,y ior. the pr~ ~erty owne:ra,
tiowevar., i~ was poasible that one ownex would hold out and the other propartx
owr~ars would be penalizeQ when one held eu*.
Commissioner Herbst stated he was not in favor of individual zoning for erach
pP.rcel; ivheraupon Chair.man Saymour qt:ated ttist what Commissioner Har.bst in-
f~rred was that if one perann held out, then there would be no C-1 yranted to
any of the others.
Commissioner Herbat express~d tt~e feeling that the petition should be continued
to allow the property owners an ~pportunity to meet aiid c]~tormin6 whether. land
assemhly was feasible.
Commissioner I'arano stated he would like a reactiot~ fx•om thnse present since
five of the ownexs ~f. the seven pascals were preaent.
Cha~rman Sepmour stated he would like a condition attache3 ahich would require
a masoitry wall on the R~-1 pzoperties to the e~st, provided the ~roperty owners
agreed to said wall con~~tructic~n by the developers o£ subject pz•og~r~y.
Deputy Ci~y Attorney Fr.<<nk Lowry gtateci this should be a fii~ding x:at.her ttian a
co~:dition.
CommisaiQner. Farano noted that Y.here was onZy one good wall or that side of the
alley, and he was sure that people would be happy with a nev~ ma3on•ry wall, and
oaly four of the garages opened to the alley.
Cammissioner ~erb9t inquired of staff wheLner the Qxisting f-omes could be con-
verted and sti11 provide adequate parki.nSF whereupon Mr. Roberts stat.ed that
the type of uses germitted would restrict general commercial use of the homes,
and thon read these uses that wouJd be pe:mitted.
Chairman Seymo~ur. noted that what the Commi3sion was at`.empt:tng to do was the
sume as had boen done witb the property on the wrost s~,de of Eaclid Street
between Broadway and Or~nge Avenue with thie reclassif~catior and area develon-
ment plan, howerer, he would hats to have tl:e taek ~~f gettiny ~~hese property
owners together to resolvn this.
Conmisaioner Herba~ again atated he did not want to grant commexc~al z_~ing for
use of the~e hones, t}ieze~:.=e, he would l~ke to have the garaqea ramoved in
order t~ mea~ Cod~ parking and eliminate u€ing the qarages for storaqe pur~oses.
Commiasioner Allre3 noted that if'the garages wers romovad, this would provide
Additicnal maneuver~.ng epace to park irom th~ alley.
~ ~ ~
M7NUT~5~ ~TY PLANNINL CUMMISSLOrI~ Nnz'C11 19~ 1973
RGCI~A55Ie7.C:ATI~N NO. 72-73_37 (Corit~.nued)
73-15~)
Mr. Lowry n~tod Cro Commioeion could placa i~skrictiot~.e on land ~ie~ onlyt whpre-
u~on Commias ioner Fe.rana noted thi,cs woulli be a r.nsolutiay~ ot ~.ntent to C-1 and
the zonir~g coul~. b~ oLta.ln~d only upon npp].icAti~n of tho inclividual prope.rty
ownor.~a, rohich would requiro them to meeh Che C-1 atAnderdR. n~id inquired oY
Mr. ~owry whether th~.e wae curructi aher.cupon Mr. I,cw.r.y replied affizmat:lvRly.
Commissi.oner ~'a.rat~o L•h~n st.ated ho could noh s~e h<na indiv~.dunl proparty ownere
could moet ~he C-~ nite, dovelopm~nt et+sndards pnrki.n,y tequir.ement until the
gar~yec; werr. remaved, wh!cli would qivo bettor alloy ncc:osa•
Mr. Roberts no~od Ch.~r. parking could be
open araa nnd apace in t.h~:R gerage which
buL doncal or mad:lcal. offico use could
inac]aquut~ parking apaco available.
met fnr office and rota3l una wit?- th~
wa~ Y,ns~,d an the~ aiz~ afi tho ntructura,
not be p.ropos~~5 becnuae there would bfl
Commiss.l.o~'-or Harb~t then stated tha-t in addi.ti.on to removal of ths ge~ragc~e,
Hince it was impur.tan~t to ha~~e ad~quat•e alley acce~s and ttie gara~goe were
immed:l~~el•,~ adjacent tc~ tha allay, the ~aCACIP. of thQ atructureA would hdve to
be c}i~3nged so that there was a more commercisl. appaarance ta tho strucLure.
In addit+.cn to that, i~ the R-1 proPQxtY owners agreed to ccnstruction of. A
wdll on their pzopert.~es by tho proporty ownarA of the praperty undez consi8era-
tion, this would upgrade T.he ar.r~a, howesvar, he still f.eZt Che propertX oornors
ahould diacuss this between ~hemsal.vPa, and that tf there weza no restrictia,ls
plRCed on thi.a property, aa suggestPd, he w~uld not vote £or the ~aclaseification.
Mr. Robprts noted that a further condihion o£ approval rould be requiriny th~
t~uk~mission of plans of. developmenL for Plannin~ Commission and City Council
approval prior to the introductiori of an ordinance rez~ning theae properties.
Commissioner Kaywoo3 of£ered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Allred and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Planninq Co:nmiysion, in connection with an exeu-ption declara-
tion statu3 request, finda and determines that the px~Posal wou'ld have no siqnifi-
car~~- envi.ronmenkal impazat, and, therefore, recommrnds to L•he City Council that no
Envia.~>~~mRntal xm~ect r3tatoa~r~t iq nec~~v~ry.
Commissxoner Herhet in~uired whather the Mdil Mould~ have to be constructed on
the east ~~roperties if one alteady exi~t~ed; whereupon Mr. Roberta etatad L•he
wall would not have to be constructed, huwever., because the lot lines did not
aligu with thoAe east of the a].ley and ch~ae weat of the allay, there a~ig~~r. be
-,~roper.ti.es that w~ul.d have only a partiial wall.
Commisaioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC73-S5 and moved for ~Cs paesage
and adoption to recommend t~ the City Cot~ncil approval ~f. Reclasaification No.
72-73-37, 3ubject to recommended conditiot~s, with the additional :anditiana
that the existing garagea shall be removed on the rear of tlte pio~~x'ties; that
a 6-foot masonry wa11 shall be prou~.ded along the propertu lin~a of the R-1
properties to L•he east of the alley provided approval was obtAi~~cl frnm said
prc~nerty ownerst and that prior to the ~.ntrpduction of an ordinance rezontng
the property, plan~ of develaPmdn~. sh~ll be subm3tted to the Planning Comrnission
and City Council ~or review and approval. (See Resolutinn Book)
Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONE;RS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Y.aywood, Rowland, Seymour.
t~OES: COMMISSIUNERS: Gauer.
AIIS.c^.NT: COMMISSIONFRS s None.
Commissioner Gauar stuted his "r~o" vote was based on the fAct that this wuuld
continue the strip commarcial developmer.t in Anaheim which had occurra~l throagh-
aut the ci.ty, with most of the homes not develo~ed in a commeraia3 mxnner bLL-
used in their existinq ecnstruction whicti left a qreat deal to be deaired since
only minimal parking al.ways seomed to be a~ailablA.
P,ECLASSIFICATION - CUI~TINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DOUG BROWAIE, 967 Ambr~dg~ Avenue,
N0. 72-73-35 Anar~eim, C~. 9280G~ Ownerj proporty dzscrlbed es: A rer-
-- t.anqul~arly-sliaged parce]. of land consieting of approximately
CON~ :, jONAL t]SE .28 r~cr~s, havin.g n frontago ~f approxf.mataly 126 f~et c,n
PERMIT NO. 1379 ti~a east side uf State C~~11ega Boulevard, having a maximum
'~ dFQth o~ apprnximatet~y 97 feet, and bainq lacatod approxl-
mately 400 ~eot north of the c:entier2iae of South Str•~et
Property presently claasified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
d2EQUESTED CIASSIFICATIC~IVt C-l, GENER~-L CnMMEACIAI,~ ZC1NE.
- --- - - - .e~~
~ ~
PIIPJU'11:5~ CI'I'Y PLANNING COMMTSSION, MdY'th 19~ 15173 '.'3-1.G(1
RECI~ASSIFICA'PION NO. ^72-73-35. A~D CuNDT'PIQNAL U5~ PGRMJ'I' NO. 1.3 /~! (Cunt~.nued)
~tFQUEE',TI~:U CONC~ITI~~NAL USEt 1~I:RMI'I' i)5E O1' 'l'WU ~XI5'PING RESIDF,NTIAL ~TY2U~.TURFS
FOR RE'~`AII. ~ALFS AND ].CPATTI OF MUaICAL INSTRUME;NTS
AND 1~I.~."'iQ P'OR A S7'UDTO TO CIV~ MUSIC I.~Ur3SON8 ~ WAIV~NG
(A) :]UILQ,T.NG SFTRACK FROM A R~SIDENTIAL 7UN~: AND (A)
MAXiMUM S7`~2UCTURAI, IIEIG1iT IN PROXIMI'!'Y TO A RF.SIDEN-
'P]:itL ZONE .
Subject petit9.ona w~~'e continued fro~n th~ Februar~ 21, 1973 meeting for the
prepar.~tion ~nnd aclvurtinJ.s-q of an axo~ dovelopment plnn.
Mr. Doug Flrowne, i.ha patitton~r, noted that he, had ar~ artiat'e eo~icopt of whnt
th~y prop~sed f.or the future uea of L•he pzop~zty, and Yrom what he cou1~1 unac+r-
atnnd about tha previoua xesolution, i.t cov~:•~d ull r~~+ven parcels and inquired
whether all yara~QA ~r all lote would have tc be r.omoved b~for~ £.o~elopm~nt
uacurrod~ wh~rc~upon .~r.. Rober.t:; st.atpd that th•~y woul.d have to bo remav~d as
a~ch parcel cleveloped.
Mr. Browno noted thar the conc~ptual plan ha wnc presenting di.d noL• indicato
muah landr^r: ~I1CJ in the front to give a good ec.~mezciul Apposrance, huw~,ver,
;:herA wnul.i; be rear pazk:Lng~ and hh~~ onl,y change t•o th~ p1anA would kae the
ramoval of the qIIraqos while ~arking wou1~3 bo auf~scant tr, the atrucCur~a, and
the tra3h ~to~aga arHa would be relocated.
Commissioner Farane inquired what Mr. arowna vicaual~z~d as to atructural chanqeat
whereupon Mr.•. Azowne stated thero would be n~ phyeical changes now, bizt when
futui~e plans were presented it wa4 hoped to include a third parco.l wi.th his
devel~pment plans whicki would perniit app.roximately a 100-faot building, and
tht~t th4r.e would be a sllyht cnange to the preset~L- plans to tlie roaf llr~e in
the frort, but•. that waa still not definftety tied down.
The Commissi.c,n ~han inquired whether the peL•iti.ont~r wisned to withdravr Y-is
recl~a9sification petiition since his property was cevere~3 und~r Rcsclassificatiori
No, i2~7:i-3~; wt~er.eupon Mr. ~z~wne requested that the Cummiesion honor his with-
dz•awnl of Petition for Reclas9l.`icarior- Na. 72-73-35 slnce ~he zoning he was
degirous of obtaining was acted upon under Reclas~ification Na. 72-73-37.
TIiL HE;ARING WA:~ CLOSED.
Commissfoner iierbst note~~ ~ha~ the Commission wou].d have tc take action on thP
conditional use permit tor u3e of the building fur a music studio, and if eaid
petition were n~proved, th~ petitioner would still have to submit plans foz
consideration; wherPUpon Zoniny Supervisor Charles Rok~erts noted that the peti-
tioner had submitted plan~ with the canditional use perniit, ar~d if the Commis-
aion was not de~ir~LS of approving these plans, then the Commias~~~ii could
requir~e aubmisQion of other plans.
~omm3ssioner Herbst stated it was his opinian the plans n.reaented ahould be
u~graded, although he was not apposed to L-he qranting of the conditia;~al uae
permiti.
Commi9sioner icaywood offered a motion, seconded by i;ommissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRTED, to grant ~he pe*itioner permission to w.tthdraw P~titi~n for
Reclassification No. 72-73-35 since the zoning reQueated was covered under
Reclass?fication No. 72-73-37.
Commisaianer Herbst uffered Resolution No. PC73--S4 and ~oved for i.ts ~assage and
adoption to yxant Peti~:tnr. f~r Condi;ional One ~ermit No. 1379~ subject to
condiL-iona, with the added conditian that the petitioner a~und-proo£ the area
whare lessons were propased to bo given to reduce the sound problems and to
meet thp sound requir~mente of the City, and that building nlans for ~he prop-
erty shall bp submit*.ed to the Plann~.i~g Commission and City Counr.il for
apprcval. (See Resolution Book)
tin roll call the foregAing renoluttor wae passed by the following vote:
AYES: GOMMISSI~~NERS: Allred, Farano, Eierbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymaur.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~auer.
ABSENT: COMDIISSIONERS: tione.
RECESS - Chairman SaXmour declared a Y..~n-minute receats at 3:50 p.m.
RECONVFtdE - Chaizman Seymour reconvened the mec~tSr~g ~+t 4:40 Q.m. , all
Commieaioiier~ be~.ng pr ~s~nt.
~
~^1l11
~
MINU'P:;S, CI:`fY PI~ANNxNG COMMISSLON, Marcn ].9, 1h~13
73-].61
TGI~TA'CIVE MAP OF - OWNLIti UPPER "1:" riANCH COflP01tATION, Y. O. ElOX "R", Plaaontia,
TRA~T NO~. 80Etp Ca. 92670, N'NGINF.~:R~ MILf,ET, KING & ASSOCIAZ'ES ~ INC. , 1335
At~U 8081 W~et VaZon:ia Dxive, Fullertan, Ca. 92533. Tract N~. 008U,
-~~ ~ ~ conesieting oP. approxi-na*aly 15 neran, lucc-Cecl on the Houth
aid~ ot tl,o Ri.verei.3e Frc~eway, approximately 33U~ ~aet eaet
of Impecial Htghway and appx~~ximntF,ly 8UU feet norGh of 9anta Ana CanXnn Roe-d,
ie pr.opA~dd Eor aubc~ivi.aian into 78 RS~5000 zuncd l.ote. Tr~c:t No. F3081., lc~cateci
on tho e~uth €~idb oP. Lhe R~versicle Froewny, a; ~roximnt0.l~r 1600 feek anat of
Imper~al HighWay, c~neiatiny ok nppr~ximn.ho.ly !1 e~cz~~, J.s ~raposnd for subdi-
viaian irito 6:~ RS~5000 xonHd ~ote.
Subjoct ~r.acte Ner.a cantinucl ~rom tt-o moc~ting oE 3anuary 22, 1973, to renolve
~car-i.no prob~.ems~ Eram the meetiny~ af Fabruary 5 and 21, 1973, nt ~he re~,uc~st of
tha pot.ttioner.~ ancl fr~m t:}ia meeti.ng uf March 5, 1~73, to resolva e~und pi'Ublem~+.
Mr. Gil Kraemer, repr.esentiny the U-apc~r "K" Rar-cli Cor.poration, 63~., ~lta VlAkd~
PZRC~911*.{.d~ Cali.fornla, appeared befor.e the Cort~misaion ai~d statod itit~t eince the
luat meal:ing bofore tho Plnnn.ir-g ~omu~i.sslon he had contact~d Ur. John Cf.illiard
ta dQVelc~p an acou~t~cal report regarding freaway nois~a~ and Dr. H.illiar~l was
slao avAilable to anaw~r questions, ar~ wel.l.
Comrni.ar~ioner Rowland Xaque~ted an c~xplana~tion regarrl~,riy t:lie int~xpolat.i.~ti of
thc~ 1.9y0 Standarcls as t~~e al~irnate measuzee~ wheroi.n traff.i.~ woul.n incxou~n
considerably where it was~ haped that t1-e tr.affic noi~ca wc,~~ld have been rc~c~uced
ber.auss of the requiremc~nts f~: r.aduction of trur,k tr.aff.ic noi~se ae well as the
poasibility of engineers impraving vehicles ae per.tainod tc, aound ernisaion,
Dr. John Hilliard, I511 Feirv,iew Lane, SAnta Ana, appeared beEor~ th~ Commisaion
ar~d stated that hia company was recoqnizEd ns acoust~.cal coneuttant~~ ~nd they
ware required to pr.edicL- a~ least fiftean ~•Qaxs in advance, theref~~rc, they
obtained their.• infozmatiau from the traffic engineering departments of Los
AngeX.ea as to the rat3.o prodicte~i for 199~.
C~mmissl.oner Rowland inquired whether the recommendations were based un 1990
projected number of vekiicle~ and noise fact.ar, und why didn't Dr. klilliard base
his projectio~is on today's ~rafflc si.nca one c~uJ.d not change today's engine
efficiency to the dBA pro~iecti~ns, tli~ref.ore, would this figure be highor or
lower than the 19~~~~ projec.tionj whereupun Dr. Hill~ard. stated this would b~
slightly J.ower; that when the Noise Act was ~assed by tt~e Fe3aral Governmeiit in
A+~gus~, 1972, i.t mandated that truclcs reduce their noiae by ZO dBA's by 1990,
otherwise, the noise factor would be •~ery bad given the increaae lr~ number of
vehicle~s projected Por 1990 ~ whi.ch wou7.~ al.so ~:aZce into accaunt sound-attenuatiozi
measurements which technol~gy m~ght r.~~sol~re. ,
Commi sianer ~towyand inquired as to th~ intQrim between now and 1990 whicl~ would
br.tng an increase in cars~ and would the cars ar,d noises from them takE o••~er the
ar~a because that span o£ t1mP.~ !'rom now unti: 1990, repres~nted a ltfetime for
prospective purchasers af these l~.ome~, therefore, he would suggest that thP noisE
factor and the sound--attenuation devicea be baoed upon th~ present trt.ffic count
and noises, not with ~the ultimat~ p~ojecttons of 19y0, with posc~ibly technolo-
gist.a coming up with reduction in various noises bein9 e~rittsd by vehicles.
Dr. Hilliax•ci stated that the noisa at the present time which the :iighway Depart-
m~ent was designing ~or was 70 dPA's.
Commissioner Rowland then inquired whetYaer th~ G5 dBA factor in the chart was
meaaured at 120 f~et f.rom the ~dye o~ tha homs to t:he trav~~l way, or what?
Commisaioner F(erbst then noted t}:at the chart al.so :indicated a barrier at 6 fe~t
and 12 feet and inquired whather that r9presented an earc.hen bezn~ with a block
wall, and wauld tha,. suFtiae or would it be be~t~r~ whereupon Dr. H.illiard stated
that this barrier could be oither a berm at full tieiyht ur a wal'1 on tog o~ ~`.he
bezm, or a 3/4-inch plywood fenc~ would be adequate to take caxe of reducing the
noise.
Commissioner Gauer inquired wh~th~r this berrier wou~d also provic3e the Qrotecti~
£or sleeping indoorsi whereupon Dr. Hilliard no~ed that whatever r~as required of
tiom~s to meet 45 dBA's w~uld be accomplislied by the developer.
~ ~
MTNU'PF:Sr CI'PY 1'I~At~NItvG COMMISSION~ M~rch 1,, 1973 73-1.t;2
TCNTATIVE M1±~'_ Ur 'I'R11C_,P NUS. 8080 AND_ ~OEil. (Conti.nuod)
Commi.~eionar F.owland noted Chat th~ report. by Dr. Hl.llierd ind.icate~ f~rth~r
inlormatiori had baan recQived 1'ram tlie County Haa1Ch pepartmont wher~ it set
~ortli that Chc 45 dBA rosdiny could ba meaeurod wi.th doore and winctowp r.lo~c~d,
huC that z+doquate nir and circ~lation ~nuAt ba pzovl.dod in thos~~ .LRAtdtlr,t!O~ where-
upon Ur, N1111ar.d nta~.ed thnt the eta;:ement by ttze CounCy Flaall•.h DepartTent to
tho c:ity of Anshoim wa,a rcot complfete .inCormat:ion, ~nd th+~t tl~e propode~d NU].HO
Ordii~anco by tihe C~ ..~.y ~~ould atipulate to closed doara anci windowe.
Cumm.sNiot,er Ka.wood ~tutnd aho was concerna3 ~b~aut naise attAnuation for i~~.%t
only hom~s ac]jacc~nt to tha froaway but a17, homes anc9 for pr.<.I~~'r ineuld~ion in
orde~r. Co c:onser.ve fuel, ae wall as prutacti~n Fram noie'a~ wheroupon Dr. ii.i.:l3.lard
etated that in their conac~ivation of c~ner.gy ~.k was tlieii~ galicy ta uRe th~ eamo
i:~sGlation far wulle+ e~s for. sound••attanuAti.on~ in aei~ition, th:: now lsw als:,
rc~quireci r.hio, and thia raae then propos~d for subjsct sAVOlopmer.t. In addition,
r.hy f.trat zow of hoino~ would roduc.e tha nois~ for Chn other ham~a by 5 dBA's,
theretore, those homea adjac~~nt Lo ttie froeway would heve to be ant~lyzer3 Lor
mo~e prot.ection.
D~~puty (;ity Ar_torney Fran~: Lowry inquixed whethor Uz. Fiilliurd had a lator draft
of Cho County Ordinance aince tl~a ane the Cit.y hed was dated Ortober 3i, 1972t
wtieroupon Dr. Hilliard ntated tht~t thie wxs not aq yet r.n ordltzanco in tho Coun~.y~
howover, he had Uaon ar~kcd to s~rve on the oommitt~e rega.rding aco~~3ti.ce.
CommiKSioner Kayw~od inquired whether kh~ windowe of the homee nearest ttia fzeo-
way were double-paned for just th~ bedrooms, or. al.l roUmr~j whereupon Dr. ~tilliard I
statad that doubl~: windawa would apply whex'ever wir~d~ws wore facing in L•he direc-
tion of thz iEr~eway.
Dr. ti.'~lliard, in re3ponsP to ~~ues~-.ioni:~u by Commiasioner rarano, otate:d L-hat the
reducti.on of noises i.tidoors to 45 dBA's co~ald re accom}~liahed Y~y ~he G-Eoot berm
and 6-foot wall., t~ge~her wltki special additions to 4:he ~trticture, such as double
windows and acoustical material since tha noiee law r.equired a recliir.tion of 23
dgp's between the outside and inside noise factori and that the doclbel readinc~
3.n the rear yards of thoga homes a3~acc;~-t to the freeway witI-, the berm and wall
would l:~e between G5 and 68 dBA's.
Dr. Hil].iard further noted that there werP three rea~:nqs on wbi.cl~ they made
calculations : 1) tiie L90 rneant that 90$ of the time thA nois + wculd '~~ above a
certain le ~1 that they called res~.dual n~ises wi.th a ateady flow of traffi.c
wtiere if this h~ppened, the le!•el ndver went below that point; 2j that L50 meant
50$ of the time the decib~l level would be beyond a certain amountr 3) t.hat L.LO
meant lOt of the time the 1eve1 ~f the noise wc~uld exceed a certain amount;, and
~this ~•as the percentage on which th~y were bat~ing annoyar.ces and comp].aints,
havir~~~ taY..en 58 dBA° s for th~ir figurp for t:1e L10 'level, and trEy would provide
for that to meet the 23 dBA reduction to meet the health and other accepted
standards of 45 dHA's in the bedrooms for. sleeping purposes.
Commissionc~r Farano asked that this be discus~ted on a more pr.actical, evflryday
usaye •~ s3suming one lived in one of those hdmes an~d was warking in his rear yard
on Saturday or• Sun~ay, what kind of a d~.~ read~ng would one be r:ubjectod to by
thQ freewcsy noises, given t:he aerm arid wall as proposed; whereupon Dr. H.illiard
stated this would be 68 dBA's at- oeak-hour traf'fic taken bet.ween 4:~~ arid 5:30
p.m. or 7:00 and 8:00 a.m., k:owever, h.e did not have a:neasuremsi~t for Saturday
ot Sunday, 3nd if one were made on those days, it would vary, dependir-g upon
whe~her it was r,lnt~x or summer, howevex, if the traffic counC was half that ~f
poak~hour traffic, i_t would be ~ decibels lower.
Commissioner Farano then making a comoarison of th$ G5 deci.~el sound reading,
asked whether it waa as loud as his voi.ce, whether it was grsa er, or whether
it wa~ lesst whereupon Dr. Hfliiard stated that as he was talking, uaing the
sound meter about 3 feet froan his head (talking in a vary moderate voice), t•.he
reac3ing wo~ild be abaut 65 dBA's, ar.d t.h~t Commiseianor Farano's voic8 would be
s~newhat more t.han 55 dPA's.
Commiasinne Farano statad he w~.~ interested in this comp~rison ~o that he could
determine what type of naiss pr~blem~ pur~hasers o~ thase homes would be fsced
wirht wh.~reupon Dr. Hilliard stated that complaints normally started in the range
between 65 ancl 70 dBA's for most peoplo.
~ ~
HINUTE~, CT'CY PI.At3N:1.NG COMM7:~STON, MaYch 19, 7.y'f3 73-153
TI:NTA~'IVh: MAP 01'_'~RACm NOS. OOf3t1~ANI7~F30~1 fContinuo~9')
Cocr~misnionor Allrod inc1ui.roc~, .in L•he cr~~e of Y.hc ap~llc~nt, would ~.h.ia bo 55 to
7U feet fr.om th~ travol l~na of the frcew~y, and khon reading fr.am a~ atntemenC.
in the lettor Liy Dr~ tfil.liH 1 reqar.ding noiAe lc+vele with n 12-foot berm, aakeA
that thia be explained~ whe~~upon ~r. Flilliard et~ted that: tho dietance wuuid ba
groa~er, but th noirfcy wae leat~ iminndiately b~hind a berm.
Comni.ir~sioner Far~r-o r~qua~tc~c] that Dr. ttil].iarc! r.eview tho datn aul~mitted t~~ the
Pl.anning Commiseion hy the Gs:~nqe County Etoalth I~~p+.+zLmc~nt•r wh~ureupon Dr. Hilliar
atsted tnat they rad atlpulnted La proviciing windcw~ and c]oory ~nnd acou~t:ical
maleri,~l to moot tha 45 dBA ~or indooz~.
Cammles..oner Fa.za~io then z•~q~aQetc~c3 kh~.t Dr. Flilliard r.evi.ew CigurA 6 of the OCHb
roport iii t':io second s;.dted area fx~~m tho bottc~~n - wou.ld r.ammunication b~ posel-
b).e nL- th+~t lev~l, ~nd anyCh~ng abova that area one would b~ c~hauting, c~inco thie
Pi.gure indica~od ncsrm for 65 d13Ar whereupon Dr. Hil.l.l.ar.d stotod L•hat aroa aou].d
be r+houting at tY-at level.
Conunlse.Loner L'ar.anr thon inquired eahot.her hls voice wa~ at s~houting s~tzgo with
his microphone on, and wrat was it with the micXOphone o£~E~ wt~er~upon G~-. H1111ar
gtated he wc~uld be ~hou~ing witih t.he miarophonc~ on, and t~io voice wou18 ba abo~it
6? d8A's with thQ microph~na ofF.
Commiss~.uner L'aranu inqutred wY~ether Dr.. Hi.lliard wc~ild ayr.c,a that 6S ~iescibels
was ~quivalont ~o a p~raon sho~_ti~tgj wlzereupon Dr. tli.lli.ard ~t:ated th..~ wuuld ba
shouting when peoplc were 7 feet ap~~rt.
Cummissioner Allred inqui.rdd how :nuch grerter would ~ 3 dacibel chdnge be - 10
times gr.~ater, or whatt wheroupon Dr. Hil.liaxd sL•ated it would be ~ua : a littlEi
noticeable incr.eaxe •- not 10 tin~ee greatex.
Mr. Kraemer, in response *o CommiseioriEr Farano'~ queatian reg4rd:nq meat~ng tt~e
65-45 dBA reading, gtat~~.i ~hat he would ~tip~alate to meeting th18 :aound limitxtion
Commissioner Kaywuod inquir.ed about tliP park site ttiat had beea~ pr~posod f~r thix
propertg; whereupon Mr. Ronerts nots~i ti~at the pet.itiener h~d withdrawn coneidaza-
tion of Tract No. E3U82 which would have been the ~ocation ~f. the p~rk aite.
Commissioner Farario, aPter determfnir~g th~e vaacious 3egr~es which Dr. Hilliard had
earne3, inquired whether ha had studied nciae ~r:~i its effects ugon human be:ing3 -
what would tha result be ~f 6S dBA's on a person ~n a continuaua basisf v:horeupon
Dr. hi.lliarci stated that many authorities woul.d slso ].ike the answer to tkiat
questton.
Commissionez Farano then ob~erve~i tl~aL• if stndies had been cond~c+:ad by Dr.
Hilliard, pe.:hap3 he could enliql-,ten the C~mmisaion as to the:~c 3tiL1C~~G'9. o
Dr. Hi3.iiard noted ~hat curing d~ep sleep there was rapid eye movement, and mo~t
authorities gencra~.ly agre~ed ~hai. the 3ound le~~el oi ~~5 dIIA's was acceptable for
aeap sleep, b~it when the s~ur~d ievel xear.hed iii the 50 ~IAA r~nge, there wot:ld be
no deep sleep and littlt eye mu~~ement t~ok place, and, further, when the 901Y71C1
level rPached 60 3BA's, th~.s would be ~Yie point wh~~e one could nor_ hcaar over
the telephone with the outaide noi:~Ps in order to c~mmun.i.cate witl~ e~.~11 ather,
and that the Uivisian of Highways establiahed this ar 7G dHA's, whi.le other
authoritien established it a~t 55 dBA'~,
Commiasioner Farano obaerved that Dr. Hilliard had et~ted people living along-
side fxeeways who spent hours outdoozs would hxve a difficult time comraunicatinq
with each other outdoorsr whe=eupun nr. F:illiArd s~ated thut aome p~ople had
"hard osrs" while oth~ra iiad "sof.t ears", and thorse with "hard eara" gravitated
ta freewrtys for the convenionce of naving easy acr.esa to thp freeway, whils othera
would not live in that Iocation because they couli not ~t~+nd the freeway noioes,
howevar, what tha pE~titionar ~.!ax stipulating to was saying to th~ proapective
purchaaece or tenanta tt.at therQ would ho an aren of noie~e wher~in compl~jnts
might be recelved.
Commi~ainner 'e`arano notod that poople would hav~, to shout at each other in th9
Xar3g adjacent tn tho freewayr khoreupon nr. Hilliard 9tA~.AC~ tYiis v~ould depenci
upan how far epax~t tha converdationaliots ~rare, howavsr, he waul~l like to imprese
CJ
~
~
MtNll'T!;'~, CTTY 1':~At~Pi1.N~ GUMFII.;S1:OtJ, Mar:ch lh, 15/73 73-164
TE:YTATTVE; tdAP ^Or 'P.RACT NU9. HOR~t nr~p_f~~61 (C.ont~.ttau~l)
upo:~ thc ':omr~isa.ion ttzaL t.her~ wor~ alna oth~r noines ~:hnL could be der~ansrret.arf
an b«in~ ae obj~ctionahlo zta fr~owty noi~e•a. namuly, rul.ico ho?icnpkor.e an4 th~
na.i.yhborH' a~r-oondit ioning unite, Lho.ro Fore, i f '.lto c.u~~u~«~~:io:i t!nw r.hnt conae~ n~
nbaut fr.a~wr~y nol.aes, lhoy Nttoul.d rale~ Uen c:onceins~ with +hu ot.her naiyee in L•hb
nr,iyhb~rh~oc~.
Comm.tAe~'.ane~r. ~'sr.a~o inquired whethor. the no,eo lovol vrot,.d bo groatQr. with a'.1
tho other noieei~ mentionud then 65 dNA'sp whoxoupon Dr. Ililliard c~;.nteQ that *hc~s
would !~o rando:n noi::~~, but Choy would Add ~usl k 1S.ttlo ~~ore -:o.1au tycL•br to t:h~
:;i dHA'8.
Commission~r 3^arrno tYi~~n ~ nquir.ad whether ~ r. Kru~m~~: httd auy in~orm~ti.on 1:~
offor i'ey+arding Ltie ra;duc~ion of no.iae~ lavols Uel~w GS dAA'e~ whoreu{~on~M~•~evol
Krnem~r t~tat~~~ that wliat Dr. flill~.ard wae prop~einq wa~ to Uxin~3 h.ho no
d~wn to thc po.tut whe r.e thera would be ~ew comp.lttints rFyarding noieos.
l~i3r_.u~.,i~~n wae held by llie
not havo sn acou3rica7 o~ig
pooe~9 wora, i.n fr~ct:, bc~ing
petiti.onc~x i:hat this wnn ~
to "xer~" tu^tor. if only a
thak ~ne way L•o farr.c l:hl.g
ur,tlon auita
Commifls,i~r~ re~~+~r.ding: 1) ths fact. that tkie City did
i.nt~pr to onforce and d~t.ermine t:1-e: souncl levols pro-
pravi~led, and th~ Ci t.y w~uld havr~ the worr~ o.Y thQ
fACt ~ 2) t:~at tha bnrrie. propcaod coul.d bo rodurc,3
c~ne~ BCjU~IXC ~nch hole waa ~laceci i~, ssid barzier~ 3')
sound level i~c~~ae as etipul~ted would be by clasa
Mr. ?~uwry stated that tt,i~ enforcemsnt wauld hdvo L•o Un un thc Buildinq D~vision
wtiere apc;cial oquipmPnt was ~vailable to inake a field check un the cond.itione
adja~ent to the freewiay wr~r, the hom~as wer~ buil.t.
M~.. Kraemer, in responae t~ Comrr~i~aian que~tion{..~g, stat.ed that ti:P Real T:etatr~
Cemnisaioner and the Fund3.ng Agency woulc~ requi.~e the same paramot.er.c as the
Commission wus estab 1latii nq at tiliis meeting, acid that eacli proeE~e~ct.ive purc'riascar
woulcl be adv.ised regardinq the souna bar.rier and th~~ type of gound thak coul:l k~e
expected in the rear yatds of ~.he hc~mes adjacpr~t to he freeway, as we7.1 as tho
~ound level proposed to he ma~ntainad in the ~.nKide of t:he homes.
Commisa~.oner xaywood inquired whether the ber.m would bo lands~apeda wtiereupon
Mr. KraemE.r a,.ate3 t2~at it would b~ landgcaped iii accordunce with the Clty's
~cenic Corridor C`ver_ luy Zone Ordir:ance.
Commisyioner Herns~ offored a motfon, ~econded by Commisaioncs~o~~i1erfo1lowinIUN
CARHIED, to apgrove Tentacive Map of Tract No. 8080, suUject 9
c •• ditions .
(1; That the approval oP Tentative Map of Traat Na. 8080 is grante~~
siibject to comgletian of R9cla~~if:ication No. 70-7]-49.
(?.) That should this s;aUdivJ.si.on be developc:d as more than onF sub-
d~.v~.~ion, each subdivision tk-ar.~of shall be nubm.i.r.ted in te:lta-
tiva rorrn tur a~~proval,
( 3) That alJ. lots within this tracL shall bn serveci by underground
utilities .
(4) That a fin~l tr~ct msp o£ subjact pro,~erty ahn:ll be su~mitted to
and apFroved by che City Council and t.hen be recorded in the
oEPice of the Orang~ County RE~•~•r<:er.
(5) That atre et naT^es ahall be approved by the City of An~hei~n prior
~o appzov al of a final tract a~ap.
(6) That th4 ownex (e) of aub ject propsrty shall pay to the Ci.ty of
Anaha:- the app opriAto par.k r~nd rerreation in-lieu feps ae
~1~~t,ermin~d to bd ar:propriate by the City ~~u~~ncil, said fees r.o
be paicl at the time tho buildi.nq ~er.ml.t is iaeued.
(7) That drainny~> oi bai.d prapcsr.ty shall tae diepoeod of in a manner
sat'_s.factory r:o the City sngineer and ehall include conatruation
of ~rsinaqe "-~ .'liti~s of a size ~nd type suffi.cient to carry
runoff waters ~. gir.ating ~.:om higher pzoper.tie~ south of 5mnta
~
^~
~
MINUTI's:i ~~•I'l'Y P I..11t~NJ.Ni: C~~MM~SSZUN ~ Ma-rct~ 19 ~ 1~7 3 7-~_ ~~'r~
TGN'PA9'1VI: MA['_i~F T{2ACT NC~S~BORO AMD 8081. (~"~ntinuorl)
n,,:~ ~:~mnyon R~~aci throuyh e~eiQ propuxty to ultimAtti diepoanl Qe
upl„ ~, vnd by t.1,~ CiCy Engino2r. Roimbureemnn t Agreamnnta mny b~+
mado ~veil~blu t:c~ ChQ c~~velopor~ oF eaid ~roper.r.y upon thbir
rrctu~ st.
(g) 2het <~rading, ~xcsvA,.i.an, and dll ~ther constr.uction ar~t.ivit:~ea
r+h~ll b~- conducCed in c~uch a mannor 3a ae l•o mi.nlmize t;ho pog~i-
bil~ty oP. nny nilt ~riyi.nat;.~ig trarn thie project being cur.ri.ec]
inta the 5nnt~ nnn R.i.ve.r by xt.qrm wnte ~ or.i.g~ natl.nc; Pxom or
Plowi ng thro~tgh thfa pro ject,
(~i) That pzior I:o c:ity Council epprovel of tlio findl tract map, 1.h<i
awn~r(a) of nub•;~ct orapo~'ty nhnll submik to the City t- Pavorablu
iloo-? hazard lertnr fr.am the Ort~ngo Co~inty 1'.lood C~nL•rol Dietricr..
(10) That pri.~i tn Clty Caunci.l approval of Lhe f:Ln~l tract mat~, the
owne r(s) of suhiucr. pr~perty nhall. Rubmit the proposed houne floor
plan~ r~nd nlevatians to tha City Council for roview and approvel.
(1.1) ThaC prior to C:tt:y C'ounc~.l npprov~l o; t:h}: finnl tra~~t ma.p, t.he
ownez(s) ot aubJect property ahal~ oubmiC ~lr~ne for City c`_ouncil
r~vi. dw an~i approval. sh~~wing the aY.eps which sh~~l l be takan by the
deve lop~r to xeduce tha noi~e level generatAd by fr~ yway traffic
Lo ~ 5 dDA s in khe roar yards of the lat~ acij~cenc co the Rlverside
Fr.ecway and to A5 dBA's ins~da the hornea (with windowA a~d daure~
clos ed) on thc~ee lots, as c~tipulated to t+y the petiti.o~~r.r. Thn
sour_d-attc~nuation dE~~icPS atiesll include aa a minimum, a 6-foot
k-igh ear.then barm t~pped hy a 6-f.aot Y:1gh decoruCivc~ maeianry wall
a].un g the rear. of ~tie luts ubutting the freeway p.lus whatPVer
uddi tional measura~ are nec~~sasry *~ achieve the lc~r+elt~ stated
ak~ava. The~,e plans sha~l be c~rtified by z recognized acoust.ica.l
exp~ rt.. stipulating that the prop~sed ~ound-attenuatioii mQacauros
wi11 achieve the 1r ~els stated RbO~7P..
(12) That the petii.ioner sY~all include in£ormntiora in brochurps sub-
mit ted to purchascrs of. homor~ that az c~ pr.oposed adjacent to tt-e
fre~way right-of-way regardinq the an tic.ipated freeway noise levpls
and sound-sttenuati.on meaaures Lhat ~v er.e tak en to mini^; ~ ze r.hese
noise levels.
Commi~sioT~ez Herbs;, oifered a n~otion, se~onded by Comn~.asianer Gauer. and MO'1'IOt7
CARRZED, to apprave Tentativ~ Map of Tract Nu. 8081, subject to the Pollowing
cor.ditians s
( 1) Tha t the approval ~f Tentative IMap o f Tr~c t No. 8081 i 3 grante~'
ctub ject to complotior. o£ R~~C:l~~ssification No. 70-71-49,
( 2) Tha C should ~,his s ubiiivip. ton be deve lop~d as more than onP sub-
diviaion, ear,h 9ubcZivis.'~on thereof shall be submit~c~d it- 'tenta-
tive form for approval.
( 3) Tha t all lo~:~ wit!:in this trsct shal 1 bo s erved by undergro•and
. i J ~ J~. J., n
(4) That a£inal tract map of suU~ect property shall be ~L-bmitted to
and ~sppxoved by the City Council anc~ then b~ zecc.rded in the
af f ice of the O:ange Co~anty Recorde.r .
(5) That arreet namea shall be approved by ~.he City of ]1na~heim prior
~o approva]. o~ a f.1n~1 tract map.
(6) That ttie owner(s) of aubject property shall pay to thE! City ~f
Anah~im the appxopriate park and recre~tion in-lieu f~ea ¢s
determined to be appropriate by the City council, eni<1 feps tc
bc~ paid et tne time t}~e buildiriq permit is idbt~ed.
(7) That drainage of said property ahall ba dispoead 4E in a menner
sa-tiafactory to the City Eng~.neez and ehe-11 inclnde cons~ruction
of drainago facil~tl.ea of a Aize ar-d type sufflcient +to c~rry
runott watere originating Lro,n higher pxoperties eoutli of Santa
~ ~
MINUT~:~, C!'.CY PW~I~N.T.~IG COMMTS.riT.ON, Marcii .L9, 7.913 73 • 1Gti
TBNTA~I`TVN. MAP OF~fFtACT.NU~~DOHO ANU ~081 (Continuad)
Ana CAnyr~: ad throuqh sAid proFarCy t.o ul.timato diupon~-1 ~+e
~ppro••e,i ny tl~o ~.iGy ::nglne~er. Refmburae~menY. ngrcemer~t^ me~ bo
made availnble to the d~velopcsze oP ea:ld pru~erty upon th~iz
reque~Ht.
(t3; Th~t gradiny, taxcavnt~~i~, end all other conetruction activi.tieo
~h~ll be condu<~ted in suct~ a m~nnpr ec~ aa t~~ minimizo the possei-
bility of nny si].C or.i.ginatir~g fr~m tt~le proj~ct being cr+rried
tr;to "_hN Sentr Ann River by ~torr,. wu~~r origl.nd~ir.q from or
Plowing through thid pro~t~rt.
(9) '~'hut ~~rioz to City Caunc.il appxoval ~f the ~inal tracL• mnp, tho
ownor(s) of Hl1~~QC'~ pro~~erty ehc+ll eubmit to tha Ci.ty e favor.eb.la
floc~d haznrci ].c~ttei fram the Orar.ge Coun, y Fload Coi-trol Dietrict.
(10) Tliat prior l•o City Council approval o:f thc~ final tr~ct mal~, tho
oWngr(s? c.: subjact property ehaJ.l a~bmit the or.oposad houee floor
pl~+r~s an~:i elovationa t.o th~ City COU11C~1 for rc+view and approvel.
(11) That p~'iur to City ~ouncil approval Uf th~ f.inA1 tract map, the
owner(a) of r~uhject pzoperty aha11 subml~ plene f~r City C~uncil
review and ~ppr.oval showinq the etops which ahall be Y.alcen Y,y the
developer to reduce thQ noiso level g~neruteci by fr~away tzafPic
to 65 dBA's in tt~e r.e.er ysrda of th«3 lc~ta ad~ncer-t. t~ the rii.vorsidQ
Fraeway anci to 45 dS. a inside the homc,s lwith windows and daoXa
cluaec:) on thc~ee lots, aA stip~lated to kX Y.l~e pF~itionez. 4•ne
sound-attenuation devlces eha~.l incl.ucio as a minimum, a 6-foet
high earthQ~i berm topped by a Ei-foot high de~orative maEOnr.y wall
along the rear of the lots abutting the fro~way plus whatev~:r
additi.onal meaaures ar.e nec~asary to achleve tr-e levels etated
above. Tlieae pl.ani~ shall h certifi.~d by a rec~~yni2~3 acoustical
expert stipulating tliat the proponecl sound-attenuatian measures
wil.l achieve the levelr~ statsd at,c~ve.
(12) That the petitioner ahall include information in broch~.~r ~; eub--
mitted t.o purchasers of homes that are proposed adjacert ~o the
f.reeway right-of-way regarding ttie an'ticipated freeway noise levcls
and sovnd-atkenuation measui.:s that were taken to minimiz~~ these
noise levels.
TENTATIVE MAP UF - OWNER: DUCLEY FRANK, ~T AI„ 1~291 Irvine Boule~ard, Tu~tin,
TRAC'P NO. 742i, Ca. 92680. ENGINEER: MILLET, KIRG & A530CY7~TES, It~C. ,
RE:VxSIOt~ NO. 2 1335 Weat Valencia Drive, I'ull~rton, Ca. 92633. Sub~ect
~ ~ tract, consisting of• apgroximately 16.8 acrea located un
the north side of La Palma Avenue and the sou*h side of
Es~eranza Rcad, 70QA feet east of imperial Highwz~y, is proposed for subdivision
int~ 85 RS~5000 zoned J.ots.
Mr. ,7eff Miltet, represen ing the engineer of the proposed developrnent, avpeared
before the Commiesian and a*aYed he was avhilable to answer questions.
The Commission Secretary read a spea~al memorandum addr~ssec: to ttie Planning
Commission as followe:
"TO THE ANAHEIM PLANNING CUMMISSION FR0:4: THORNTON E. PIERSALL
"RE: '~'entative Tzact t~o. 7422
`This is ta advise you that I have a z'nancial interest in the land in subject
Ter.tative Tract No. 7422. Signed Thornton E. F~lersalL."
CommisaionFr Herbat inquired whether tha developer pr~,posed to comply with the
R9-5QCQ Zone site devr~~.~nment etandxrds~ whereupon M:. Millet atipslated that
Lhey wou3.d comply with t:~e RS-S~~OC Zono requiremonts and lots would be dropped
de necessary~ and that where lots weze propoae~ w~th more than three bedrooms,
e~id lota wouYd bo increased by the e~uare lootage sat for+:t: in ~the ardinance,
which, of. course, woulfl mean a reduction in the number of lo~•~..
-~J
~
~
MINII`PI~.S, CZ'I'Y FI,A.NN7Nc; CQMMTSSIQN, Mnrch ].9, 1.~173 7'3-1.G7
TEN9'A'rIVC MAP OF' 'IRACT NO. 7422, RF;VISTON NQ. 2 (Conhiriue~7)
Commiewioner Knywaod 1nqti~irad whethter rhe petitllorier cotyld moet. the r.ec~uiramentes
of a].00-y+~a~r acorm~ ~hdrwupon Mr. Mill~t aCated thc~t they h~d a lottor. from t~he
o renge Courity Fl.ood Control Di.etrict setting Eortl~ what meur~uro~ would hciv~ to
be~ r.ak~n L•u obt~in a satinfactory Elood ha~xerd 1QCLar~ and that they pXOpoAed ta
dev~.lc~p thl.a t.rack onn faat ebove tho flnod skage lovcl oP u 100-yeeir r~tur.~n.
Mr. M111ot then not.~d thet he ht+d eubmiL•h.ed e lett~r r.~c~uo~ting rvli~f from the
raquirr_ment of c:anNtruction uY a 6-Po~t bHrm r~long the nort'.t~ proi~ert:y l.tn•.:
~sdjacant to tho reilroAd r.ignt°uP-way, althuuqh tlti~.iy dtr'I ~~l.~n tu c~~nst:ruct R
6-foot f.ence, thie request wae Uased on the f~4C ,~i~y* nub ject ~ropariy woulc~ be
lp foot below fhe railzoed right-of-~wey nnd the b~3rm wo~ald hUVr~ :.Itt1Q efPect.
Th~n in r.e~ponoe to Commiesion quostivning rc~qa~ ainq th~ nun~ber c~x tr.aina thet
~1eed tlie railroad trncke dailv, sfia'te+d r.her~3 w~ra eppxoxlmat~ly 3~ per dAy, u:~d
thr~t thoae homoa, in all 11k911haod, woiild bo very nul.ay immedia~_oly adjacent
tn tiio zailroad.
c:ommi~sioner Harbst inquir~d wh~:thez the pekitionbr r.ou.ifl me~1: thc~ County's
proposod ordina~ico aq iG pertainad to sound, r-amol.y, 45 dAA's inslcie the home~
wh~r.eupon Mr. M~11Pt aka.Ced that thcy w,ore pXOposi-~g a 50-foot bui ldinq setback
from Gl~e railr.oa~ riqht-c~f-way whlch should ~ct a3 a buffer.
CommldsionQr F'arano inquirad whether thQ petitionor wao sc+rious about buil<iing
hc-mea that cloau to the railroacl trackyt wherQUpo:i Mr. Millet atate~l that
sov~ral ottsor ~ubdivisiona total~ny mc~re tt~an 4U0 liometi had been an~%r.ove:l T-~rtti
of I~a Palma Av~nue whi.ch extended al.l the ~-ay '.~est. ta the mobilehomc: park.
Discuc~sion waa hald by tlie Commlasion and the enqineer rayarding tha und~sirable
praspect of reaidents and owner~ of: ~hese hom~e having to be subjeci:e~.l to noises
from 30 traint~ pe r daY .
Commissioner tlerbat was of ttie opinion that sub ject tract ahould be requi red to
meet t:he same requirements that were aFpliad to the property r~outt~ of ~:}~e River-
side Freeway by requirin~~ _hat the develo~er provide an acouetical engineerir.g
rebort ~egurding the vil~ratian fr.om the trains an it a~fected th~se homee and
how theae homes r.ouid bQ n~de li~~nhle.
Chairman Seymour inauirecl whether the renr ynrde aould be designecl so that the
noise '~vel would be r~duced ~0 55 dBA's.
Mr. Dud].ey Frank, owrer uf hhe proper.ty, appeared bofores the Commiesion and
stated there were both re:aiden~ial And itidustriAl uses a.lonq this r,ilroad
righL•-of-way with residencea ulons both eides of the r~ilroad whei.. ths traaks
w?re eZevaL•cd, al,though subject pzoperty was somewhat lawer tk~an the tra^ts
apprcved to the wes*.
Commissioner Rawland stated he did not care whethos a precedent had been e~tab-
lishFd for thia type of dovelopment weat uf sub ject property beca~iae the Commis-
aion wae faced with a more critical situatior. b~rause of ecolagy and environ-
mentul considerations, and becauae the density w~ich ~o~~merly wao only one home
per 10 n^res was now increased t~ over seven ho~., Yer. acre, this pr:oblem would
never be reaolved.
Commi~si~ner Kaywood offered a motion, secar~ded by Commiseioner Farano, to deny
Tentative Map c~f Tract No. 7422, Revision No. 2, on the basis that it would be
imposaible to h~.~e homes .immediately adjacent ~o the railraad when ~ne consider-
ed the typicnl California outdoor living, and i~ the developer felk that the
~utcloor living would not be a£fected, it would mean the doveloper would have to
plant a 50-foot depth of treea to help minimize the noiae from the 30 trains
passing the homea , anc~ to sQll a].ot with a rear y~+rd tha~ wculd be unusabl ~,
there would be no way to live therer and that it was n~t proper for the Planning
Commission to apps•ove A davelapnent where th~y themeolvoa wauld not want: Co live.
Aftex £uxthor discussion by the Comm.ission regardir.q the motion, Commiseioner
Ka~-wood withdrew her r~otio~ and Commiasioner Fareno withdrew hie second.
Commiesianer Rowlan~d noted that the Commisaion could approvc this tract and
resolve the problem f n the same manner as the prAVious trtscts befo ce the Commi~ •
aion ~with the aour,d-attenuation atudy ar~d propoeal t and that perhaF s the C.omc-is-
aion covld mdke ~his a~condi tlon of approval.
~ •
M.tNUTG5, cTTY PI.I~NNINr, r.c~MMTSST.ON, M~~r.ch 19, 1.973 '11-].6H
7'LN'i'ATIVF MA~ OF TRACT_ NQ __ 7A22 ,::l,Vt51~~N N0._ 7 (Conlinu~d)
Mr. Mi.ll.r~r utated tho Comm?,~ion cnuld make thie d condition of nE>provAl rogArd-
ing e~oiand lovelA bath in~.~ora t~r~d o~~tdoorFl, although hd d:d not knoM• .i qreut
dc+nl abr~uC ~he mnnnex +i~ whiah to ~olvd L•he probl.em.
Commi ~r~ lor-ar Fazeno Wae o! tha opini.on that th~j pe :itionar/e~~g~.neer nhoul.d as~k
for. n continunnce :.n ordor. ta r~~+olvu L•he sound-attenuAt.l.on probl.am bocanaa of.
tt-e number oY train~ passinq aul~jc~ct ~.~roper.ty which wr~uld a. tec:t tho liviny
envi.r.onment aT ' c:rnate a eound pr.oblom thc+t wauld bo untenaUlc>.
Dc~puty Ci.ty AtCozney P'rnnk Lowry ir~yui• ~d of the~ praperty ownoi ~vhuLher he wauld
be ~qreeabla ta u conkinuancat whereu~ori Mx•. Mi11ot ACated thnt theey would
prefor that action be t:aken hy ttie Commi.asian thlu dato.
Commi.s3loner. Kaywood offer~~d a moti.on, ~econd~d ~y Commiauioner Flerbst end
610TION CARRIF~ (Commi.d~ioners Farano dnd kowland vutlny "no") , to approvH
Tentative Mbp of Tract Nc,. 7422, Reviaion No. 2, sul, jocC l;o tlie rec:ommer.ded
conditiun~ and *.ho adcled condition~t ns follows:
tl) That the a~proval ~f TanCative Map of 'Prnct N~. 7422, Revision
No, 2, i~ grantad aubjact to the approval of ReclasaificRti~n
No. 70-71^25.
(2) Ttiat ~shoul.3 thio yubdivision bc devoloped as more than one aub-
diviAion, each aubdivieion thc:reof sha11 be submiL•ted in t.e;~ta-
tive form for approval.
(3) 'i`h~t in acc~~rdsnce witt~ City Gouncil poli.cy, a 6-foot maaanry
~rall ~hall be constructed an the south prop~arty line adjacent to
i~a Palma Ave.~ue~ Reasonable landsca~,ir~g, includinq ir.rigation
Eaeilitieso s}iall be installod in thQ uncemnnted portion oE L-he
arlerlal hiyhway parkway the f.ull diAtanc:e of sa~id wa11, pl.ari~
for said lanclecuping to be submitted to and subjQCt to the
approval of the Superintendent of Parhway M~intenance. Following
instatlation arid acceptance, the City of Anahoim ahAll asaume the
ret~ponaibili.ty for. maintenance of. said landscapiny.
(4) That all lots within thi3 tract shall be served by under.grourid
vtilities.
(5) That a final tract map of ~ubject pruperty ahall be subml~ted ~o
and approved by the C~ty Council and tYlen be rPCOrd9d in the
office af the Orange County Recorder.
(6) That strAet natt~es ahaZl be approved by the City of AnRheim nrior.
to appzoval of a Final tract map.
(7) That t~e owner(a) of subject property ahall pay to the C:ity of
P.naheim the appropriate park a:~d recreatiun in-lieti feea ar~
determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to
l~~e paid nt the time the building permi:. ia iaeued.
(B) That drainage of said groperty ~J.1 be disposesd of in a manner
satisfdctiory to the City Engineer and aha11 ir.clude conat.ructi.on
of drainage faci.llL•ies of a size and type suff~cient to carry
runofP waters originating from higher properties nortli of
~aperanza Road throuqh said prnperty to ~xltimate dlapoaal as
approved by thp City Engineer. Reimbursement agreements msy be
made available to the developars of said property up~n their.
raquest.
(9) 'Phat grading, excavation, anc~ ull other constructiori activiti~n
sha~l b~ COt1aUCt.ed 111 9UCl1 A•~tiit~iiei av :o :.: ~::=~'-'••{ ~= ±hn nnsai.-
bility of any silt originating f.xom thia pro;ect beina carried
inta tne ~anta Ana River by storm water origiz~ating from or
flowi.ng through thia project.
;10) That r~-foot high fence ehall ba constructed along tha northern
tract boundery ad;~cent to the railroad riqht-af-way.
~ ~
MT.NII'1'!~;5, Ci9'Y 1't,ANN~[JC~ CUMMI5.;ION, Marah 1`~, 19~)3 73-.t69
TF:NTATIVti_MAY OP TRACT NO. 7A22 ~ RLVLS70N_ N(1^ 2 (Cont~.nued)
(11) That t~-u vohicular L'CC9DJ rlght~, e~xcop~ ak ntr.oc~t r~nrl!c~r ull~y
ope~~i.ne~s, to Le Palma Av~znuQ r+ha11 bo declicakcd to the CiCy of
Anxhelm.
(1.2) 7'hc~t "D" 9trev~ Knd "r:" Strent- sha11 bo 64 fe~t w1.d~.
(].J) Thnt ~iie ~iovel~~or shAl] obt.a~.n ~~, Favorabla f.luoc~ haznr.d lutter
acr_ot~h,~bla to tho City of Anahel.m L•com t:he Oran~an County Flood
Contro.l Distz'ict.
(lA) That pr.ior L•c C'i.ty c'oun~il approval of the finul tract mep, tho
owr~or(s) ~f suU jec~ Prop~rl:y el;all. eubmiC tne ~~ropo~c~d hous~ floor
plans and elevat~.ons to thN Ci r.} Counr.l.1 for review anb a~ i roval.
(15i 'Phat prior to CiCy Council approval of. the f.i.na1 trect map, tl-~
awner(a) of aub ject proparty sha.ll submtt ~lane ~or Cita~ Council
review and a~proval sliowinq thE ~taps which aha'l1 be takun by
the devela~er Co reduce the noi3e l~vel g~nQr.t~tc~d bf train truffic
tu 65 dDA'a i.n the rear yurda of the loL•r~ adjacent to thA r~9.lraad
right••of-way encl tu 45 dDA's in31d~ the homae (with windowe and
doora clos~~d) on tliese lots. These pl.ans sha11 be ceri.if.ied by a
~ecogi~izerl acouaCical export stipulating that the propoyacl sound-
attenuation meaoure~ will redu.^.t txain traff.ic noise to t}ie levels
stated ab~ ~~.
(16) That the pNtitioner aha.ll inc7.ude information in brochur.ES aub-
mittod to purchasers of homes that are propoaed adjacQnt to tho
railroad right-of-:vay re~~arding the an:,icipated r~ilraad noi~e
levels and the euund-atter~uat:on moasures that have been taken
L•~ minimi~e these r ise levels.
COND2TIONAL USE - PUE+I~IC HEARlNG. OT~:CVER F'l~ LABUNTE, 1419 Evexgres:n,
PERMIT NO. 138.1 I'ullerton, Ca. 92635 and SHIRLEY R. LABONTE, 1061 Avocado
way, Anaheim, Ga. 92805, Owner~s; requesting permisaion to
CONTINUE T[iE USE OP' AN EXISTING SINGLE-I'AMII,X RFSID~NCE AS
A BOARAING IiOUSE FOR UP TO EIGHT WOI+IFIv WHO ARE UNABLE TO CARF. TOTALLY FOR THEIR
OWN NEEi)S on pr~perty describe~ as: An irreq~:larly-shaped parcel of 3.and con-
sxsting of approximatoly .30 acree, having a frontage of approximatel~~ 43 f~et
ori ~he south side of Virginia Avenue at Mancos Avenue, havirig a maximum 3epth
of appzoximatel•y 150 feet, and being locatea appzoximately G75 feet nor.th of
the centerlin~ of South Street. P~'operty presently clussif.ied R-1, ONE-FAMILY
RESIDFNTIAL, 'LON~.
Eiqhti persons indicated their Frasence ira opposition.
7~ssistant Planner Phillip ~chwartza reviewed the location of. subject property,
uses e_gtablished in cloaa proximity, and the proposal to permit continu~d use
of an exi~ting s.inq_le-family home as a boarding house for up to eight women
who were unable t.o t+~ke care totally of ti~eir own needs aricl a houaek~:eperj
that the petiti~n wa~ filed as the result of a complaint received by the Deve1-
o~ment Service, Department in Deceu~ber. 1972, concexning the illegal use of the
pronerty; that the peticlonor did not resi.de in tt~is residence but had a reai-
aer.~ "houae m~ther" wha ha? beer. train~d by and wa.s und~r the sup~rvision of
the petiti.aner; that th~ "house mother" in~tructed thP "gueats" ?n houaekeep-
ing, food preparati.on and groomingr that thE "gueat.s" w~+re ref~rred to ttie
~~etitioner by the Orange County Depar.tmc.nt nf Social Wel£are or other private
sources and were screenad and interviewed by the petitioner priar to acceptancer
that all "guests" were women and aome had experienced emotional problecna which
had caused some disablement which was r~ot sufficient to require institutional
care oi psychistric haspitalizationj that the "guQSts" were, in most cases,
workino in ti~e c;ommunity or. going to school and were active in ~:he communityt
and that *.he petitioner etstad the California :cute Depa~tment of Social Welfare
had inspected and approved au~•ject site far the exietiny ue.e, anticipating that
the Orange County Department of Social Welfare would soon ae initiating a
licensing progr.am for homea such as they had, In Addition, local tranyportation
for the "guea~s" was provided by tF.e petition0r, and in son~e casea by a court-
appointed guardian~ and that tFie petitioner indic~.ted therE• werv normally only
one o~ two automobi.les on-sitA ei.nce most gueats did not uwn a~utomobilee.
~ ~
MINU'1`F:5 ~ C:1'PY P1~11NNIN~+~ CQh1MISSION o Narch 1.9 ~.l`l 13 73~-1 7U
CUNf~I1'T~~IvAL [ISIs PFRM7[T NO. 1.3A1 (C~ntinued~
Mro. Shir..l.u, T,nt~onto, 1.Ot;1 Avocado Way, tho pet.ltian~~r, appeared bo~ore the
Commier~~.c~n ancl ytat:ad sho h~~l been oporeting tl~i~+ fa~cility f.t~r tNO yQar.e and
hed ~pok::r. ;.o her noighbord belor~ r~teztiny this operati.on, ~Aking that i!
thr,xe wore any complainte, ~he would lika to know, nnd one ne~.ighb~r t~ad com-
plai.nc+d wfien eha had a yo~u~y boy ed a~~u.eet who had beer~ givin~ the neiyhbor-
hood sama pr.oblc:ms, and when tho neighbor had compla~.ned, ~he had g~tten rid
ot ~he boy immec~iately~ that nltt~ouqh Rhe stated there wot:l.d be no more than
unc o1- two cura on the premisaa, thia w s n~t omplotr~ly accurate einco e}a~
c+nturtuin~d the "~iriylea chuzch" there ~f~~ nnd }tad btt~tiem in ~~~a pool
thcre, which would moxn a numt~4r of additional v4t-i~lt~s p~rkc,d on the r~t•roet..
Mr. 7ohn I,aMont, 280F, EasC Virglnia Avonue, appeared b~f:oro tho Commieaion in
opposi.tion, notiny hia property wds twc~ dnnr.s west fr~~m subjec* pr~p~rty~ ~hAC
he ha' r, p~titi~n aigned by 110 porsone, all in o~~r:~eition Co ~he zequnatad
uset ti~at the use was ~t~~-rted in L•h~~ neighborhoocl vary slowly when th~ ppti-
tionor. had takan in several ~adiea, and a].1 of. ttic~ naighbora were a~aro of thi[~,
a~though ho had t~ot b~en aeked a~io~~t it, anii ns t•.lme Nenh on cr.oro women anme to
the homo, and Mrs. Labor~te movod from thia hamor t:hat the neighbor~ did no~
like the idea ot' tho hom~ bcing uaed for boarders ~-~t first, and w~th the intro--
duction of mure pt~ople, *_ho neighbors finAlly decicled ~omQ action ahould be
takenj that real :tate agent~ had advisecl them som~t•hing should be dore eince
it would nffect ti~e prope.rty valu~e <~f their homes~ and thRt he could not park.
aven one of his au~~omobiles an tt~e street on woekends P,~caus~ of the act~vities
t.hflt went on in this h~me. Thorafore, he. would request thaL• the ctr~~a be re-
tained for the use it wa~ ni:ender], namely, single-famil.y use, bocaus~ thir~ waa
a very nice are~.
t•tr. Ron McCasiin, 2514 Ea3t Vir.ginia Avenue, appeared bafor,•E: th~ Commir~sion in
oppasition, stating hia property war~ noxt doo.r to sub}ec*_ prop~ r.yj thak he hau
made t}ie cor ~laint to the beve.lopment Servi.:es DepartmPnt after he had talkod
with the petitionez since he f~~t thi.s activlty ahould be "nipped in the bud"s
that when ~his operation was first star~.ed, he did not think there woul.d be too
much of n pro!~lem, t~owevez, with thd incx'easa in number uf. women to this rE~idence
he felt that the use should not be permitted in the area; that it appearecl that;
ttle St~te Welfare Department would be isauing lir.ensea iri the future for this
type c+f oper.ation throughout the city, r~nd he felt it should be up to the City
to make the decision as to whether this use should be parmitted in this area.
Mr. Bayard Orlock, 1043 Marjan Street, appeare3 before the Commission in opposi-
tion, ~tating that t~e owned the home at 534 Mancos Avenue, twa cioors north of
subject prcperty, ancl noted that there was only a 43-foot frontage on sub~ect
property and half of t.hat was taken up with the driveway, therefore, ther~ was
no room to park on-str~~et in fr~nY. of the oroperi:y~ and that con::ern was ex-
pre3aed in the previeus petikion regarding freeway nnises, hotaever, he felr
there should be provlsion made for soun3 control r.egar.ding L-hese emotianall~-
disturbed womr:n.
Mr. 3ohn Dorne, 538 South Mancos Avenue, ap~~ared '~efore thP Commiasion in
opposition and stated that he and hi~s wi.fe 'lad ~-~a?.t~d el.even years to purchase
a home, and since they liked neighbors and aP~i1~~~ients were not conducive t~
meetiny wi.th neigtibora, he felt. the proposed use, as a boarding house next door
to his property, was also not conducive to having neighborst that ii these
women were emotionally disturbed, maybe none presenLly there bt:t ln the futuYe, he
would not like to have Y.heae women complafn abouc khe noiae which his two boys
would mak2 whi.le playing i.n th~ir own yard because this ould *riggFr the min~ls
of these women, and although hp liked the petitioner vary much, stie no ronqer
reside3 at this location, and evc~n though rsha had trained the housekeeper, he
wondered if she ~was alyo train~d for other. problems that r~uld arios if noisea
would trigger the minds of the~e women to posaible viQlence; and that he did
not feel onp person could handle this type of. situation.
Mr. Nick Joyner, Con~ervator. with the Coun*yo uf Grange, appeared before the ~
Commission in favor of subject petit.ion, noting that he had two social workera
frem the 'r7e].fare BQpartinent ass~ci.zted ;vitti hia officer that hia office handlad
over 600 people irom babiea to grawn persona, aome beinq phygically handicaQped
-~hile other~ were mentally handicupped.
~
~
~
~
MLNU'P~S, CLTY PI~ANIJIN~~ COMMISS70N, Mat'~:It .L9~ 19'73
CONDITT~NAi, USE !?ERMIT NU. 13A1 (Continuo~:)
73-171
Comm1.~-Ai~~nor Gauer inquirad wliether thie problam AXOfl~ becauAO of the Stxte'a
~~r.oyze-m for r.c~moving poryoris not naedinq conflnement and pincing thoeo p~opl~
in emallnr 1~omea.
Mr., ioYnox atatod thie pr.oyram wae 1t~itiated lony bofore Govaxnor Knaqan came
l.nCo off:co nut wae parL ~f, h~e ~!.eta-wicla poli.cy to close State hor~pitale for
thr~ mentxl.ly ratarded.
Commieaionc~r Cauer atated that othor placee tor the: ~~eraon~~ ~•~~uld be found
reth~~r ~ hr~n in;~ecL•inq Lhem into a naic~ht~orho~d of th ~}~,~1 -•
Mr. .7oy~~ur ~L•atod that tho Qeparkmc~nt of Mantal ~i;gier~e aE~}>~oved thc~ homes for
paople ranqing in age f.racn 18 t~ 64, and the W~~1tArQ Dep~xtment took c~ro Uf
licenning thcatn~
Commiasianor Herbst inquire~d whath9r the County check~d to s~~o whetk~or the I~omee
.l~.cenaed for klii.s us~ were pro~or].y zonod~ whereupon Mr. JoYner r~tated that.
thc~Lr 3urisdictian did nat over~had~w tt-e juri.adictio~i of. the Ci.ty~.
Coinmiesionor Herbat noted that tt~e County RYlOU1C~ tell the appllcant ' ~t thoy
must contact the <:ity for permi.:~sion to operate this typg of f.acil~ _•y ratlior
than expect them to oparuta just becausg the C'ounty grant~d them a license.
Mr. JaynQr stateii that lse would like to answ^r Commisaioner Gauer'a _;tatement,
by presonting sume background i.nformation, ns~mely, that the Commisaion should
k.Q awara., ae should the general public, that 10 to 15 yeara ago it bec~mo posaiblQ
to trec~t people hav.inq mental probl~~ ~ with new typas of drugs so that thesc~
poop:le uould be rr.le~9ed £rom the m..al hospitalR, and they founa that tt-esb
same treatments had bett•er zesults i~ t.he patient.s were placed in a reaidential
er-vir~nmentj that reference made as to the State admi.nistrati.oa nf t'..ie, i.t waa
found ta be c:heaper t~ have the pex's~n in a homa than ko lock someone up £or
one emo~.ional pr~blem, and the reasai~ ttte treatment was more effective when
patients were trea~ed oiat.side was to avoicl inatitutionalizatiun L~t1AY0 treatment
was more effective ttian if a person were confined up to 20 years in a State
hospitalr and that he did not feel boaz'ding care facilitie~ foz children, Ghe
aged, physical or mental problems should be outside of a r~~sidential. e:ic~•iron-
men°.:, and he also did not feel it should be ir- a commescial or industrial area
sinco a homeliice atmo~-phere was better for rehabilitation from a mental problem.
Commiasioiier Allred notc~d that he knew of one instance where a famil,y to~k in
one stich person, and she impr~ved aonsider.ablys that he was iiot too concerned
if there were onP t~ three persons placed in hon,es, but he was vPrp concerned
when eight to ter. persons were proposad for one home becau~se this pr.eaented
problema foz the r~eighLors, and he could not see ~ahy .he County sliould he find-
ing it even more appropriate to have ?.5 persons in a residential home~ even
though the one whom he knew improved cor.sid~rably in a home--type environment.
Commissio ier Farano tnq~iired as ~o Y.he general pur~ cse to subject L•hese t.ypes
of people to a family-type environment; whereupon t.~•. ,7oyner stated that in a
facilit;r of the proposed type it brought people togetl~er who had similar prob-
lems so that they were not an i~olr~ted case and with one caretakar in order ta
aee ~.~-at. they took caa:e uf themselves because they must learn to interact, and
they needed more than one percon so as to relate.
Commissioner Fazana aske~ what type of needs did tdr. Joyner re£er ta - would
thaaa wnmPn fPed t}1PTIIRPI VPC - ~'%~~fq ~Aro c~f rhai r.+orgn.,?1_ .,ooa~ ~ o•;_h ~~ ~?'_'°°°_
ing, bathing, etc.j whereupon Ms. Joyner stated that the doctor would tell the
patient all af the ben~fits he oould expect to derive from a stay at the hospi-
tal, and very few had to stay la~ked up the rest of their lives, but most could
be treated on an ~ut-patient basis~ and Nhen ::h~ patient was ready to leave,
many could qo back to their own homes, hc~revar, some did aot have a home while
cthers could not go back to thair homea becauso their troublFS stemmed from
their home li~!ing, and if the problema k~ere also physical. then these patients
would be sent to a conv~lescent hoapital, and those that coiild not take cAre of.
themselves or were homiridal, etc., would be in locked facilit.ies.
~
~
~
M'INU'Tk;S~ CZ'PY FLAPIN?.NG COMMI:.~SION~ MQL'C)1 19, 19'13
CONDITIONAL USE PL_RMLT NO. 13~1 (Car-tinued)
73-172
Commisatoner F'~-'dR0 tiotod L•het t.he Raport ko tho Commioaian indicated Y.h+~t t~.h~+ee
"guests" wauld bA in~t.ruatr:d in houAekeepi.ng, tooc9 prepn~•nrt~n nnd ~~r~~m~.r-a, and
trom what he c~uld undornta~id, thea~ ~~AOpla ~ugk came t~ thlr~ liame~ for boara and
room~ whereu~on Mr. ,7oyn~r atated that somc~ uP the "gueate" nc~Aded aedistance in
fooding thomselvos, ath~r ncedod hal~ ir. e9rce ~ing thamse.lvc~, althouc~h me.~st ^f
theoe por~ona could poriorm the~e dut~,es k~ut thoy were rycovorinq from a oon-
tused atato and ~~~~ed~a to learn to tatk and listan to p~ople again, Ar~d for
peoQlo to a»oist. them to ti.nd a jaU i! one wn9 n~t found by th~ Sui~rior Court~
dnci that thU~~ wxa scme:.imno r~ nued for a c~r~servtstor~ and t.hia qui.ta often cou1Q
be a member of the family,
Commi.esioner Rowland oUaerved tt-at thl~
and ~.nquirod whethor t.hesc peopla wera
whereunon Mr.. J'oyner stated that. tttere
COI18tl1"VdL'OL' ~'10 WAS chsryeC~ b}~ k~'IQ SrQ*Q
p@Opl,p to ~ec~mQ sclf-sufficient aq+~in.
2'He, HEA1tING WA~ CLOS~n.
eppeere~cl to be ~ rehabi.litation fac:ill.Y.y
in a zehak,i.litation progrem in thia t~omo~
was a rehabilitatiun Program, a~' as a
and County wi.th tiaving to train thes~
Commiagioner H~rbst notc~d th~r~ waa avidence thRt the pet•itioner wAn or~rating
a businees in a resic3entinl aroa which was ^ontrary t~ thQ Analieim N;unicipal
zoninq Cnde, and alth~ugh he knew one cou13 ta!ce in one ar two bourd~ra witheut
h~~•~iig to apply for a permit~, L•his potitioner did nct evon l~.ve in the h~me and
place• a. caretaker in charqe, therefora~ would tliis moet the requir~mant for.
flve unrelated persons residing i~n one home.
peputy City Attorney Frank Luwry stated thaC the Cocie permitted five unrelated
porsons to reside in onc~ place, which would constituto a family, '~~t it did not
say that one of the five must own the pr~perty, and then read the An~h~im Mu~~i•-
cipal Code covering thi3 regu~ation.
Commisaiuiier Farano stated t}~at r.his operution wae 3lfferent than Code set forth
si.nce the propert;~ owner was beinq compensated by the State; wh~reupon Chatrman
Seymour. sta~ed that this was conducting a husinesa in a residence.
Nlr. Lo~ory then stated that the request was ta permit a boarding t.uuse becauae
the petitioner would pro_vide lodgirig and meals for a comperisation, and thie was
the reason fc,r the conditior.al use permit requeet because she planned t~ use
this R-1 resideric;e for a boarding tiouse.
Commir~sicner Gauer was of the opinion that the use was in the wrong place, how-
ever, ttie Commission would havE to loak a~ thi4 problem more caref~~lly 3ince the
State ha~ taken some action. Furthermore, he £elt tk:e County shuuld eubmit thcse
prono3aly to the city in which they woulcl be located to see if the~• were permitted
before isauing a license. In addition, chis operation had ~tarted from a very
r~mall thing to the point where there were eiqht persoi~s residing in addition
to a housekeeper, while tlie person originally r.Fquestinq thia had moved away,
and since these people wcre nat normal peo~~le and were incapaule of ta}ring care
of themselves, it would '>e like ~: hospital, therefore, it should noe be in A
residential a.rFa; and th ~t a cond~!-ional us~~ permit should have been applied
for and granted before ~ license ~~as issued.
Mr. Lowry stated he wanted to draw ct dis'ti:iction in that Ei.ve people could li~e
toqether as a family, while this was a boarding hause and they were not living
ao a family but as a boardinq house or reat home facility.
Chrsirman Seymour noted that the petiti ner had statied she had asked Che neigh-
bors iP they approved the operation she had at that time, but she did not in-
quire whQthor the City v~ould ~:ermit thisf that this was a single~family home
and thP usse introduced was a cAmmercial uso which was n~t a desirable use for
the areaa that even thouqh zehabil.itation was at a Easter pace in a home than in
an i.nstitution for mentally-disturbed p~rsons, there waa no need to no;sa ~[1L0 a
single-family neighborhood with this type of occupancy with children next ~loor
as well as throughoat the neighborhood, creatinq a posrtiblE phyaical as well as
mental bzeakdown ~or these boardera if normal childhoo~ noie~ca r:~rP eufficientl.y
irrita~tinq, and this would not happen if this were a r.ormal single-family i~~me.
In edditian, by the petiti.~ner's own aclmisaion, thero was a parking problem
beceuse of the extra-curricular activitiea which the peti.tion~er conducted on
her prc+pc rty .
~
~
~
MIN[1'1`LS ~ C C'i'Y pLANN INC, COIdt•ti';SION , MArch 19 ,'.97 3 73- 17:3
i;UNDx7'tONAL USt: PERMI~P_NO._ 1391. (c'ontir~uF-9)
Cc~r~~c^~eoioner n1lre~l ~+tfE~rcd w mot.i.un, s~con~lp~9 ny rommieelonAr Knywon~7 rnci
MUTIUN CAPR'lF.D, th:-f. tYie Planr~ing Commiselcn, i.n r_or~nc+~:tion wiY.h an uxemptioci
dec.larrtien stntu~ requoet, iinds and detc+rminoe thnC thc pr~~posnl. w~~~1~1 havo
no eignlficant anv~.ronTental impact, and, Lhcrefor.c~, rocommand~ tc~ the City
Council thxt no Environmpntal Impact Statement in nocQSSazy.
rommissiuner Saymour uf'fored i2eeo.Lution N~~. P~73-~6 ~nd mov~d iur it~ pe~ee~dc~n
an~l adopti.on to dany Petition frr Conditional. Ue~ Pc~rmit No. 1381 on the bas9.u
t•.hat thc~ pr.opoae~ use wae .lncom~:~ri.bl~a wiCh tho einylo-fnmily chacactori~tica
of. thA are~t tha-~ although the p~tit.l.onor hed contacted }ier nc~~ghborK eeveral
uears dgo when she rof~idcd in the l~omo as to their fealinga reyardiny havina,
several pArROn~ far ~pecial care; tho p~titioner had n4w loft t~he homc and
aetablidhed a hired person to CdKB c}ro ef these women, increasl.n~i tho num~er
of pureons from a£ew ta eight p~ying boardergi tl:ar. a n,~rkiug pr~~btem ~xi.sted
~n wmgkende becaune of church activitiee the petil•ioner conduct. ,n wda;:and~,
end thnt tha praposEG uHA wouid adver.raely alfect. ttie adjoininq lancl usee~.
(Sao Resolu~ion Uook)
On roll cell. the foregoinq rrs~Lution was pa~sed by thP fO11UW~11~3 vote:
AYF.S: COMMI55TC~N~RS: Allred, Farano, f:~suor, Fl~rbaL•, Kaywond, Rc~wland,
Saymour .
NOIsc : COMFIISSI0NFR5: Ncne.
P.BSI:NT: CbMMISSION~RS: Nvne.
SPi:CIA~ RECOMMENDA`I'ION TO TIiG CITY COUNCIL
Commi&sioner Rowland noted ~heit it would t~ppear from evidence ~~~~entc3 u::der
Conditi~nal U~e Permit No. 13~1 that the Oranye County Department oF We'_fare
had shown a certain amuunt ~ L igr.orance or indiscriminatiun in not requl.r.ii~y
tkte ~roper z~ninR for thes~~ people to be placod int that the conservat:or
shared the raspon:,ibility of thi~ pr.oblc~mf and that maybe they were wilfull.y
ignoriny their. resF>ony.lb.illties but t}iEy wer.e thus creating a disser~~ice 1:0
the very ~eople the;~ wFre tc•ying t~~ help.
Cominisslonor Rowland offered a motiun, seconded by Commiasioner F~irano a~id
MOTTON CAR2tZED, to recommend to the Ciky Council that appropr.iate ~aelfare
age:~cies of the County of Oranne and State of• Caliiornia be advised t~~ cona~act
t.he City of Anaheim Develcpment Services Degartmenk to dete.rmi.ne wh~tiier
appropriate zoning approval had been granted by the City k`P.POx'e a licenne is
i~sued to an organization or individuals f~r such uses as: child cara facili-
tier~, board and r.oom care for peraens und~r the juri3diction of a conservator
or peraons with slight mental or emotional problems, or other simllar use~.
RECLASSIFICATIUN - PUBLIC HFARING. MR. RNll MRS, pRDEN ~TRAND, 840 Weat Grove
N0. 72-73-36 Avenue, Orange, Ca. 92665; MR. AND MRS. IiARVEY P. SHUNK
r~^ AND MR. AND MRS. HARVEX W. SHUNK, 3623 West Cerrita~ Avenue,
VARIANCE N0. 2487 Anaheim, Ca. 92804; MR. AND MRS. CLIFFORD NUGENT, 2666 Peach
~ Street, Perris, C~. 92370J MR. AND MRS. ROY NAKRTSUKA, 176i
TENTATIVL MAP OF Mimosa P].ace, I'ullertan, Ca. 92G35; and MR. AND MRS.
TRACT NO. 8204 A:-~F.XANDER HOROW7'I•Z, 3491 ~lm A~~enue~ I~~~ng Beach, Ca. ~0807,
~ i~wnersr J. IttCHARD HUFFMAN, c/o i,o~~ington BrothPry, P, 0.
Box 312El, Ful].erton, Ca. 92634, 1~gent; property des.ribe8
as: An ixregularly-shaped parcal of land conr~isting of approximately 9.3'l acres
having a frantage of appraximately 73~ feet on the nort.h 4ide of Cer.ritos Avenue,
_._,_.._ a,,.,*~, ~.f a~,nrnximat.wlv 6Q7 feet, and beii~q locate~d uporoxiinaiely
i~avi,~,y o ::,....~..,..... __r --- -- -~• -
334 feet west of the centerline of Knott .Avenue. Property presentll classified
R-A~ AGRT~ JL'PURAL, ZONF..
REQUESTEG CLASSIFICATION: R-J, IQULTIpLE-FAMIL~Y RESIDENTIA:., ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE MINIMUM REQUTR~D LANDSCAF~D SETBACK TO ~S'1~ABLISH
A 127-DWEL:LINGp FOUY2PJ.~X APARTMENT CUMPLEX.
TENTAxIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVFLOPER: COVIN~TOn HROTHERS, 2451 East Crsngeth~rpe
A~~anue, Fullerton, Ca. 9253a. ENGINEER: LANDE~'~
~;NGINEERING, 4120 Rirch ~treek, Suite 109, N~wport
B~ach, Ca. y2660r proposi~~g to aubdivide subjec
property into 32 R-3 zoneci lote.
~
^~pp
~
MLNIITE:;, 4[TY PI,ANNTNC; COMM.L4~3TON, Mar.r..h 19, ly'1.', 73-174
RECI.AS.r,I['YCATION N0. '12-73--3G, V7IRIANCE Nf~. 2487, AND TEN'PATlVE MAl' OT TRACT
N O. B 2 U 4 ( C o n t i n u e d) ~~_~_ _,..._-•~-- ---~. •---------- . _._._..._. _._ .+.-------
No one appoarod in oppot~.i.t-,ion.
A1Chough tho Ftepurt to tho Commissian wa~ tac~t roa-d at th~ ~~ublic )•.uariny, it i:~
ref'erred tu and mAde e part. of t.h~ minutas.
Mr. Barry 'Limmerman, ropr~eent:ing '.:he ~ovfllo~,r~r, Covi.nytan Hrothere, app~arFd
Uefore tho Commi:.r~~~~n and stat:ed tl~at ftUt7j9Ct proporty ttt~d rwo Frontnge~, on
echool prop~erty r that the propaaed streets w~uld ba for. bufferir-g tlio arc~a an
tha w~:ax ~nd e fenr.~ was alr~•tcly oxiRting on hhe north adjacent t~ the k-lt
thr~t tliey had dir~cusaed tl~e P~ ~~posal wi•th the achaol and Lhc+y worA agree+~blu
tQ tha propase~a wa~ll excepC that u Rwing gata sh~uld bs pravided for cix~culetion
of podHetrian treYfic, nnd b~cauoe of t:h~.e, thoy would have, inadequ~tp 'landACap••
iriq in nccordance with C~~de rcquirnmenta.
A lett~r fram the City of CypreaA, in apg~ositton, was read to the Commi.gc~ian.
Commiseionpr Gauer was af the opini.U.. 'that ~~~e propased devc+lopmc~nt would bo
rat}ier intansa sinco no .recrelLiun arc~a wae bo.ing provi,ded, und the petitians
ahould be conkinued in orde~:• to allow the devo]oper tim~ to .revi~e pluns reduc-
ing th:s denc~ity.
Commis~ioner Herbet noted thc-t L•r-is type of development would qenorate many
children, hoWever, the develooer was not providi.ng recr~ational facilitie3,
nnd Che C~mmi.saion had been tryi.nq to ancourage ~£f-streat recree*.ional facili-
t~est and that the proposed tract would be sei.tiny baclc dev~~lupment in the City
of Anxheim tweJ.ve yeara .
Co~nniisAioner Allred inquired wY~ethAr these ~inita woulcl be for renaler whereupon
Mr. Zimmerman replie~?. :.f£irmatively, notinq tha+t their~ were socr.a of che few
devetopmerata that still rented to families with childrori; thnt tho tevel.opment
would hava courtyard areas and most people moved into these unitr~ prior tu the
time they purchasod a single-f-amily home and childr.an were c,f scl~oal age~ and
that tho proposod type of faciliY.y, according to renters of them, czeated tha
atmosphere~ which they liked.
Commissionpr Farano inquired whether ~he develuper wouldn't agree that the
renters would stay l~nger if a bett~r l.iviny environment was provided, such as
the recreational facilitys whereupon Mr. ~immerman noted thut they rente3 these
facilities until all of the tenants were in the ur,its and 'tiier. the unit•s were
a~ia to the purchasera; that they kept tr.ack of thelx facl3.itiee, and muny
people did not know the.ir owners un:lesa the nwnex~s chose to reveal the~.r
identiti.es .
Commis9i.aner I'arano then ~tated that iC was hiG opinion the vacancv fact~z would
be out. of proportion to what Mr. 7immerman had claimed since the p~.t3tioner did
nct really own the units% whercupon Mr. Zimmermar. stated that in order to get
additi~na~ inf~rmaticn on uni.ts thPy did aut own, tliey talked with the marxagez
a~ to how they rented.
Commiasianer Kaywood inquir~d whether the plans before the Commission were the
same as those that were ilsed on all ;:ov.ington Brothers developments and received
an affirmative reaponae.
~nmmi~v~nnc~r Y.av~un~ri thnn inntt~YPA AS~ t0 *hP. tVDe Of insulation that Wd8 j~XO"
vided, and Mr. ~immerinan replled thPy 'tiad batte~~ insulation.
Commissioner Kaywood then noted that she had trlephoned an acquaintance of hera
who lived i.n one of the Covi-~gton Bxuthera cievelopmc~nta, and beeause of wh~t
appeared to be a small cliild crying, she advfaed the woman that ehe would c~ll
back later so tha~ she could t.ake care of hex chi d- ::owPver, the woman then
advi$eci h~r she had no cY-ildren and the cryfng she haard was a neighbor'a child
in the ad~aining apaztment~ that wheziever she kiad visited friends living in tY-o
Covinqton Rrotherg development~, it was s~metimes difficult to hold a conversa-
tion becauee of the~ noiaeb from the adjointr.g ~~a~rtment~, auch ag the running
of watar, Pluahing of toilets, cloa~ng of doorA and cabinet.a, loud ta;.king, etc.,
and it was her opinion that tllose units ware var.~ poarly conatructec3 at~d afford-
ed no privt~cy to tha residents of the unita - tha unite mi.qht look very attrac:-
tive outaida, buC they offered less than the deeir~ble ame,ni.tiea once one was
~
~
~
MiNU'f[:~, CI'1'Y rr,ANNiNG L'OPIMLSSIOIJ, Ma'rch J.9, 1973
7:~-1'15
RECI~ASSIFTCAT70N NO. 72-73-36, VARIANCE NO. 24~37, AND TEN'PATIV~: MAP ~' TRACT
N 0. 8 2 0 4 ( C a n t: i n u e d) _- _._ ~_._~_ ~ ._._.~.~ f_...___~.__-------
'ne.ido the ap~ztment unitut nnd thaf although Covingt~on prc~thc~i-~s miqht have~ a
vory 1uw ~-acAncy fectcr, tiiie did a~o~ m~+an the unita tlioy hod wc~:e de;~irAblo
to the L•enank:~ .
Commiaeionar liar:~et inquired whethor tho develo~er r.oul.d maintai-i th~ 1Ii1D 45
~lecib~l r4quirc~m~nt. ~nx asparktnanra ~ whereea,,on Mr. Zimme.rman repliFd thnt hcs
had clane pr~jecte nimilar to the ~tUD r~qu.iremen~ ~nd wne c~uco that the {~ropoWijd
development wou;.d b~ cloae to *hat decibal reading.
Commie4ioner AllrSd t~~:tad thnC the c~uostion betare ~he Commic~sion wa,a wh~thor
thi~ waa +t good .land uso, however; it w~s hYS apinion hha* the prop~rt}~ wo~~ld
lend ik8elf to bt~ r~ore GompaY,i.bJ,~ to k•-1 or RS-5000 than ~he px'ooo~c~d fourp~nxac.
Comrtii.esioner Hezbet. war~ of tl~e ~pinlon that mul.ti.ple-family devc~lopment cou1~9
bc~ aZ~pxopriate for thaC aroa provided, howover, th~t adequate zecreational
facilitiea we~:o provided.
Chai.rman Seyniour inquircd of. th~, appl.icdnt whethor h~a would conai.-~ :r a cuntinu-
ance in orcl~r Lo reduce the denrity to R-2 r~ther than R-3j wherc~rpon Zoning
Suporviso.r Charlo~+ Ro1.~~arte nnted r.hat tha Qensity was almoat equa! to tho R-2.
Commise:.oner Herbat was of the opinian th~t L•he develop~r ehould ~~~~~~ide rur~i-
dents nf ::h4ae unita a better l~.vinq environmen~ aince this devel~~pment wou'td
be located in th~.s area for '15 years, and tha developer could con~truct them
anc~. walk away ftom tt,e pro3ect, howaver, the pro:~ect ~ou1d be tt~e hr~~d~scl-e of the
City of Anah~im, and since the cievelo~,ment had no xecreatiiannl f~c~.lities, hz
felt theao amenities were n~cosaary for a prapar ]iving environmen~:s an~l that
the oQaple~ at~o purchased ths~e homes should nlau provi.de some recreatianal
facilitiea.
Mr. Zimmer.man noCHd r.hat t~aey we~~: near L-he F-2 den~i ty anu~ they could not
aff~rd to drop the density too much because af L•he ros:, of the land.
Commissi~ner Gauer noted ~hat the C1.ty ~f Cypress ~ad r.ecom-nended that R-1
eon:ing be approve.d f~r suhject proper.ty and not the zoning that was be~.ng
rsquested.
'PHE IiEARZNG W74S CLOSED.
Commissioner Hr~rhst o£te,.ad a motion, seconded l,y Commissioner Gauer and M4TION
CARRIED, to recommond to the Ci.ty C:ouncil that an Environment~l Irnpact Report
be zec~uire3 of the petiL-ioner prioz• to caiiaide:ation of the reclassification of
tho property since Lhers would be a deflnite environmental impact if recreation-
al facilities were noL provided for this dev~lopmenfi..
Commissi~~ner Gauer offered Ttesolntz~n No. PC73-57 and moved for it•s passagp at-d
adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for. Ker.la9~ifi.cation No.
72-73~36 be disa~~proved on the basis tr~ut the development ~v~,s too intens~e with-
out providiny adequate recreational facilities~ that the proposed development
would ~ncouraae an increase in the numbor of ch~ldrer~; that the petitioner ~ro-
posed a t.ype of' development which would ter,d to attiact familie~ wftli children,
thereby adding to the incr~ase in atudent popu].ation in th3.s area; that the
petiti~r.er was not orovidii~g a~lequate recreational areas ta t~ke crsre of the
po~sible increaee i!, children~ thereby forcing th~ children to play in L•he
stre~ts and alleyst that the p.r~posed x•eclasaiEir.ation of yubject properl•.y is
not neceaeary and/~r de~irable for the orderly and proper development of the
communityi an3 thzt: *_he size and sh~pe oi• the 1--~nd lends itself proper.ly tc~
D~_snnn ronir.h n~mes wtiich would reduce thc density to approximately 6 to '1
units per acre, therefore, the Planning uommis•.i~.,u ~~~oms tlia R~-50U0, One--
Family, Zone sa being more appropriate and recommendd to the Ci.ty Council
apprcval of RS~5000 :.oni.ng fox the pro~~ertyr ~nd subject to cor~ditiona. (Sea
Resolution Book)
Un roll call the foreqoing reso].utian was ~asaed by the followinq vote:
AYESs COMMISSLONERS: Allred, Farano, Gai~er, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: None.
AB5EN2': COMM.LSSIONERS: None.
~
~
~
M~NU9'F5, CT,TY I~I,ANN?Nc3 CUMMTS520N, Mnr.ct~ 19, 1973 73-176
RP:CLASSIFIC.:'~ION NO. 7"l-'13-36, VARIANCI. NO. 24£37, ANq 7'~N'tATIVE MAP OF 'Tl2AC:T
N o 8 2 0 4 ( C o n t i n u~a d? `_.~_ _..•-------- --------------- -__...._...~..-~_.. ~_
cummiasioner tterUet '.~f:fe~rr.d P,esolut.ion No. ['C73-5fj r,nd moved foL ii:e~ paeeego and
ad.c-aption to ~leny Petition for Variance Nu. 2A1~7 or~ ~h~ bfiH.~H that the zoque~ated
zoni.nq l~Ad baen r~~~mmc~ll~iP.d f~~x denial, ~herofore, the vc-ri~ance would not bc-
ap~licablc- to Cho exist.in9 zan.ing. (S~c ttaeolution Ba~h)
~~~ rc>11 call tlin Poregoing ioy~lut lon waL par~aed l~y the Y.allowing yoky:
AYES: COMMISSION~RS: Allrod, FAXt111U, Gduor, tlerb~t, Kayaood, Rowland,
Saymour,
NQE;S: COMMISST~NERS: N~ne.
AD~b.lJT s COMM:55IONERS s N~ne+.
Commiesion~r Gaus~:' ~~ffozed a m~~tior., aflconded by Commisaic>nez Fax•ana and MUTI~N
C?1RP.I~D, te d~er~y Tc~itati ve Map ..~f Trn~;~ No• 8'l04 an the baste that tt~e Plann~.ng
C:ommisaioii racommoti~dc~a denial of rhF rf•claeoificatio~- of the propaxty, there-
for..~, thc tract could not be dovglo~ed withi-i r.he ex~~tinq rone.
VARiANCh NU. 2485 - P~]BLIC E1F.ARINC;. zMPER7AT, L~:~D AN17 TNVT~STM~;NT C~~MP1~•lY, at•ten-
~~~ tion of A. L. Robort~, 435 NorCh 5ta~.a Callege 13oul.evard,
14naheim, Ca, 920Q6, Own~r.; MRkVIYI F. HUP1C[NS, U-Stow-It
pevelopment Carpuration, 99Q0 Lakewood Houlavnrd, Suite :~09, Downoy, Ca. 90240,
Agent~ r~c~uesting WAIVFR OF (A) MINxMUM BUILD:LNG S~TP.ACK FROM AN ~1RT~;RIAL HIGH-
WAY, (E3) MINIDIUM BUII,DT~'G S~'fAACK FRUNi A LOCAL STRE~T, (C) MINIMUM NUMSER Or
PARKING STALLS, AND (~, MINIMUM PARKING AREA r~ANDSCAPING TO PERMIT 'I'HE ES'PAB-
i,SSHMENT UF A MTNI~WAPEHOUSA FACILITY on prcperty dQSCrik~ed as: An irragularly-
ahapti~d parcet oE land cons~~~tinq of approxima~ely 6.6 acrea at ~he northwest
corner o~ the intersection of t}~e Orange and Riveraida Fre~:ways and having a
frantage of appro:cimately 1120 ieet on the sout*~. sida of. Miraloma AvtnLe.
Pro~arty preaent?.y clasaified R~-A, AC+ItICULTURAL, Z~NE.
No one ap~eared iz~ op~osition.
Although t}ie lteport ta t.he Commiesion was n~t read at the Public '~eaxing, it is
refer.red to anQ made a part of the minutes.
Mr. bl~~rvin Hogkins, agent for the petitianer., in3lcate8 l:is nresence to answEr
qu~~stions .
Chairman Seymour noted that the primary cor-cern of tha Planning Commi3sion was
the stark nakedness of the 3trucL•ural wall aiong the curvature of the e2oz~gatied
building, z~nd a~'1 une wou:d see from the a~teriox as one l~~okec~ down would be
one-quarter of a n~ile af a naked wall, thErefore, the Commission was very con-
cerned with the landsc~ning treatment a].ong the slope of Mi.ralonea Avenue adja-
cent to subject property and requeated that the ager.t add~ess his remarks ~o
this concern.
Mr. Hopkins nated t.hat they could do anything which the City mould as~c, and theX
cou'l:~ plant cypress trees every 90 to 50 feet er oleanoers, altho::gh they would
have to move ~:he bui~~ling back sevAxel feet.
Chair.nian Seymour noted that the petitioner w.Ld a1RO have to provi.de a a~:rinkler.
system for tk-e maintenance of. trose planting ..
Commi.ssioner lierbr~t noted that something would have tio be done. and he wouia
auggest that sub~ect petition ba con*.inued for two week3 so that the petit.funer
could revise hia plan~, i.ndicatirz9 what he proposed to do to take aare af thie
s~ark agpearance of L•he building si~ce it was very im~creant because khis build-
ing would be exposed tu view fron- all eides and pypaASern would be looking down
into thls devolonment and the interior woul.d need soms form of landscaping in
order to offsot ~he vast expa~se af the roof, however, as to thA use raq~soeted,
he was not c~pposed ~o th~ .
Chairman Sey:nouz noted that aince th~ u~~'r~veesubdectt etitionbthis~dsteldndthe
~ommission r,ould, if they ao deeirec~, apP j P ~ommis~ion a,~pr.oval at
requixe the eubmiasion of a detailed landscnpa p~an for
a later dat~s, chereby giving the petit~ioncr added time for finalization oP hfe
plans prior to conniderat6on of landacaping.
~
~
~
MtWUTI:S, CT,'PY PLnNN1N(: ~'C1MMid5I0N, Mnl'c~h 141, .1973
VAltIANC` P: ~. 2G(i5 (Continucd)
73•-.1.'17
c'~~mmiea.t~ncr Fl~r.bet notoc~ l•.haL ho would pr:~fc+~ ~~!eli:~ E~lene indiratlnc7 what• typo
of ir,t.er.ior. l.~ndoca.piny wns prop~ead L'o~ thi4 fe~c~lity .~nce if. lnnc;ecepe pl~nt-
ltiy dae nat px~ovided at t.hJ.e ti.mo, it w~~ul.d monn pe~c~pl.e~ ,..taAing by tho pro~erty
wo~ald Ltie v.i.~winq n rock r~~of only.
,~k~nirman :~c~ymour notad that ha t~ud vlelrnd qonc~ 1.ndur~trinl ~nxc~e.e in t:he Unitod
~tatos WIlED7:k, bu.~l.dingn hc~d tree~ ~rowing an kh~ Y'nOP, nnd Aince Au ; j~i:t l~roperty
anrl t~hn b~~i.l ~~inas v~~re bel.o~v the etraAt leval., th~ pFtit:i.<~nar mici' t loak tnti.o
thi:~ pu~Hi}.~itYy.
~~mmi~:~.ioner Allrod wae of ti+o opinion t:i~nt n1Ch~~Ligli trociy mi.gi~ . l~rov.lda r~omc~
a~ .+thc~l.i4 app~3aranco, tl: w~f~ hi:~ opinlon thtt l•he long expance of. onc. buil.ding
~hou1~, ho br.okon up, pasatbly wl.Y:h n chanqe in color. or E:llnnter txHatmont.
rlr. T~nbet"t. Keelor., 9000 I~n.Y.i~waod Boulavard, Downoy, appaareci bnfor~~ the ~~ummis-
aion Zn~t ~ictca t« wa~ involved in cunetrur.tion cf thi.s ~uilding ainca he wa~
one or the principnlr, and if t!•.e Commissi~n could e,xpodite approval of subjec`
patiti.c~n, ~i lnce they hci~ a' ght ~rhedu.l.e, *_'iey would try Lo meet wi th skaff tu
wor.k cur these pr ,5? eme .
Mr. K~el~~r L•h~n i.nq~~ired wheth~r he could hnv~ anaw~~z to qitesti.ona rP~~ardiny
tlic~ recomme~dccl conditions sincc wlien thu~f fir~t plr~nned Chia facility and had
presented t.hem to L•he Dev~.l~pment 5erci.ce~ D~p ~rkn~~ant., the plann hxd been r,hanged
a ri~imber uf t.im~as at the recommenclation of ataff, t•hereEorP~ Condition Nu. 3,
r.eyazdir~q the cul•-d~-sac, came as samewhat a rurpriQo to them.
Daputy City Att•or~•ey rra~ik lowry aoted thni tiis was oxia of th9 rarc inatanca9
wl~~.r<: tt~e City ow.~~.d ;:he streeC in fae, wh~~~ •ac~ normally they had an e~-~~~emPnt,
nnd the C.+.ty wns pr.oh ' it:ed by 1aw ':o qive away Ci.ty-owned proporty.
OL'f:.ae ~nyineer .7ay Titu~ adv:,.:.ec: the Commission that Conditi~,ii No. 3:cequired
that the ~etiti~nc~r c~ither provide a cul-de-sac at Che end of Sunshin~ Way if
this were to remain a publ.ic strest, then r., cul-de-aac street was n~~~esr~ary for
tr.affi~ t~.~rn-ar~~und~ anc~ as an a1t ra~iva, ~h~ possiLility v~as suqgeated that
the petitioner could pur.ch~se that portion of 5unshine Way in ord~r. to make tlin
a pri.vate access arid ti~rn-around.
Conti.nuPd discas~ton was h~ld by tha C:ommis~ion regarding the recon~mer ~ied Condi-
tion No, 3, wiL}i Com~rissioner He .bQt conaluding by st;,tf ng that ti.hc ;~ ~t.i' ~.oner
wag no*_ requiied to ileciicare ior ~ F.reei. purgoser aa was normall,~ ~ requi.rement
i. Anaheim, even thougY~ he wor.ld ~~e~d 3 means of ii~ing said st.re t.
Com~~~i~sic,ner Kaywood offc:rnd a maticn, ~econded .~,y Cammis3laner A11red and
MOTTU~I CAr'.kiIED (Commissioner Rc~wland ab;3tained, ~ cai:ing ~h ~rE was a pocaible
confl~.ct of intere:;t) , to continue conr~iderat~on uf Prtition for Variance No.
24A5 to the me~ting of A~ri1 'L, 1973, to a) low time for ttze p~ titionFr t~ r.ev:.~e
plann, provf.ding foY la~ 3scapiny and change~c in che structuze to ieduce the
starY. appearanca of u long buildin~~.
VARIANCE NO 248~1 - PUDLIC f'ERRINC. GF~' +GE C. P1GF 73Q Sarbonne Road, Los
` ~`r ~ Angr.les, Ca. 900:'.~#; Owner; PriYt.L(S J. DUNCAN, ?.30 Pxo~:dviEw,
:,.:~.heim, Ca. 92fiG' . AgeriL-: requestl~~g ',VAIVER OF (A, YrRMIT•-
TEP OUTDOOR U5.^•.S AND ~B) REQUIRED 6-r'Oc)T MASGN;tY WALL ~r1CLOStNG OUTDOI;R USF TO
F.CTAFlT.I5H A TEMPORRRY 7'HkEE-YEAR OUTDOOR rONSmRUCTION STTE FOR iI~E BUILD:iNr, OF
A SINGLE 58~F0C1'P FZSHING BOAT on pro~~.~~r ~~~cr=b~a '-°' A hn••foot ~ 100-ioot
porti~n loc~.ted aionc~ the northerly pzoperty line of a rect~ngu~ar].y-ah~ped
parcel of land consi:~ting of approximate~.y 4.7 acr~e, having a f.zontage of
approximately 3?0 fee:t on ths riorth side o` Pacifico "~venue, haviny a maximum
depth of appzoximate].f 61'! ~eet, and b~ring loaated apprcr.imately 357 ze ~. east
of t'.ie centerJ_ine of Lewi:~ SCree~.. Property presently -~lasaified M-~ , LIGFiT
INi~US'fRiAL, ~ONE.
Na or~e appeared in oppositic~n.
hltl-o~.~gh the F~;?ort to 'che Commisai~n was nat read nt the puLl~c. hearing, it i.s
refe:reci to ana ma3e t- part o~ t.l~:; rni~tutes.
~ ~
M1N[ITF,:;, CT'fY 1~I,ANNING COMMISSTnN, Mar.c~t 19, ly'. 73-17H
VARiAN(:'r. N0. 7+8'1 (Contlnued)
-"----~ e q a n L• ! o r
Mre. Fi~y.llie Duncan,/tl~e+ p~titioner, eppe..r~ed bot'orn the Commiwsio~ and r~oL-LA
that ah~~ waa leae.iny the prop'r.ty ~zom khc. owner anA ~lanned to bu~ l~ e atoel
Pi~hing boat~ thd~t gho wa~ reqaeeting wsivez of the maecnxy wa17 fur rho <.hroa
j^•,r~ in which it wo~ld t+nke tu bu1:Ld eaid baut.
Ca.nmi~+AionnX A11r.ed ~riqulrod t~heChor thp ~aatl.tinn~r !!!.d nat t~ic~ hat with thn
pxopozt, nok prnparly lonced ~quipmant At1Q aapplips an~ld be et L~,n~ whuc•enp~rc
Mre. Auncnn ntate+c! that most of ~h~ equipinent w~uld bn too 1- ~avy to cart dwey,
and the tool el~ed in ~•~'•ich toalg were laaat~d woulcl b• loakad.
Mrn„ avncai., in rebpun~e to •rueeti.~~ninq Up Comm,teaianor Kayv~oo~, noY.9d tha~t• the
pzapar.ty and the prop~~ar:~ f.i~hir~g boat wot~].d not be visiblp ~rpm t:h.~ public
thorougt-fero .
Comtnieaioner Knywoad ut ~ered a motion, soconded by Commi$aio nor Hc~rbAt. and
MOTION CARR'~r~, Ch+~t the : lanriir~g Commi.soion, in conn+~ction svith a~n exemption
d~c~.l.araP:lon etaCue requor~~, findd and dotermines that the prapoen]. wauld hd~a
no ai.gni.fic3nt environment,q]. impact, and, theretorc, ;-ocommends tc~ the Cit.y
Council that n~~ Environmeni.al l:npact Statamont is t~ace~sary.
Comnir~eioner Kaywood offer.ed Resoluti~n No. ~C73~-'~9 and move Q tor its pur~soge
und adoption to grc~nt Petltion £~~r Varianco No. %484 for. a p.~riod of three
yeara, aubject to con~itions. (Sec~ Resolut.ion eo~k)
Qn roll. call tne forogoing . eao.luti.on was paesed by ~.fie fol~ owi~-g ~rl•.e:
T.YF.S: COMMISSIONE-tG: Al.lred, Farano, G~+uer, fierbot, KAywaod, ltowlnnd,
Seymour.
NOEi: COMMISSIONERSa None.
AESE:N^• (;OMMISSIQN~:RS: Nonr:.
Chairman Saymour. noted thAt althc,agh Generel Plan Amendment Nc , 1:!5 was
scheduled for tiie aftsrnoon agenda, eir~c~ it wAS already 6: 30 p.m. and the
Commission *~ad an eveninq agendl, that tkia~. be cleferred until th~ evening
ayenda. as the firat item.
mE;MPORARY - Chairman :,eymaur adjourned •the meeti.nq for di.nner at
AI7JOURTIMGNT 6 s Ib p. m.
RL•'CONVF`:E -- Chairman 5e.ymuur. reconeened tLa meeti.la at B;OU ~.m., a:ll
~~ ~ ~mn~a saioner~ being present.
CEr.~ RAI~ PL~N - PUALIC HEAP.ING. INITIATED BY THE RNAY.~ :~M CITY t~LANNING
Ar~ +llMEN'P N0. '_i5 COh1MISSION, 204 East Lincoln AvNnun, An aheim, Ca. 928'Sr
'- ~~ to c~nsider an amendment to thQ '~tree~s and Higteway:: C'irct~-
lation Flement of the Anahei:n GA eral P lan ar~d to considzr
accc~.s ana airculatian .in che Santa Aha Canynn.
Flann~ng Supervisor L~a: McDanie- noted for. the Comm,tsa.~ n that the purpc~3e ~f
the aniendment was to cansid~r a reviPw a~id upclate c,f the Ci rrulati ~~n E1Qment of
the Anahei.m General ~lan and a rrviai.o, ~f Exhibi.t No. 7 0€ the S.;nta Ana canyon
Road Access Point Stiudyo conaideratione which w~~u:~c~ include tho exten3~~n of z
:;econlary arterial highway (Fai.rm~nt Pou~.~!vnrd) snuth Erom LA °at~na Avenue acro:sa
the Santa Ana kive~~ to 3anta Ana Can~~on R~.:a; tho eskalilistzment of s general
ali,ynment for th~ hill~ide secondary hiqhwt~y woet of Mohler ~rtvQ b~r.ween Sa~nta
Ana Canyort xr,ad ;nd Canyon rim ltoad ~n tlis An~heim Y.ills Planned DeveloF>ment
nrear the raloca~.iun, a~'aition and updatinq of the Acceae Point Study Eor S~nt~
Ana Canyon Roe'. t~ acc....~imc+date Fairmont noulevarr3 anc~ ~~there to tho west be
considered; ~n3 a pre~xminnry circulation p1An fo.r loc;al p~ablic nnd Drivate
streetq s~utherly ~f Sant Ana Canyon Road betwe~n Ar_aheia~ Ilille Road And "~o)-ler
Dri~~e wae proposed, although local atreot circula~ion wne r~avor conaider.ed on
th~ Ge:~eral Flan bator~~ and what acaff ~.~ae pr.op~~ing wem ~o euqqeet lucationa
~oz LOCd~ ~~xeets bACause the mrea was eo comp],i~ar.ed thbt it daner~~pd furthar
c.~neidera* •~ .
~ •
MINUT[1S ~ C]','PX !'LJ~14N TNG CUMM I S:iICIN, "1uCCh 19 ~ J'17 3 7'3- 17`a
~f:NCRAL ['LAN AMENDMf.:NT Nn•__].~'~ IC~~i+Linuod)
AAai:~tanC Plnnner Rdl~~h Compton ruvi.ew~d Gon~•rel ~lan r~mendmPnf No. 125 ua L•o
ita i~cati.un ~~+nd dar~cr•iptic~n, nc;k.ing thRi: it wee borAered on ~.he hUnt t~y Mc~liler
Driv~, nn tt,~~ eaut.h Uy Cany~.~n Rim Road ln the Anahoim 1111.1n PZ~nne3 Coinmu~~i.ty,
on th~~ wu~, t by Anahaim Hi l. za Ttosd, an~ on Lli~ north by I~a Pnlme )~v~n~•o t thaL• a
~~rtion c~f th~ arr~e hed rec.Antl.y been i.ncur.purated ii~tc rhe City by annexation
~ ro~•~~ud.ny~ known o.c the Mohlor. Dr1vc~ An~exarion~ CheC n t.opogruphy oi' ~he
ar.~~a ~~•~ri.~d gr~aL•ly, rR~~~ytr~9 from 300 to 640 =oat nf hil;~ and c.++nXone, wi.th
euverc-1 WAA}1t18 c~nd natur~sl drai.nng~~ c•~ureae on thr south eicia o! S~~n~a Rna
Cany~~n Raad to gontly slopit~~J tarr.~t.in beL•weon SnnCa Ana Cenyon Roa~ and thw
Rivereido Fr~aw~yt t.hnt_ r~ Chn present. L•lma amnll avoceuo yrov~e, far.ni~ic1, nnd
sin,yl.e-family homoa conoCi ru1:oc~ khe bulk of the ].and, ar.d wit.h c9ov~lopmEnC
proapuroe Uuilding i.n ki~~~ axe~ due, ~.n paxt, to en oco7amic imk~ala~n~e ru:,ulting
frum increa3ad l.~nd t.t+r and reduc~d fxrminy incomo, c~xculation of the aroa
was recominq crit:ical b. •e >~~v'nr.a.l. devaJ.o~ ~iont.s wore alr.~sdy bning conai~ered
at t:~e preuent time a~d s tnff ~1~~1 ~~~ld eer e,a of ineal:ings with cli.t.l:ur.r~r~t: devol-•
opera pzopo3lny tnc~ts on both 51de:~ uf S1~ ~te Ann Canyon Ron~d between Access
1'c~int 8 nnd Accer~s Pcint tl, whereir~ t.hoi2 .~cLendan~ acce~~ and cir~•iilation
p•roblams conatituT.e~i one of tt~e iaztjor nrea, uf coneornt that thc~ro were s~vnral
large parcele which w~or~ i-nmediakely nort}i of the Ana} oi~.~ Hil.la Pl.anned Devel.op-
menL• which miqht, in ~.he future, be subdivided and would need a circulat.ir~n ,
p~l:tern t.o adoquat~ly sorva themy and that a major cancezn expressed by tha [~'ir~
pFpar.tment was :hat ouriny tlio aummer n,ontiis much oP. r.hi~ eroa w~•~ conaiderc~d ~
very hi9aly ha7ardoue fire zone, and tt,ere wna lit~.le, if anu, pr_aviHian for
emer.q~~nry vehit:le circulation.
Mr. Cumpton notod Chal the projected aver ~ge daily traffic (Ab'f) could not hP ade-
~uately ht~ndl4d by the ~xieting str.eet synt~m in the ax~»J t.nat it was estimated
that without tho propoe,ocl Fai.imont t3oulevard aecondary highway cr.~.:e~.ng, s~5menta
of C:s~~eran°a Road, .Lmp~~~is] Highwt~y, Wei.r. Cr-nyon and Sunte Ar.a Cr~nyon Roads would
be signl tican ~1;~ overloo3ed in tl~,~ futu.re with vc~lumoa in nxces~ of 50,nG~ noT ;
that t~ e'Praffic E:~g.ineer h~.d e~timated an ADT ~~f 16,GU0 bo~we~n La Palmr~ Avenue
and tiie Rituryine Freewav - also 16,OQ0 be~ween L•he R1vNrs.lde L'r.aeway and Santa
Ana Car-yon R.~,1d, assuming tio interchang~ wiL•h the freeway and a3suming an inter-
c11ar~Sr>• with the .freewuy ~ these counts would be increased t~ 35,0~~) between La
Pa?.^~a Avenu~: :3nd th~ freeway and 35,000 betwesn the freQway and sanr.a An~ Canyon
Foad, ~tiereby s~.gnificantly reducing ADT ~~+~n*_Q ^•^• ~~r~ranza Rc.,:d, Tmperial
~lighway ~nd 4~lair Canyon Hoad; that a precise plan nf highwuy alignment for.
FairmonC Houlevard and upqrading of ~ald street tio a major hi~ ~~.vay claa:s.ific<<-
tion between Esperanza Road anc~ 3U00 feet northerly o~ Esperanza Road had be~+n
adoptEd by the CounCy ~~ Orange, wi~h construetioo schFduled for early 1973~
that t!~~ County of Orange recommAn~ied that Faizm~nt Bc+uleva~:d be Qxtended ~outh-
erly to Santa. Ans~ Canyun ~oad as a primary highway on thei~ MastA.r Plan of
Arteriat HiyhwaysJ and +`~at good planning prec~pts woul.d seem to reqnire atter--
Y.ion to these problems ~t thia point in time rather than waiting ~,ntil they
became almost insurm~~~int:ihle, ther.efor.e, staff Yiacl made a study ot th ~e pr~b-
lems and ;~ad pr.epared th~:ee altezn:te solutions to them, graphical~ ~ illu~trated
as Exhibit "A", Exhibit ''B", and Exhibit "C".
Mr. Comgton then rc~•~iawed tlie ~~~axious possibillties of the three ~ xtii'~its,
concluding by stating ch~~t it was ~he opini~n of. the Public Works ana Develop-
m~nt Service.~ De~ar.tments ~hat General Plan Amendment No. 125, amending the
Circulation Elemer.t of th~ Ganezal Plan, be amended and "ExhibiY. 7 of the Santa
Ana Canyon Road Access Pc~lnt Flan be revised to reflec`. the z-bove ..:Zanges azia
recnmmende:~ ~xhioit "71" as th~ a?.ter.native which would best serve the area's
nepds .
Mr. Jam~:s Liberia, ~720 r•:~~3t La Pa!ma Avenue, appeared hefore the ~ommi.saion,
noting his nrimary co:~ce rn a~ to a~cess points was 4he poss .,le elimination of
thE existiny Access Point 9 sin~^ he o~~ne.d pzope.zty on both sidea and they were
~roposing Y`.is f.or comme rcfal use, having already leased out a p~rtion for a
nurs~r.y, anc? if this access were e7.im~na*ed, it .~uld isolate t:hi~ propoaec3
aommercial use where it would have no ac,:eas to Santa ,Ana C.^nyon Etoad. in
addition, the pro~used alignment of F~ir.mont Boul.evard would also leuve a sr al?.
corner of his proper*_y virtually useless.
Com~~issione ~ Row~and inquired t~,ow this conc~rn appl.ted to Exhibtt "A" s whereupon
Mr. Liberio r~tated that at least one access should bo provided to Santu Ana
Canyan Romo fr:,m his pr4perty, particu2arty from the commercial parcel, ai.nce
if acceae werE~ not a.vailable, the ~iursery wou~c~ ~e out of. businessr and that
~ ~ ~
"!J-1d0
MINUTI;~, CT'PY Pz~ANN:L~~'" ~UMMISSIUN~ MAlch L~), 197:i
CTNE;RAI~ PI~AN AMT:P UML•'_N9'~NO. 125 (Cont.~.nuucl)
Mr. Whizin hcl~od to hova a~iothez commor.cic+1 parcal in the~G ttY.EltYr a~~~j hc~ wae
hopin~ thc axtoneic~n o~ Fni rmc nt F3oul~vard wo~-ld be pro.~~:~ct.o~f alon, ~~ru~~~~r.ty
llner, ra:.hnr. ~han nn the, ..xhibih de~~icted.
Mr. Rnymond Mn~~+{Ln, 1.;15 Riviora Urivo, Snntn Ana, H~penred bc~[oro the C~~~~'nis-
yion anc~ r+tnta~i ~~~a': tie and hir~ urothwr ~~wnr~d n parcul whf~xe new A~:cess I',~i,~' `a
wan proposod o~~ ~Itibi~t "A". which wne a very yooci pl.an for t.he majorit,y o tiie
pr ~crty ~wnc~r i n C1ie aroai tha~ ii ~nd hi.3 ~rather hud wor.ked their orange
grovc: sinr.e 1~~ •;s, and nl• c~no timn th~xe was a f.cuil• ~"..and nt the corner. whc~re
~,:he acces3 poi~~~ waa pro~osed, how~ver, ,inc~~ S~ntt~ Ana CanXon Ftoad bocame t+
d:ividad hiyhw y, thoy had +lbad nn accas4 fo~ '.hree h~~mAs eervnd by ~n ~+cceas
fur.thr.r down ,~nd lacntad ba~_woen Accr~s Poinr_~ ~ and 9t thut th~ properry oas
westcrly of Canyon Cafo who7r Gherci waa a sm~ll t:ri.-nglu~ thet hit~ brothor had
livrsd iri th~ tt~m~ eir~co 1~~0, r.ai~ing orangoa ui~d avocadoe and s~l.l.ing Firewo~d
a~ tt commorcial venkur~+ far c~ l~ng tim.~t ~+na ~hat thoy would nre,£9z accese ars
~-asentad an [:xh ib~.t "A" .
Mr. IIob Roor, 1~~1 North Ntsrboz~ soulav~r.d, repr~acnt.ing the Mazk I]:I F~omos,
davel~pc~rc~, appeate3 Ucfore tho Commisbion and ~ltat.od lheC ~1lternetive "A"
appeara~'. to ba the ~~io thaf: wo~ld be~t aarve the aroa, thQrc~foro, thoy wer~ in
favor af ~:hat al.ternativA.
Mr. Mc~lvin Nj l ler, ].800 L' 3der.a V~.sta, I~'ullerton, a~peared Uc~fore the Commission
and noted hi pr~~perty wae~ suuth o1' t:Y~e Mur:~ile.~ pr~pdx'ty, and despite tt~e maps
on tl~e ~~all, he hacl a pr~.vate road tyx~ough th~y Ma.r.sile property to Access Poi~.,.
8a on Al.terr~ativo "C" t that ttiis was the only a~cesa from hia property to Santa
Ana ''anyon Ruad; and that he wou~ d like aomr~ co~is~deracion for acce •s since he
had a deeded easement wlhich did not ~how on any of the maps.
C:ha~.rman :eymour. noted that if t4r. Miller's acce~4 were taken away, this weiild
tak~ a ri7ht r~way from hi-n, and i.t w<~uld appe~~l: that the City might hav~ to
purchase ''~e prupcrty.
Mr. Mill~~: noteu t.hat the `,atitu Ana Valley 'rrigation Canal was between his
property and Smnt.a t;na Canyon Road, and he had :r,aintrsined a cc,ncre' ~ridge
across the carial, and if anotkiar access were proposed, he wou].d h~~~: L-n re-
establ.ish the bridgc~, !'h fore, some cun~ideration wou13 have to be qiWen to
that problem a'lso. jn 3ddition, he would like to knrw ~hat ~>xov'sion aas made
f.or drainaqe o~ water in rhis area tu ctreets wince the water. only went aawr~-
hill, and fron },av; nq viewed th~ plan, il would aF~pear ttiz.t streets r.an both
up and uown, and i~ wo~sld be very dif£ic~~1t to put a.~y drainage there~ and L•hat
he had alrc.ady Urought this to the attention of. the City Enyi~ieer. E'urL•hermor.~:,
the An~heim Hills developnent had created a great deal of runotf arid wa~; causing
a 9reat deal of siJ.t on his prapert}~, and some forin of flood control should f.>e
escablished in t~7~3 area; therefore, he ~~~snted sone consideration by the City
regarding that. wherein eve.rybody would be participating in tbP fl~od ~o..trol of
the atreets in tha*. area.
Mr. MilJer, in respunse t.o <.•r,uesti~ning by the Commiesion regardin~,t ,~btaining
flood co~ntrol fror~, Anahaim Ei.`.tla, stated tnat this runaff ::rme down from a crag
on ~ahi.ch Ant-heim Hilla t.ad ptaced sp~tlways to the canyon, creatiny a con:~ider-
able amou~it of watar coming ento his pxoper*~~.
Mr, Mil.ler th~n noted his pro~eerty ~ras ?.ocated on Acce~s Point 8a on Exhibit
"C" , anci the red line on ~aid exhi.bit was his road.
Chairman 5eymour r~queste3 =hat Mr. McDaniel atte~npt to answer some of the
con~~erns expressed by Mr. Miller~ whereupon Mr. McDan~el stated Chat he did r,t
knoa how relocation of the hridge would be han<'l.ed, bur. if the property devel-
oped to tha south and th~ SAVI Canal v+ere u: d as a ruadway, the bridge could
b~~ reloc~ted to the west of where the street •>uZd bp oroposeds that concern
~xpressed as to a drainago plan, Cnis was a m~.re complex aroblem, and st~ff hau
talKed with the developer. of the proposed tra, ~ and kiad consu:.ted with the City
Attor.ney and the Engineerin~ Div slon, howeve-, no decision had been reached a~
t,o how drainaa fe~s would be ~~solved, b~~t c. ~velop .ient of tne property wauld
requirc cot~etructian of a pj.po i~~ the existir~q channel, oz there might be an
acreage fes with peop7 ~ above b~iilcling a cha~:nel at a lt~ter d~te, but thla would
not be decided until later. hav~ever, it did not a£fect the aocesa point consider-
atiun thia 9ate.
~ ~
MINUTI:~, C:i'CY PI.~ANNING CUMMTSSIqPi, M~rch 19, 1973 ~~-~~~•
GGNCRAL PI.AN AMENC~MisNT N0.~125 lContinued)
Mi. kiurvay Pen~o, 30~t C'olli.n~z Av~nue, N~wport ~~euch, np~~arc~d beforc+ the Cc:mmi~a-
e~ion and s~ated he own~~ prop~~rty Ad'}oin~riy th~ Marsilo propert~l, having it for
d numUrr oL• yoare; tnat he hi-d ondq~-vorod tc~ d.~vrl.<~p the propazty, but winco
they h~+d no ar.ccs~s t.a c~llll:d Ana Canyon Roud, lt: ~vae virtunll.y ienpoenible '..:
~I~•~c~lop, now~ver, ~taff. hdd aom~ u~.• with P7 ~ri "A" which would nervo t:lie cirenteat
numbor c~E pcoplQ in the uran, not only hirz k~ioper.ty but ot.h~:re in L•ho nrQa~ t.",nt
r.oncarne o£ Mr. Ml.ll.er wc~re quita e probJ.ein, <<nd thd ad;~o:lniny pl:opnrty o~~nora
rocogriizod thiR oasomont and eomu rccummodatiun would hav~ to be made for h~.F~
{.nt~roat ln tt,is, thorefor~, al.l pr~ ~orty ownars nhou.icl cvo~era~tc~ to 3AH thnC
Mr. Mi7.l~.r wauld nat b~e landlackr.~.
Mr. Roc~ Mareilc, 20432 Senlr- Ana Cany~n Road, appeai~~d ~ ~~rc the Commisei~~i~
nnci stt~tod that vrhi.ic lif.t~ prupert!~ had been ~ar.t of ho Countf ot Oranqe, t}ae~Y
hc.~.~ been l.andl.ocke3, hownvQr, B~.CIC^ tho prupo:~ty hac. been voted int~. tho City
of Anahoim it would appear now thirne weL's apporring ~o h~~ goiny in h.ho right
dir.ection.
Mr, rred Wood<<rd 2134Q htohler Dr.ive, 1ppeared bofor.e thE: Comn~i.es.ian ~3nd rtatod
he reprosente3 thc~ Sxnt:a Ana Canyon Prop,~rt.y Owntra Ansociation, aiid tliey wc~r~
ln favor ot Al.tornativ~ "A".
Chairman Seymour noted ~hat Lt wuulc~ ap~ear only one reraon 1 t?ear~ ' to uc~ .i i~
opponition and that would be Mr. LiLerior whereupon blx•. I~it-~rit atated ho was
noc in oppoaition h~~r rn1.t his ~?roperty should ha~~e some .~ ~r-d uf ac•cag~t and
that ral•her than cutting acz~o~o hi~ propert.y with the proposed I',.ii.rmor.t Boule-
vard alignmont, that it foll.ow the prap2rY lir.es to elimi.r.ate rreatiny s~~aZ].,
unacceptable j~aXCN.~9 of land~ and that he s not in o~position to tha Access
Point. Study so lanq a~~ the dccesa E~resentl, servin<~ three parr.e ~ s vras maintained
since he also proposed 'chis f_.x' commFrcial use beca~~ee t,he zuni~ ~~~~~~ t~h~ pru~,~3rty
h~-d been commercial wh.i.le in `.':e Cour~ty~ and this in~olved appro: t.mately 20 acres
of land wt,lch should have s~ome accesa tu Santa Ana :Anyon ~oad.
Mr. McDaniel L-hen r<~vi~wed an exhibtt wl;l~~h was proposed to as:~.ist_ the Commia-
siot~ and inL-erested peraons in the proLlems preacntecl, noting that the three
areas deli~eated in red, the one to the extreme we~t, w~~ the Anaheim t~i.lls
commercial property, anr~ the other two were at the east andwere divided into
three owne cships, 3nd the ].arger tr.iangle was a~tually t~ ~ pieces of property
with only one '~avi.ng access to Santa Ana Canyon Road directly below Access
Paint 9, and c.:e of che. pRrcels would ;iave to have an access eaeement throuqh
the smaller parcel at Ac:.ess Point 9j that the commer.ci.al pazcel to th~ east
did not h~ve access to a desigtated access point, and thi:a situati~~n existed
c~.~rrently v~hile the property r~as still in ttie County - al'-hough the oroperty had
be~n in the pro.;e~s of beine~ annexed to the C3ty of Anahe ~, they had not
ficia:lly became par~ ~f the cityt and that th~re was n. quarantee tYiat this
groperty woulc: be zoned commercial'ly when ir. beca~,. • paz,: o~ the City of Anaheim,
although tne City tried to apply comparable zoniny o.~hich ma ht mean cor.-mercial.
Fur.thermore, Exhibit "A" served more peopZe, and then rcviewed the prcpo3ed
access points wh Le deletic~n occurred anci what arPa~ would best be serv~d.
Mr. Rouert 5andoval, 20632 Santa t~nu Cany~~n Road, st.ated he had recently ;pur-
chased ihe nnrsery pXOperty, an~3 if acc.ess were not afforded him, t:his would
put h~.m aut of business~ wh~reupon Mr. McDani~l stated th~_L• if Exhxbit "A" were
adopted, it was true Mr. Sandoval's accesa would be removed and he wuuld have
to obtain an easem~ t throingh the property to tlie west rather than the property
frorc~ the west i-avft~y to qet the easen~ent from Mr. Sandoval, howe er, he did not
knoN irom an enginePring atanc~point whetlzer tempor~~y access would be approved
unti.l ~uch time as a dif~erent access could be pro~ided for the;e propert-iea.
e:r. Sandoval inquire.i what woul~l happen if the prop~r~y owner to the WP.Rt, did
not grant this easement.
Chairman Seymoix~ noted that Mx. Sandoval could either succeasfully naqotiat_q
an easement o': obtain a temporazy acc~ss to Santa An3 Canyo•~ Ro~d until some
future s~crest accears would provide him with an alteznative; that the Commiasion
had to conaider all propertiea, and no matter rchere an acczss point wa~ pZaued,
someone would r~ advernEly a~feeted, therPfore, the Commiesion would have to
plan whicl•i would hurk the 1ea~t -umber of people.
~
~
~
MINUT':S, CI`I'Y l'I~ANNING COMMIS5IUN, Mt1Yr•h ly, 19'13
C;[:NL~RA[, PI~AN AMFNnMENT NO. 17.5 (ront.~.nu~d)
73-1t3~
Cummie[~toner AI.LI'PCI ir.quirad ot stnf!' whethn. ar~y aonc~ider.etion had t~~een giv~n
to e fr.orit~9Q r~o~~d ndjnrnnt to Suntr Ann Cr+~~yon Rc~adi whera'upoii P4r. McDanio.l
at.ated it would hav~~ to be 3~0 fec~t Erom '~artil:a Ana Canyon Ruad ko t:he oouth,
but nat t~a ct true frontAqu Yorsd ndjn.:~nt t~~ S~-ita Ana C:t~i~yon Roaci, howc~vor,
t:h~re etlll ~~a~ ~~.la "~+ritu Ann C'+~.~yon Road wliich sF+r~~~~~d ns n fruntage raad ~oL
Csx~yon Cnfe tha~ coul.d u.• ~~~~~~~1 fr.om Acce~s Foir~t- 9;~.
Mr. Liberi~~ note3 L•hat ~.~Ld Santa Ana Ceny~n rtoad wa~ owned by th~~ ~Lat~, and
Mz. Sdndaval. woul.d hctvo to obt~in rs '100-fon'~: ea~em~nt acro~u the pr.operty t~
the wg4C.
Mr. FlcnuniF~1 notod that steff had chQCked th~ '~arting m ps and ~hc~ propcr:ty
which Ptr. Liberi.o c~poke of was not zonad commercially. C'ur.t}~armoro, nlthough
old SnnCa Ana C.anyuzi Raad wnA owned presantly by thc~ 5 ate Dlv{ni.on nf Nighway~,
it wuulc] be turned oveY ek~ortly to the City ~f Anaheir~ , making it r~ore f~asl.bl.e
to u~c 'he o1d ror.d for tempornry t+cr.Qes.
Commissic~i-er Guuer nnt~ed that tho Planr-ing Commia~ion had received a lc~tt~r
from the County of OrAn~~ Planni.r~g Commisr~ion, h.owever, he did not know wh4ther
tsction ahould be te',cen on he Ge~ier~l. Flan Amendm~nt.
Chairman S~ymour n~tod that stufP had in£~r.~nod the Cummission tlyat Y.hf.s was e
situation wherc~ ane arm o,: the County did not kr~ow what L•he other part ~f. the
County was ta~king abouL• since st.aff had had cuntacts with the Qrui~ge CuunL•y
Ro~d Department.
Mr. McDaniel noted that there was corr,aspondence on file from Mr. Zuun, Divloion
Engineer of the Oranye County Road ~epartment to PuY~lic WorkS D~.rector P~.eraall
+,vhicb was reud by Mr. :rlcDaniF1 (cc~,y ou file) . Furthernrre, ir his converaa-
ton with Mr. Sackett and Dic•. Dickers~n oP tha OranSe County Planning DepflrtmAnt~
the letter which was subm.ltted appeared !:u be in error.
Commiasioner Rocvland r,oted that Mr. Sacke*_t was the Orange C:ounty GLeenbelt
C~ordinator.
TH1' HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commi.~sioner ~le :bst nnted that he fel.t due to ':he development t!:at was taking
piace in tF:e area, particuYarly .in Sar.ta Ana Ca~lyor.; it was imperative t :t the
Commiss.ion conRi3er c;irculation and whether ~irculation was ta3:er. ove.. the river
was one thinn that could be expensive bur was ne~e~saryt that many of the ranch-
ers 1~~ the thia ar.ea had been lancilocked for a number ~f yeara while under the
iurisdiction of the County, and the Ci~y could at leasc get ctrculati.on down to
3anta Ana Canyon T.'oad, which was a start.
Chairzcan Seymour r.c,ted th ~t the Commission had exprasscd the opinion many ti~ ea
that Anaheim Hi11_ Road was one of }1ia longest cul-de-sa~::~ in the world, but
nuw these ~roposed c~~ange~ would tnean having a way to liave a second access out
t~ 5anta Ana Canyon P.oad.
Commi~sioner Herbst noted that one of the tracta that the ~~`..Y had laoked at
lately wo~ild have been bisected bg Fa~.rmont Boulevard when ~..~e st.reet vraa pro-
jocted acrons the river, hav,~evar, this tract would not be finalized untll tho
precise alignment of FairmonL• Poulevar~ waff established.
Commissioner R~wland noted that although the access points to San+~ Ana Canyon
Road might be limited for aome pragerties, the expoaure to Santa T...a Canyon Road
still exiatQd a;~d th~re was aufficient f.rontage in the ~0-%~cre p<<rcel of Mx.
Liberio to make an alternat:ive access for a reasonaaln_ lancl use.
Commiasioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC73-60 ar~d moved for iLS paasage
and adoption to adopt and recommatid to the C{ty Council a~doption oi GEnezal
Plnn Ampndm~nt No. 125, Exhibit "n", amending the Cir~ulation EJ.ement ~f thd
General Plan+ amending Exhibit 7 uf the ~anta Ana Canyon Raad Acceee F'oint
Study~ and refleccing chang~e that would provide local circulation tc thP arna
south of S~snta. Ane ~anyon Road between Anaheim Hills Road and Mohler Dri~~.
(See Res~lation Book)
~ ~
MLNUTCS, Cl'fY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAr ' 19, 1~'73 73-I83
GFNERAL YLAN AMliNDMEN'T NO_. 125 ICotttl.nuc~d)
Un roll ca.l.l the toreg~>ing reeolutio~l aaq paeaud by the tollowiny voto:
AYF:S: CUMMIS3TONf'F':~: A11rWd, rarena, Gau~r, Herbet, Kaywood, Rowl~+nd,
5eym~~ur .
NC~E ~ : c'OMMISSIONt;RS: Ncnc .
ARSEIV'Pt COMMISSIO'AI?RS: Na~~e~. ,
VARlAN^G NU. 2483 - FUk3L,YC HLARING. NA~~C)LD ANU ri1~TCE GR~GG, '~'957. Mann S L ut,
~~ ~~ 3rvine, Ca. 92664, ~~wnarsv~ ROE~~RT GUM@IN• .~925 ~Jorth P~]c~
Verde Avenuo, Long .tie+acl~, Cn. 90815, Agdnt~ roqu~9tinq
perin.taeion L-o RS~PABI,xSH A M~DICAL 4t"N'TCG F'ACILI~rY o~i proporty clescribed ae: An
1r~eha-ped parcol c~f land canaist.ing ut appra~• ~ mataly 1.5 acrag, having ~Xn~~t~E14ps
nP app~oxi.mnt~ely 147 feot on the norkh a;.~o La Palma Avonue ar~d 147 feQt on
the enat 3i.de of Magnolia Avenua, and boinq L~s~atc~d Appr~ximate].y 150 fee~ nor.t'~
and oat~t of the nor.thoaot cor~~er of Lh Pal.ma and Ma<7noJia Avenuey. Proporty
~.resently c].a5: ~ fiod M-1, LI~HT .LNDUS'f~.JAL, ?ONR.
No on~: appeared in ~ppo~ition.
Althouc•h the Re~port to th-~ Commiosio~i was not zead at the public haarinq, :it in
r.eferrP] to and mad~ a part of i.he minuta~.
Mr. Henry Schultz~ 292~i Pa.lo Vorde F~vonuo, Lon<~ Beach, appoared befor.~ tllo
Commin ~ion repreaenti~,g i:he ayent for tha psti'Cioner and ~t~`~ted that they pxb-
posec' to es::ablish nedic;~l facil+_ty and p].e-ns submitted ex~-~ede~1 the reyuire-
ments of the M-1 0~ -1 Zone; thnt tr ~ e would be +~ commerci al us~ in the M-1
Zon~st tnat they pro~ ~secl ta use this L~x a iainily hexlt:h pz~~~ram to be loeateci
in Anatieim; that the existing nor.th alley ~a~ a nakural. buff~z' between the
Qxi_~ting M•~1 and the propoea].r Lhat th~, prok~~ad ux~~ v~ould be the best utiliza-
t.ton of tho prr~perty; tllat Wic, ; Fu•rni+_ure Company was located to the norCh,
ar.d this war~ a commercial sst in tho M•-1 Zone~ Chat t!~e project• erigineer for
*hia developr rit was availab 3 to anewer :~ny technical questions i and t}iat L•he
conditiona sc:i-. f.orth were ar.ceptable to them and the~~ would comply with them
if subject petition taere approved.
~riiE H£ARING WAS CL7SED.
Commisafoner Herhst n~ted tha.. it was hia understanding that a similar type
development wa? locat~d elsewhere j whereu}~on t4x. Schultiz stated t:-ey had four
others which h.:r~ ec~ual in size.
Commir~sioner Herbst further not.ed that ~s].thoug:~ tYie parking prcposed was tn
exceas of Codc parlcing requiz•ements, '~hP Commiasion had found that -ne3lcal
£acilities or medicaJ. office~ required rnore than normally r.equited parking
spaces in ~ither commerci~l ar industriaZ uses.
Dtz. Schultz replied that it would take a number of ,ears to build up this
facil? ty t~ :naxim~~m c~se ~f t.he parking area.
~'amtnicsioner Herbst noted +:hat wher. the CcmmiR~tion consi..'ered anfl revi~~wed
plans F.or medicat otfices, o:~c of. the priinary conr.ern~s waa whether or. not
adequate: parkin9 was being groviciedJ whereupon :4i. 5chultz ststed thac ik t,a~i
been their exgerience that tliere would re six patients per doctor, or 36 per
ur.i.t, or in tY-is case 72, and it waa tneir experience in other eimilar develop~
ments t.hat they razely reached the ma~cimum, whi.le at the preser ~ time thc:y t~ad
a.,ly five dcetors .in pach unit. In addition. they had beet~ c'ted by i~)sahinqtor
and Sacramento aa to r.heir m~dacal facil.itiy method of operati~n and had p~tsaed
all typea of on-site tests by these au~horlties• ':~at t.heir la.i«scaping u+auld
be one or the things that they ~iould emphasize~ and that they felt this pro-
posal w~uld be a very attractive addition tc thd City of Anahein:. In ~ldition,
there wae on?y one other facility in the Cour.ty of Orang~ and LhAt wr.~ :ln
E'ountain Valley.
Commissioner Kaywood Affered a mot.ian, secande~d b~+ Commission~x Farano and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Plannir~g Commis~ion, in cunrect~OTl with an exer~Qtion
aeclaration atatus request, fii~d~ r~nd determi~ies tha~ ~e proposat would have
no nigni~'~cant environmental impact, and~ thereEore, ~commends to the City
~ouncil that no Envi.ronmental In,gact Sta~`_eman~t '~3 necgeflary.
~
~
~
MINU7'F;S, CITY 1'I,ANNiNG COMMiSS70N, March t9, 1~)73
VARIh.NCE NO. 'l4(~3 lContinued)
73-1R4
C mmis~ionvr H~!rhe~C ofxOrt~d Paeolution No, PC73-E~i, and movc~d for ite paRr+a~~o
an~i aUoF~tion to grant PeLilion for. Vnrianc~a No. 2483, aabjoc'~ t~ cc~nctit.ionn.
(aQP kQBql.l.lt'~I ~Il f~00~C)
On r.oll ~:all tY~e tor~qolnq resalut~.on was pamHed by Ghu fol?uwiny vato:
AYE:it CUMM7` IONERS: AlIY'nrl~ F'aZa~~.~, C~auer, IlFrbet, Knywood~ Rc~W).and~
.;aymaur.
idOES: COM~1L:;5I~NP:I<u : Nono .
ABSENT COMMTSSI~INCRS: Nonu.
VArtIP~~CF N~ 248b - PUDi,IC HLARING. JADIES WINGLFtT, i424 .7amen Way, Ar~e-heim, Ca.
"+ 92f301, Owner~ requesting WAIVF;R ur (11) MIN7MUM STUL YARD
ANU (t3} MY[JIML1M EtF.J~+R YARD TO CONSTI:UCT AdDITIV.'S 'i'O AN
EXIS~ftiNG SINGL,E-FAMILY RESZDEVCE on proporty describc~d as : A ract:~~~9ulsrly~
ahaped purcel. of lanci c~r~oi~ting of ap~zoximately .23 acr~es, h~ving a fror~tag~
nf apF~iuximatoly lOQ fecat on tho oouth siae of .7ames Way, having a mAximum
depth of ap~roxi.mately l0A feet, and boinq l~ca~ed approxi mate.~y 2?5 ~eet ~~ zs t
of Che center.lino of Lanc~+r Dr.ive. Property ~ra~ently cla9sifi~d Ft-u, ONL'-
FAMII,Y 1tESIUENTIAL, ZONE .
1Vo one appe~reci iri u~.posiL•tc~n.
Although the Report t.o tl.e Commis~+iun was not read at th~ public hearinq it !.s
refarred to snd made a part of the minutds.
Mr. James Winaert, the p:tition~r, appenred before t}ie Commisr~i.on an~1 tatgd
beaause of th6 sizo ~' hi:~ fau~.-ly i.t wa3 necessary to ~dd another bedr.oom and
family room, and in oider tu construct adequat~ size rooms, zt wauld I,e
necessary to Fncroach into the minimum 9ide ~-nd r.ear yards~ and that h~~ had
discussed .`.his with his nei.g~bors anci had ~igned letters from his adjuininy
n~ighbors indicating no o~aposit-ion ko thF prop~sed addition.
t:om.ui~siener Rowlai~d lcft the Council. Chamber at 8:5~ N.m.
THIs HEARING D7AS CLOSED.
Commissi.oner F'arano offereci a motion, sec~nded b,y Cummissioner Herbst, and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commi~eion, in cennecti~n witti an exempti.on
declaration st.atua request, fi.nds and determines that the pxaposal would l~ave
no significant environmenta3. i.mpact, and, therefore, recommends to the City
Guuncil that no EavironmenL•al Impaat StAtemen± is necessary.
Commisaioner A.llred offe.red Resolution Nn. PC73-G2 and moved far itis pasgage
and adoption to qrant Petition for Varit~nce No. 2466, ~ubject to canditions.
(See Rosolution Book)
On r~ll call the foregoing re~olution ~-~s passed by t:he Pollowing vote:
AyFS ; COMttISSIONERS : Allred, "r'arar-o, Gauer, tierbst, S~ymo~X.
NdES : COMMISSIONERa : Kay~r~od.
pgSEN'i•: COMMISSTbNERS : Rowlan3.
COVUII ONaL USE - C~: •, . zNUSD P"'iL1C FiFARIDiG. ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PL12!•4I'P N0. 1375 ASSOI.:IATION, c/o J&mss W. Mr.~-lv~n~ 1111 Wast La Palma A~~:nue,
'~~~^ Anah~~im, Ca. ~26a1, Ot~neri requesting permiaeion to ~XY.~NU
AN FX?.STING HO5PT'TAL AND TO ESTA3LTSH 5PEC3:ALTY SNOPS
WAIVING (A? REQUIRED T~ANDSCAPI~IG, (B! MAXIMUM BUILD~NG HF.IGHT WITHIN 300 kRET
p~ P. 51NGLE-FANILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, (C) DF.RMITTED SIG'IS, AND (D) MAXIEIUM WALL
HEIG:~7' on praperty des~ribPd asx An irzegularly-shaped parcel of land consist-
ina of approximAtely 11.7 acrer~ ac tho northweat aorner of La Palma Avenuo a~-d
West Street, having front~ages of approxi~utely 91~ f~et c~n the north aide of
T,a Palma Av iue and approxima~ely 4U0 feet or, th~ west sido of West Street.
Propex~y wae c~n~iderpd provi~ubly under Rac~aesifir.ation No. 72-73~3A.
~
~
~
M1~1UT1•;`~, CI~1'1 PLANNTN~:, CUMMTEI~~ION, Mtxrch 19, J.973 73-.1k35
CON~ITL'JN~L USf: i'CRMIT Nb., i3'1~ ~Co~iti.nua~)
Sut~~cck pc~ 1t.l~n wae c.ontinued Pr~~m lho mcNeiny ~F March 5, ].973, to e11Uw ~~hc
potitic~iic; t:imr, to coneummato purchav~, of ~he roma.i ~.ing two ~ingl~-•family h~~~~~~b
in the ~r~ t primur~ ly being affocted by t_1•~e prupuo-~ed oxplneiv<< nr ae un al.tr~r-
naCive tc~ ,~locate thcA 7-t~Lory atrn~•~uro to minlm.t~e th~ he.iy!~t ot''ACC on L•hr.
singl.c~-family hrmoe.
Chairmnn 5eymoi~ n~~tad that suk>;}e~-t: pet•it'on hr+d beon r_ontinued from th~• March 5,
1.~73 meoti.ny ! ,rdor tc~ a:.l~w timm £or tt~e petiti.oner Co conaummata H~~ ay -~~-
m•3nt tc pur.:htlae tho remalnirig singlc~femily roeid~n.^.oe or to revis~ ~ ne plunr~
in order r~~ relucate ~:no tow~r structura eo LhaL there w~uld br~ loea of ,~r-
i.mpact on tho sinqle-tami.ly homeE, and then inquired whethe~c th~ rlar ning
Co~rtmisoian wished to reopon the heari.ng.
Comm.isaioner Faxano inqui~•ad whether an,~ further infuz•mation wna ave~il~k,ic:
before hfl wt~nted ta decid~3 wn~~ther or not to reopen the heari.nc7.
After t'ur.thor diaouasi~~n among the Camm.teslon, it was dotszmined not. to reopen
tl~e hearing.
Mr. R~.chard Da].oy, reprosenti.ng the ~ro~~~rty owner o`' 111'l. t.a Palma C.'~•rcle,
indicated tha.t Althoe~gh the pruperty he rel~r+3sentad r.;~ ~..~ ~~9ldezed {~art of
thia petition, the p~atitioner_ did not ha~~e parmisai~~n fr~m the ownar for. thA
zoninq change.
Zoning Supervisor C',iarlos Rober.ts adviaed the C.oznmi.saion t:hat; prioz to publ.ic
hc~arinc3 bef~r~ the Planraing Commiasion on thr: roc].asaifir.ai:i~n and can~~itionnl
U$e permit, thc rAquest ~.a ~•clude anid Lot No. 50 in the ach~~ciuled pub].ic hear-
ing had been ~reaen~:ed to `i~.: Commiasi~n, h~w~ver, the Commieeion had deniod that
request, an3 *_he p~titioner then presetited thia same request to thc City Council,
wY~o had ~ieter.mined that it could be included, t~~wever, a condition of tl~o roclas-
s'lficatlon shou'1<9 set forth that the zoning would nc,t be effPCtiv~ until th~
l~o3pital h~d obtained legal title to the property.
Chairman Seymo~,r then requested the agent for the petitiones t~ bx•ing the
rommiss..on up tu ~ate on the progress of acquioi.tion of the L-wo lotst wl.ereupon
Mr. Drew, represe:~tinq the hosF.ita~., st.ated tt~at they had closed escrow o~~ one
~f tlia two homes, that being the home owne' h}~ Sunsel: Builders, and t;1e deed
,ad been recorded in the hospital's name a w<<~1: ago, howeve.r., the Anderson hom~
was atill in eacrow and no progress had be~~n maa~ i r. closinq the d~~zl .
Chairman S~ymour in~Lired whc~ra the breakdown occurreo; ~~~hereupon Mr. Draw
stated that the Andersong wux~Ced, ln additic~n to the purcY~~+re Qrice of $35,500
for t.he home, an adcittional 52,500 far atto,ney's fees~ that tk~e home was ac-
q~i± red withi.n a,year prior to cond~mnation oroccedinys, at which t.ime tr.~ y~ai3
$2.,500; and that although the hame was in escrow and Mrs. Anderson had ;igned
the escrotv papers, '.. Andersori had ~till. not aigned them.
Yr, Ro. r L 'n of Rutan & Tucker, attorney re~resNnting Mr. and Mxs. Richard
Anderson, a -ed b~fore the Commission and otated that Mr. Drew had misinform-
od the C~inm ~n at tY~e last public hoarinq by ~tati-.3 ti~~t tY~ere wae a probZem
in escrow, 1,~ .ver, it was his cli~nts' apiniai. that tt,e Sunse.t Bullder.s' and tl~e
Andersone' p.roper.tzes wer~ being han3led by Dave Monroe of Col~lwe~l, Br~nkerr that
the roepita]. had filed a condemr~ation aotlon ~n ~.~~.is case, howPVer. 'they later
~band~ned this condemnation a:titC)Il, and by statute~ 'the party ac;ainst whcm this
condemnati~n ~ction Ilad beeii t~sker, waa c~n*itled bv law to recover attorn~y's
feea and covrt actiar~ to these f°_es beaa~-~=e of the condemnation acticnr that
Mr. Monros rapc-atedly 3sid ~h~t tlie r~ttornoy's £ee3 would ~e considerea se~a_. sto-
ly fram tha land purchasej that Mr. Gilman oE Sunaet Builders eigne3 hj.s escx•ow
with the i ent as stated by a letter from Mr. Monroe that the attorney's fees
were ~epdrate fro:n ~he sal.e oE the house, but from a~- intarpretation 1~y Mr. Dr.ew,
vrhen t:he p+~pera WE..e aigned thr~uqt~ escrow, they weuld be waiving their righte
to reaovez th,~ att~rrsey'~ feeaJ that it wss his c:lients' position that at th
tima tha egcrow inetructi.one wera signed, there was no mention made of kaiver,
pux~.~cularly since the staiuta roquires rec4ve;:,y -~F the+ feeai and t:hat was why
Mr. Anderaon did n~t sign the ea~.raw paNez~a aftc,z ti.Qy saw how the hospital
~ntendad to han~le the :~e px'oblom~ ana that Mr. Gilman ecstad )~~e w~ ,.Zd f.iqht
thie aut Ae a ae claim in courr.
~
~ ~
MINUT~S, CIT'i i'Z~ANNING C~`!•1MTGSTON, Mar~t; ~'~, 1973 ~%~-1gG
Cnt~DTTIONAL USG PERMI'P N0. ?.37°. (C'onCinued}
air. Lewiti fu.rther riotgd t.hat or~~4n tho Camm~se~ion in~+t.xuctod tt~~t this woul.a
hav~• tu be ~oetkled c.no w,.y ur thr OC2iti,i' t~lnro thc.~ r~~~ti.ri~nez' wou]d oither h:.•ve
to ~~ ~amm~te t-ha pur.chae~ cf l•ho r~zope+rties or r~locat~• thc~ bu~.lding~ he hrri
att •mk~ ed Lo rin+~lize this daal but refusod to e~ttle i.n lh~ m~nnez which Mr.
Dre~~~+ indi.cated.
Cnnirman Seym~ur natad thr+ at. the lae+t• mee~ting Mrc+. Andarson had nta+_ocl th~~Y
owncd the px'oper.Cy for twu years, therefore, h~ would a~s~.tmQ tilo home had been
pi~~~ c.•hiiAed i.r March " 1971.
Mre. Anderaon appearecb before the CoMmi. lon and aclvis~d them that the h~~me was
pur.ctiaead throuqh VA, which took ei.x to ei.ght woel:s t_o Pinal~.xe, therefare,
they uPfic+ slly nwnarl the hom~ arproximntel~r in May of 197'l.
Mz. Lewi« na*ad ~hat ~rior to ~he escrow reing c~.oned in L-he Anderec~n' o ncsmE,
M.r.. Monros liad offered $5U0 n~t. to cl~se tlla aor.r.ow, however, ~he Andersona
were li.ving in a motel and wa.ntad thc~lr ho~ne. I'urtlxemmore, Mr. Manroe stnCed
whon oi'Peri.ng khe 5500 t' ~r thQ pzoporty w~•uld be usQd for A park.ing l~,t~
Chairman Seymuur notc~d .hat the ~.n3rraona had rFS3.l-ed a$12,000 ge~in .in L•wo
yeaY'H) wtiereu~on Mr. t. wln et:~teu that the Anderr~ons wantacl to reaLiae the
commercial potential o' their. ~zaperty.
Chairmun Seym~~ur }~en Fcatpd thafi it M~ou].d appear the petitioner nad bAen un-
s~~~cessFui in consumm~ting an F3cruw, therc~fara, the other altornativF ~aas
roloaatian of the st.xu~t ~re .
Mr.. Urew stated ~t the architocfi had nisde a Y•eal effort to ~ry l:u re3.ocate
the atruc' ~e, aiiu this wsA r.eflect..:~ in ~.he du~plemens.al information sco th,e
Envirorme~i~a]. Tmpact Repor~. as was p~~inted out~ that there real].y wa5 no way
uf alleviatinc~ the pioblem on one rarcEl +~hxt it dicl nat magni fy i:he problem
an anothsz par~el; that ~he Commission had recommatided C--O zotiing f.or the
propez ~y, and this pr.~ ~ii u3~ would ne a reasonable and logical use of the
pr.op~rtf within th° ~. ~~.; ~Rd that the h~apital made a m~numental ~ffor.*. to
acquire the proFer.ty, ~nd tl~e Commissinn was awar.e of this.
Commi~sionAr All::ed noted that at the ].ast public hearing tt~e ~ommissian ex-
preased c~ncern zegarding the mi,nimum required lz~ndscape setback and the bui).d-
iny height.
Cummie3loner Herbxt noted that the attorney f~r thQ Anderaons a~lm~tted that the
~ropezty was commercial and 4_ht:•;~ were trying to aell ~hd propert; at a commer-
cial 1~rice, anc~ 3r~asmuch a~ chi.s waa their• intent, then it would b~ his ap~.niun
that :rae prop~rty no ].ong~r coLld be coneidexed r~sideritial and the height
limitation should rioL• be appl-cAble to this c+ne resiclentisl propert.y.
Commias~.~ner Herbst offer~~d xe~olution No. PC73-63 and moved for its passage
and adoption to g.r&nt Pek:~tion fcr Cond~..ti~~ Jse Permit No. 137~, in part,
denying wuivPr of the Miniinum landscaped ~ ~ack, qranting waiver of ths 6-faot
wall pr~poaed at t.:ie ~n~.s of the cul-de-c separating the rer~identill user~ from
~he commer.cial p~srki.~~J areaj that tho waiv~x nf ~e lieight limitu~ion withi~n °.00
£e t of. sir,g).e~fami.ly rea~clentisl pzopcrty was SLantpd as it pertained to the
one residence on Lombard Drive ai~d ahoL~ld not be conatruvd as eatat:~_3shinr, a
precadent f..~r. similar waivar9 af tree he.ioht limitat.iun within ~~~~ fQet of ~lnqle-
family x'eaidFnt~R]. p.roperty; that the waivar of the sdditi~nal fx'es-~tanding
signa +~aa grantod on the basi.3 that a stn~3le free-stand:.ng ai.gn was prr.p~sed
11ong tlte 'La Palma Avenuc fror,t~c~e and wa~ ida~tical t~ the ur.c al:rQ$dy _'ocated
.hQre~ whiie ~~her free-standing sigri5 were d3.rection~l sign9 lorated on thc~
intarior of the prnp~rty and crerc• nat iiitsnded tA be viewed from adjoining
atreetat and aubject to conditions. (See Resolution Pook)
On roll c:all the Poregoing r~r~olut~on was pa4eod by the follo~ in vot.e:
~~~S: COMMIS5i0NFR5: Allred, i~arano, Gauez, Harbat, Kaywoac, 5e;..~ux.
NOES: COMMI3SIUN~i~S: None.
ASSENT ~ CODlMISSION~RS • 4owJ.anu.
~
~
~
[MINi".P~.S, C'I7`Y I'I,ANN~NG (~L)MMISSTnN, M.ii.uli `~1, ~,y73
73-1.87
1tLPOkT~a AND - IT~M NO. 1
t:i,CUMMENUAT7UNS VARXAN(:E IvU. 24G1 (8ryan Iqduettiul Yr~perr.iee) -
~~-' ~~ ~ Requ~et f.or ter.mination - Proport~f locatna on Yhn
eac~t si~le of. ~f.ntc Co].lago l~~ulcvurd ap~.raxim~~.ely
32U Pe~t nurth af Vi.a Burton Sh.x~et.
7.onJ.ng 3u~'rvisor ~h~ri~n ttc~be:to ~icted ct-ak nubieck potitton hz~d b~csn c~n-
sl.dered eai-llei by thQ ~~l~+nning Commi~eion but ll~d bet~i: rem~~ved gr~~m the
aqonda Docambpt: 27, 19s2, at tha r~quoat of the petition~r~ anc- :•.:~nt t:he
p~;•.ition~.r. wae now requastinq k~rminatiore af the petj.tlon ~inc~. ~ evisec°
pl~na would no longar requira the vAriancc.
Commisaioner Farsno offdr~•d a motion, secanded by i:ommiseivner A1':r.ed and
MOTTON ~ARRIED, to torminfl~e a11. pxocoeclings a° Varianc^ ho. 2461 3incA the
petitloner no longar requirhd the vuriance with n~w plan~ submlt.t~~d.
TTEM NO. 2
CONLITIONAI, USE 1`Li2MI7` NUS. 7.12 ANf.~ 1349 - Reqtte~•1
for L•ence cor-etruction - Prope.rt~~ 1~~~~~ ter3 acrosa
tha alley from the former cl9aning osinblishment
locnted on the r.orth side .,f Lincaln P.venue b9tween
SunLa Fe a~rl "cpQ:ca Stre~etr3.
7,oning Supervf.sor Ct~arle° ~coerte: no~.ed th~ lucation of aubi~ct ~rogerky,
tha reque°t b~ the petitioner ur~dAr ~ond.i.tional. ilc~e Pormi.t Nu. 1z49 to per.mit
a car-lear~ing firm r.o al.low ut.ilization of the parkir~g areu ~ the P-1 2ona
granted under. Con;~i.ti~nal vye Permit N~. 712 for ndc~itionaZ p~rky.ng facilt-
tien and tu enc).ose t1ic~ parking a~~a with a chainlink fence to b~ l.ocked at
night; L•hat ~taff would requeat a~- interpretation from the Plai. ing Coinmisaion
us to whethe: tkse P-1 ?one would allow tlie type of p~rktng propuse3 by the
petitioner or wlie.tl~er this type oE par~.i .q coulc] be consi~ler.ed atorage, in
which event th: P-1 Z~ne would nat Ue appro~,r..ste.
Diacussi~x~ was ]zeld b, the Commi.ssion w'_ch ataff rc~,~c3ing the reqixest as to
th~ previous u~e that was establist;ed ~n the p3rY.ing aXea and what the currenti
petitiuriar. under C~~n~itiona: Use -cxmit No. 134'; inte~ided to mr~ke us . Qf i:he
property and i-eque~ted L-1~.1t Mr. Rober*_e zead the de~inition c~f the P-1 7one.
At thp conclusion, Cc.mmiesioner Farano offexed a motion~ seconded by Commis-
sioner Horbst and MoTION ~'~RRIED, to find and determine that thQ proposed u~e
af a lo} ~or park_ng purposes intenct2d '~~ th pe' i.t:i.oner under f:onditional ilse
Peranit No. ~ 349 wou]_d be storaga, an~ ~ F'-1 Zone ai d not pe_mit such a t+r~e,
thc.tefore, a cundi~.~onal use permit necessaiy to permit tl-e u3e. HowQ~ver,
final action :-'.ould be differed L•o Apri 1. 2, 1973 for furth~r infc~rmation.
IZ•EM NO. 3
VARIANCE ti0. 2267 (Midway 1•r.aller Sales) - I.~quest
for extension of r_ime - Property locat.ed at the
nort2iweat cornAr of Mi.dway ~rive and An~.heim Boulevard.
Zoni;:y. Sixpervisor Charles Rohcrta no*..ed tha.t th ~ petitioner was requesting a
one-yoar exten~ion of time £oz the usc: of a mob~.lehome as an office and to
permit ^ontinuad uutdaor service f'acilities~ ar:a that che ~ ~tlt.i.oner indica~od
there were no complainty reqarding thE existi.na atructureo.
Con,:~fasi.oner rarano inquired whether the Comma_Gslon had granted the uea allaw-
ing usc.d txr~ller:; or mobilehomea to be so1dT whereupon Mr. Roberts no~ed .:rat
tha ~ec~olution atated the petitioner was not. to disclay or sell any u~ed motor
veh~clea.
Corrissioner Her'~~t of recl a moti.~~n, aeconded by Commi.esianer Farano and
M0~'ION ;ARRIEU, ta cont:~nue consi~leratior~ of the ext _~~:; ion of time requea4:
for 7tIZ>AhC~ No. 2267 to the meating of April 2, 1973, in ard•~r that the
pet~.tionar might be p•resent ta anawer queations.
~~
~
~
MINUTISS, CI'PY PL'ANNINI~ CCIdMT.SaIODI, MttrcYt ].9, 1973
73-186
:N N O~ 4
.~~NDITIONAL UJE 17RRW1IT N0. 1361 (RObert Hall-
Maxda~Winnebag.~) ^ Property :~~ctttod on thc~ wost
aide of I~Q1'1CI1rg~AZ' Av~nue AouL•h ~f 'catfella Avenad
r,~~d ti60 L'eet nortli af OrangewooQ Aveiiue - RAqueat
f~~l: ;x1~provRl of plene ~or- the Wi.nnek.sgo motot home
aalvs and Flervico faa~llty.
2oning 5upervieor Charlaa Robarta notc+d tho or.etion of oub-;ect property,
previouR z~ning actian an the property ta ~~HtAblish an automobtle ~a.lee nnd
aoi•vico agency o~~ the no t.herly poz~t.l~n af the prn~,erty, d~-d the c:urrent
roqu9st for approval af r.ovi9~d plane to r.sr,.:~lseh a mator homa anlee and
ser.vic~ facility or- L•x~e eoutherly por.tiun v~' the propert.yt L•hat the propoa+~l
oziqina2ly preaentc~d ta the Planning Commir~nion indic+~tod three digtin~t
portion9, wlth the a~ih~~mubila ~eal~rahig ~n gorti~n 3. ~r-d us?~q ro~~-r.~an 2
Eox ~utom~bil~ ovexi'low ~+az•ki~g on an ~.ntorim baei.e, while Pr,rtion ~ on the
southwest enii was not projected for any deveJ.opmant when the conditional uee
p~;°mit was conc~ido~:ed.
Mr., Rubc~rta then noted that tha `lazda daaler~, (dr. Hall, wa~ now r~guaating
permiasion t.u devQlop thA souther].y p.~r.tion, aRino b~tt- Poi't~.~nts 2 and 3 on
tY~e plan ta 69.O~L~Sf1 the Winnebago mot~r hom~~ anles an~ 3~xvir,o faci)ity,
~,ith the front a~ea bHing use3 to diRplay the moto, hoir,es and s~toraqea pro-
posed to rlie rear for new vNhiole~ and th~~ae vehicles awaiting set~vicirag~
that the plans further ir-licateci a land~aape atrip 8~ feet wi.de~ was pr~poROd
ac3jacent to the Manchester Avenue PLJI.~age~ that a ti-f~ot mar.<~nry wall wae
propor~efl adjacen~ t.o tho south t~nd west boundarioc~ of the prap~ rty where
1S-gallor. ~r~e~ on '1.0-foat• center~s were propo~ed to be planted at said pr~p-
erty lines, heinq ~d;ja~-ent to twu mobil~home par3ca sn3 an E:-3 subdivi.aio~~t
thar_ the lettzr further indicated thr. aame conditiona ap~lic~r~bl.e to tha
Mazda dealexohip would ne oomplied with un th6se two portions~ tY:at in
~~~dition to tha requ~st Eo c approva]. of tho mo~or home eales and serv' -e
taci.].ity, the petitioner was~ also request~nq a.n additional Dig~ on the prop-
erty, which + ould be 36 foet h:lyh, L•he same hr.ight as was prc~. ~~~~~~ci F.or the
Mazc~a de+alersh'.p, and a sncond free-standir~g sign wouZd b~: pe.rmitt<?d si.ice
thE f.-antage of. the prc~perty was ~ver 700 fe~t, howc~vel, becauae of the
pror.ir~ity of tlie sign to residenti.al usos, the 36~foot heigt~t would no4. ao
pern~itted by righti and th~t the Committeion would wish to determine whetk~er
theae plans ~vere wifi.hin the i.ntent of ~he G'ommicai~n in their apprava:~ of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1361 to allow the est.abliehment of ~his proposod
facility wJrh tt;e ceq~ested signing as L•he ultimate us^ for th~~e tw~ por-
tions of ~Lbjec~- ;roperty.
C~mmiar~ionex tierbst inqui.red whether the petitionEr inte7ded to nruvide any
landscapiny in the front of tiYe ctisplay room.
Mr. Robezt tIal.l, developer of the Property, in3lca'ted that the h~_~ild~ng would
be e~evat.o3 2~i feet., howe~rer, h~: would r~qucst that. the buildii: ! cont.ractor
answer tl,is question.
Mr. Roberts noted t}~ere were phot~gr~phs submitted of a iacility r.ecently
completad in ancthc. ity.
Mr. Tohn Armstxor.g, rupr~~sen~.inq the builaing contractor of the proposed
facility, ~~pearad befare the Commisaion and staY.ad that the photograph sub-
mitted indicated the ma,:ner in which thio facility wa» a'lso proposed, except
that the ro~3f wo~ ~.c3 l~e slightly ~tifferent ~rom th3t of the Mazda dealeraliip~
and that although the pl~r,s dici aot ~nd'cnte a planter area, it was propased
to have one in thz front of the displav room since theze was adequate spacQ
fox• i.t schere, aRd that the Winnebago franchise presently in Santn Ana wa~a
proposed to be 1o~1*_ed in Anaheim where it wc~uld better sezve b~th communitfee.
Mr. tiali, ii~ resp~nxe to Commisaian queationing, stated that L•he purpu~e ot
presenting theae plans wrse t~ dotezmine whetk-er this rnat with *.he oriqina~
intsnt of thP Planning Commis~fon when Conditional Use Fermit No. 1361 wa~s
approvea.
Chairman Soymour inquired w~y the~ p~titsoner had not gone through the normal
channc~le ~f filing a petition and b~~ing co~-sidexed at ~a pub.lic hea.ring ~- was
there a ~ime prob).em?
~ ~
MTNUTES, CITY E~I.ANNINC C~MMIJSIpN, Mr~rch l.y~ 1~73 73-189
LTEPt N0. 4 (~:ont,inuell)
Mr. Nall xepa.i.ed that duriny tho pub~lc heeiing on the MaTda dea~lorehip, d:s-
cuPei~n wne helcl cc+qardir-g whech. wee Nlannod ~or the p~r.~:elb on whi~:h devalo~~-
manr plnne hrd no~: been eubmitte.9i that aC L•hat ~ime al]. ad~oinir.c~ proor,r4y
~wnare hed bAen notitie~, r~nd ool.y ~no p9r~«n owniny ~aropc~rty to the Aouth
hdc: eeV.ed the~t ehe Ei-foot •Hnll be pr~~vitied, which L•hey ~ropoH:•rl ±n t1-b
plunxt and thet eincQ th9 ~7ntire S-acro ~42'CH~• }1ACI be~n c~ne;i'~o~ed u`. ttio
pre~~ioue public hear.i;tg, aC which timo h~ h~D~ l~,ahG~j it wae hia i.~tunt tu
n~~e tha~ b~lence in thu futur~ tor L~c~ed~ion. ~ vrhicl~ salae, iL• w..s ere~urne~1
th~~+ ha~9 :.Aen kmkc~h inCo r,onaic9erat~on. F'~~rtlie--r~.~~re, he •~ea f~~•~~~ent'~,
oporeting t~naer nc~ leaeK Ak hia ~r~-pent ].ocatir~n whi.le bui.lding t~ a ntz~+c••
turA appro+rod urig.tnal.ly, ~n~ ai.:~~~ thc+ c:~n~rrckor [or thoir '.+ci.lir.;• w~ul~
alao construct t}~e facility now betAro the CommlRaior~, it wc d m~en n
~avinge of time and m~~na~ to buil~l t'~om ~k une time .
Commtasione.r Horb~t n~~ecl that Lha Commies!.~n etatod that. r.ree~ wer.e not
requi.re3 a~ong thc~ properry ].ine where .~o ~evelnpment w~r~ o ~curri.nn unti.l.
it dld ~ccvr, and this wae hbpp~nin5 eooner than expected.
Cammiasi~ner H.rTast off~red a-notion to approve plann aubmi.tt~ i for. tho
Winuebaqo metur home sa~es nT~3 9A1'V~CO fecility ea :.,c~ing p~~« of the ori.yi.n<<l.
plane c:onsider~d for Condii.i~nal Use 9ermit No. 1361, whl.ch would ba lucat4~d
on Portions 2 and 3. Commiac~i~ nAr t'dran~ Fec~nded t'.~ moti• .-.
~'urther disc~~seion wao tteld by the Cummis~+ioi~, wtth Commiae~oner Faranc
~t.atinq tbat ti. revlewiny tlia plnr~s, lie waa inl•erestAC7 in d~t~a~n•~.ining ~,i;~ re
tho ra~afr. fa.:iliti~a ~aould be locRted ~i~nce he wou.ld tiato ~~ r~ee any .• cther
changea in plana, snd that these planR :ndicnten th~ r.epair fa~3Zity £or ti-a
motor home~ would be facin9 towArd the mob~l.ehome park; where:ipon Mr. F~,r.motrany
stated Chat they would be serv.icing rr.ly new vehi.clea, mov+.r.q them o~~t as sc~on
ao ~hey were compl~~ted, and tt~at. th~re wc~a:3 be ~~ h~avy serviciny ar m~chani~
cal topaiz of motr.,xs.
Commi~siane• Hprbst then sttst~d that 1io winhdd t~ amend hi.s motion to in~luc~e
~:hat arey re~,~air work ~ropcaed to be dane un the motor hornes ahaZl be n: minar
nature only because the repair faGili.y was facing the mabilehome F~ ~~k; a.nd
that landsc«ping shall include re pl~-nt~r ai a which shs7.l be p:1cec in tho
front of L-he display building.
Mr. Roberts ric ~:ed his anly reser~~ation z~gdrding this approvnl wc il:~ be the
6i3n hetght, since thi.s had no~ been referred to in any action a the prev~ou.~
public hearin , and he did not know if rnside~ts of the mobi.].eho e p~rk wc~uld
have appeared.
Commis~ionez Gauer noted tiiat the pool sign f~rther south was e.lso a very hiqh
$ign, ac wa3 tha travel trailer sign for Pondero~~i Tr.a'_lex Park.
Deputy City Attorney Frank T.o~rry indicated he r~az sa.~ewhat concernc~d that CtIF%
Commiesion would be approving a sign haiqht waiver without con~idezinc~ a
v~riance te that effect at a pu~lic haa~zing.
Commiasionar Kaywood :inquired araut electri~el lri]ln progosed to ~e uaedt
whez'supon Mr. Armst:ong stat.ed tk~at come peaF~le raquested thut awninqg be
inc~alled on their motor homet~, and the electrical drill~ wou:.d be used to
drill about ten Yioles far. tk~ese metial. awnl.nge, and khat tbey had xedeaigriod
the building so that it would bn tuc.k~~r~ in ~bhind wi~Y~ thE service bay~ •
CommiaBioner Faruno inquized ae ta t`~e l~eiyht af the do~rs for the flervica
bays~ whereupon "1r. Armstrong stat~sd thoy would b~ 14 faet high and that they
aauld alAO hxve motor homes parkt~d immedidtely Rdjecent to 'the wa1.7, and
trees wexe a1PO required which ~~ould acreon the aervice baya from the mobile-
hor~a pari .
Chairmar Sexmour then atat~d that the sign proFoaed cc+uld :iot be included in
the Comm:.seion's conei.deraticn of their plana presented to thgm, and tie
~~~Citionor would be zequired ta file a varinnce for a publlc hearinq c4nsid-
e~ati~n by the Plannir-q Co~missidn.
Mz. F:a1J. ralteYatnd the ~ac•t tha-t the mobil~home park ownor had indicatod ehe
was only concerne~d about a 6-ioat wm].lt W~18IQ13PU11 Cummiae~oner Allr~~i atated
that *hs plana originally considered by th~ Pl~r.ning CommiBaion did not
lndicate 14-foc~t h~.gh ge~''ice bAVe frr,1~,-,q tihe mobileYa~me park.
~ ~
MIPlt; C1•~5, CiTX PI,I+NNING <'UMMX55ION, FtaYCh 1.9, ].'?73 73-19~
z~itSM NO. 4 (Gontiuu..+d)
~omioi.sniunar Farnno wae of the O~fllk0l'1 ti~et thA plan~e before+ L'rsc~ Comm.i.aeJ.on
ntiou],d L~a c°~n~i~9.9re~2 ot nn +~Qvextiaed rvb'tic heartnq ainoa nc~!olniny pL'OG@a~Y
owpesre ehould ho apPrioAC: o~ the ?xo~oaal L'or tTie t~a.lsnca af the p~'op~axty.
l:omn~trniunax t~ax•nno then w.lthdrew hi~ ~ecand of Coa~minaionar Hnrb~t'u m~sliun.
Commi~sianc+r G~uer 9ACUnded the mott~n.
C~mznic...ionor. AZlre.i Rtar~d hf.et ~n1y re9ervatian w~+e the faat. thnt thr,t~~, w~ul.d
bQ z-ur~idential uc~r_n only I!i Phet ;frnm ~1-a repa~r. bny~t wheretitpon Cummi.n~io~~ex
Eior2~ak notec3 that t_ho ~otitione~x ]inQ 9C~~tl~.dkR~ thex s wc~uld be no haa~v~ repxir
work.
Mz~. Arm~irong fuztlser sti.l~ulated c:hnt t:hare ~~culd be na ni.r hammera uaed.
C mmise.l.c~nFr Herbast rewtated hie mntiou, aa ~o.llows: Corom:leeioneX' Horb~~
o,ffezed a motion, :~r~con~lod by Commi~aiunei• tyauar ~,nd MOT2C?N CARRiL~D (Coa~-nia--
eionc~re Farano and Kaywvod vo~ing "nu") - to approve de~reloz,ment plans for. thA
t~lnneba,yo maL•~r h~m~ far,lli.tioe ae being oubetnnti:illy in accoxa~r!ae wikh
p].And origlnall.y considArod by ~he Planninct Cammi.ssion in dp~X'O'V'AZ ~f Can~li-
~1ona1 CJse P~+rru~t No. 7.36.1, ~~rovi.dmd, ho~aever., hhat the petiti~n~r eliall ~13.e
a. variance for the sir,n li~ight pr~~r~e+s~i a~d '.nr.t any repair wozlc don~a wuald
lie minar in aatur~~ that no reF 'r work would b~ ciond on enqinr.~+, tune-up~
Uo3y or P.ender wcrk, ~~.int:ing, oz tirN rnpaira, ae s~igults~.ed by t.he peCi-
ki~~e='t ali~. that the landscaping propased ~+riaJ.l include a plan~er area to bo
p.lace ~ at t~^o fronk of tho dir~play bui].dinq ee et.ipulatea. b;~ *hQ petit.i.a~ar.
A[i,70URNMEN"i ~'rhora baing no furthor bueinese to di~sc-iss, Commiasioner
" ' Herbet ufPexe3 a mo'.+.~n, eecundaG by Cummin.sione~r 6eymour
und M()TION t:J~t.itEED~ to adjourn ~.he meetiny.
The m~ating adjournad at 9:5~ p.m.
Reepe~:tft lly suhmitted,
/~~
( ~~"L• ! ~ ~~~~L/.~ .~
ANN KREBS, sacretary
Anaheim City P~anning Commisai.on
AK :hm